Review of Roger Schlafly’s “How Einstein Ruined Physics”

Mark Green

How Einstein Ruined Physics
Roger Schlafly
Dark Buzz, 2011

Was Albert Einstein the smartest man and the greatest scientist who ever lived? Millions believe so.

But Roger Schlafly takes a different view, downgrading the rank of the 20th– century’s most revered scientist. Why? Schlafly presents compelling evidence that other leading physicists and mathematicians before and concurrent with Einstein made equally important breakthroughs in relativity theory and related fields. Further, Schlafly suggests that Einstein may have purloined some of his most famous insights.

What made Einstein so great? The official story goes this way: Albert Einstein, a young clerk in a Swiss patent office, single-handedly transformed physics from a static, three-dimensional science to a four-dimensional, mind-blowing, time-space universe via brilliant and solitary “thought experiments” involving gravity, motion, space and time. Einstein also made unprecedented inroads into understanding the nature of light and energy and was the first to comprehend the equivalence between energy and mass. Einstein’s discoveries not only transformed modern physics but the way we view the universe.

Schlafly disagrees. “It is all a myth.  Einstein did not invent relativity or most of the other things for which he is credited.”  Schlafly makes a very bold and persuasive case.


Roger Schlafly has an impressive grasp of his subject, having earned his degree in Electrical Engineering from Princeton and his Ph.D. in Mathematics from the University of California at Berkeley. He has taught at the University of Chicago and the University of California, Santa Cruz, where he now lives.

Schlafly can talk particle physics, special relativity and quantum theory with the best of them, analyzing vectors, bosons, string theory (which he detests), symmetry (to which he is drawn) and Kuhnian parading shifts (which he really really can’t stand) and a host of other scientific conundrums. Schlafly’s a bit of an “Einstein” himself, though he’d probably object to the term’s usage as a yardstick of intelligence.

Schlafly reviews the impressive (though somewhat forgotten) contributions of the leading physicists and mathematicians during that bygone era. A short list of great figures includes French mathematician and Nobel laureate, Henri Poincare (whom the British philosopher, Bertrand Russell, called the greatest man that France ever produced), the pioneering Dutch physicist and Nobel laureate, Hendrik A. Lorentz, and Scottish physicist and mathematician James Clerk Maxwell. According to Schlafly, Maxwell first coined the term ‘relativity’ and created the first truly relativist theory of mass and energy. Maxwell wrote the massive, two-volume 1873 Treatise on Electricity and Electro-Magnetism that, in Schlafly’s opinion, generated “the most important equations in the history of science.”

Poincare‘s subsequent treatise on relativity provided theorems that were “mathematically identical to Einstein‘s,” says Schlafly, and most of Poincare’s work also preceded Einstein‘s. “Lorentz and Poincare had every major aspect of the theory [of relativity], and had published it before Einstein,” he says.

Yet these towering scientific figures are mostly forgotten while Einstein’s reputation has achieved demigod status. Why?


As a young man, Albert Einstein was not only living in a time of explosive growth in the science of theoretical physics, but his specialized employment as a physicist in a Swiss patent office gave him unique access to emerging scientific discoveries. During this time, Einstein became keenly aware of what constitutes intellectual property rights. Einstein’s now-famous equation E=MC2, for instance, had actually been published by Olin to de Pretto in an obscure Italian journal two years before Einstein penned it, though Einstein claims he thought up the equation independently. Poincare as well, says Schlafly, published this equation before Einstein did.

Indeed, Schlafly contends that Einstein borrowed many ideas from others and claimed them as his own, including the postulate that the speed of light is constant as well as special relativity, the idea that energy and mass are interchangeable (E=MC2). “Einstein’s understanding of special relativity…was inferior to Poincare’s. On every essential part of special relativity, Poincare published the same idea years earlier, and said it better.”

Surely you are joking, Mr. Schlafly!

This is no joke.

According to Schlafly, the timeline and breadth of discovery preceding Einstein’s 1905 paper on special relativity is, at the very least, evidence of a far wider scientific process going on during this era than is commonly realized. This may explain why Einstein did not receive a Nobel Prize for this work on relativity, since he neither coined the term nor was first to advance the concept. In fact, H.A. Lorentz did receive a Nobel Prize for his work on relativity three years before Einstein‘s first papers on the subject appeared in 1905. It wasn’t until 1921 that Einstein received a Nobel Prize, and it was primarily for his contributions to understanding the photoelectric effect.

All the same, three of Einstein’s five papers that year (1905) are considered groundbreaking. But were the ideas exclusively his? Schlafly says they were not, and he provides a wealth of evidence to prove it.  Schlafly claims that Einstein repeatedly borrowed ideas from others without giving credit.

Schlafly demonstrates that the concept of motion and time being a ‘fourth Dimension‘ preceded Einstein by well over a decade. H. G. Wells speculated on this concept in his 1894 novel, The Time Machine. That very next year, says Schlafly, Lorentz wrote a scientific paper where “he proposed the concept of local time in a moving object.”  Poincare wrote a treatise in 1898 and another in 1900 exploring the relationship between motion and time.

Indeed, Schlafly cites the 2005 book Henri Poincare and Relativity Theory by Russian physicist A. A. Lugonov who also complains about how Einstein’s acolytes have repeatedly over-praised Einstein and while overlooking the contributions of Poincare.

We now know from publication of Einstein’s letters that he failed to credit his first wife for help with special relativity, and refused to credit many others. His first wife [Marie Maric] was a physicist who collaborated with him on relativity. Later papers also frequently failed to credit his sources, and yet he wrote complaint letters when he did not get what he wanted. He used the news media to promote himself more than any other scientist of the day. For the rest of his life he continued to ignore his sources and the contributions of others.

Indeed, after winning the Nobel Prize, Einstein gave all the money he earned from the prize to his former wife (and physicist) Marie Maric. Some biographers claim however that this exchange was done so Einstein could win a divorce.

Because of what Schlafly sees as deft plagiarism, he asserts that “Einstein’s 1905 paper is the most overrated paper ever written. No other paper has been so thoroughly praised, and yet be so dishonestly unoriginal”. Einstein does definitely deserve scientific credit, he says, but it’s mostly for refining the scientific ideas of others.

Ultimately, Schlafly’s claims can only be settled by (impartial) historians of science, if they’re out there. In the meantime, he proffers powerful evidence against the widely-held view that Einstein was alone in advancing these monumental scientific insights.

How Einstein Ruined Physics however is not just about Einstein the man, but how the world-changing findings in physics over the past century have produced an Einstein cult that continues to impact modern science negatively. In physics, says Schlafly, this has led to wasteful, un-falsifiable “top down” theorizing that often leads nowhere.

Einstein is the new Aristotle. Physicists love to ridicule Aristotle for his non-quantitative theory of physics, for his thought experiments, for his unsubstantiated realism, and for his (supposed) attempts to explain the world according to how he thought the world ought to be, instead of how it is. Most of all, they ridicule Aristotle followers for idolizing the master, and for blindly following what he had to say.

Aristotle was a great genius. [Aristotle’s] reasoning was influential for well over a millennium. But Einstein’s fame is based on the work of others, and his legacy is the pursuit of unscientific dreams. Now he is idolized more than Aristotle ever was, and his followers have created a subject more sterile than millennium-old Aristotelian physics.

Medieval monks are mocked for debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. They didn’t really do that, but modern theoretical physicists write papers on topics nearly as silly. They write papers on alternate universes, black hole information loss, extra dimensions, and Boltzmann brains. Most of them are preoccupied with string theory, which has no connection to the real world. And they all say they are pursuing Einstein’s dreams.

One popular bubble of misunderstanding that Schlafly pops is the ‘mass-energy equivalence’ that’s expressed in the famous equation E=MC2. Schlafly argues that the equation itself suffers from widespread misunderstanding. The equation’s relationship to the Manhattan Project of WWII (which produced the first atomic bomb) for instance, is one example:

E=MC2 is not even needed for the atomic bomb. [It] does not give any clue on how to split an atom, or how to create a nuclear chain reaction, or any of the other necessary steps to making an atom bomb. Relativity is not even needed to understand the energy release in a uranium or plutonium bomb, as the release can largely explained from electromagnetic considerations. … Predictions about relativistic mass were being tested [by German physicist Walter Kaufmann] in 1901, before Einstein wrote anything about it.

And it was HG Wells, says Schlafly (not Einstein) who first published the idea of “atomic bombs.”

Schlafly reminds us that Einstein spent most of his scientific life working on a “grand unified theory” of physics that never came to fruition, and says that many of today’s physicists are similarly afflicted with an Einstein-like ambition to create a “paradigm shift” that would catapult them into scientific stardom.  This has damaged science, he believes, since it tosses aside the traditional practice of “observation-hypothesis-experimentation methodology” in favor of “elite intellectuals who insist on heaping the greatest praise on [often abstract] work with no measureable or rational advantages.”

Though Schlafly makes only a handful of oblique references to Einstein’s Jewishness, the veneration of Einstein by elite media and the academic world fits the guru phenomenon identified in The Culture of Critique in which Jewish intellectuals such as Freud, Boas and Trotsky become the focus of a cult following among Jews, just as charismatic rabbis were venerated among traditional Jews. This type of abstract theorizing that rejects observation-hypothesis-experimentation methodology is also reminiscent of the theorizing of Freud and the Frankfurt School: top-down theorizing in the absence of any empirical data.  Over the past generation, Freud’s theories have been quietly and gently downgraded to a creative mix of quasi-scientific conjecture, sexual fantasy and therapeutic snake oil.

(These topics have been discussed previously on TOO.  Dan Michaels’ “Ethnic Conflict in German Physics” describes hostility between Germans devoted to the observation-hypothesis-experiment method, whereas Jewish physics was “dogmatic, intuitive, overly abstract and theoretical.” The Germans were also angry because “a number of Jews, domestic and foreign, who studied in Germany, were soon getting an exorbitant amount of publicity and credit for research that had been pioneered earlier by Germans and others.” In his comment on Michaels’ article, Kevin MacDonald notes similar phenomena in psychology, sociology, and biology, and he finds similar tendencies in traditional Jewish theology: “These groups saw the world through the lens of a non-falsifiable, abstract theological theory, and they were centered around charismatic rabbis, with heretics and other non-conformists expelled from the group.”)

Jewish Sources

Schlafly has little to say about the overwhelmingly Jewish sources behind modern Einstein worship, though he does cite Disney, Time Magazine and the New York Times (three Jewish-dominated institutions) as examples of media conglomerates that aggressively market Einstein idolatry. In 1999 for instance, Time declared Einstein the “Person of the Century.”  Einstein’s popular status as the world’s greatest intellect however should be viewed as something of a curiosity, since no other scientist in all of human history gets remotely comparable treatment. Are we to believe that Einstein’s contributions to science surpass even Newton’s? Or that “relativity” has altered humanity’s view of the world (and religion) as much as Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection? This is not credible.

Indeed, the various advances in modern physics authored by Einstein and others remain incomprehensible to 99% of the world. Why should people be enjoined to worship individuals whose achievements they don’t even understand? After all, even though Einstein’s discoveries (to whatever extent they were his) have benefited science and humanity, they have not been tangibly transformative in the lives of average people.

Does Einstein idolatry then serves other purposes? Schlafly does not say.

Besides Einstein, Schlafly takes aim at numerous esoteric theories now popular among many of today’s theoretical physicists. This does not make How Einstein Ruined Physics a light read, unless subjects like sub-atomic particle theory is really your thing.  Make no mistake about it, this book is no substitute for an introductory course on physics. So if you do decide to read it, be prepared to encounter words and concepts involving quarks, bosons, leptons, vectors, fermions, quantum gravity, string theory (which Schlafly considers absurd and a waste of time) as well as super symmetry and the head-scratching paradigm of quantum mechanics.

As for the cultivation of Einstein’s supreme reputation, Schlafly implicitly raises the question ‘Why?” without attempting to answer it.

Schlafly proves decisively that Einstein was not without peers, and his personal life was far from saintly. In fact, according to two biographers (Roger Highfield and Paul Carter) Einstein was a serial philanderer who abandoned at least one of his children. Granted, Einstein’s dalliances were not in the league of say, Dr. Martin Luther King‘s or even JFK’s, but the wise professor was certainly no egoless saint, either.  Einstein fully enjoyed the sexual benefits of being a celebrity.

Has the larger-than-life dimension of Einstein’s greatness been cultivated to convey meaning beyond the man?

Jewish Genius

Einstein is the most prominent Jewish scientist in history. And since his death over a half century ago, his status has grown. Einstein was also a self-described international socialist, anti-nationalist, and committed Zionist—thus representing views that were entirely mainstream among Jews during his lifetime. Schlafly reminds us that he was also a communist sympathizer and accuses him of being an egomaniac.

In a normal world, Einstein’s disparate collection of sympathies and philosophies might present some lingering controversy. Scientific geniuses are not necessarily political ones. But in today’s politically-correct universe, Einstein‘s positions (and contradictions) receive mostly unchallenged accolades. Einstein has become an untouchable icon as well as a monumental symbol of Jewish intellectual superiority. And adding to his stature, Einstein even “fled Nazi Germany.” Actually, Einstein left Germany with absolutely no drama or difficulty, but who cares about such unimportant details.

Here’s what an obsessively Jewish web site ( has to say about the pedigree and character of Albert Einstein:

You can have Leonardo da Vinci. We won’t argue about Isaac Newton. Thomas Edison can take a hike. Archimedes, Pythagoras, Aristotle, Plato, and Socrates are all too ancient to be considered. Copernicus? Galileo? Descartes? No thanks. We have Albert Einstein … the smartest man who ever lived.

The word “genius” gets thrown around so much today. That football coach is a genius! That movie director is a genius! Anyone who has an IQ over some number is a genius! The word’s meaning is ever so diluted. But we’re not here to argue about semantics, we’re here to argue if someone is Jewish or not.

Albert Einstein: Genius. Jew.

But why such a high score for someone who was non-observant? All the proof you need is in Einstein’s own quote, “A Jew who sheds his faith along the way, or who even picks up a different one, is still a Jew.” Besides, anyone whose work was attempted to be discredited by the Nazis as “Jewish physics”, anyone who was offered the presidency of Israel without being its citizen, anyone who has become a prototype for that overused word “genius”, is clearly deserving of the perfect score.

Albert Einstein: Smartest Man Ever. Jew.

Clearly, the writers at are not only crazy about Jews, but they—like Einstein and the State of Israel—have embraced the racial definition of a Jew. As for the human race, they seem to have mixed feelings.

These race-worshipers would probably be on a government watch list (or under surveillance by the Southern Poverty Law Center) if they weren’t Jewish.  But they are Jewish and isn’t that great!

Einstein worship speaks volumes about Jewish identity, Jewish ethnocentrism, and contemporary Jewish power.  It also informs us about the state of American culture.

Mark Green is the former host of Flashpoint TV and editor of Persecution, Privilege & Power.  He lives in California.

  • Print
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

288 Comments to "Review of Roger Schlafly’s “How Einstein Ruined Physics”"

  1. April 27, 2012 - 11:40 am | Permalink

    Far be it for me to tell TOO how to run its site, but it’s quite aggravating to have to sift through the dozens of irrelevant, long-winded diatribes by this annoying jewess Marcy Fleming to get to the comments about the real topic under discussion, Einstein. Her rants have really cluttered up the thread. Shouldn’t comments at least be on topic?

  2. alfred's Gravatar alfred
    April 10, 2012 - 7:05 pm | Permalink

    @Marcy Fleming:
    Rand Objectivism is GREEK!!!what has to be done to make you accept the FACT that those old pal from Ionia INVENTED THE ART AND PHILOSOPHY OF REASONING(while your entire ilk was botching each other under the disguise of worshiping a non spiritual being because even this concept is GREEK) and it is a ultimate and permanent HUMILIATION for any”jewish thinkers” this fact?????

  3. Marcy Fleming's Gravatar Marcy Fleming
    April 6, 2012 - 11:16 pm | Permalink

    You guys don’t really think I’d marry a Jewish male, do you ?

  4. Marcy Fleming's Gravatar Marcy Fleming
    April 6, 2012 - 11:14 pm | Permalink

    It’s mutual. Lots of great Gentiles love us and vice-versa.

  5. Marcy Fleming's Gravatar Marcy Fleming
    April 6, 2012 - 11:11 pm | Permalink

    El, Mom warned me about Ashkenazim males. And there are a great many Good Goys who love us Jewish gals.

  6. El's Gravatar El
    April 6, 2012 - 9:04 pm | Permalink

    @Marcy Fleming:

    HAHAHAHAH. I’ve seen plenty of old Yentas. I think most of us would pass. Of course, the obsession of Jewish women with gentiles is well known.

  7. Marcy Fleming's Gravatar Marcy Fleming
    April 6, 2012 - 11:53 am | Permalink

    I lived in central Tel Aviv for two years and there are many, many, many fully Jewish beautiful women and none of them would touch with a ten foot pole.
    My final Responsa to you.

  8. Franklin Ryckaert's Gravatar Franklin Ryckaert
    April 5, 2012 - 9:51 pm | Permalink

    @Marcy Fleming:
    I don’t know whether this was meant for me, but I will answer anyway.
    As a main rule you can maintain that Jewish women in Israel are ugly and that when they are beautiful it is due to admixture with non-Jewish blood or we are talking about converts altogether. The “Law of Return” has become so lax in Israel that many Russian “Jews” could immigrate who are only for 1/4 Jewish or even not Jewish at all. Thus you might have the case of a person who is only for 1/4 Jewish and whose relatives who are not Jewish at all may also immigrate. There is now a considerable number of Russians in Israel who are Russian Orthodox by religion and some of them – oh irony – are even anti-Semitic! Since many of these Russians are from the Ukraine where women are blond and beautiful, Israel has now its own reservoir from which to draw its beautiful “Jewish” women. And was one of Israel’s “Miss Israel” not of Arabic descent lately?Ha, such observations give great pleasure to me, incorrigible anti-Semite that I am!

  9. Marcy Fleming's Gravatar Marcy Fleming
    April 5, 2012 - 1:37 pm | Permalink

    After rereading your incredibly inaccurate, utterly hateful misdescription of Ilana Mercer (I may have wrongly attributed it to Barbed Wire at the time) you are totally demented.
    There’s no reasoning with an insane hater and by the way
    there are many, many, many beautiful women in Israel,
    see the site the IDF womens’ site for starters.

  10. April 5, 2012 - 1:15 pm | Permalink

    Mark Green’s review of Roger Schlafly’s book “How Einstein Ruined Physics” is an excellent new path for Occidental Observer. It is going into some very hard core science and mathematics.
    As for the item on creationism being mentioned in schools. The officialdom of science as well as the state of Tennessee (and Kansas too) has made a big mistake. One of the greatest foundation stones of all science is the freedom to ask and explore questions. Naturally, a course teaching the ideas of evolution cannot have more than a very minimum of distraction. But for the officialdom of science as well as the state banning, in spirit and in an extremely general overarching manner, any questions on evolution, this is a true disaster for science.

  11. Marcy Fleming's Gravatar Marcy Fleming
    April 4, 2012 - 11:47 pm | Permalink

    Franky, Mom and I used to fight over her Communist beliefs, I sided with Dad who was a McCarthyite, Birchite and finally an Ayn Randian.
    Obviously I was being tongue-in-cheek with you about the nice Jewish shrink since the whole psychiatric concept of narcissism is a meaningless fraud.
    Straight DSM nonsense.
    Branding a whole group as psychopathological strikes me as psychotic.
    But like Szasz I think the issues here are epistemological, not medical.
    You are free to indulge your hatreds but I don’t want to be the focus of them anymore.
    We have to agree to disagree and move on.

  12. Franklin Ryckaert's Gravatar Franklin Ryckaert
    April 4, 2012 - 10:50 pm | Permalink

    @Marcy Fleming:

    …you ARE obsessed with me

    She still cannot imagine otherwise. Reminds me once again of Tabula Raza’s comment :

    There is no treatment for Narcissism. It’s PERMANENT PATHOLOGY

    I’m certain some nice Jewish shrink can verify …

    The combination of “nice” with “Jewish shrink” contains an inner contradiction. Besides, Jews themselves and especially Jewish shrinks are psychopathological and therefore unfit to “heal” others.

    Franky R, DOES believe in psychiatry as he keeps quoting the DSM BS on narcissism, an old communist line by the way

    I think you as the daughter of a fourth generation Communist Party member wouldn’t mind that.

    Finally, I have the pleasure to appoint you to Instruction Material nr.1 of our Department of Jewish Studies. So please go on giving example after example of Jewish pathology (but still this is no “obsession” with you).

  13. TabuLa Raza's Gravatar TabuLa Raza
    April 4, 2012 - 9:58 pm | Permalink

    Let’s talk about some facts- such as the negro IQ in darkest Africa being 68.

    Why won’t the fact-oriented, non-emotional “Objectivists” acknowledge these facts- UNLESS just maybe they are LYING about their concern for facts. . .

    The average IQ of sub-Saharan Africans: Comments on Wicherts, Dolan, and van der Maas

    Richard Lynn a,⁎, Gerhard Meisenberg b

    a b s t r a c t
    Article history:
    Received 2 July 2009
    Received in revised form 22 September 2009
    Accepted 25 September 2009
    Available online 21 October 2009

    Wicherts, Dolan, and van der Maas (2009) contend that the average IQ of sub-Saharan Africans is about 80. A critical evaluation of the studies presented byWDMshows that many of these are based on unrepresentative elite samples. We show that studies of 29 acceptably representative
    samples on tests other than the Progressive Matrices give a sub-Saharan Africa IQ of 69; studies of the most satisfactory representative samples on the Standard Progressive Matrices give an IQ of 66; studies of 23 acceptably representative samples on the Colored Progressive Matrices give
    an IQ of 71. The international studies of mathematics, science, and reading give a sub-Saharan African IQ of 66. The four data sets can be averaged to give an IQ of 68 as the best reading of the IQ in sub-Saharan Africa.

  14. Marcy Fleming's Gravatar Marcy Fleming
    April 4, 2012 - 9:32 pm | Permalink

    Barbed Wire, I was being tongue-in-cheek but that subtle nuance goes beyond your limited intellect.
    Franky R, DOES believe in psychiatry as he keeps quoting the DSM BS on narcissism, an old Communist line by the way.
    ‘Maroon,’ what’s that ?

    Just out of curiosity is it possible for you to form a thought of your own or are you just any echo chamber for the other dimwits here ?

    Let’s see your picture ! I bet it’s DOG city…..

  15. Barb's Gravatar Barb
    April 4, 2012 - 9:21 pm | Permalink

    @Marcy Fleming:

    If psychiatry is hooey and mental illness does not exist as you asserted previously, then how could Franklin possibly be in need of those professionals’ care, and especially, “so badly”?

    See, Occ Obs posters?

    Even when “the stunning beauty” that “has not met any who could match her in intelligence or anything”
    tries to insult and belittle us, she only succeeds, with her preposterous self-contradictions, in underlining her own idiocy.

    As Bugs Bunny used to say, what a maroon.
    But, on the bright side, as an exercise in intellectual curiosity she IS an excellent specimen upon which to perform a case study of jewess narcissism and hypocrisy.

  16. Marcy Fleming's Gravatar Marcy Fleming
    April 4, 2012 - 7:22 pm | Permalink

    Franky R, you ARE obsessed with me and you are a mindless bigot, spare us your psychobabble.
    I’m certain some nice Jewish shrink can verify your multiple DSM diagnoses and put you under the professional care that you so badly need.

  17. Franklin Ryckaert's Gravatar Franklin Ryckaert
    April 4, 2012 - 4:59 pm | Permalink

    @Marcy Fleming:
    Let’s one more time show Marcy Fleming’s most extreme quotes and then compare her own reaction with that of Tabula Raza’s :

    I am regarded as stunningly beautiful.

    I haven’t met any that could begin to match me in intelligence or anything.

    I LOVE being a pushy Jewess…

    We Objectivists will rule the world and there is nothing you inferiors can do about it.

    Now Marcy Fleming’s own reaction :

    As far as the latest obsession with me by extracting my quotes from the larger context in which they were made it’s just another ad hominem logical fallacy like the ‘narcissist’ BS.

    Notice that while she denies being a narcissist, she uses the expression “the latest obsession with me“, a typical narcissistic idea in itself.
    She simply cannot imagine that we are not “obsessed” with her but only IRRITATED.
    Now some extracts from Tabula Raza’s comment :

    N(arcissists) never change, they are hopeless. It does not matter if they attend counseling, self help etc., they enjoy too many rewards of making life miserable for those around them.

    There is no treatment for Narcissism. It’s PERMANENT PATHOLOGY.


    I can only concur with these statements. (for a handy enumeration of the characteristics of Narcissism, see Tabula Raza’s comment at April 3, 2012 – 11:36 am )

    It would of course be a waste to spend too much time on this one deluded individual, were it not that she is typical of the Jewish people as a whole. She is therefore “instruction material” in a concentrated form.
    As such we may still be interested in her ( but not “obsessed!).

  18. Marcy Fleming's Gravatar Marcy Fleming
    April 4, 2012 - 2:19 pm | Permalink

    It’s always a credit to one’s arguments that the scared little men feel the need to censor. I answered the rhetorical question about Objectivism being Jewish but it was held up for ‘moderation’ and then just censored.
    Obviously Rand’s philosophy is neither Jewish, Islamic, Christian, Hindu, Buddhist or anything but Objectivism.
    As far as the latest obsession with me by extracting my quotes from the larger context in which they were made
    it’s just another ad hominem logical fallacy like the
    ‘narcissist’ BS.
    Doesn’t make up for the total failure to address my many salient points.

  19. TabuLa Raza's Gravatar TabuLa Raza
    April 4, 2012 - 12:26 pm | Permalink

    >>>What is the treatment for narcissists?<<<

    More appropriate is how to treat an N.
    Number one recommendation: Get them out of your life! Keep away!
    The question should be is what is the treatment for the victim/survivor of a narcissistic relationship. N’s never change, they are hopeless. It does not matter if they attend counseling, self help etc, they enjoy too many rewards of making life miserable for those around them. (Whites) I would say they lack human qualities and therefore should be avoided at all costs. The best thing to do is ignore them. Do not give them any attention. if you run into them in public say hello, but keep it at hello, do not engage in any conversation. These types are forever inventing and testing new methods to manipulate and control those around them. They lack all sincerity and are vampires. Stay away from them.
    There is no treatment for Narcissists. It’s PERMANENT PATHOLOGY. Get away as soon as you can.
    No bona fide psychiatric association, psychiatrist, psychologist or anyone with appropriate credentials will tell you Narcissism can be cures in ANY WAY. Beware snake oil salesmen.
    “Asked if he thinks there will ever be a cure for psychopathy or narcissism — a drug, an operation — Dr. Hare steps back and examines the question.

    “The pathological will say ‘A cure for what?’ I don’t feel comfortable calling it a disease. Much of their behaviour, even the neurobiological patterns we observe, could be because they’re using different strategies to get around the world. These strategies don’t have to involve faulty wiring, just different wiring.”

    Likes jews- untreatable. THEY DON’T THINK THERE IS ANYTHING WRONG.
    The blind spot- lack of objectivity. Others are sick, others scapegoated.

  20. Franklin Ryckaert's Gravatar Franklin Ryckaert
    April 4, 2012 - 6:02 am | Permalink

    @Marcy Fleming:
    Folks, you don’t have to be a professional psychiatrist to understand the mind of our resident patient Marcy Fleming. Just read this collection of some recent quotes of hers :

    I am regarded as stunningly beautiful.

    In my Catholic high school uniform with the long legs and short skirts I was every boy’s dream girl.

    In Tel Aviv I turned heads and was the cause of more wood, if you catch my drift, in that city’s history.

    If you ever saw a picture of the beautiful South African Jewess, Ilana Mercer…you derive some idea of what I look like.

    …she is stunningly beautiful.

    Exactly, a stunning beauty.

    Readers, go to Ilana Mercer’s facebook page to see her stunningly beautiful photo.

    Any normal hetero male would be attracted to her.

    I haven’t met any that could begin to match me in intelligence or anything.

    There are some intelligent people here and one bright person can make up for a trillion dummies.

    The problem with arguing with anti-rational people is that after a while folks might not be able to tell the difference.

    There is no such thing as ‘schizophrenia’.

    Only individuals are successful, not groups. I know many Jewish failures.

    …there were NO ‘successes’ under National Socialism.

    I LOVE being a pushy Jewess, and my Anglo-Irish longtime boyfriend loves it too!

    I haven’t had so much fun since a rejected suitor had total fits and I laughed in his face!

    We Objectivists will rule the world and there is nothing you inferiors can do about it.

    …our King Bibi will be there to give orders to whatever shoeshine boy temporarily resides in the 1600 House…

    100% of the Ashkenazim Jews are white.

    Because I am white, 100% of Ashkenazim Jews are white.

    You really want to beat the level of religious Blacks who are a trillion of years behind whites in evolution?

    We Jews require no lectures from a race that has contributed nothing but horrors to human history.

    As a white I am ashamed of you.

    I prefer not to be instructed on how I deal with things.

    I wasn’t hoping for or expecting any plaudits here. In am surprised at the level of bile directed at me, but fortunately I have a thick hide from all the childhood spankings Mom gave me!
    Mostly deserved I’m sure.

    …my Mom who is a fourth generation Communist Party member…

    A few people here seem to have a persecution/martyr complex and I’m not their shrink nor do I believe in shrinks.

    I’m not playing your collective identity/collective guilt game.

    Boy, is it fun to see you people utterly exposed for the total nonentities that you are!

    You people are a disgrace to the anti-Semitic cause.

    Barb, you are the sort of utter dim bulb that gives anti-Semitism a bad name.

    You are a bigoted anti-Semite.

    Frankly I don’t need to justify being here. Particulary to the Jew haters like you and a few others.
    I am not a joiner.
    Your going on my ignore list now.

    You go on my permanent ignore button from here on out.

    Need I say more?

  21. April 4, 2012 - 3:26 am | Permalink

    Let my try this again.
    @Hmmm took a quote of Schlafly’s out of context, about Tennessee should teach creationism along side of evolution.
    @Lancashire Lad pointed out
    “I do not see Shlafly [sic] advocate teaching of creationism in the blog you refer to, certainly not in the particular blog entry you quote. What he [Schlafly] says is: ‘There is a war going on to define science. The establishment scientist activists want to define science in such a way that the folks in Tennessee have to accept scientific authority without question. They want uncritical acceptance of evolution because that undermines religion, and uncritical acceptance of global warming because that promotes environmentalism. That is not science. Real scientists are not afraid of scientific evidence on controversies.’
    “You quote only the last sentence and imply that the foregoing is in favour of creationism, when in fact it concerns the definition of science and what is to be accepted ‘without question’ in an educational context.”

    Lancashire Lad (and Schlaflys) are right. Without getting into too much detail, I think
    1) forbidding students to logically question evolution, forbidding any mention, even of brief alternative ideas in text books – all this creates a awful example to the students of what science is. A foundation stone of science is the freedom to ask questions and to explore alternative statements. Of course some religious students can’t be allowed to monopolize the classroom or to destroy the classroom presentation on evolution, because students have to learn what evolution is. But maybe 15 minutes once a week to question evolution.
    2) Banning students from asking questions gives science a black eye. In reality, it is the scientific establishment with the black eye, but the students don’t know the difference between science and the scientific establishment. The current approach in schools is an atrocity, a terrible thing, for teaching the awesome intellectual beauty and freedom of science. The students who natively have true awareness of the beauty of the scientific method can only be confused and poisoned by the current way evolution is taught.

  22. April 4, 2012 - 3:19 am | Permalink

    @Hmmm took a quote of Schlafly’s out of context, about Tennessee should teach creationism along side of evolution.
    @Lancashire Lad pointed out

    Lancashire Lad (and Schlaflys) are right. Without getting into too much detail, I think
    1) forbidding students to try to logically question evolution, forbidding any mention, even of brief alternative ideas in text books – all this creates a awful example to the students of what science is. A foundation stone of science is the freedom to ask questions and to explore alternative statements. Of course some religious students can’t be allowed to monopolize the class or destroy the classroom presentation on evolution, because students have to learn what evolution is. But maybe 15 minutes once a week to ask such questions about evolution.
    2) Banning questions from students gives science a black eye. In reality, it is the scientific establishment with the black eye, but the students don’t know the difference between science and the scientific establishment. The current approach in schools is an atrocity, a terrible terrible thing, for teaching the awesome intellectual beauty of science. The students who natively have true awareness of the beauty of the scientific method can only be confused and disappointed and poisoned by the way the state forbids any questioning of evolution.

  23. TabuLa Raza's Gravatar TabuLa Raza
    April 3, 2012 - 10:14 pm | Permalink

    Is Objectivism fundamentally about truth, or is it about serving Jewish Interests?

  24. Marcy Fleming's Gravatar Marcy Fleming
    April 3, 2012 - 7:45 pm | Permalink

    Exactly. A stunning beauty.
    Barb, you are as ugly twisted inside as out and by the way this is not your site. I’m sure you are describing yourself with the hag label.
    Franklin, you are a total loser, end of story.
    Tab, I’d like to see you go up to black and use the N word to his face or to a fit young or even older Jew and use the K word to his face.
    You people are disgraces to the anti-Semitic cause.

  25. TabuLa Raza's Gravatar TabuLa Raza
    April 3, 2012 - 6:08 pm | Permalink

    What rhymes with YIKES!?

  26. TabuLa Raza's Gravatar TabuLa Raza
    April 3, 2012 - 6:07 pm | Permalink

    A real stunner (facebook link now broken)

  27. Barb's Gravatar Barb
    April 3, 2012 - 5:38 pm | Permalink

    “there is no such thing as ‘schizophrenia,”

    Then where do you get off accusing us WNs of paranoia?

    Jeebus, what a maroon.

    Ilana Mercer ain’t hot in real life. It took a whole lotta camera tricks to get her to look nice for her blog avatar..

    As a matter of fact, I DID go to her facebook page.

    Hag, is more like it.


  28. Franklin Ryckaert's Gravatar Franklin Ryckaert
    April 3, 2012 - 5:35 pm | Permalink

    @Marcy Fleming:
    Your defending that Jewess’ “beauty” is nothing but narcissism-by-proxy cause you compared yourself with her. Nice try. Narcissists cannot imagine that normal people find them boring. The universe is bigger than your EGO, try to accept that.

  29. Marcy Fleming's Gravatar Marcy Fleming
    April 3, 2012 - 5:01 pm | Permalink

    Readers go to Ilana Mercer’s facebook page to see her stunningly beautiful photo.

  30. Marcy Fleming's Gravatar Marcy Fleming
    April 3, 2012 - 4:53 pm | Permalink

    Ilana doesn’t have kinky hair and her nose is beautiful. In a more recent she’s wearing glasses but if you see the ad picture
    of her in her new book on South Africa she is stunningly beautiful ! I do disagree with her Israel and Zionism but otherwise she’s right 99.99% of the time.
    Any normal hetero male would be attracted to her.
    Franky Rickets, you as ugly on the inside as they come.
    Can’t imagine you look better on the outside.

    Ariane, there is no such thing as ‘schizophrenia,’
    See Schizophrenia:The Sacred Symbol Of Psychiatry by Thomas Szasz. Nice attempted smear job on your betters though.

    Alfred, I’d give you a big smooch but my boyfriend would
    object. But I thank you for your kind words and generous spirit.

    Tab, give it up, your a trillion miles behind already.

  31. April 3, 2012 - 3:15 pm | Permalink

    Einstein was far from a saint.Indeed, his first born child,a daughter, Liesl,born illigitimely, was given up for adoption.It’s unknown what became of her.
    He practicaly abandoned his younger son Eduard,when the latter was diagnosed with a severe form of schizophrenia.
    It must have been a tremendous blow to his ego.
    Imagine, the famous Einstein having a mentaly sick child.

  32. GREZCM's Gravatar GREZCM
    April 3, 2012 - 2:53 pm | Permalink

    This site is constantly attacked, last assailant is “Marcy Fleming” – the avatar of Alisa Rosenbaum – self-declared genius intellect and an ultimate beauty, without a nose job.

  33. Franklin Ryckaert's Gravatar Franklin Ryckaert
    April 3, 2012 - 2:47 pm | Permalink

    @Marcy Fleming:

    If you ever saw a picture of the beautiful South African Jewess, Ilana Mercer…you derive some idea of what I look like.

    Yes, I have looked at her picture. All I saw was a typical UGLY hooknosed Jewess with kinky hair to boot (indicating negroid admixture). If that is what you look like…

    So if Mike and I ever had kids, they would be a genetic delight, physically and mentally.

    If you ever decide to pollute the earth with your progeny then please do it in Israel, the bottompit of all things degenerate.

  34. alfred's Gravatar alfred
    April 3, 2012 - 2:00 pm | Permalink

    @Marcy Fleming:
    Ohhh please please dont go away…..such beauty and such voice…you enlighten my day…brings darkness where light is death….light as God’s shadows …madam…give me your lips and delight my spirit…still eager to mark our graves?…we..dead old white creepy world and still there it is life abound where storms and winds enroll into the void..there…motion and thinking and matter made of memory…paradoxes there is all…good day all…hahahahah…marvelous indeed…

  35. TabuLa Raza's Gravatar TabuLa Raza
    April 3, 2012 - 1:29 pm | Permalink

    . . .teflon personality disorder. . .criticisms viewed as part of non-existence

    The opposite of narcissism is objectivity. . .

    alfred sez-

    of course you are not aware about your own behavior

    Yes. How do you arrive at such a conclusion? I call it the blind spot of narcissism.

  36. Marcy Fleming's Gravatar Marcy Fleming
    April 3, 2012 - 12:36 pm | Permalink

    One good thing, Franklin is very brief. He doesn’t make any sense but he’s brief for which we can all be thankful.
    Tab is reduced to quoting from the Jewish DSM, let me
    refer him to the great Jewish critic of psychiatry, Dr.
    Thomas Szasz and his 30 or so books totally debunking of the premises of same.
    Alfred is………….Alfred. The chaos is first in his mind but then
    in his ramblings. Mike and I tried to make sense but then realized that if we did there would be something wrong with
    us and we decided to go back to lascivious carriage.
    I have known many beautiful Jewish Barbara’s but a Barb
    reminds me of barbed wire around a concentration camp.
    And I’ve known my share of Alice Tell Alls but they rarely had anything worth retelling.
    We all have known our share of Booooobys, the perpetual boy
    who refuses to become a man.
    Have a good day, y’all.

  37. TabuLa Raza's Gravatar TabuLa Raza
    April 3, 2012 - 11:37 am | Permalink

    Could be called jewish personality disorder. . .

  38. TabuLa Raza's Gravatar TabuLa Raza
    April 3, 2012 - 11:36 am | Permalink

    narcissistic personality disorder

    Autophilia, narcism, narcissism, self-centeredness, self-love Psychiatry A condition characterized by ‘…a pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy that begins in early adulthood…'; ±1% of the general population, and 2-16% of the clinical population has NPD. See Autoeroticism, Autosexual.

    Narcissistic Personality Disorder > 5 of following criteria
    1. Requires excessive admiration
    2. Grandiose sense of self-importance; believes self to be superior
    3. Preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance
    4. Believes that he/she is special and should have only the best
    5. Has sense of entitlement, ie deserves special favors or treatment
    6. Exploits interpersonal relations, ie takes advantage of others
    7. Lacks empathy and concern for others
    8. Is envious of others or believes them to be envious of him/her
    9. Displays arrogance
    Modified from *Diagnostic & Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th ed, Am Psychiatric Asso, 1994

  39. alfred's Gravatar alfred
    April 3, 2012 - 10:43 am | Permalink

    @Marcy Fleming:
    Humm…I am sorry that I rushed into criticizing you and I ve not read the whole body of your answers…and now I ve read about your input on the subject of creationism …um..I liked…and Gould…very interesting indeed , but still in my humble opinion,he tried very very hard to fusion (or redress ) the non linear terrestrial evolution to the jewish religious narrative (by simply negating the non linearity) …so do you think that Gould espoused the notion of chaos or tried to nullify such concept? I am very sure that he tried to dismiss chaos by re cycling the notion of mass extinctions made by an exogenous element such “periodic” asteroid clash and the subsequent life exuberance (an explosion like the Precambrian in terms of complexity) to fit in his utterly childish notion of determinism( the “true colors” of jewish scientific narrow vision of universe)… chaos my dear is the name of the game..the unexpected…

  40. alfred's Gravatar alfred
    April 3, 2012 - 9:23 am | Permalink

    So what???I have had more girlfriends that you have hair what?relations based on the urge to fornicate are so empty and yet today I am pretty sure that it is another byproduct from the clan..I favor no conspiracy theme theories but indeed your kind are very deep into the business of exciting our bestiality to purge our intellectual dissent from the playground age….obviously it is based on how your half blood types reacted to the german resistance to foreign body dominance and try to avoid another sort of “german” uprising….give them the orgasmic “necessity” so they are not going to bother us ever again…lol…pornography, sexuality are recurrent themes inhabiting your pathological world…a natural part of our physiology becomes a forbidden pleasure that generates so much degenerated “psychological” studies and social weakening by an all alien dominated “academy” that really disgusts…and I find it very pleasant how you excite poeple around here…same old same old…games..of course you are not aware about your own behavior..instead of trying to unleash any other valuable argument on culture of European civilization and its uniqueness and the perils that can happen if the core is no longer there and its significance to others meaningful existence(reflecting as a mirror, one only exists if one exists as a mirror to other….tension is life)…but no…you need to focus in such empty discussions on the subject of your half blood ego trip and their struggling to find the path through the “new deal”that you have “discovered” in your own tribe (Rand=woman=intelect=force=freedom….lol…)..individualism… just the best contribution of the founding fathers in the newly born America..individualism is not a Ayn Rand invention in any poetic or sociologic or whatsoever style …it is deep rooted in the best tradition of the anglosphere world…as opposed to the french collectivistic individualism…again go study and come back to discuss ….cease screaming…get better into the process (as a pithagorean member of the club) so you can purge yourself from this disgusting selfishness

  41. Franklin Ryckaert's Gravatar Franklin Ryckaert
    April 3, 2012 - 4:59 am | Permalink

    @Marcy Fleming:
    If you ever could come out of your own nacissistic bubble in which you adore yourself as the-most-beautiful-most-intelligent-“objectivist”-who-will-rule-the-world, then perhaps you could appreciate other people’s words as something other than a “word salad” and react to arguments with arguments.

    Your language is not English, it is Narcissese.

  42. Marcy Fleming's Gravatar Marcy Fleming
    April 2, 2012 - 11:42 pm | Permalink

    Sorry, but I need help in translating the schizophrenic word salads of Barb, Franklin and Alfred into my language,
    I am regarded as stunningly beautiful, black hair, deep blue
    eyes, clear skin, tall, well proportioned, etc. If you ever saw
    a picture of the beautiful South African Jewess, Ilana Mercer,
    author of Into The Cannibal’s Pot, a study of post-apartheid
    Communist South Africa, you can derive some idea of what I look like.
    In my Catholic high school uniform with the long legs and short skirts I was every boy’s dream girl.
    In Tel Aviv I turned heads and was the cause of more wood, if you catch my drift, in that city’s history.
    So if Mike and I ever had kids they would be genetic delights,
    physically and mentally.
    You all have a great night’s sleep.

  43. Barb's Gravatar Barb
    April 2, 2012 - 10:34 pm | Permalink

    Franklin, incisive analysis. Thanks.

    Interesting that the facial features can become divorced from the character traits. How commonly does this happen?

    I should guess that the stereotypically jewish facial features and character traits must be very near to each other on the chromosome in order to have been generally inherited together often enough to have become a noticeable pattern in the common wisdom.
    Do you know, how does it come to happen that they can become separated? The little I know of genetics, I realize the gene recombination during meiosis can occasionally separate gene sequences in close association in the parent, but I’m just confused, because those genes must be inherited together the vast majority of the time, or the jews with sharp elbows wouldn’t be also commonly known as hook-noses. The association just would never have come about.
    So how many White-looking jews with the perfidious behavior traits might there be running around? Being truly dangerous, we would be well-served to get an estimate.

    Gene sequencings would be so very enlightening, if we ever get the chance to do them.

    Also, have WN thinkers come to a conclusion whether the jewish traits are of classic Mendelian inheritance? If so, obviously all first-degree mischlinge would be virulent and dangerous, but some 2nd degrees would not be so if the offspring inherited the White, not the jewish, genes from the mischlinge parent.

    If the inheritance is Mendelian, or nearly so, then some (50% ish?) second-degree mischlinge should be okay, seems to me.

    Obviously this question needs a great deal of study to answer — studies we aren’t currently allowed to be doing, obviously, but the answers are needed.

    Certainly the Celtic and Nordic genes in those mischlinge are valuable. If studies determined that it would be possible to wash out the jewishness with certainty through, perhaps, gene sequencing methods, combined with limitations on the mischlinge’s mate choices, our own White people (who are quick to reject methods that are any more brutal than they MUST be) could perhaps more easily accept it as a long-term solution to the question of, What To Do About The Mischlinge, which even NSDAP Germany struggled with.

    Any mischlinge who didn’t like it could make aliyah, of course.

    As we WNs finally begin to achieve our goal of a future for White childen, the mischlinge question is certainly one we are going to want to be very sure of our answer.

  44. alfred's Gravatar alfred
    April 2, 2012 - 10:24 pm | Permalink

    @Marcy Fleming: hello again, amuse me….such prolific mind and mesmerizing fluence in language and writing but still you do not get it…and please spare me again from your misreadings on the subject …you see…you have this verbal urge to put out of your brain…and still you lack the important step that is to re evaluate the pathology lying behind the intolerance toward the western culture…there is this feeling that deep down this ethnic drive of group mentality that you so proudly share , is really built upon a net of multiple theme of inferiority complex in such a Freud ish “arguments” …and you seem to be blind to otherpeople’s arguments by selecting pieces and parts of the main criticism directed to your objections…you see…the subject is one and only one…there was ONE unique culture that INVENTED (not copied, not reset, not re fashioned the sumerian or phoenician or babylonian or what ever you use to de value them!!!)they created the ABSTRACT WORLD the CONCEPTUALIZATION the very rock upon the whole body of thinking since then developed, the fire that feed and grow in every mind today..and it is what YOU are using right now to argue to construct a LOGICAL frame of arguments and still YOU do not see it!!!…you do not accept as a creation by itself from ONE and only ONE people’s mind set…one known forever as GREEKS..IONIAN to be precise!! YOU rush to dissuade anyone that insists that YOU are into it…rush to point to any other subject but what is the only one to be discussed…this the only one kind of thinking itself is anew from one MANKIND GROUP and it is NOT UNIVERSAL at all!!!!it is particular because it represents the ones who created the culture..the only culture that enable us to call all others as culture ..who created Harmony..who created GEOMETRY…who created tragedy…and so on and so forth …and it is not as it was never ever a semite or any thing resembling or hold by the STAMENTAL (=STATIC egyptian-sumerian thing!!!) civilization that you so arrogantly mesmerize as “yours” …even though to have this concept of yours you have to be INTO the GREEK MINDSET using their wording and feeling deeply intertwined into their reasoning(and reasoning is so greek ) and please spare me from the QUOTING SOURCES!!! go read and come to discuss…

  45. Franklin Ryckaert's Gravatar Franklin Ryckaert
    April 2, 2012 - 9:46 pm | Permalink

    About the problem of Mischlinge :

    My idea is that the Jewishness of Jews is so strong that when it comes to mixtures it should be counted as double, thus a half Jew should be counted as a full Jew, 1/4 Jew as a half Jew etc. Half Jews with a Jewish mother are counted as full Jews by themselves anyway. Half Jews with a Jewish father mostly regret that they are not accepted as Jews by Jews and often try to win their favor by acting even more Jewish than Jews themselves, while at the same time using their “official status” as non-Jews to penetrate circles that would otherwise be closed to them, thus being even more dangerous than full Jews. A good example : Tim Wise. This sometimes happens even with 1/4 Jews. Example : Sarkozy, president of France who once threatened the French with “dire consequences” if they didn’t accept métisage with non-Whites.

    We have to keep in mind that Jewish genes confer great cunning and wickedness on the one hand and physical degeneration and ugliness on the other. When Whites mix with Jews they not only become physically weaker and uglier, but also acquire a character and a kind of cunning that is wholly undesirable. So Mischlinge should better not be accepted. Where the cut off should lie is a matter of debate , but I think 1/16 is negotiable.

    On the other hand when such Mischlinge would be absorbed by the Jews themselves, that would improve them physically, make them less distinguishable from us while their character and cunning would remain the same. In other words that would strengthen them and make them even more formidable enemies. The best policy therefore would be to let such Mischlinge be absorbed by a wholly different ethnic group such as for example Arabs.

    We must keep in mind that when Jews gain the upperhand in a society they tend to intermarry with the upper class. It is said that the entire upper class of Spain is full of Jewish blood. The same with the English nobility. For an example google : pictures Lord Monckton and wonder where this “Lord” got his Semitic features from.
    Jews sometimes deliberately mix with Gentiles in order to “steal their genes”. They do this by outmarrying their daughters to good looking Gentiles. The children of such unions are halachically Jewish. Repeat this procedure a few generations and you get individuals who look indishtinguishable from Europeans while retaining their Jewish character and cunning. If they then also change their name you get the perfect (biological ) spy. For examples of such “biological spies” go to Who controls America? for a row of pictures of smirking Jews who “have made it” in America. Notice how many of these Jews hardly look Jewish, some even not at all (straight nose, blue eyes). For a striking example go to Who controls Wall Street on said website and scroll down to the 4th picture of a certain Robert E. Diamond.

    So admixture with Jews is harmful both ways : corrupting for us and strengthening for them and should be avoided. Existing Mischlinge should be expelled to a third group while the cut off should lie at least at 1/16.
    Just my thought.

  46. Barb's Gravatar Barb
    April 2, 2012 - 9:36 pm | Permalink

    the Barbs of this world who do have full freedom of speech.”

    Good! Glad to hear it.

    So in that case, let’s do some free inquiry and investigation into the mischling question:

    Here’s my proposal for testing my hypothesis:

    You go ahead and breed with your Anglo-Irish man. It will be very interesting to see whether the offspring are complete and utter jerks like yourself, or only partially g.d. jew and partially White sweethearts, or fully White-thinking like the father.
    Basically, I’m curious if the unsavory jewish genes are passed through classic Mendelian inheritance, that is, on/off, yes/no; or if the genes for obnoxiousness have varying levels of penetrance such that the offspring may be less virulent to White society than the hardcore cases such as yourself.

  47. Marcy Fleming's Gravatar Marcy Fleming
    April 2, 2012 - 8:28 pm | Permalink

    Bobby, not really since you appeared to be German.

    Alfred, you need to first learn to think clearly, then write clearly.

  48. alfred's Gravatar alfred
    April 2, 2012 - 8:08 pm | Permalink

    @Lancashire lad:
    Couldnt agree more…unfortunately the western civilization is loosing the very legitimate grasp of what exactly made it the biggest development of the presocratic achievement in all time and I suspect for the eternity…when an entire system of beliefs become eviscerated by an alien cultural foreign organism without even a cough then we can call what it is ..a tragedy…and worse …the outcome will be so terrible…barbarians with a very selfish agenda will try to mimic what can ultimately only be a real civilization shift if based and nurtured by the same source, the old dynamic and vivid greek civilization!!!and I am very sure that any group of people can only succeed if they let their own group character be spontaneously and peacefully replaced by the anima mater of the old greeks…which is IMPOSSIBLE for NON EUROPEANS I suspect…yes..this is the only way to create and develop such renewal …never an alien culture (being jewish, indian, chinese with the surprising exception the arabic one ) that resist to embrace the greek conceptualization and thinking tools is going to be able to succeed or turn to be inventive and create any renewal OUTSIDE the realm of such deep diving in the greek mind…all of such attempts are futile and worthless if such attempts are not met with a real mental and spiritual re configuration seen first hand among the initial islamic civilization and in full mode by the western european after that…and I am not going even to contend about the subject of mr there is nothing beyond the time as a judge..and it is clear that such misleading (mainly on Poincare works, a very substantive genius, the last complete scientist in the history of mankind who created the last mathematical fields that we actually have today…lets only speak of Differential geometry or non linear or indeterministic equations etc etc etc or even the filed of TOPOLOGY which alone is AN achievement more much more complex and from scratch!!!!!)so please we can only ask to spare us from this ridiculous pseudo scientist…anyway the concept of continuum , if any discussion has to be made,was beautifully described by Parmenides himself as a counter argument to Heraclitus assertions about motion( a very hot subject among the presocratics ) where the central argument was about the continuum of everything as opposed to the discreteness of the world as a non logical existent( tautology proof to be=not to be or vacuum(nothing) =being(something) which is itself an impossibility )…peace…

  49. Bobby's Gravatar Bobby
    April 2, 2012 - 8:00 pm | Permalink

    @Marcy Fleming: My peoples beers? Strange comment.

  50. Marcy Fleming's Gravatar Marcy Fleming
    April 2, 2012 - 7:26 pm | Permalink

    Apparently tongue-in-cheek is lost on the Barbs of this world
    who do have full freedom of speech.
    No, Franky, anti-Semites have tough going here in SF.
    A friend of ours was shocked when her daughter used the K word one day, which she apparently learned from blacks at school. Since blacks are by far the most anti-Semitic group in America these punks learned it from their parents.
    Her daughter immediately had her jeans and panties pulled down and was put over a large recliner where Mom spanked her behind hard twenty times.
    RX for budding anti-Semites. That girl will never be using that word again.
    One less Barb in the future. Hooray !

  51. Barb's Gravatar Barb
    April 2, 2012 - 6:31 pm | Permalink

    @Marcy Fleming:

    “our King Bibi ”
    “WE” this, “we,” that.
    “you people”
    This from someone declaiming any collectivist urges.

    Is to laff

    Talk about exposing yourself!


    To the other Occ Obs posters:

    I do think the mischling question is an interesting one. I look forward to the day that the free exchange of ideas is ours to enjoy again.

  52. Franklin Ryckaert's Gravatar Franklin Ryckaert
    April 2, 2012 - 5:33 pm | Permalink

    @Marcy Fleming:

    And I do hold the ADL & the SPLC in absolute contempt.They don’t speak for all of us.

    Who is “us”?

    When I was growing up here in San Francisco there was very little real anti-Semitism.

    You still seem to assume that “anti-Semitism” is something bad. It isn’t. It is as good and moral as anti-Thugism would be. So unfortunately there was very little anti-Semitism in SF when you grew up there. Has the situation in the mean time improved already?

  53. Franklin Ryckaert's Gravatar Franklin Ryckaert
    April 2, 2012 - 4:02 pm | Permalink

    The best policy towards these creatures is to boycott them, especially in the sphere of ideas. Since nearly all the ideas they spew are nonsensical and destructive, from extreme collectivism (communism) to extreme individualism (“objectivism”, better : subjectivism), that would be the best solution. As destructive parasites they can only “function” in this world as long as they have relations with us. When that stops all their tricks are in vain. So let’s put this Kikess on the ignore list untill she leaves.

  54. Marcy Fleming's Gravatar Marcy Fleming
    April 2, 2012 - 3:54 pm | Permalink

    Dr. MacDonald, I just read the Frank Salter review of your work and I was very impressed. My boyfriend had me read two of your three books on Jews and although I have disagreements as well as agreements with you I was impressed with your research and scholarly tone.
    I would never confuse you with some of the misguided souls who post here. And I do hold the ADL & the SPLC in absolute contempt. They do not speak for all of us.
    The piece in The Occidental Quarterly on Joe McCarthy’s real enemies was worth its weight in gold.
    Even my Mom who’s a fourth generation Communist Party member never had any use for Zionism and was skeptical about the incessant holocaust agit-prop. She believed that
    if it was true it was a great failing of the Jews as there had been warning signs for centuries. The Germans almost committed auto-genocide during the Thirty Years Wars liquidating 8-10 million of each other.
    I hope to get back to serious debate here.
    When I was growing up here in San Francisco there was very
    little real anti-Semitism. Those few juveniles who did engage
    in it got their backsides tanned by their folks and I received
    great pleasure in letting them know how happy I was when
    they did get it good.

  55. Marcy Fleming's Gravatar Marcy Fleming
    April 2, 2012 - 2:09 pm | Permalink

    I notice also that you stoop to using the K word but dare not spell it out AND that no moderator holds you up for this.
    And I get lectures from tards when I inquire about being held up !
    What you and all the Barbs, Bobbys, Franklins and Alices here want is an automatic way to discount someone’s arguments in advance without dealing with them.

  56. Marcy Fleming's Gravatar Marcy Fleming
    April 2, 2012 - 2:05 pm | Permalink

    1) You can’t even spell Nathan.
    2) You confuse verbosity with profundity.
    3) You quote anti-Rand sites like Objectivist Living
    (Lying) as if they were objective authorities.
    4) You give no explanation of how innate knowledge is
    acquired independent of the five senses.
    5) You confuse being born tabula rasa with remaining
    equal the rest of our lives.
    6) You confuse inherited characteristics like baldness
    in males and certain predispositions to diseases with
    morality and intelligence which can be acquired.

  57. TabuLa Raza's Gravatar TabuLa Raza
    April 2, 2012 - 12:24 pm | Permalink

    WE Objectivists will rule the world. . .Objectivism is supposed to be about radical individual rights, not ruling others.

    btw there is an old thread where Greg Johnson goes tong and hammer with some Objectivists on the heredity issue. Watch them “blank out.” Sample here:

    From: “Greg Johnson”
    To: “Atlantis”
    Subject: ATL: Re: On Talents
    Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2001 22:53:29 -0400

    Dave Rasmussen wrote:
    Objectivism has as one of its core principles the egalitarian ~belief~ that talents are distributed equally between all persons at birth, and any differences that exist at adulthood are merely the result of that person refusing to make the volitional choice to develop their talents.

    Mike Hardy responds:
    Huh?? *WHERE* did you get that?? I am quite familiar with the objectivist literature, including the NBI basic course, the articles in The Objectivist and the Ayn Rand Letter, etc. I’ve never seen anything like that.

    I understand why Mike is incredulous, but I think that Dave is on to something. He is not referring, however, to an articulated principle, but to an unarticulated assumption of many Objectivists, Ayn Rand perhaps included. Consider Rand’s affirmation of “volition” and her assertion that “man is a being of self-made soul.” Then consider her essay “Racism,” where Rand claims that racists ascribe moral, social and political significance to genes, and she is against this.

    The central assumption of such racists is that human potentialities are largely genetic. Call this the principle of heredity.

    But Rand never actually attacks the heredity principle. Instead, she attacks other points that are not necessarily related to it. She attacks people who treat others as members of groups rather than as individuals. She attacks people who think that not only that people’s abilities determined by genetics, but what they do with those abilities, “that man’s convictions, values, and character are determined before he is born, by physical factors
    beyond his control.” She attacks racists for having pseudo-self-esteem.

    And she leaves many readers with the impression that she has overturned the heredity principle too. Perhaps she herself believed this. Hence the tendency of Objectivists I know to dismiss the heredity principle with slogans about volition and the self-made soul, as if all human traits are malleable by the will, rather than some of them fixed by nature.

    But if each human being enters the world radically malleable by the will, then that means that they are essentially without fixed properties that differentiate them. And that means that they are essentially the same! This is the crypto-egalitarianism that Dave was talking about. Objectivism affirms a moral elitism–people differentiate themselves by their will and are therefore entirely responsible for their excellent or bad spiritual
    traits–but assumes a metaphysical egalitarianism as the starting point.

    If Objectivists were more objective, they would to have to admit the principle of heredity. They would also have to recognize that human excellences are not distributed equally or merely randomly among the races.

    This means that even in a perfectly free and rational society, where each and every person treated each and every other person as an individual, a society where everybody is treated justly according to his or her abilities, trading value for value, you would find the different racial groups will naturally gravitate toward different styles of life and different levels of wealth, education, and cultural accomplishment.

    One can grant the principle of heredity and the innate differences among races and still treat people as individuals, not as members of groups. There is a limit to this, however. After all, there are billions of people on this planet, and life is too short to deal with each one as an individual. It would, however, be altruistic to ignore group differences and group behavior patterns, since these have high predictive power, even though treating people as members of groups may be unjust to individuals in a given group–unjust to OTHERS, but eminently rational for ONESELF given the limits of time and knowledge.

    Nathaniel Branden: “One cannot be an Objectivist and a racist” Me: If one is objective one must be a racist (take race into account).

    Objectivism like (most) libertarianism is theory driven. They believe in blank slate.

    Those who have read this far may enjoy reading the entire link above.

    Branden (Natan Blumenthal), “father of the self esteem movement”, did not put any scientific data in the book “The Psychology of Self Esteem.” All his personal pipe dream, which sounds nice on paper. I knew this prick right after the split of 1968. A real K$$e. At least he exploited a fellow jewess.

  58. Marcy Fleming's Gravatar Marcy Fleming
    April 2, 2012 - 12:15 pm | Permalink

    Boy, is it fun to see you people utterly exposed for the total nonentities that you are ! Yes, I know you would love to have
    your preferred remedies for sassy upstart Irish Jews like me
    but you won’t and our King Bibi will be there to give orders to
    whatever shoeshine boy temporarily resides in the 1600 House.
    WE aren’t afraid of no ‘Black Caucus’ they get out of line
    and they join McKinney on the unemployment lines.
    You have lots of your peoples’ beers, Boooooby and
    Barb Loser and Frankie Loser will join you in a looong
    goodbye cry.

  59. Barb's Gravatar Barb
    April 2, 2012 - 10:02 am | Permalink

    Hi, Franklin,
    Yes, I know Age of Treason; visit it often. TANSTAAFL is at least 50% responsible for my Awakening.

    The funnest part about Marcy? In her histrionics, she threatens to put me on ignore, but being the narcissist she is, she just can’t *resist* reading anything said about her and flinging dung when she does.

    Watching her flip out is an instructive case study for any newbies who may still be a bit on the, “They’re not ALL like that,” fence

    It *is,* of course, lamentable about the recession of the Celtic genes in her, however (assuming there really ARE any).

    Someday, I’d like to see us WNs discuss just how much White admixture is required to dilute the Jewish odiousness. I know what the Nuremberg laws decided, but if us American-Americans ever regain the opportunity for the free exchange of ideas, I’d like to see a study done to see what percentage of first and second degree mischlings are still overbearingly jew.

  60. Franklin Ryckaert's Gravatar Franklin Ryckaert
    April 2, 2012 - 7:08 am | Permalink

    @Marcy Fleming:

    We Objectivists will rule the world and there’s nothing you inferiors can do about it…

    Dear Mrs. Fleming,

    You are herewith invited to take permanent residence in our psychiatric institution Beit Hatikva, Miami, FL.

    We already have a patient who thinks that he is “Napoleon” and another one who thinks that he is “God”, but a “Ruler of the World” we don’t have yet.

    You don’t have to worry about kosher food because all our other patients think that they are “God’s Chosen People” and I am sure you know what that means.

    Staff of the Institution.

  61. Franklin Ryckaert's Gravatar Franklin Ryckaert
    April 2, 2012 - 1:17 am | Permalink

    @Marcy Fleming:
    I think it’s about time to collect all “objectivists” and also “neo-cons” into a Konzentrationslager. And mind you the terms “objectivists” and “neo-cons” are code for a certain ethnic group, the same one that used to be designated by the termrootless cosmopolitans.

    BTW is your intelligence “superior” enough to understand you basic blunder about statistic characteristics of groups? See my comment above.

  62. Bobby's Gravatar Bobby
    April 2, 2012 - 12:56 am | Permalink

    @Marcy Fleming: @Marcy Fleming: What I’m going to use that other hand for now is to open my fridge and get a nice cold German brew. Life’s too short Ma’am.

  63. Marcy Fleming's Gravatar Marcy Fleming
    April 2, 2012 - 12:49 am | Permalink

    So far, Boooby, I haven’t met any that could begin to match me in intelligence or anything else AND what makes you think I’m trying to talk to them ? We Objectivists will rule the world and there’s nothing you inferiors can do about it except use that other hand if you catch my drift……………

  64. Bobby's Gravatar Bobby
    April 2, 2012 - 12:28 am | Permalink

    @Marcy Fleming: Marcy, you truly are an arrogant idiot, a terrible combination of traits to he sure. How many people have you got on your ignore list now anyway? Your’e well on the way to doing what Barb wants of you all by yourself, by censoring everyone. You’ll soon be talking, bloggin to yourself. Try to aquire a little patience and modesty and realize that many people on this site are just as politically smart as you are. And you are.

  65. Marcy Fleming's Gravatar Marcy Fleming
    April 2, 2012 - 12:05 am | Permalink

    Barb, you are the sort of utter dim bulb that gives anti-Semitism a bad name.
    To quote the words of a great Arab National Socialist, Gamal Abdel Nasser, may you choke on your own anger !
    I haven’t had so much fun since a rejected suitor had total fits and I laughed in his face ! He lost bigtime and he knew it.
    I LOVE being a pushy Jewess and my Anglo-Irish longtime boyfriend loves it too !

  66. Franklin Ryckaert's Gravatar Franklin Ryckaert
    April 2, 2012 - 12:05 am | Permalink

    If you know the website Age of Treason by Tanstaafl you recognize this phenomenon. Tanstaafl (from the acronym of there ain’t no such thing as a free lunch) is very Jew-wise and is so to speak specialized in denouncing Jews who pretend to be white nationalists, such as Lawrence Auster. He has drawn attention to the fact that such Jews always expect to be accepted by Whites as Whites while at the same time demanding special treatment as Jews. Close to the surface of their “solidarity” is a deep resentment against Whites that can quickly emerge. The best policy is to reject such people altogether since they always try to transform your movement into something that is “good for the Jews”.

    On second thought, I no more think this woman is such a conscious infiltrator, rather an hyper-individualistic intellectual (with an intellectual superiority complex to boot) but still with stereotypical Jewish personality traits that no 50% Celtic blood ever could cancel. Obviously such traits are genetic and dominant.
    Her hyperindividualism makes her incapable to understand even the simplest facts of collectivity. See for example this gem :

    Only individuals are successful, not groups. I know many Jewish failures.

    When you characterize a group as “successful” or whatever, you mean that statistically it has a greater number of successful individuals than other groups, not that every member of that group is successful. The existence of unsuccessful members of that group therefore doesn’t disprove the thesis. This elementary insight is beyond her understanding. Nor can she appreciate that the demographic crisis of Whites all over the world is something more than an interesting subject for intellectual discussion, rather than a serious collective struggle for survival.

  67. Barb's Gravatar Barb
    April 1, 2012 - 10:17 pm | Permalink

    Marcy Fleming
    Asked And Answered.

    Gee, I thought I was on your ignore list, Marcy. Nope. Too bad. It was a breath of fresh air, for a moment.

    At any rate, this isn’t one of those Talmudic courts of “law” you, being Jewish, would like to make it, around here.

    We pro-Whites on Occ Obs are interested in truth and honest discussion — with each other. Not with you jews who love to shove your way in and then try to remake things more to your own What’s-Good-for- the- Jews pleasure.

    Gee, pushing in where not wanted — there’s ANOTHER unsavory jewish trait the Jewess Marcy is manifesting. She’s a veritable walking catalog.

  68. Marcy Fleming's Gravatar Marcy Fleming
    April 1, 2012 - 9:58 pm | Permalink

    Asked And Answered.

  69. Barb's Gravatar Barb
    April 1, 2012 - 9:15 pm | Permalink

    “A few people here seem to have a persecution/martyr complex and I’m not their shrink nor do I believe in shrinks”

    Well, you must. The “persecution / martyr complex” you are accusing some of us here of, is a “diagnosis” invented by the very shrinks you say you don’t believe in.
    Jewish shrinks, at that.

    So, Occidental Observers, let’s recap:

    Marcy, the “radical individualist” who “disagrees with 90% of Jews:
    Flung the shutup “antisemite” slur not two minutes after she got here, while claiming to not be a typical Jew;

    Demonstrated hypocrisy when she claimed to have come for uncensored discussion, and immediately set about ignoring people whose views she doesn’t like;

    By coming here and pretending to be pro-White, she is showing us she desperately wants to be included in the category White, while denying any collectivist urges, displaying a stunning level of deception, self-deception, and lack of introspection;

    and, now, in order to win an argument, is accusing us Whites of psychopathy, which is particularly rich, considering that Whites in the JudeoBolshevist USSR who dared dissent politically were declared insane and thrown into asylums.

    Good gravy, how many unsavory, stereotypically Jewish, traits can one Jewess manifest?

  70. Marcy Fleming's Gravatar Marcy Fleming
    April 1, 2012 - 8:06 pm | Permalink

    I don’t know what you mean by ‘angry’ nor did I ‘demand’ a followup, I asked for them to see if there was a problem and if there was I prefer to deal with it privately.
    You seem quite obsessed with me, I mean four emails in a row because I don’t accept your premises.
    I prefer not to be instructed on how I deal with things.
    I wouldn’t presume to lecture you this way.
    I can’t accept any collective guilt because other Jews are irrationaland powerful in some instances.
    I never attempted to slap down any discussion but to respond to what was clearly abuse towards me solely due
    to ethnicity or to respond to other arguments I disagreed with.
    I would prefer if you focus on issues and not me.
    I have often posted on leftist or neocon sites I disagreed
    with and even stupid Objectivist & libertarian sites.
    A few people here seem to have a persecution/martyr complex and I’m not their shrink nor do I believe in shrinks.
    We need to move on.

  71. Mickey Meadows's Gravatar Mickey Meadows
    April 1, 2012 - 4:52 pm | Permalink

    @Marcy Fleming:

    Yes…about posts being held up. Firstly…I think we all get held up. Sometimes mine get held up all day.
    However, it would be reasonable of you to accept that your posts may be recieving particular attention because it still isn’t clear why you are here.
    But…there are other reasons why posts may be held up. The moderator may be interested in what you have to say, in which case if he/she is busy a good way not to miss your post is to flag it.
    There can be many reasons….but the truth is, just as you do not want to be coerced, I think you should consider just accepting the perogative of the moderator. When mine get held up I don’t write angry follow ups demanding personal emails etc.
    That said, I do empathize with your feelings since you must have been feeling rather embattled, and I do recognize this goes some way to explaining your moderator complaint comments.

  72. Mickey Meadows's Gravatar Mickey Meadows
    April 1, 2012 - 4:44 pm | Permalink

    @Marcy Fleming:

    I don’t think you’ve had that much bile. You also dished plenty out yourself.
    The bottom line is that if even a fraction of what KM says is accurate (about the role of organized Jewry) there is a totally understandable resentment and anger toward that organized Jewry.
    It is very true that you are an individual and cannot be blamed. But I would point to many other Jewish contributers that did not get into rows with people and did not recieve much prejudice on this site. The reason (I think) that you have recieved a little more is because you apparently seek to avoid some of the issues, often using accusatory pejoratives.

    Those approaches obviously won’t have any impact here nor are they any kind of threat. But the reason you might have had a reaction is because we all know full well that in another forum the way you attempted to slap down discussion would have worked very effectively. The fact that you did it here so sleekly suggests you’ve done it elsewhere many times with better results. This sort of associates you, or potentially so, with a framework of coercion faced by White folk who dare to speak up on the issues that threaten their communities and kin.

  73. Mickey Meadows's Gravatar Mickey Meadows
    April 1, 2012 - 4:35 pm | Permalink

    @Mickey Meadows:

    p.s. In the current time Whites are the least tribal of any group. Many of us here – certainly myself – feel we have been driven back to tribality because organized Jewry not only continues to be tribal, not only has leveraged its tribality in a time of low tribality among whites, but is also massively behind the mass third world immigration that will literally destroy and dispossess the White peoples within my and your (if you are youngish) lifetime.
    Come on, these are important matters.

  74. Mickey Meadows's Gravatar Mickey Meadows
    April 1, 2012 - 4:32 pm | Permalink

    @Marcy Fleming:

    Marcy – If on some level I did before I definitely don’t want to drive you away anymore.
    But what I want (and I appreciate we don’t always get what we want) is for you to speak seriously and openly on the raison de etre of this site when it does come up.
    Right now, it’s like you are pointedly ignoring the implication of the points I have been making to you.
    Appreciated, you took some stick so maybe you feel like you are being railroaded and want to stick your heels in to demonstrate you won’t be coerced into talking about what you don’t want to talk about.
    If that’s the situation then maybe we can come back to it another time.
    As things stand…as I have said….it doesn’t add up at all that you are here on a white nationalist forum, without an ounce of tribality in yourself.
    what is interesting is that you are half White…I mean…don’t you feel something also for that side?

  75. Marcy Fleming's Gravatar Marcy Fleming
    April 1, 2012 - 4:21 pm | Permalink

    LL, thanks for the recommendation. My brother Peter and I used to go with my Dad, Frank, to the Irish Hall here in SF near the beach for all sorts of great events and Mom would often come too.
    I wasn’t hoping for or expecting any plaudits here. I am surprised at the level of bile directed at me but fortunately I have a thick hide from all the childhood spankings Mom gave me !
    Mostly deserved I’m sure.
    Thanks again, I’ll look it up.

  76. Lancashire lad's Gravatar Lancashire lad
    April 1, 2012 - 1:54 pm | Permalink

    @Marcy Fleming:
    My experience is that comments are held up by new contributors, but that this stops after a number of posts, though some are deleted. Some posters are either banned or give up. I find your contributions interesting on the whole. As you’re half Irish, you might find this talk on WB Yeats and Irish politics interesting:
    I’m afraid this probably isn’t the best site to advertise your Jewish identity and wait for the plaudits to roll in.

  77. TabuLa Raza's Gravatar TabuLa Raza
    April 1, 2012 - 1:48 pm | Permalink

    Jesus H. Christ. in a free market of ideas we would not be in this pickle. In a free market of ideas we would prevail in a couple of weeks. ALL the facts are on our side. It is others who oppose free speech- it is others (jews) who control 96% of the West’s media. Jews control the universities and the courts. We are locked in.

    6. “Jewish blood is NOT the same as the blood of a goy.” –Rabbi Yitzhak Ginsberg.

    7. “I do not believe that this primal difference between gentile and Jew is reconcilable. –“You Gentiles.” P 23. Maurice Samuel.

    8. “We Jews, we the destroyers, will remain the destroyers forever. NOTHING that you will do will meet our needs and demands. We will forever destroy, because we need a world of our own, a God-world, which it is not in your nature to build.” –“You Gentiles”p.155 Maurice Samuel

  78. Marcy Fleming's Gravatar Marcy Fleming
    April 1, 2012 - 1:26 pm | Permalink

    Your whole premise is totally wrong as i do not write as a Jew or from a Jewish viewpoint. You are so tribal that you can’t see that.
    But to admit that ‘your race’ (as if you speak for whites as a whole) is so weak intellectually that you need a collectivist state and that you can’t win in a free market of ideas is shameful.
    As a white I am ashamed of you.
    Your not going to intimidate me, you do not run this forum
    and I am not interested in a dialogue with your collectivist mindset as it is a waste of time.
    I will post when I want to and that’s all there is to it.

  79. Mickey Meadows's Gravatar Mickey Meadows
    April 1, 2012 - 5:12 am | Permalink

    @Marcy Fleming:

    Marcy you have white skin, but what we do is capitalize white as in White. In that form we are talking about a lot more than skin. What White means, roughly is “European descendent of Christian and previously Pagan ancestry”
    It’s an ethnic-cultural-religious label. It doesn’t mean Whites are Christian, many aren’t, many are atheist or pagan or whatever else.
    The situation you are in is similar to that faced by many people in that you have mixed ancestry. On the Jewish side you can be fully Jewish because you meet the halachic requirement, although you couldn’t marry a cohen, and you’d actually find a lot of Jewish families wouldn’t want you to marry their sons for having a gentile father.
    On the White side you are looking at a people literally brought within sight of their own demise…to a signficant degree by the machinations of the first side of your familhy.

    You seem to argue that that White side should not have an equal status with the Jewish side, in that they should not be able to define themselves as a people and decide who can be a member and who not. Note your implicit acceptance of the Jewish right to all this, all the way though everything you say.

    Well I’m sorry Marcy…but some of us care about White continuity as much as Jewish people care about Jewish continuity. We have a right to decide our own boundary, and if you care for us, given you know what attitudes are like on the Jewish side, you will not be demanding to blur the line between our side and the Jewish side. That wouldn’t be the word or the action of a friend.

  80. Mickey Meadows's Gravatar Mickey Meadows
    April 1, 2012 - 4:50 am | Permalink

    @Marcy Fleming:

    You speculate you could be wrong, and I think you probably are wrong if you think this place is just for high level intellectual discussions with all positions catered for, because that would imply this is neutral ground.
    This isn’t neutral ground marcy.
    Also…building on Franklin’s remarks, you have argued the reason you don’t spend any time on Jewish sites is because Jewish people are 90% collectivist. I would guess about 90% of WN’s recognize white’s have no choice but to collectivize, as I mentioned before, because of the uber collectivist uber-hostile Jewish minority that currently rules over us.
    It’s very strange that you do not recognize that your dreamed-for world cannot be realized while the Jewish group are so collectivist, and yet see no point in addressing your passions there?
    Do you not see that if your dream world was to take form without having sorting out the collectivism of the Jewish people, that it would just result in a hostile elite ruling over everyone else. In fact that is already the situation because already Whites are literally *barred* from taking collective action through levers spanning the legal, the guilt and the fear.

  81. Marcy Fleming's Gravatar Marcy Fleming
    March 31, 2012 - 8:01 pm | Permalink

    Moderator, this is the fourth time today that my comments are being held up.
    If you don’t want me to write here just email me and tell me so I don’t waste my time.
    Don’t emulate TAC and AmRen with their cowardly unexplained and arbitrary censorship.
    If you only want bigots to post then have the balls to say so.
    I got the impression from reading of Dr. MacDonald’s books that he was for having a high level discussion.
    But I could be wrong.

  82. Franklin Ryckaert's Gravatar Franklin Ryckaert
    March 31, 2012 - 3:19 pm | Permalink

    @Franklin Ryckaert:
    Correction : “uninhabitated” should be : “uninhabited”

  83. Franklin Ryckaert's Gravatar Franklin Ryckaert
    March 31, 2012 - 2:59 pm | Permalink

    @Franklin Ryckaert:
    P.P.S. Even more contradictory : Why do you insist on the Jews being collectively identified as “Whites”?

  84. Marcy Fleming's Gravatar Marcy Fleming
    March 31, 2012 - 2:57 pm | Permalink

    Because I am white. 100% of Ashkenazim Jews are white.
    Sephardim are a different story.
    On the Census and in reality I’m white as both my Irish Father
    and Jewish Mother are white.
    That doesn’t mean that I identify with all whites anymore than I do with all Jews.
    My main interest here is the white v. black conflict.
    Blacks are the biggest threat to our civilization and I loathe the Jews who empowered them as much as anyone here does.

    Only individuals are successful, not groups. I know many Jewish failures.

  85. Franklin Ryckaert's Gravatar Franklin Ryckaert
    March 31, 2012 - 2:52 pm | Permalink

    @Marcy Fleming:

    I’m not playing your collective identity / collective guilt game.

    I’m glad to hear that. Unfortunately 90% of your co-ethnics are just doing that, and with devastating results for us.

    Let’s move on.

    For you personally that probably means an isolated intellectual existence, for Whites in their dire present situation to “move on” means forging a strong collective identity. Even if you identify as “white”, with your hyper-individualistic attitude you are of no service to us.
    An isolated individual might be “successful” as a Robinson Crusoe on an uninhabitated island, in the real world collective competition is the reality.

    P.S. If you really are not interested in collective identities as you say, then why do you insist on being identified as a “White”?

  86. Marcy Fleming's Gravatar Marcy Fleming
    March 31, 2012 - 2:28 pm | Permalink

    100% of the Ashkenazim Jews are white.

    • March 31, 2012 - 10:12 pm | Permalink

      Ashkenazim are identified as White, but they do not identify with the people and culture of Europe. And there are population genetic differences that put them much more in the Middle Eastern area genetically.

  87. TabuLa Raza's Gravatar TabuLa Raza
    March 31, 2012 - 1:55 pm | Permalink

    One cannot be a jew and White at the same time.

  88. Marcy Fleming's Gravatar Marcy Fleming
    March 31, 2012 - 1:37 pm | Permalink

    Not Popperian but the other two are correct. I’ve written several times that most Jews are collectivists, probably 90%.
    So what ? I don’t own them and they don’t own me anymore than whites folks (which includes me) are ‘your people.’
    I’m not playing your collective identity/collective guilt game.
    I’ve been arguing critically with Jews for a long time.
    Probably since I was eleven and I got my behind soundly spanked many times for it.
    Let’s move on.

  89. Mickey Meadows's Gravatar Mickey Meadows
    March 31, 2012 - 10:59 am | Permalink

    @Marcy Fleming:

    Marcy – maybe what you say is true, but right now I just feel like I have to spell it out even more simply, so just bear with me on this:

    Here is the problem.

    How plausible is it, that you would care passionately about your Popperian / Randian / Anarcho Libertarianism, and yet not be aware of the fact that your own group are the most uber-mobilized and uber-collectivized in their own interest of all?
    You clearly have no apparent insight that this is true of your own people. But how plausible is it that you wouldn’t? Given your passion involves rootless individualism…how plausible is it that you wouldn’t have viewed your own people critically?

    Given you now use the term ‘anti-rational’ which refers to a package of philosophical positions involving rational-memes and the importance of criticism?

    Be fair Marcy. Don’t come back with all the accusations. You are on a White – Identity website, that is primarily in existence because of the uber-mobilized uber-collectivized character of the Jewish Diaspora.

  90. Barb's Gravatar Barb
    March 31, 2012 - 10:15 am | Permalink

    Since Marcy doesn’t want to hear anything that doesn’t resemble pure, unadulterated admiration or obsequious servility from us goys towards her royal jewish self, putting everyone on her personal “ignore” (as if that hurts us lol) she will soon be talking to herself.

    Hey! That works out nicely!

  91. Marcy Fleming's Gravatar Marcy Fleming
    March 31, 2012 - 9:20 am | Permalink

    Mickey, all of your premises are wrong.
    I came here as an individual, not representing some group.
    If the site owners don’t want me here that’s their right.
    What the rest of you think doesn’t matter in the least.
    There are some intelligent people here and one bright person
    can make up for a trillion dummies.
    Spare us the Soviet-style language like ‘rootless individualism.’
    I don’t have to ‘pretend’ that the racist comments I
    have received here from you and others are anything
    but utterly contemptible.
    I owe nothing to any group nor do I speak for one.
    I’m not bound by your premises in the least.
    The problem with arguing with anti-rational people
    is that after a while folks might not be able to tell the difference.
    You go on my permanent Ignore button from here on out.

  92. Mickey Meadows's Gravatar Mickey Meadows
    March 31, 2012 - 5:43 am | Permalink

    @Marcy Fleming:

    What is irrational about the point I have made to you? You seem to be playing dumb on the matter (a typical response FWIW). So let me spell it out again for you.

    – This site only even exists because of highly mobilized Jewish collectivism

    – You are a member of that group, and for all your protestations it doesn’t take much for you to start saying things like “We Jews [some defiant self-righteous statement]..”

    – You are here arguing for rootless individualism

    – Which is an advantage to your group given if one group concentrates its power while all the others buy into individualism, that group with the concentrated power rules

    – This raises questions that you, if you are a genuine person genuinelly interested in the concerns this site is here to discuss, should be willing to acknowledge and openly reflect on.

    – Thus far you are not willing. You are pretending that what is being asked of you is somehow hateful or bigoted. You playing the convenient inter-group game of being dea, dumb and blind when it suits you

  93. Mickey Meadows's Gravatar Mickey Meadows
    March 31, 2012 - 5:31 am | Permalink

    oh well

  94. Marcy Fleming's Gravatar Marcy Fleming
    March 31, 2012 - 12:09 am | Permalink

    One typo in third sentence above, ‘con’ should read ‘on.’
    By the way the only one here who is qualified to tell me anything about the policy is the moderator.
    There has been nothing remotely ‘polite’ about any of the negative comments against me nor have I ‘whined’ about anything as I have forthrightly stated my views without compromise.
    From now I want to just deal with the issues here and not respond to people who hate for no reason.

  95. Marcy Fleming's Gravatar Marcy Fleming
    March 31, 2012 - 12:03 am | Permalink

    Again, let me reiterate the same points I made to Mickey.
    You presented no challenge to me at all.
    I make the same arguments con whatever site I am on.
    I don’t believe in fighting collectivism with collectivism nor am I limited to some tribal ghetto.
    I don’t see an iota of difference between people here who have baited me strictly on ethnic grounds to Al Sharpton
    or the Black Caucus or racist Rabbis in Israel who hate ‘Hellenists.’ Or the racist LaRaza crowd.
    And I really don’t need people whose comments are not held up for hours to tell me what my attitude should be when mine aren’t. I have plenty of evidence as the proof is always in the pudding.
    There are professional Jews like Abe Foxman who call every opponent ‘anti-Semitic.’ That’s wrong but there are people who really are and I’m not going to hold back from calling them out.
    As far you ‘don’t care anymore’ that is disingenuous as you never did. Nor do I care for your type.

  96. Alice Teller's Gravatar Alice Teller
    March 30, 2012 - 10:41 pm | Permalink

    @Marcy Fleming:
    Why do you keep insisting on your personal persecution? You have been told, politely and repeatedly that we are all subject to moderation. Yet you insist, with no evidence, that you alone are singled out. Some comments appear immediately, others are delayed.

    You come here, insult one and all, in entirely predictable and tired language, demand special attention, demand a personal email to explain the policy, whine, whine, whine and then insist that you are not like other Jews, and should be treated as an individual.

    Do you really not know how old that tune is? We don’t care anymore. Are you capable of grasping that concept?

  97. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    March 30, 2012 - 10:36 pm | Permalink

    Sniegoski makes an excellent case for Einstein being Time Magazine‘s Person of the Century.

  98. Marcy Fleming's Gravatar Marcy Fleming
    March 30, 2012 - 9:48 pm | Permalink

    Why is my response to Mickey still awaiting moderation ?
    The stupid attacks on me get published right away.

    I only put people on my Ignore list who are simply bigots who have no interest in rational discourse.
    Why waste time on them when they are intelligent people to communicate with ?

  99. Barb's Gravatar Barb
    March 30, 2012 - 9:20 pm | Permalink

    Marcy said, “The only reason I came to this site was I was told it was more intellectual and less censorship. ”

    Isn’t it funny that Marcy came here because it’s more intellectual and less censorship, but the FIRST thing she does is puts people on her ignore list, in essence, censors them, at least from her own thoughts.

    Yet another example of the ever-ready, interminable, Jewish hypocrisy.

  100. Marcy Fleming's Gravatar Marcy Fleming
    March 30, 2012 - 5:55 pm | Permalink

    You presented no ‘challenge’ at all. I make the same arguments on whatever site I’m on.
    I’m not limited to some ghetto because bigots like Alice and you say so.
    I don’t believe in fighting collectivism with collectivism.
    Of any kind.
    Alice, you a Jew-hating bigot. Your no different than the Al Sharptons and Black racists, your no different from Orthodox Rabbis who hate all ‘Hellenists,’ your no different the LaRaza trash, your no different than the Nazis even if they only killed 600,000 or a million, like Mickey you are a loser who is seeking a scapegoat for your failure.
    If you don’t being called a Jew-hating bigot then stop acting like one.
    Capise ?

  101. Mickey Meadows's Gravatar Mickey Meadows
    March 30, 2012 - 5:40 pm | Permalink

    @Marcy Fleming:

    Marcy – my challenge to you is very reasonable. You were here decrying our talk of collectivism apparently without even acknowledging that we don’t have any choice but to collectivize given that, far from de-collectivizing as we have done in the past 50 years, the Jewish people have ramped theirs up.
    You seem to think it is hateful in some way to point to these realities, and to ask why you as a Jewish person, if you are so passionate about Ayn Rand and Anarcho Libertarianism, are not using your time trying to inflouence your own people to go down that road.
    I mean, surely you can see that if one group buy into rootless individualism while another group organize and collectivize in the interesting of taking control, the first group will just end up being owned. Agree? Or is something unfair or hateful being said?

  102. Mickey Meadows's Gravatar Mickey Meadows
    March 30, 2012 - 3:48 pm | Permalink


    Someday – maybe you are right…history is on your side I don’t deny it. But the way I see it…after recieving a letter that perfectly crystalized natural selection, and then delaying for the period that he did….it just isn’t possible to use words like ‘unassailable’
    That doesn’t mean you are not probably right. You probably are.

  103. Alice Teller's Gravatar Alice Teller
    March 30, 2012 - 3:09 pm | Permalink

    @Mickey Meadows:
    I certainly share the sentiment, but I am in the dark as to the method of attainment. I don’t hate anyone nor do I wish to do anyone any harm. The simple truth is, the will not leave us alone simply because they are asked politely to do so. Witness Marcy and her boringly predictable insults. I sometimes fear that they really do have us in a bad spot. History tells us that they will not quit until violence is used. Then they are in a perfect position to cry foul and complain about how victimized they are. I know that it was said about the Germans, but it does seem to me that it is the Jews who are either at your feet or at your throat. I see no other option other then Ghetto of old, and that will be ugly indeed.

    Unlike most here, I think many whites are aware of our peril, they simply shrink from the available options. As Jason has pointed out so well, the image of white nationalists is still that of angry, illogical, woman hating bullies. Exhibit A, the bugsters with their mantra. It may be a good tool, but if it is wielded by the characters who showed up here, it will do us more harm than good.

    At the risk of being tiresome, our future depends on white women. The only reason I am still here is I am cursed with a contrary streak. I am one of the very few. We really need to work on our public image. I see no inclination among us to do so.

  104. Someday's Gravatar Someday
    March 30, 2012 - 3:09 pm | Permalink

    @Mickey Meadows: All you had to do was search, it has long been established that Darwin had an unassailable claim to priority. Darwin 230 page 1844

  105. Mickey Meadows's Gravatar Mickey Meadows
    March 30, 2012 - 2:50 pm | Permalink
  106. Mickey Meadows's Gravatar Mickey Meadows
    March 30, 2012 - 2:48 pm | Permalink

    @Mickey Meadows:

    p.s. I mean this in a context that does not contadict KM in any sense. I’m talking about way down the road when I mentioin friendship. I defintely believe…for example…our movement has to be very wary of entertaining Jewish members.
    I agree with the this article that Jewish folk who wish to identify with us, at very least need to clearly and *fully* acknowledge the hostile role of organized Jewry both in the past and now.
    Even then…there will have to be concentric circles of knowledge/authority within our movement, with access to more core circles much more dependent on ancestry.

  107. Mickey Meadows's Gravatar Mickey Meadows
    March 30, 2012 - 2:18 pm | Permalink

    @Alice Teller:

    Well, it’s not really a Jewish problem. All they are doing is doing well, what tribes do to eachother. The problem is tribalsim. But the solution cannot be that we just give up tribalism because aspects of it are hugely positive and important. And anyway so deeply ingrained in our fundamental nature that we couldn’t even if we did want to.

    I’m not saying that it’s definitely going to be possible to be possible to end up at a result wherein the Jewish and White people are living alongside in peace and friendship, with all the travials of the 2000 years behind them. What I do think is that it will only be possible if Whites have the power and hold the cards. So in many ways it doesn’t make much difference to the challenge of the next 50 years (maximum). We still need to get the power and the self-identity back. The land would follow.
    But……I don’t hate the Jewish People. I hate what they’ve done to us in the last 50 years because I really think there was an opportunity to heal everythign and create a beautiful civilization. Instead they have levelled it.
    But the truth is, history is painful. The important thing is to win it all back. This will be done by us…of that I am sure. This is because we are the great geniuses of history, not them. I don’t want to be harsh on them because I think they are productive compared to many other peoples. But it’s our stock that produced teh great civilizations, the great revolutions, and molded the modern world. We’re the special ones that the human race can’t afford to lose.
    But the reason we are special is precisely because we can and will solve the problem of tribality itself. We have the genius to do this so that we don’t have condem our or the Jewish descendnets to yet more grief and hurt rattling down the ages.

  108. Henry's Gravatar Henry
    March 30, 2012 - 1:55 pm | Permalink

    @Mickey Meadows:

    Einstein’s important work was while relatively young. He lost his steam later on and went off on a load of wild goose chases. As do many great people. As did Newton, both before and after his great contributions.

    Yes. I think this early fall off in powers is well noted within the scientific community.

    In The World Treasury of Physics, Astronomy, and Mathematics there are two sub-chapters where this “senility” is mentioned.

    The first is Los Alamos by Stanislaw M. Ulam wherein Ulam mentions senility as discussed between himself and the Hungarian mathematician John von Neumann:

    ….During this meeting at the station, Johnny and I also discussed what seemed a general lack of imagination in the scientific community’s planning of work useful for the war effort – especially in computations for hydrodynamics and aerodynamics. I pointed out my doubts about the age of some of the participants (people over forty-five seemed to me at that time old). Johnny agreed there were obvious elements of senility. As usual, we tried to lighten our sadness with jocular comments, observing that someone should establish a “gerontological” society, whose members would be interested in war work and afflicted with premature or “galloping” senility.

    Los Alamos p, 706.

    The second quote in the book is from Albert Einstein himself, in: From Letters to Max Born

    (7 September 1944)

    We have become Antipodean in our scientific expectations. You believe in the God who plays dice, and I in complete law and order in a world which objectively exists, and which I, in a wildly speculative way am trying to capture….Even the great initial success of the quantum theory does not make me believe in the fundamental dice game, although I am well aware that our younger colleagues interpret this as a consequence of senility. No doubt the day will come when we see whose instinctive attitude was the correct one.

    From Letters to Max Born. p, 809.

  109. Alice Teller's Gravatar Alice Teller
    March 30, 2012 - 1:33 pm | Permalink

    @Mickey Meadows:
    Glad you agree, but I must ask what plan you have to allow us and Jews to be friends? I really do not understand how this would work out in real life. As Dr. MacDonald has pointed out so well, their high energy and aggressive nature will continue to propel them to continue the relentless assault on us and our culture. One of the reasons we are in this mess is because we are forced to decide between a similarly relentless struggle with them and ignoring them. Personally, I do not want to spend my life fighting them. They enjoy the fight, we don’t. I look forward to any good ideas you may have. Live and let live has not worked in our favor.

  110. Marcy Fleming's Gravatar Marcy Fleming
    March 30, 2012 - 1:32 pm | Permalink

    Mickey, I did several days ago. Except for Ha’Aretz in Tel Aviv I don’t know of any Jewish sites AND since I disagree with 90% of my fellow Jews on philosophy, psychology, politics, art, culture and literature why would I bother ?
    The only reason I came to this site was I was told it was more intellectual and less censorship. The New American is good in this respect too and I have posted many criticisms of Israel on that site. There are quite a few Christian Zionists there.
    The American Conservative and American Renaissance are hostile to criticism of Israel or holocaust revisionism as well as Ayn Rand.
    The New Republic site requires one to subscribe in order to post and Marty Peretz is a worse anti-Arab racist than even
    Frankly I don’t need to justify being here. Particularly to the Jew haters like you and a few others.
    I am not a joiner.
    Your going on my Ignore list now.
    Run your Inquisition number on someone else.

  111. Mickey Meadows's Gravatar Mickey Meadows
    March 30, 2012 - 11:34 am | Permalink

    @Alice Teller:

    Hi Alice – absolutely. Whites must have equal status and rights within a mutlicultural society (which is what it currently is). This means equality to decide to form effectively white-only communities just as there are black-only communities or Jewish-only communities. This also means the equal right to encourage and reinforce a sense of people, of history, of destiny, within white groups without being attacked and accused….by members of other groups that do exactly that.
    Equal rights.

  112. Mickey Meadows's Gravatar Mickey Meadows
    March 30, 2012 - 11:19 am | Permalink

    @Vlad Writes:

    Einstein’s important work was while relatively young. He lost his steam later on and went off on a load of wild goose chases. As do many great people. As did Newton, both before and after his great contributions.
    I would point you to Alice’s remarks above which I tend to agree with. I would add to this by saying that we are victims of hatred by certain sections of organized Jewry. It isn’t, and never has been, a *root* problem of us hating them, but their hatred for us.
    What we have to do is try to turn our own situation around – which we have the time and the genius to accomplish. Don’t listen to those that say everything is lost because it’s a lie. The European people have faced many terrible moments and this is just one more. We will prevail. In terms of time, we probably have about 50 years to dream up and implement a solution that works.
    I think the solution will have to involve a general solution not just for european peoples, but for all peoples all of which are going to be facing the same problems in a shrinking hi-tech world.
    Also the solution must somehow make friends of the Jewish people. As I said, the problem is that they hate us not the other way around. Therefore a solution that makes friends of us, will have to come from strength on our side. Jewish tactics have not changed, and do change. They are a productive people, but not particularly creative…certainly not on the level of Europeans. So what we’ll need to do is somehow render their ancient tactics obsolete….such that it simply does not work anymore.
    Probablhy, in that situation, the religion-spawned hatred won’t go away, but the truth is….lots of peoples hate other peoples….it’s only a problem when their hostile strategies actually work.

  113. March 30, 2012 - 8:38 am | Permalink

    The article here, by writer Mark Green, says:

    Ultimately, Schlafly’s claims can only be settled by (impartial) historians of science, if they’re out there.

    I disagree. The claims — facts — against Einstein are settled for anyone who reads actual quotes of what top scientists and famous scientists said long ago about Einstein. Add to that the actual order of events in history. Case closed.

    The book by Bjerknes has been mentioned and debated in this comment thread. It is a highly redundant book and with ulterior motives, but through many quotes from many verifiable publications during and since Einstein’s time, the book proves Einstein’s fraud, and the book proves jewry’s guilt in creating and maintaining that worldwide fraud through their ownership of worldwide media.

    My review of the book is here:

    Bjerknes is, by the way, an admitted jew, and his lurch from one school of thought to another is a subject I also cover in that book review.

    James Laffrey

  114. Mickey Meadows's Gravatar Mickey Meadows
    March 30, 2012 - 5:14 am | Permalink

    @Marcy Fleming:

    ah marcy, nice to bump into you over on this thread. Did you get around to responding on the other thread as to whether you spend any time passionately decrying collectivist ideas on Jewish/Israeli sites?
    Or do you reserve your special love for us…the white gentiles?
    Is it because you feel you should be a part of us? Or more likely, given what you say above (something like “We Jews take no lectures from a race that has bought nothing but misery…”) what you feel is that you *should* be allowed to join us if *you* want to!
    But of course we can’t join you in being a Jew, or move to Israel after the US is laid waste, as you can. But what you seem to think is that we must be nothing more than a melting pot, which you can be part of (but hate and despise) or be separate to (and hate and despise)

  115. Marcy Fleming's Gravatar Marcy Fleming
    March 30, 2012 - 1:04 am | Permalink

    Actually not while he ran NBI. later after left and had Academic Associates in LA. That Adler book is worthwhile.
    Ayn is Finnish, not Hebrew. She never lied but I can believe that Branden might have.
    That Son of Rand nonsense was started by a woman reviewer in the NY Times on the 25th anniversary edition of The Fountainhead in 1968. It’s been hotly contested.
    That’s probably where your friend heard it.
    I don’t believe you on your alleged Branden quote as I have heard him speak on sexual differences between men and women.
    Peikoff’s sentiment is nice but probably tongue-in-cheek.
    Learn to spell his name too.

  116. TabuLa Raza's Gravatar TabuLa Raza
    March 30, 2012 - 12:02 am | Permalink

    I said pushed, not published. Branden promoted a book “The Difference of Man and the Difference it Makes” by Adler. I heard Branden say “The only difference between men and women is that men can’t have babies.” Even psychotics have more contact with reality. Look up AYN SOF and see the Hebrew meaning of Rand’s name. She said her name is from “Einar” or a similar Scandinavian name. She lied! Branden said he got his name from a phone book! He lied!

    A friend (Dave Shornick) worked at The Objectivist (1967). He told me, with 100% assurance, that Branden’s name means SON OF RAND. (Ben-Rand)

    Listening to the Piekoff radio show in the nineties, a caller asked- “is Ayn Rand the Messiah?” Piekoff answered, under his breath, “Let’s hope so.”

  117. Marcy Fleming's Gravatar Marcy Fleming
    March 29, 2012 - 7:59 pm | Permalink

    NBI NEVER published any Mortimer Adler books.
    They only published a 19th century American novel
    and 93 by Hugo.
    You have correctly described Adler’s politics but his Aristotelian-Thomist philosophy was closer to Objectivism
    than other philosophies. He was also an apostate Jew.
    They did sell Friedan but no one knew then she was an ex-CPUSA member. They (NBI) were strongly in favor of working women.
    You aptly named cognitively and you go on my Ignore List from here on out.

  118. Roland Ehrlich's Gravatar Roland Ehrlich
    March 29, 2012 - 7:18 pm | Permalink

    Since Heisenberg, Einstein is a bit outdated

    Einstein may have been overestimated for some time,
    but his theories took the final hit from Werner Heisenberg.
    It was the ‘Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle’ which heavily
    put into troubles the ‘Einstein Theories of Relativity’.
    For a long time, Einstein desperately tried to rescue his
    theory from the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, but to
    no avail. He was thinking up the most bizarre and absurd
    arguments to falisfy Heisenberg, but never succeeded.
    He simply didn’t grasp that new kind of abstraction and
    random logic of quantum physics.
    Long after Einsteins and Heisenbergs deaths, their
    theories were combined and unified into one over-arching
    set of theories, the quantum field theories (QFT) which
    today represent the standard model of physics.

  119. TabuLa Raza's Gravatar TabuLa Raza
    March 29, 2012 - 3:03 pm | Permalink

    Flemio- I go back to the days when NBI was still functioning. They had a book service, selling the likes of The Feminine Mystique. The author, jewess Friedan, was a card-carrying member of the Communist Party. They also pushed books by Mortimer Adler, lifelong commie and world-government advocate.

  120. forthurst's Gravatar forthurst
    March 29, 2012 - 1:11 pm | Permalink

    @Mickey Meadows

    The Theory of Evolution does not reduce to a mathematical formula nor is it testable in a laboratory. Only a large body of evidence could substitute for that. Darwin spent many years peering down his microscope and performing histological examinations on a very large collection of specimens in order to identify how natural selection achieved the progress from protozoa to primate. The ‘I think’ diagram is from a notebook of 1837 titled, ‘Transmutation of Species’. A typical comment on the parent of all vertebrates, ‘The head being six metamorphosed vertabrae, [it] must have been like some molluscous bisexual animal with vertabrae only and no head’. Not only was Darwin thorough in his work but he was also apprehensive as to how best to present his conclusions to a world in which Creationism was the sole accepted explanation for different species and what its reaction would be to the publication of his findings. Wallace’s paper certainly terminated Darwin’s procrastinations.

  121. Mickey Meadows's Gravatar Mickey Meadows
    March 28, 2012 - 1:26 pm | Permalink


    “The Guardian article explicitly states that Darwin wrote down his theory 15 years before Wallace, and therefore was the first to come up with those ideas.”

    In fact I don’t think this has ever actually been proven. It is just assumed because Darwin certainly did do a lot of very important work and had a lot of key ideas. Things we know are: he sketched ancestries seeming to link species toward a common ancester and scribbled at the top of the page “I think”. We also know he was very taken by the thoughts of Malthus, which can also be represented as ‘natural selection’ in an uncrystalized non-explicit form.
    So the big question is whether natural selection was on the tip of Darwin’s tongue, but just not yet in that crystal form, and then Wallace went and nailed it. Or had he written it 15 years earlier as you say.
    My guess is actually that Darwin had not nailed it down but obviously saw it almost instantly as what he had been struggling to see. I think h e was probably put under pressure by his friends to publish, but that in many ways he set his friends up for that by not explicitly telling them he hadn’t had the idea in that crystal form.
    People assume Darwin had had the idea for a lot of different reasons. One is along the lines of “how could he not have, given all the work he had done, its focus, and the obviousness and simplicity of natural selection?”.
    But the simple things can be the hardest to see, requiring the greatest of genius to be seen.
    One reason to think Wallace may have been a genius is that in another letter he actually reasons the existence of techtonic plates and continental drift. This is breathtaking, because you only have to imagine how counter-intuitive and impossible it must have seemed that whole continents move across the planet and bump against eachother. One way to appreciate that is by noting that for decades after it had really become all but impossible to deny that this must happen, mainstream scientists continued to go to extradordinary lengths to do exactly that. For example, explaining same-fossils in different parts of the world separated by oceans, scientists continued until the 1950’s to use the explanation of ‘land bridges’ – narrow verticals from the bottom of the ocean breaking the surface like a bridge connecting distant continents. By the 1950’s the number of fossil-pairs needing to be explained this way, resulted in the bizarre situation of there having been so many of these land bridges there wasn’t any room left for any ocean!

  122. Marcy Fleming's Gravatar Marcy Fleming
    March 28, 2012 - 1:15 pm | Permalink

    Asked and Answered. In civil business litigation when you hold a deposition if the opposing attorney is an obnoxious, vexatious litigant who keeps raising the same answered objections over and over, you or your attorney, says loudly Asked and Answered.
    I trust the more intelligent readers here will see the relevance of this principle here. Cranks can’t stand to be ignored.

  123. Someday's Gravatar Someday
    March 28, 2012 - 12:29 pm | Permalink

    @Roger: Someday: An implausible excuse is not a satisfactory substitute for performance. The title of your blog post is Darwin and Einstein stole credit. That phrase does not appear in the article, it’s yours alone and was not qualified by any kind of quote marks to indicate the title was giving the gist of the article. The article simply says Darwin cared about being recognized for his originality. ‘Stole’ is not supported at all, and therefore it would be assumed by any reader to represent your own opinion . There is other wording in your blog post which makes this clear:-

    They are both famous for popularizing ideas that were first written down by others. […] So Darwin and Einstein were not first to come up with the scientific ideas, but they were first to become public celebrities

    The Guardian article explicitly states that Darwin wrote down his theory 15 years before Wallace, and therefore was the first to come up with those ideas. I dare say your assertions about Einstein are solidly based, but you would do well to have a little humility when off your turf. In future please try to use the same rigor as you would in a mathematical proof.

  124. Barb's Gravatar Barb
    March 28, 2012 - 9:07 am | Permalink

    “From here on out I totally ignore you.”

    That’s what you said before.
    But you failed.
    And you will continue to fail to ignore me — and that’s because your very PURPOSE for being here is to see to it that what I, and others like me, say, doesn’t get a chance to resonate amongst White folks. You’re here to squelch me and you can’t do your job if you ignore me.

  125. Barb's Gravatar Barb
    March 28, 2012 - 8:57 am | Permalink

    @Franklin Ryckaert:

    Aye, Franklin, that’s exactly what I was getting at. You said it better than me.

  126. Barb's Gravatar Barb
    March 28, 2012 - 8:55 am | Permalink

    @Marcy Fleming:

    “didn’t realize that you were black”

    I’m not. I’m White.

    I’m referring to the fact that my country, the only one I have, is being invaded by hostile aliens (mestizos, mostly, but others, too) — a flood that is being facilitated, aided, abetted, encouraged, cheerled for, nay, LED by the people, jews, you hold first loyalty to.

    And the PROOF that jews are your first loyalty is you coming here, on KMac’s forum for White people, and start throwing around your shutup word.

    Any jews (assuming there ARE any) who really are on us White folks’ side, don’t even UTTER that word, because they understand that it’s the nuclear bomb used by their Tribe to wipe out any White resistance to this genocide their Tribe is leading.

    But, YOU threw the “anti-semite” bomb. So your motivations are clear. You are here to police what we Whites say and insist any folks you don’t like be read out, made anathema, all in the service of seeing to it that any WN that might arise, be comfy for jews.

    But I don’t appreciate this, or you, because, unlike you jews, *I* and my *progeny* don’t HAVE a spare country to zip off to anytime things get a bit dicey.

    So here’s what, why don’t you make us both happy and make aliyah, and piss off out of our conversations, ‘kay?

    So do you provide US with any sympathy? No.

    You s

  127. Namensfeld's Gravatar Namensfeld
    March 28, 2012 - 12:05 am | Permalink

    Middle of sixth paragraph — Thomas Kuhn’s “paradigm shifts” buzzword is mis-spell-checked or auto-mis-completed to “parading shifts.”

  128. Marcy Fleming's Gravatar Marcy Fleming
    March 27, 2012 - 11:17 pm | Permalink

    No, it ended after 1939 when they were soundly defeated by the Germans and the Soviets took eastern Poland.
    Franklin, since I disagree with 90% of the Jewish establishment’s agenda may I suggest that you are off your rocker.
    People like Barb and you seem more like ADL provocateurs.
    If you don’t know what ‘qua’ means than look it up.

  129. Franklin Ryckaert's Gravatar Franklin Ryckaert
    March 27, 2012 - 11:07 pm | Permalink


    So, I ask again, WHY are you here?

    Not difficult to answer : to protect Jewish interests, their one and only concern. Once you have correctly analyzed their character, everything becomes stereotypical of them. Their drive on the one hand to rule the world (supremacism), and their fear of a backlash from the world because of their misbehaviour (paranoia) on the other hand , makes them to infiltrate even the smallest movement in order to control it. There are several of her co-tribals here who are trying to do the same or have tried it in the past. It is even possible that she is lying about her identity (Jewish mother, Irish father) and her views ( critical of most what Jews do) in order to mislead us. Accusing us of “anti-Semitism” or hating Jews qua Jews (?) is a give away : the typical idea of the Jews as eternal innocent victims of irrational hatred based on prejudice. They are always right and the whole world is always wrong, the typical attitude of psychopaths. Small wonder they create conflict everywhere they live.

  130. GREZCM's Gravatar GREZCM
    March 27, 2012 - 10:46 pm | Permalink

    @Marcy Fleming: @Marcy Fleming:
    Yes, but 1930s mean the timeframe from 1930 to 1939, and “Polish Hunta” sadly ended in 1935.

  131. Marcy Fleming's Gravatar Marcy Fleming
    March 27, 2012 - 10:38 pm | Permalink

    Poland was junta in the 1930s. Democracy means nothing as Hitler was democratically elected too.

  132. Marcy Fleming's Gravatar Marcy Fleming
    March 27, 2012 - 10:36 pm | Permalink

    Barb, I gave you the definition of an anti-semite, which you are.
    And I told you why I was here.
    I didn’t realize that you were black but you haven’t been genocided over, the 9 million (NOT 100 million) Negroes
    who came to the Western Hemisphere were saved from the horrors tribal savagely by your brothers who sold you into slavery. Five million of you have been killed by each other in the Congo since 1999 alone. The only genocide has been black on black. In Africa all over the subSahara, Haiti, urban America.
    We Jews require no lectures from a race that has contributed nothing but horrors to human history.
    i have answered you and no I did not support Polanski, that comes from your fevered racist brain or sorry excuse for same.
    From here on out I totally ignore you.

  133. GREZCM's Gravatar GREZCM
    March 27, 2012 - 10:34 pm | Permalink

    @Marcy Fleming:

    Be advised, and others of your ilk, to learn that a “junta” is a system of government, in which military men are most prominent.

    Pertaining Poland, there may be an assumption of a decisive military influence over the government only until 1935, when the BBWR was dissolved, after Marshall Piłsudski’s death.

    BBWR stands for “Bezpartyjny Blok Współpracy z Rządem” or, in English “Nonpartisan Faction for Cooperation with the Government”.
    The year of 1935 is the landmark in Poland’s history, because the military’s influence over politics was annihilated that year.
    Yes, after 1935, Poland was a democracy, whatever the stinking term means. There was no junta afterwards here. Sadly, Marshall Piłsudski died far to soon. Sadly, Poland was not ruled by a “junta” after 1935.
    The non-existent “Polish Junta” of 1939, was not able to mobilize my nation against Bolshevism. This didn’t happen, so we are expected to celebrate “liberation” by the Red Army, which was an outright enslavement.
    Yes, The Red Army didn’t liberate us (Poles), but enslaved.
    Yes, German occupation was better then Bolshevik liberation.
    Bolshevism was slavery par excellence.
    Long live the brotherhood between Polish and German nations!

  134. Barb's Gravatar Barb
    March 27, 2012 - 9:38 pm | Permalink

    “You are a bigoted anti-Semite
    and that’s all there is to it. I don’t use this term either casually or frequently but I will call a spade a spade every time.”

    Oh, please, it didn’t take you TWO SECONDS to start throwing around your “antiSEMITE” shutup word; a shutup word which impress nobody here, by the way. We’re far to inured to it.

    I asked you for a definition with specifics. You gave more meaningles, mumbo-jumbo weasel words, “jews qua jews” — whatever THAT means; a phrase which you borrowed from Auster, no doubt — another faux White who claims to be on our side but can’t WAIT to defend even the most despicable jews, like Polanski. You obviously fit right in at Auster’s, so why don’t you trot on over there?

    You are only providing another data point that jews, nearly universally — even when they make noises about being proWhite, at first — really only care about jews first, last and always.

    We American-Americans are being genocided over here and your primary concern is that jews not be criticized.

    Your ilk beat up on us because FDR turned away some boatfuls of jews, then turn around and beat up on ME, the descendant of one of those White Americans drafted by FDR to defeat Hitler’s Germany, like your ancestors wanted. How DARE you.

    A myriad of these internet discussions have shown us time and again, any jew who even UTTERS the “anti-Semite” shutup word is NOT on our side, is untrustworthy.

    Any jew who was REALLY pro-White would not use that particular baseball bat, seeing’s as the likes of Foxman et al have used it as a verbal nuclear bomb to prevent us from fighting our own genocide.

    So, I ask again:
    WHY are you here?

  135. Marcy Fleming's Gravatar Marcy Fleming
    March 27, 2012 - 9:10 pm | Permalink

    GREZCM, wrong again. Danzig was not German for most of its history. See The Forced War by David L. Hoggan. Poles were given access to Danzig but did not control it until after WW1 under the horrible Versailles. There was also a large German population in the corridor though you are right that it was not as much German as Silesia or the Sudetenland.
    See The Origins Of The Second Word War by A.J.P. Taylor which debunks the idea of any Polish reasonableness in negotiations over Danzig and the hoary myth of ‘appeasement’ at Munich.
    Poland was governed by a fascist, anti-Semitic Junta that
    differed not at all ideologically from National Socialism in
    Your racial remark of ‘non-existent’ German genius (which point I never made so your inane comment here is a non sequitur) is laughable when measured against the lack of intelligence of the Poles as exemplified by their cavalry attacks against German tanks ! Poles had nothing to do with the geography or the use made of it by the Germans primarily and then the Russians of which Poland was a mere province for centuries.
    I never agreed with the German Master Race but the idea of a Polish Master Race is hysterically funny.
    Nice try with that stale old ‘If you were honest you’d agree with me’ line. But no cigar.

  136. Jarvis Dingle-Daden's Gravatar Jarvis Dingle-Daden
    March 27, 2012 - 8:37 pm | Permalink

    One could easily refer to a more recent example of piss-stream media for many a year fawning over their fellow tribesman occupying position of major prominence such as chairman of non-federal Federal Reserve.
    Alan ‘Mr. Cheap Credit’ Grynszpan who in all of his bottomless “wisdom” ended up flooding the market with so much money that applicants which ordinarily would’ve had tough time getting approved for a $1000/month lease contract, were all of a sudden qualifying for $400K loans.
    It wouldn’t take more than phasing out of introductory fixed rate for things to start crashing down for these dolts.
    Before you know, Jesse ‘Professional Negro’ Jackson is out blaming the unscrupulous lenders (read: terrible white people) for taking advantage of these largely unsuspecting minority borrowers (read: flat-footed chumps) who apparently lacked the intellectual capacity to read and/or process the fine print.
    That, btw, is an issue which I tend to separate from realities of a Judaic-heavy lending industry deliberately dropping such gigantic pile shyte in the collective lap of the American taxpayer.

  137. March 27, 2012 - 8:15 pm | Permalink

    Someday, I did not accuse Darwin of plagiarism and I did not say that Wallace deserves more credit than Darwin. I was citing an article that said that Wallace and Darwin worked independently.

  138. Henry's Gravatar Henry
    March 27, 2012 - 8:15 pm | Permalink


    The Frankists were followers of the false messiah (of whom there have been many) called Shabbethai Zebi. His followers in Turkey were known as Shabbethaians (later “Donmeh”).

    For two years until 1915, David Ben Gurion and Yitzhak Ben-Zvi (first prime minister and second president of Israel) lived among, and studied with, these Jews and crypto-Jews in Salonika.

    Following the Young Turk Revolution in 1909, Ben-Zvi was sent by “Poalei Zion” to Turkey. He visited in Izmir, Kushta, Thessaloniki, Beirut, and Damascus where he made contact with the Jewish communities. In Thessaloniki he encountered the last remaining Sabbateans, who later became his subject of research.


    You will not be aware of it but it has been claimed that the mother of the late Polish pope came from a family of Frankist converts.

    The Frankists claimed to follow the Zohar not the Talmud and practised all sorts of depravities including Zoophilia and sacrifice.

    They sought to turn the world on its head by celebrating diversity in all its many manifestations – good or bad, sane or psychotic – they said it must all be tolerated.

    They wished for society to be rather as the West is now and the entire World is soon to become.

    Jews such as these seek to create Hell on Earth……then (they hope) their messiah will come.

    For a better perspective of Frankist history in Poland see here: FRANK, JACOB, AND THE FRANKISTS

  139. GREZCM's Gravatar GREZCM
    March 27, 2012 - 8:00 pm | Permalink

    @Marcy Fleming:

    If you care for honest narrative, or “truth”, be advised to know that the population of the so-called “Corridor” was neither German, nor Polish. Likewise parallel may be attributed to Silesians of Upper Silesia.

    If you bother to examine maps (also available on-line), you will notice that Poland always had access to the sea (of Baltic), through the very “corridor”, which included Danzig.
    If you are more honest, you will admit, that the Danzig itself, had been creation of Poland, most happy for this affiliation.
    The wealth of Danzig was due to only one factor – the city’s connection to Poland. Two years ago, I spent summer holidays in the coastal town of Darłowo (Rügenwalde in German).
    The town, although member of Hanseatic League, as Danzig, was poor, which is portrayed by obscure town buildings, rarely higher than a ground and 1rs floor (or 2 floors in American language).
    This comparison shows, that Danzig’s wealth was due to its connection to Poland (via Vistula’s catchment area), and not to some non-existent German genius. Besides, if one cares, one will notice the Dutch bricks used in downtown Danzig, which is the measure of one sided trade: the bricks brought back indicate, that they were only the dead weight.

  140. Marcy Fleming's Gravatar Marcy Fleming
    March 27, 2012 - 7:18 pm | Permalink

    You people didn’t ‘liberate’ anyone, it was FDR who urged the Brits to declare war on Germany when he knew they had no way to aid the Poles and were wrong about their dispute with Germany over Danzig and the Corridor which were German areas.
    FDR’s war made it very difficult for Jews to get out of Europe but they did receive considerable help from the Soviets,
    none from the US & UK.
    The US-UK were responsible for most of the deaths in the camps in Germany so why should we be ‘grateful’ to them ?
    Barb, apparently you can’t read any better than you can think.
    I’ve already explained I’m here and I don’t need your ok either.
    I’ve been to many Jewish and leftist views with the same views I have posted here. You are a bigoted anti-Semite
    and that’s all there is to it. I don’t use this term either casually or frequently but I will call a spade a spade every time.
    Tough if you can’t stand the truth. But don’t waste anymore of my time, just do your own thing.

  141. Someday's Gravatar Someday
    March 27, 2012 - 6:30 pm | Permalink

    Roger Schlafly’s blog has a post “Darwin and Einstein stole credit’, he says “They are both famous for popularizing ideas that were first written down by others. […]So Darwin and Einstein were not first to come up with the scientific ideas, but they were first to become public celebrities “.

    I know nothing about Einstein, but Schlafly is far too quick on the draw with allegations of plagiarism against Darwin. The idea that Darwin stole credit from Wallace is wrong. Darwin rushed to publish a paper when he realized Wallace had came up with an exactly similar theory of natural selection, but the credit for priority was rightfully his. Darwin showed Joseph Hooker a 230-page summary of his theory in 1844; 15 years before Wallace’s letter. Based on what he said about Darwin, Roger Schlafly has a tendency to greatly overstate things.

  142. Barb's Gravatar Barb
    March 27, 2012 - 6:27 pm | Permalink

    @Marcy Fleming:

    I disagree with 90% of my fellow Jews on everything from….

    Always it’s “my fellow jews” Always you jews show where your loyalty lies.
    If you disagree with the jews, why don’t you trot on over to jewish sites and argue with them?

    But you don’t do that. No. Instead, you are here to harangue Whites with meaningless shutup words like “anti-Semite.”
    Meanwhile, your ungratefulness for America defeating Germany and letting your fellow jews out of the camps is noted.
    WHY are you here?

  143. GREZCM's Gravatar GREZCM
    March 27, 2012 - 6:01 pm | Permalink

    re: Henry wrote on March 27, 2012 – 5:00 pm

    Re Bjerknes’ book on Saint AE, I find it a worthwile read, but it’s clear that the book addresses much larger matters than AE himself. For me, it’s clear that AE is a fraud, because he is a Jew and is promoted to being a genius, ergo he must be a fraud. The same principle applies to Marx, Freud, Chomsky and all others, especially in social sciences and economics.

    The Frankism business is most striking to me in Bjerknes’ book.
    Interestingly, “Frankism” is present in wikipedia in only two languages, English and Polish, none other. Moreover, the content of the entries differ substantially:
    1) The entry in English provides that Frank’s teaching was “that one’s most important personal obligation was the transgression of every boundary”. This one is missing in the wikipedia’s entry in Polish.
    2. The entry in Polish doesn’t address the above “obligation” at all. Moreover, the entry in Polish provides that Frank’s teaching was to convert to Catholicism, which is absent in the entry in English.
    3. The entry in Polish provides, that Frank himself and a 1000 of his followers were knighted (!) by a King of Poland (Augustus the 3rd) in the 2nd half of 18th century, to reward them for their conversion and encourage others to abandon Judaism.

    I am a Pole, writing from Poland, and I must state that the matter of Frankism is only typically confused by these two wikipedia entries. Moreover, it should be researched, because it provides hints on sources of some of the Jew’s behavior. Frank had offered the ideological excuse to Jews to behave nastily and found many followers among his tribe. This, to large extent, explains their abuses of any law or decency.
    The Bjerknes’ book provides a hint, why (some) Jews behave so nastily all over the world – they are Frankists.

  144. John Bonaccorsi, Philadelphia's Gravatar John Bonaccorsi, Philadelphia
    March 27, 2012 - 5:47 pm | Permalink

    To Roger, @ March 27, 1:57 PM:

    Thank you, as usual, for your reply. At this point, you and I are “just going back and forth,” I guess. I’ve certainly profited from our exchange; with luck, as I’ve said, I’ll have an opportunity to read your book. Good luck to you.

  145. Henry's Gravatar Henry
    March 27, 2012 - 5:00 pm | Permalink


    Although I’ve had Bjerknes’ book since he put it out (2006) I haven’t actually read it in full which is why I made no comment or recommendation when I posted the link.

    The other book by Bjerknes THE JEWISH GENOCIDE OF ARMENIAN CHRISTIANS was very good, being filled with sound information that checked out until, that is, it arrived at a load of nonsense about Hitler being a Jew/Rothschild agent. Bjerknes had picked this up from Jim Marrs but should have left it where he found it. At that point I lost my appetite and didn’t read any further. I also have to say that I wasn’t really convinced by CJB’s evidence for his claim that Mustafa Kemal Atatürk was a Dönmeh (crypto Jew).

    It’s true that Louis Brandies’ family had been followers of Jacob Frank, and his biographer, Melvin I. Urofsky, has confirmed this fact in at least one of the many books and papers that he has written and/or edited about Brandies.

  146. Marcy Fleming's Gravatar Marcy Fleming
    March 27, 2012 - 4:59 pm | Permalink

    Harry O, I have read much of Gould’s last massive work on evolution and followed his career.
    He never said that creationists won any debate with evolutionists because they never have.
    Their nonarguments have been exposed as utter trash by Sokal, Dawkins and many others.
    As an atheist Jew I’m embarrassed that stupid ChristCulters could take the ancient Hebe fables seriously when even they were recycled Arabian legends.
    Good God ! Do you really believe the world began in 4004 BC ?
    And that a ghost in the sky invented the world in seven days ?
    How could existence come out of consciousness ? All the evidence points the other way.
    You need to really read evolution and a genetics textbook or
    an anthropology textbook.
    You really want to be at the level of religious Blacks who are trillions of years behind whites in evolution ?
    The Unholy Bible or the Hebrew Book Of Genocide is the most pornographic, warmongering, genocidal text ever composed.
    Christianity is indeed the Jews’ revenge upon the Gentiles as Nietzsche wrote. Maybe the GOP Convention will be in tongues.
    By the way, many of the US Founders were Deists or agnostics
    or exposers of the Unholy Bible like Thomas Paine, whom TR labeled “a dirty little atheist.”
    If I had a kid who spouted the nonsense you do they would be getting their bottom tanned but good.

  147. GREZCM's Gravatar GREZCM
    March 27, 2012 - 4:00 pm | Permalink

    I have just finished cursory reading of the Bjerknes’ opus
    offered by Henry in his entry of March 25, 2012 – 2:12 pm
    The Manufacture and Sale of Saint Einstein.

    My impressions are:
    1. the book is worth reading, though selectively,
    2. contrary to its title, the thread on Einstein is only secondary,
    3. the main thread is pharisaical scheming and Zionism.

    For me, the most revealing is repetitious use of the words “Frankist” and “Frankism”. Easiest reference for “Frankism” is
    here, which provides a startling explanation for this concept of Frank, who “asserted that one’s most important personal obligation was the transgression of every boundary”/b>! This translates, inevitably, to notions like “no deed is evil enough to prevent you from committing it” and, equivalently, that “evil doesn’t exist”.

    Eminent descendants of Frankists include former United States Supreme Court justice Louis Brandeis, according to the linked wikipedia page.

  148. Marcy Fleming's Gravatar Marcy Fleming
    March 27, 2012 - 2:23 pm | Permalink

    Moderator, please let me know if there’s a problem with my post above. Thanks.

  149. March 27, 2012 - 1:57 pm | Permalink

    John, I do think that the phrase in brackets is misleading, and I have corrected the source on Wikipedia. When Poincare says “principles”, he is referring to the principles enumerated previously in the lecture/paper, and not the “old mechanics”, which would be ambiguous.

    Now you say that Einstein’s originality was to postulate what Lorentz and Poincare had proved. To a mathematician like Poincare, that is a trivial thing to do. Poincare had no need to cite someone who merely postulated a result in an expository paper; he would cite the man who actually proved it previously.

    Lorentz does graciously admit (in his quotes) to a technical shortcoming, and that Poincare corrected it first, and then Einstein after Poincare. That is correct. It shows that Lorentz and Poincare did something original, but not Einstein.

    I am not accusing you of bad faith, but you are reading into these quotes things that the writers did not actually say. None of these quotes undermine anything I said, and I explain the matter in greater detail in my book.

  150. Marcy Fleming's Gravatar Marcy Fleming
    March 27, 2012 - 12:52 pm | Permalink

    Barb, thanks for the black humor. African Americans were a very minor factor at Dachau and the very few camps ‘liberated’ by the Americans. Buchenwald and camps in the east of Germany were captured by the Brits. The larger camps in Poland were captured by the Soviets so the Negro participation was minimal to say the least.
    The US-UK starvation blockades and bombings of Germany produced famine and typhus in all the camps in Germany.
    And in cooperation with the Soviets had a similar effect at all the Polish camps. These ‘liberators’ were responsible for more deaths than the Nazis since the deaths were due to malnutrition and diseases in the last 18 months of the war,
    not to the alleged ‘gas chambers’ which by 1960 were admitted by the Jewish Agency not to exist in Germany proper. They claimed they were in Poland but read Debating The Holocaust by Thomas Dalton, Ph.D.
    As far as what are now called African Americans owing gratitude from the Jews you have got to be kidding !
    Who do you think funded and physically supported all
    their civil rights nonsense here in the USA ? Who provided
    the lawyers, the laws, the thinkers, the bodies, the media support, et cetera, ? Jews.
    And we were dead wrong to do so.
    Blacks have done nothing for us except commit crimes
    against us. Al Sharpton himself led a riot in Harlem that
    ended in Jewish and other whites’ deaths.
    Your comments are very strange here as this is the first time
    I’ve ever read here of any debt owed to Blacks.
    Do you fear gangs of rampaging Jews when you venture out ?
    Black sociopathology and crime over the years since WW2
    far exceed any slave reparations and they should be getting bills, not checks.
    Maybe you better stop reading the Black Muslim nonsense.
    Alice, people’s behavior is based on their thinking both for better and worse. Not all people of any group think the same way. I disagree with 90% of my fellow Jews on everything from Ayn Rand to AIPAC to Obama to the Holocaust Religion to government welfare statism to Ron Paul to much more.
    Unfortunately my thinking is not typical of my fellow Jews.
    I eventually got censored over at American Renaissance for what they regarded as too un-Jewish thinking and they even claimed I wasn’t a real Jew ! They deleted that nonsense after I responded but their not quite two months of free forum was clearly over.
    Anyway, I do appreciate your civilized tone, Alice.
    Barb is another matter but I have written all I think I need to write to her. Unless I read anymore idiocy about what we Jews
    owe Blacks. which is ZERO.

  151. Alice Teller's Gravatar Alice Teller
    March 27, 2012 - 10:14 am | Permalink

    @Marcy Fleming:
    Generalizing is simple good sense when people behave in predictable ways, as you have. Perhaps you should continue your reading to include Understanding Jewish Influence by Dr. MacDonald.

  152. Carmen's Gravatar Carmen
    March 27, 2012 - 5:59 am | Permalink

    HarryO, with all due respect, the proper term for the people that built this place called America were ARYANS. The Western Man. Thats what really matters.

  153. John Bonaccorsi, Philadelphia's Gravatar John Bonaccorsi, Philadelphia
    March 27, 2012 - 2:25 am | Permalink

    To Roger, @ March 27, 1:24 AM:

    I object to the following:

    “The Poincare quote on a ‘new mechanics’ predates Einstein, and shows that Poincare understood the importance of the speed of light before Einstein. You criticize it based on a phrase in square brackets, but of course the brackets indicate that Poincare did not say it. You are blaming Poincare for something that he did not say.”

    Your use of the phrase “of course” suggets that I have acted in bad faith. I took that quotation in good faith and did not even consider the brackets. If you think that whoever placed those brackets there has misrepresented Poincare (unintentionally or not), please state how.

    The quotations I presented certainly do undermine what you said. The first two quotations from Lorentz are his own acknowledgment of his adherence to the notion of the cosmic Cartesian coordinate system, as I dubbed it. If you think that’s an inaccurate interpretation of his statement, please state how. As for his continuation of the first statement, i.e, his remarks about Poincare, i.e., the statement’s only part you have addressed in your reply to me: They are, in the first place, merely an expression of his own estimation of Poincare’s accomplishment. I included them in the interest of fair play. In the second place, they don’t seem to me quite to say that Poincare did what Einstein did.

    I’m aware that, as you say, Poincare’s statements about a “new mechanics” predate Einstein and show that he “understood the importance of the speed of light before Einstein.” Of course. I’ve been saying all along that all of these men — Fitzgerald, Lorentz, Poincare — were struggling with the same problem. The question is whether they resolved it. My suspicion is they did not; Einstein did.

    Since posting my last remark, I’ve come across a webpage that does not seem to be afflicted with Einstein worship, as you might term it, but does seem to credit Einstein with relativity. The address is

    That contains the following:

    “Poincaré’s reaction to Einstein’s 1905 paper was rather strange. When Poincaré lectured in Göttingen in 1909 on relativity he did not mention Einstein at all. He presented relativity with three postulates, the third being the FitzGerald-Lorentz contraction. It is impossible to believe that someone as brilliant as Poincaré had failed to understand Einstein’s paper. In fact Poincaré never wrote a paper on relativity in which he mentioned Einstein. Einstein himself behaved in a similar fashion and Poincaré is only mentioned once in Einstein’s papers. Lorentz, however, was praised by both Einstein and Poincaré and often cited in their work.”

    I don’t know whether that’s accurate, but I should be interested to learn whether it is. If it is accurate, it would seem to accord with what I’ve been saying: Poincare could not cut through the fog. Even after the publication of Einstein’s 1905 paper, he was thinking that Fitzgerald contraction was necessary, i.e., he was still thinking that there was a “real” coordinate system.

    You write:

    “The second Lorentz quote points out that Einstein simply postulates what had previously been proved. Neither quote says that Einstein did anything original.”

    Einstein’s merely postulating it is quite original. That, in effect, is what Lorentz is admitting. Lorentz is flummoxed by the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment and is thrashing around, trying to explain those results via Fitzgerald contractions and the like. Einstein simply pauses to consider what is meant by “time.” He recognizes that all of these phenomena — the contractions, “local time” — are inherent in the process of observation, i.e., are to be expected on the basis of two simple postulates: relativity and the constancy of the speed of light. He doesn’t need experiments: the whole theory could have been formulated in the seventeenth century, i.e., even before the discovery of electromagnetism. Once you accept that light has “a speed,” everything follows. Lorentz didn’t see that; Poincare nearly saw it. Einstein saw it.

  154. HarryO's Gravatar HarryO
    March 27, 2012 - 2:18 am | Permalink



    fender, really hate to but I’m gonna have to take a switch to you child. But let me ask first what constitutes common decency in your mind? If you lived in a nation of, let’s say, Chinese and you had contempt for them you might unhypocritically and with the merest compunction tell yourself that you should depart that land and leave it to the people whose it is and whom you so despise. Now that makes sterling common sense, does it not, and as I say, invests you with a degree of common decency.

    So then let’s bring it closer to home. At this nation’s founding, ALL its inhabitants – its pioneers in every sphere, its clearers and builders of this great country (though now fading) were Christians (virtually 100% of them). Until very recently that adherence still surpassed 90% and even now is solidly a majority. So as per the analogy above, I ask again, where is the merest part of common decency in your bigoted brain? How is it that you are incapable of respecting your Christian heritage here and the Christians who gave you the sublime foundation on which you presently stand (religious outlier though you may be)? It is not because you are a mere unbeliever that I call you a common fool, but it is because you are bereft of the capacity of due respect or even self-restraint that I take that liberty.

  155. March 27, 2012 - 1:24 am | Permalink

    John, your quotes do not undermine anything I said. The first Lorentz quote credits Poincare over Einstein. The second Lorentz quote points out that Einstein simply postulates what had previously been proved. Neither quote says that Einstein did anything original.

    The third Lorentz quote says, “the theory of relativity is really solely Einstein’s work.” Yes, that credits Einstein, but it is obviously not meant to be taken literally as others certainly contributed to relativity. Maybe Lorentz was being generous, or flattering, or sarcastic, I don’t know.

    The Poincare quote on a “new mechanics” predates Einstein, and shows that Poincare understood the importance of the speed of light before Einstein. You criticize it based on a phrase in square brackets, but of course the brackets indicate that Poincare did not say it. You are blaming Poincare for something that he did not say.

  156. HarryO's Gravatar HarryO
    March 27, 2012 - 12:45 am | Permalink


    Well said, my friend. Evolution (Darwinism, Neo-Darwinism, etc., etc.) is the biggest hoax ever perpetrated against the human mind. Not a scientist, but love to read science and have read extensively on this. It is a religion among the votaries of materialism – nothing more.

    But here’s a story that ought to surprise the objectivist and supremely vex the Darwinist acolyte:

    Stephen Jay Gould (Darwin’s latter day “bull-dog”) exhorts the faithful that they should not debate the Creationists because he had witnessed MANY debates between Evolutionists and Creationists and the former had lost EVERY ONE.

    Now I ask you my friends, how can that POSSIBLY be – IF Darwinism is proven science? I will answer. It CANNOT possibly be. Rather is would be the REVERSE if it were truly hard and proven science.

    As to the accuracy of my anecdote, research it yourself and prove me wrong.

    I use the story for its obvious impact. It is an *emotional* one since the Darwinists are more hysterical about this than anything else. If Darwin’s bulldog is afraid of the Creationists than DON’T give us any more CRAP about Evolution being Gospel. It is anything BUT. I hope you appreciate the double entendre.

  157. Barb's Gravatar Barb
    March 26, 2012 - 11:43 pm | Permalink

    “Oh, please spare me the US generosity in taking in Jews,
    FDR turned back a whole boatload, in 1938 trying to flee
    from Nazi Germany.”

    Screw you. American-Americans spent blood and treasure to liberate Jews from camps. For that you and your ilk OWE us undying loyalty.
    All we get are complaints and perfidy. Go to hell.

  158. Diablo's Gravatar Diablo
    March 26, 2012 - 10:30 pm | Permalink

    Einstein signifies jewish supremacism. They will defend his public stature as vigorously as they do their holocaust religion. It is the duty of all humans to break this stranglehold and allow the truth to come to the fore.

  159. Colin Liddell's Gravatar Colin Liddell
    March 26, 2012 - 8:05 pm | Permalink

    Hip Hop Science:

    “E equals MC squared
    some other motherfucker thought it but forgot to share”
    But your Homeboy Albert got on his ass
    Ripped it off and got ‘Nobel’ – what a gas”

  160. Marcy Fleming's Gravatar Marcy Fleming
    March 26, 2012 - 7:37 pm | Permalink

    Alice, you prove my point in spades by your total generalizations. Where my boyfriend lives in Oakland
    there are racist Blacks who hate all whites and all Jews.
    They use exactly the same language that you do.
    Oh, please spare me the US generosity in taking in Jews,
    FDR turned back a whole boatload, in 1938 trying to flee
    from Nazi Germany.
    I agree with OO on black racism, opposition to affirmative action for blacks and females, gay lifestyle as an aberration, the 1964 and 1968 Civil Wrongs Acts, making excuses for Black crime and sociopathology, opposition to the concept of ‘hate speech’ laws, opposition to gun control, the Bell Curve is
    largely correct, LaRaza communist nonsense, opposition to Israel aid and AIPAC, not coddling delinquents and criminals
    and believe in spanking children who deserve it.
    Believe in private property as an absolute, oppose world government and am only in favor of immigration if the safety net is eliminated. Am against all welfare including ghetto and corporate, am against entitlements, want to get out of the UN and NATO and NAFTA, GATT & WTO.
    Strongly support abortion and believe in paying for Blacks to have abortions. Abolish the Hyde Amendment.
    Am a revisionist on much of the ‘holocaust’ but still properly anti-German as their philosophers are statists.
    Am monogamous and opposed to fooling around.
    Loathe the mainstream media and public radio & TV.
    Back Ron Paul in 2008 and 2012.
    Believe that the great jews like Ayn Rand and Murray Rothbard have been dissidents from the tribe.
    I don’t wilt under anyone’s words and don’t expect you to.
    Hope this answers your question.

  161. John Bonaccorsi, Philadelphia's Gravatar John Bonaccorsi, Philadelphia
    March 26, 2012 - 7:03 pm | Permalink

    To Roger, @ March 26, 4:20 PM:

    If Michelson and Morley are thinking that there can be some sort of measurement of the movement of the Earth within a stationary ether, then they are regarding that stationary ether as a fixed coordinate system, in relation to which, movement may be said to be “real.” (Yes, I realize that their experiment didn’t confirm that; but as far as I can tell, that simply left them confused.) As for Lorentz — the following two quotations are from Wikipedia’s article you mentioned (“Relativity priority dispute”):

    “I did not indicate the transformation which suits best. That was done by Poincaré and then by Mr. Einstein and Minkowski. [..] Because I had not thought of the direct way which led there, and because I had the idea that there is an essential difference between systems x, y, z, t and x’,y’,z’,t’. In one we use – such was my thought – coordinate axes which have a fixed position in the aether and which we can call “true” time; in the other system, on the contrary, we would deal with simple auxiliary quantities whose introduction is only a mathematical artifice. [..] I did not establish the principle of relativity as rigorously and universally true.”

    “[T]he chief difference [is] that Einstein simply postulates what we have deduced, with some difficulty and not altogether satisfactorily, from the fundamental equations of the electromagnetic field. [p. 321]: The chief cause of my failure was my clinging to the idea that the variable t only can be considered as the true time and that my local time t’ must be regarded as no more than an auxiliary mathematical quantity. In Einstein’s theory, on the contrary, t’ plays the same part as t; if we want to describe phenomena in terms of x’, y’, z’, t’ we must work with these variables exactly as we could do with x, y, z, t.”


    “I considered my time transformation only as a heuristic working hypothesis. So the theory of relativity is really solely Einstein’s work. ”

    In that first quote above, Lorentz continues:

    “Poincaré, on the contrary, obtained a perfect invariance of the equations of electrodynamics, and he formulated the “postulate of relativity”, terms which he was the first to employ. [..] Let us add that by correcting the imperfections of my work he never reproached me for them.”

    Does that mean that Poincare had extended relativity to electromagnetism, just as Einstein did? I am not qualified to say; my suspicion is that it does not. It does not seem to indicate that Poincare saw the implications of the extension of relativity to electrogmagnetism and to accelerating objects. Did he see the equivalence of energy and mass? The equivalence of acceleration and gravitation? You yourself, in your exchange with Kullervo say your impression is that he did not see the latter. Well — then what did he see? The following statement (which will be a bit unclear, because, for simplicity’s sake, I’ll omit the beginnning of it) is from Wikipedia’s article about the Lorentz ether theory:

    “Perhaps … we should construct a whole new mechanics, of which we only succeed in catching a glimpse, where inertia increasing with the velocity, the velocity of light would become an impassable limit. The ordinary mechanics, more simple, would remain a first approximation, since it would be true for velocities not too great, so that we should still find the old dynamics under the new…I hasten to say in conclusion we are not yet there, and as yet nothing proves that the principles [of ordinary mechanics] will not come forth from the combat victorious and intact.”

    He seems disinclined to let go of “ordinary mechanics.” That is why I suspect he didn’t see everything Einstein did. Should I be lucky enough, I will have an opportunity to read your book, at your blog.

  162. Alice Teller's Gravatar Alice Teller
    March 26, 2012 - 7:01 pm | Permalink

    @Marcy Fleming:
    I am interested to know what you agree with Dr. MacDonald about. I can only assume that you are in the wrong place if you imagine that we will wilt because you call us names.

    I no longer judge Jews by their character. I have known Jews whom I liked, even admired. It is, however, clear to me, that when push come to shove, they will side with their fellow Jews. I elect to do the same and side with my fellow whites.

    As a group, Jews in America have been and continue to be bad for me, my kin, my heritage, and culture and nearly all that I hold dear. No individual Jew, however worthy, compensates for that.

    We took Jews in, when no one in the world, including American Jews, wanted them. In return, Jews have undermined everything by which we define ourselves. The sheer ingratitude is staggering. Does that make me an anti-Semitic bigot? If so, I can live with it.

    I wish no one harm, I hate no one. I simply refuse to live in a country in which a tiny ethnic group use every method, beginning with bribery, to dominate and control my country, our laws and culture, all to our detriment, without protest. Call me any name you like. Just remember than name calling can be a two way street.

  163. fender's Gravatar fender
    March 26, 2012 - 6:54 pm | Permalink

    @Rex May:

    What? Of those three, only Darwin commands virtually universal respect. Only the Christards have a problem with him.

  164. Ritchard's Gravatar Ritchard
    March 26, 2012 - 6:50 pm | Permalink

    “The point of pieces like this seems to be to claim that Jews have not made major contributions to human knowledge. So how have they won more than a quarter of all Nobel Prizes awarded in the sciences over the last century?”

    The fact that Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize should clarify what Hmmm was saying.

  165. Marcy Fleming's Gravatar Marcy Fleming
    March 26, 2012 - 6:42 pm | Permalink

    Barb, it’s as obvious as the nose on your face. Some people just hate Jews qua Jews which means they hate Jews as such. Hitler was one, Farrakhan’s another, Gerald L. K. Smith was one, George Lincoln Rockwell and so on. I think you understand it all too well.
    Just as some people hate Arabs or Blacks or Whites for being what they are.
    This has nothing to do with the character of any particular person.
    I didn’t see any rules here that state only anti-Semites are allowed to post here AND I agree with Dr. MacDonald on many things.
    It’s time to own up to your bigotry as you have made blanket statements about Jews.
    Take a hard look in the mirror, it won’t be a pleasant sight.

  166. March 26, 2012 - 4:44 pm | Permalink

    This makes me think of the usual trio of great thinkers, Marx, Freud, and Darwin. The latter is the only one we’re allowed to criticize.

  167. March 26, 2012 - 4:20 pm | Permalink

    John, you say that you are a layman, and you obviously haven’t read anything by Einstein’s contemporaries. You cannot understand what Einstein’s originality by reading his paper, because he did not credit his sources, and you cannot trust his idolizers, because they promote him as the world’s greatest scientist.

    You keep making arguments about what Einstein and others supposedly understood or did not understand. But they are not based on what was actually written. Where does Lorentz or Poincare say they believed in a cosmic coordinate system? Where does Einstein say he does not, or explain the mathematical or physical significance of such an assumption? If you agree that “relativity” and Lorentz transformations were in use before Einstein, what were those concepts accomplishing?

    For other readers here, this questions are all addressed in my book and my blog.

  168. Marcy Fleming's Gravatar Marcy Fleming
    March 26, 2012 - 3:51 pm | Permalink

    Creationism is not science and can never be proved since it is based on hoary Biblical tall tales that never happened.

  169. Barb's Gravatar Barb
    March 26, 2012 - 3:51 pm | Permalink

    “Barb, an anti-Semite or anti-Jew is one hates Jews qua Jews.”

    WHAT does that even mean?

    Be specific. I hate Jews when they do rotten things that hurt White people, and a whole host of those rotten things are manifestations of jewish traits, both cultural and (quite possibly) instinctive.

    So what does this weird phrase “hate jews for being jews’ even MEAN?
    It means nothing. It is a vague handwaver to shut up White people.

    WHY are you here?

  170. john's Gravatar john
    March 26, 2012 - 3:47 pm | Permalink

    Hey Hmmm, you’re right . Creationism IS scientific evidence that should be studied [it is and can be proven] and yes, it IS a jewish conspiracy vis a vis ‘nobel prizes’ and such. Also easily seen by those “with eyes to see and ears to hear”.
    Maybe you’ll figure it out some day, you seem to be bright enough… :)

  171. Marcy Fleming's Gravatar Marcy Fleming
    March 26, 2012 - 2:57 pm | Permalink

    GRECZM, I was originally attempting to download and it was taking a long time because it assumes you are going to print
    it but then I just saved it and it was much quicker.
    You can’t read any straighter than you can think because I looked at his blog and found the stupid piece from 2008 on Ron Paul, Ayn Rand and Jews.
    If his verbose work is worth looking at I’ll decide but what I’ve seen so far is very unimpressive.

    Barb, an anti-Semite or anti-Jew is one hates Jews qua Jews.
    From your inane comments about dismissing me because I’m Jewish I gather that you are one.
    Look in the mirror.

    An anti-Black or an anti-White would be one who hates Blacks qua Blacks or Whites qua Whites.
    Now is that so hard to understand ?

  172. John Bonaccorsi, Philadelphia's Gravatar John Bonaccorsi, Philadelphia
    March 26, 2012 - 2:19 pm | Permalink

    To Roger, @ March 26, 12:46 PM:

    I didn’t point out that a distinguished physicist accepted Einstein’s paper for publication. I said Planck brought the paper to the world’s attention. Planck himself wrote about the paper.

    I don’t seem to have made clear my point about Einstein’s reference to the Maxwell asymmetry as “known.” My point was that nobody but Einstein was sufficiently troubled by the asymmetry to find a way to eliminate it. His resolution of it was the “new conceptual framework” to which I was referring. Lorentz, Fitzgerald, Poincare — all, as I’ve said, were struggling with the same problem; but they could not resolve it because they were unable to free themselves of the sense of each point in space as a point in an invisible, “real” Cartesian coordinate system, which, as they imagined it, extended throughout the universe, and in relation to which, every object could be said to be either “really” moving or not moving. Accordingly, electromagnetic phenomena, as conceived by Maxwell, didn’t obey the Galilean principle of relativity. That is, in observing the production of an electric current in a coil in which a magnet was rotating, one was, in effect, required, by Maxwell, to know which of those two objects — the magnet or the coil — was “really” moving. Einstein reformulated all of that. By modifying the Galilean formula for addition of velocities — modifying it by incorporation of the Lorentz transformations — he rendered each point in space equal to every other one. No point could be said to be either at rest or moving in relation to the cosmic coordinate system, because the cosmic coordinate system was eliminated. No matter what phenomena — what movements — were being examined, any point, at any moment, could be said to be the comsic center — at rest — around which everything else was moving.

    In the 1905 article, Einstein got only part way there, because he hadn’t figured out how to incorporate accelerating points into the framework; but by 1915, he had incorporated those, too, via his recognition of the equivalence of gravitation and acceleration.

    In your response (@ March 26, 1:28 PM) to Kullervo, you grant that Einstein’s discovery of “gravitational time dilation and gravitational bending of light rays” are “original to Einstein, as far as [you] know.” You graciously add that you “have no quarrel” with anyone who credits him for those things. You seem to have no idea that those things and others — including the formula of the equivalence of mass and energy — were of a piece with his recognition of the nature of time (as, in effect, a synonym for simultaneity) and his consequent elimination of the Maxwell asymmetry (i.e., his successful extesion of the principle of relativity from mechanics to electromagnetism).

  173. Bear's Gravatar Bear
    March 26, 2012 - 2:16 pm | Permalink

    @Not a Jonkey:

    “Lets agree on this fact : anyone who writes a 2885 page book on Einsteins fraudulent life has a very real problem”

    Actually I would disagree. Perhaps it takes a certain tenacity and a certain strength of anti-semitism to dislodge the claim that Marx, Einstein and Freud were the three greatest thinkers of our time.

    I rather reject the term “anti-semitic”. We need a new word to acknowlege the fact that it is we (Whites, Arabs) who are the ones under attack by Jews and that we are merely conscious of this fact and fighting against it.

    Something like Judaicacally-aware, judaically-defensive but less cumbersome.

  174. March 26, 2012 - 2:11 pm | Permalink

    Well, I certainly have to read this book. I’ve linked to this and commented on it here:
    Einstein a Phony?

  175. March 26, 2012 - 2:01 pm | Permalink

    Of course, Hank the K was not familiar to the general public, but according to a story in LA Herald, back in 1974, Kubrick himself claimed K was the source. He had met K at a cocktail party, probably at or around Harvard, where K was professing.

    Brian Siano discusses the various candidates here, and agrees with you:

    But he does add the interesting detail that the ‘obscure’ Kissinger had in fact had in fact been a Book of the Month Club selection — some obscurity!

  176. March 26, 2012 - 1:28 pm | Permalink

    Kullervo, yes, those two things are original to Einstein as far as I know. I have no quarrel with anyone who credits Einstein for those things, or for several other things. I do have a quarrel with the sort of idolizing presented by John above.

  177. TabuLa Raza's Gravatar TabuLa Raza
    March 26, 2012 - 1:14 pm | Permalink


    Prior to 1919, general relativity was an obscure theory by a rising star in physics, Albert Einstein. Based on the perceived need to test this complex and intriguing concept, it was held as gospel that the sunlight passing by the sun should be bent by the gravitational attraction of the sun, something known to Sir Isaac Newton and modified by Einstein. According to prevailing wisdom, this should be observable during a total solar eclipse when the shielding of the sun’s light permitted the observation of light from distant stars being “bent” around the sun.

    In an effort to play the role of peacemaker and kingmaker, Arthur Eddington traveled to Principe in Africa with the express purpose of proving Einstein right. Prior to that, he was an advocate for Einstein, due, in part, to the fact that both men shared the same political beliefs, Pacifism. In his zeal to be both peacemaker and kingmaker (Eddington wanted to be known as the man who discovered Einstein), Eddington engaged in corruption and derogation of the scientific data, the scientific method, and much of the scientific community. To this day, this completely manufactured data set is quoted by prominent scientists and the organs of publication. It surpasses the Piltdown Fraud as the greatest hoax of 20th and 21st Century science.

    One must be extremely susp, er cautious about jewish claims.

    All import must accrue to jews. God’s chosen, heal the world, etc. Then we see evil (sinagogue of satan) fought by son of God- Rabbi Jesus. Jews take all sides to all arguments.

    Communism- jew Marx. Capitalism- jew Rand. (Google on Ayn or Ayn Sof to see what Her first name really means). ALL MAJOR FIGURES MUST BE JEWS NO- EXCEPTIONS.

    Now we have libertarianism and the Mises institute. Mises, a jew. Yet Austrian economics was founded by a Gentile- Carl Menger. Shouldn’t the Mises Institute be called the Menger Institute? We have Mr. Libertarianism- the towering giant Walter Block!! Previously Murray Rothbard, before that Mises. All jews.

    The Einstein time frame- The (mostly) jewish Federal Reserve founded in 1913. WW1 the next year. “Russian” revolution in 1917, the first “Manhattan Project”.
    Jew control over media during this time frame. The twentieth century century was the jewish century, with the greatest man being Einstein. A jewish publication told us that.

    There are many references to the 1919 solar eclipse hoax. See how well 1919 fits into the above dates?

  178. Kullervo's Gravatar Kullervo
    March 26, 2012 - 12:58 pm | Permalink

    @Roger: Roger, you claim that Einstein made no original discovery in relativity, but what about his 1907 discovery of gravitational time dilation and gravitational bending of light rays? You skirt past these two points very obliquely in the book as well. Would these two discoveries, if real and original to Einstein, not make Einstein a great physicist?

  179. March 26, 2012 - 12:46 pm | Permalink

    James, Dr. Strangelove was based on Herman Kahn. Kissinger was not yet famous.

    John, you illustrate the unshakeable belief of an idol worshiper. You point out that a distinguished physicist accepted Einstein’s paper for publication, and then make the leap that it was original from beginning to end and that Einstein was the world’s greatest physicist. And yet the only originality you can point to is an electromagnetism remark that Einstein admits was “known”, and using slightly different terminology for time. You cannot point to any novelty in the math, or any novelty in physics, or any substantial novelty of any kind. Just a “new conceptual framework”, that was quickly abandoned in favor of Poincare’s.

    You are reinforcing the above analogy with Freud and others who got famous based on insubstantial theorizing, clever phrases, and idol worshipers.

  180. Alice Teller's Gravatar Alice Teller
    March 26, 2012 - 11:35 am | Permalink

    @Mickey Meadows: @Bear: @Barb:

    I certainly agree that the Jewish question is very tempting, and I have fallen prey to the temptation to dwell on the issue too often. We must remember, however, that we are not, or should not be, primarily anti-Jewish, but pro-white.

    I want the freedom to live in a white area, free from domination by any other ethnic group, free from the demand that I support
    any other ethnic group. Like any other sub-set that is unique, I want an environment and an ecological niche that permits us to rear our young in conditions that allow them to prosper. It is fine with me if all other groups have the same right.

    There are lots of places in America where I dare not go. Why are only whites denied the right to a safe home. Self-determination should be a right for all.

    My goal is white freedom and I proudly adopt Bear’s title of White Loyalist as the best method of getting there.

  181. Barb's Gravatar Barb
    March 26, 2012 - 10:46 am | Permalink

    @Marcy Fleming:

    Define, please. What is, what are the *specific* qualities that makes one an “anti-Semite”?

    If you do not provide a clear, definite definition of what you specifically mean when you employ this overused shutup word,

    then I, for one, have learned that simply dismissing all you say as a mere reflex of your ethnocentricity and not intellectually worthy, (as is virtually always the case of those like you who claim Jewish identity) is the surest course to truth.

  182. Barb's Gravatar Barb
    March 26, 2012 - 10:36 am | Permalink


    Thank you! Yes, that is EXACTLY right. If we could discuss jewish power and influence in all the same places, and at the same time as, Jews spew all that anti-White demonization, (i.e., all the mainstream media outlets) then any, one, given venue would NOT have to be, and would not be, “All jews all the time.”

    Only because there are so FEW places that jewish power and influence can be discussed at all, that those few places unavoidably become concentrated on the JQ.

    What appears at first, superficial, glance to be “obsession” with the JQ is really only an inevitable result of Jews’ inexhaustible efforts at squelching any talk about them at all.

  183. March 26, 2012 - 10:21 am | Permalink

    >>Kuhnian parading shifts (which he really really can’t stand)

    I might not blame him, if I knew what they are, but I think you, and he, mean ‘paradigm shifts.’ The first rule of devising an impressive critique is do more than hit F7 when editing.

    From the greyed out bits of his book when searching the term on Amazon, it does seem he’s agin ’em. He appears to adhere to the long-standing myth of scientists making completely theory-free “empirical observations”, dreaming up theories, and testing the latter against the former.

    Paul Feyerabend, who certainly thought Kuhn a bad man, nevertheless exploded all this nonsense in Against Method and elsewhere. For those of you keeping track, Feyerabend’s Aryan credentials are bullet-proof: he was a Luftwaffe pilot in WWII, invalided out after a crash that left him crippled for life. And what have YOU, reader, done to fight the Jews?

    Feyerabend’s immediate enemies in this matter were the crypto-Jews of the London School of Economics where he lectured against Popperism on its home turf. He opposed Popper as [what KD would call] a Jewish guru operating a cult. Said cult is currently being promoted by Left Guru George Soros and his Open Society Foundation, the name of which is a nod to Popper, whose work he plugs in his books.

    To paraphrase Ostara, who is the Jew, and who is the Aryan?

    As Edward Tenner observed in the Atlantic blog last year:
    “But the Times and other commentaries ignore a great philosopher of science who objected not to Galileo’s ideas, but to the dismissal of theological and other objections to his theories. … And who knows what Feyerabend, who rejected all rigid systems, would have thought about Perry and other Republican candidates. Maybe he would have apologized to Galileo. For in defending the lay person’s right to choose minority views in science (including alternative medicine), and in asserting the rights of non-scientific belief systems vis-à-vis laboratory science, Perry was unintentionally joining the philosophical left. ”

    See my blog, just last week, here:

  184. Carmen's Gravatar Carmen
    March 26, 2012 - 9:28 am | Permalink

    Speaking of Bjerknes, what has happened to him? There has been no blogging for just about a year as mentioned and there is no one commenting on this. Not one web-site has any news or info. I don’t agree with everything he has written but I’ve welcomed his insight on religion and politics. If I remember from one of his blogs, he was to start working on another massive book. This time about how he views the jewish books of the old and new testaments as the original protocols of zion. There are a few who have thought the same thing. One who stands out is Prof. Revilo P. Oliver.

  185. March 26, 2012 - 8:35 am | Permalink

    KM explicitly exempts Einstein from “Jewish gurus” since physics supposedly is a testable area without import for Jewish social climbing, unlike poly sci, sociology, etc. which are fertile ground for unprovable hot air. This book, and review, would seem to provide a ‘unified theory’ as it were, that brings the Einstein cult on board. Kudos, as the Greek Aryans would say!

    “elite intellectuals who insist on heaping the greatest praise on [often abstract] work with no measureable or rational advantages.”
    Evola has some interesting passages mocking “modern physics” [he mean, essentially, as this review show, Jew-Science, or what I call “Zionce”] for leaving the path of empiricism entirely, and mucking about with abstract formulae. Men justify modern physics for its “power” but actually the rockets and bombs are being launched by ‘men’ who are no more evolved than apes. Aristotle’s [that it, Traditional] science, being qualitative, produces REAL power, by transforming the knower into what he knows. Consider the continuity in Dante’s world view, from material scientist to theologian to mystic, each dealing with experience, though on higher and higher levels [as the reviewer points out, no ‘angels on pins’ here, an impudent lie]

    By contrast, Jew Science breaks the continuity of experience, leaving the stupid goyim with ‘mere’ common sense or ‘faith’ [eg, Creationism] which are trumped by the Ziontist’s supposed formulae, which only he understands. Nice racket.

    The Ziontist resembles the inhabitants of Laputa, Swift’s satire of the Royal Society. This is why Kubrick locates the Russian doomsday device at “the missile complex at Laputa” In both cases, the pun on the Spanish ‘puta’ is intended.

    It’s always seemed to me that Dr. Strangelove isn’t a German, that is, an Aryan, but a Jew [“Strangelove? That ain’t no Kraut name, is it?”]. Playing with slide rules and deluding the Goyim [Pres. Malcolm Muffin] with fantasies of living in mine shafts. Isn’t he based supposedly on Kissinger? And doesn’t the unruly white hair [it’s a b&w film, is it white, silver, grey or blonde?] remind one of a certain Princeton chap?

    I may have missed it, but did the reviewer note the role of Einstein in promoting dressing and acting like a slob? Think of the poster of Einstein sticking out his tongue, which seems to be issued to all “smart kids” for their rooms on TV shows.

  186. John Bonaccorsi, Philadelphia's Gravatar John Bonaccorsi, Philadelphia
    March 26, 2012 - 5:23 am | Permalink

    The Lorentz transformation doesn’t resolve the asymmetry.

    I’m not looking through the 1905 paper for something original. It’s original from first sentence to last. Einstein placed the Lorentz transformations within an entirely new conceptual framework.

    Your argument isn’t with me; it’s with Max Planck. Ask him why he thought the article worth the world’s attention. You’ll need a time machine, of course, to do that. Go ask Lorentz how to build one.


  187. March 26, 2012 - 5:01 am | Permalink

    John, I guess you are now arguing that Einstein’s originality was in a remark that he said was “known”. The asymmetry was known to Maxwell and discussed in the textbook where Einstein learned electromagnetism. Lorentz transformations were invented to resolve the asymmetry. They are called Lorentz transformations because they were invented by Lorentz. Einstein gave the same formulas that Lorentz had already published.

    Since you are reading Einstein’s 1905 paper looking for something original, tell me where he ever even expresses any disagreement with the prior work. Where does he even claim that he is doing anything different from what Lorentz and Poincare had done before?

  188. Commenter's Gravatar Commenter
    March 26, 2012 - 3:04 am | Permalink

    @Mickey Meadows:

    Certainly – finding out Einstein was a total fraud would not even be one of the bigger outrages I had discovered since waking up. Far from it.

    What are some of the outrages you have awoken to?

  189. Guest's Gravatar Guest
    March 26, 2012 - 3:00 am | Permalink

    @Roger Schlafly wrote:

    Born converted to Lutheranism when he got married, and his friendship with Einstein could have had nothing to do with Jewishness.

    Why couldn’t it have?

  190. John Bonaccorsi, Philadelphia's Gravatar John Bonaccorsi, Philadelphia
    March 26, 2012 - 2:56 am | Permalink

    To Roger, @ March 26, 2:21 PM:

    What I was saying was that Planck brought attention to the article because it involved more than changes in terminology. It was a major readjustment of the Newtonian scheme; it did away with the invisible Cartesian coordinate system of the cosmos — the system within which an object could be said to be moving even if it were the only object in the universe (and thus could not be said to be moving relative to something else).

    Let’s take a look at the first paragraph ( ):

    “It is known that Maxwell’s electrodynamics—as usually understood at the present time—when applied to moving bodies, leads to asymmetries which do not appear to be inherent in the phenomena. Take, for example, the reciprocal electrodynamic action of a magnet and a conductor. The observable phenomenon here depends only on the relative motion of the conductor and the
    magnet, whereas the customary view draws a sharp distinction between the two cases in which either the one or the other of these bodies is in motion. For if the
    magnet is in motion and the conductor at rest, there arises in the neighbourhood of the magnet an electric field with a certain definite energy, producing a current at the places where parts of the conductor are situated. But if the magnet is stationary and the conductor in motion, no electric field arises in the neighbourhood of the magnet. In the conductor, however, we find an electromotive force, to which in itself there is no corresponding energy, but which gives rise—assuming equality of relative motion in the two cases discussed—to electric currents of the same path and intensity as those produced by the electric forces in the former case.”

    That’s right. In Maxwell’s scheme, as I understand it, a magnet rotating within a coil of wire produces electric current therein by disturbing the stationary ether; but if the same coil is rotated around the same magnet at the same speed, the same current is produced — for a different reason. This is the “asymmetry” to which Einstein is referring. (Whether or not I have the explanation right, the substance of my remark is right: Maxwell proceeded from the assumption of a stationary ether and thus had to formulate one explanation in the case of the “moving” magnet and another in the case of the “moving” coil.) If the coil and the magnet are the only two objects in the universe and are rotating relative to each other to produce the current, the universe somehow knows which one of them is “really” moving and which one of them is standing still. That’s like saying that, if a man is floating in outer space, zillions of miles from anything, the universe somehow knows whether or not he’s upside down.

    Einstein is being gracious when he says that that asymmetry is “known.” He was the only person on Earth who was bothered by it. Everybody else was just making money building dynamos or trying to resolve difficulties via hypotheses like “local time.” He was the only one who saw that something simply had to be wrong there; and in doggedly hunting down what was wrong, he revamped the Newtonian scheme.

  191. March 26, 2012 - 2:21 am | Permalink

    John, I wrote a book explaining the physics of this. If you don’t want to buy the book, you can read much of it on my blog for free.

    The most relevant Wikipedia article is Relativity priority dispute. It reflects the majority view and credits Einstein, but it is a very useful resource.

    I am not sure about the point of your other comments. Yes, Max Planck was the journal editor who accepted Einstein’s relativity paper, and the paper does mention Lorentz’s electrodynamics both implicitly and explicitly. Lorentz had already gotten a Nobel Prize for his electrodynamics, and it was well-known. I guess you are suggesting that Planck like Einstein’s terminology for time better than Lorentz’s. But Planck never said that. No one but an Einstein idolizer would say anything so silly.

  192. John Bonaccorsi, Philadelphia's Gravatar John Bonaccorsi, Philadelphia
    March 26, 2012 - 12:40 am | Permalink

    To Roger, @ March 25, 11:34 PM:

    You are correct that there is no physics in my posts; I haven’t detected any in any of yours either. As I said at the outset, I have only a layman’s understanding of this; you don’t seem to me to have anything more.

    You might want to read Wikipedia’s article about the “Lorentz ether theory.” I can’t vouch for the validity of that article; but it does suggest that, in all their conceptualizing, Lorentz and Poincare were holding to — or, at least, not clearly breaking from — the idea of a “real” cosmic-coordinate system, in which light was propagated in a stationary ether.

    I refer you again to Einstein’s original relativity paper (“On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies,” 1905 ). I refer you, specifically, to Part II, Section 5, which comes at a point after Einstein has modified Galileo’s formula for the addition of velocities. (He should have received the Nobel Prize just for that.) An exposition that I am unable to follow concludes with the following:

    “[W]e [thus] have the proof that, on the basis of our kinematical principles, the electrodynamic foundation of Lorentz’s theory of the electrodynamics of moving bodies is in agreement with the principle of relativity.”

    Do you notice that? Albert Einstein mentioned Lorentz’s findings in the very first relativity paper. I guess there are two possibilities. The first is that Einstein was an extremely incompetent plagiarist, who named the person from whom he was stealing. The other is that he was reconceiving mechanics in a way that harmonized Newton, Maxwell, Lorentz, and Fitgerald and that cut through the fog Poincare was struggling to pierce.

    Do you know who first brought attention to that 1905 article? It was Max Planck. I guess he was just like me: he didn’t realize that all that Einstein did was change some terminology. Poor old Max, idiot that he was, failed to notice, too, that Lorentz’s terminology was better, as you have pointed out.

    I guess Planck also didn’t notice that Lorentz had realized that the principle of relativity, when coupled with the constancy of light and the principle of the conservation of mass, yields the equivalence of mass and energy. Oh, wait — Lorentz didn’t realize that, did he? That was Einstein. I guess the reason Sir Arthur Eddington went all the way to Africa to photograph the May 1919 solar eclipse was that he also was so goddamn stupid that he didn’t realize Einstein’s recognition of the equivalence of acceleration and gravitation was nothing significant either.

  193. Vlad Writes's Gravatar Vlad Writes
    March 26, 2012 - 12:36 am | Permalink

    @Mickey Meadows: I thought the article said he failed at his grand attempt to unify everything.
    “Schlafly reminds us that Einstein spent most of his scientific life working on a “grand unified theory” of physics that never came to fruition, and says that many of today’s physicists are similarly afflicted with an Einstein-like ambition to create a “paradigm shift” that would catapult them into scientific stardom. ”
    For jews to admit Einstein was a fraud would cause their entire worldview to fail. I’m surprised they don’t send out their over hyped Mossad agents to assassinate anyone who suggests we shouldn’t sit around kissing the arse of Einsteins reputation.
    White people buy into judaic lies out of guilt, somehow embracing jewish victim hood as their own burden when white men foolishly died fighting the Germans to free the jews, and the ungrateful bahstads don’t ever thank us.

  194. Bobby's Gravatar Bobby
    March 26, 2012 - 12:27 am | Permalink

    @Harumphty Dumpty: It is messy. It appears that the doyen of American physics now is Michio Kaku, or at least the #1 popularizer of the subject, which can’t please Roger S. much since Kaku is a string theorist.

  195. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    March 26, 2012 - 12:17 am | Permalink

    @Trenchant: “tableau”. D’Oh!

  196. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    March 26, 2012 - 12:15 am | Permalink

    @Rerevisionist: Dabbling in Holocaust controversies can be prejudicial to travel in so many jurisdictions it’s hard to blame MacDonald. I think Tom Sunic uses the expedient of insufficient knowledge to avoid discussing it, which I think is fair enough. After all, it is a complex tableaux.

  197. March 26, 2012 - 12:11 am | Permalink

    This thread has made me nostalgic for the days I thought about math instead of about messy, ill-defined humans. I was only a teacher/tutor, but there’s never been anything I enjoyed thinking about nearly as much as math and how to teach it. The thing that makes me feel the warmest about the White race is that it’s been, with few exceptions, the developer of mathematics. Certainly the most beautiful creation of the human mind to date.

    Physics now, has it’s charms, but it’s terribly messy stuff!

  198. Bobby's Gravatar Bobby
    March 25, 2012 - 11:59 pm | Permalink

    @Roger: Roger I didn’t realize that. It sure seems a departure from Newton describing his life as a child at the seashore and amusing himself by finding a smoother ,………….while the ocean of truth lay before me.etc. He seemed to have a certain degree of stark objectivity about himself, that immodest people don’t seem to possess, but nevertheless, I will take your word on it.

  199. March 25, 2012 - 11:34 pm | Permalink

    Bobby, Newton was not modest. The context for that quote was that he was trying to cheat Hooke out of credit for work on gravitation, and making fun of Hooke for being short. And yes, Einstein was not modest either.

    John, my opinion is that Lorentz’s terminology was better than Einstein’s. Saying “local time” does not imply a cosmic clock, and Lorentz never said that it did. But I guess you disagree. Let’s say that you are right, and Einstein had some better terms. Is that what made him a great genius? You have posted on this several times, and there is no physics in any of your comments. You are saying that he was the greatest physicist who ever lived because he copied the formulas and ideas in Lorentz’s 10-year-old paper and removed the word “local” from “local time”. Is that right?

  200. Henry's Gravatar Henry
    March 25, 2012 - 10:42 pm | Permalink


    Lol…his “modesty” must have related to his decision never to wear socks!

  201. GREZCM's Gravatar GREZCM
    March 25, 2012 - 10:32 pm | Permalink

    @Marcy Fleming:
    wrote on March 25, 2012 – 9:41 pm and earlier
    re: Henry’s recommendation of March 25, 2012 – 2:12 pm of Christopher Jon Bjerknes’ opus “The Manufacture and Sell of Saint Einstein”.
    Downloading the monumental book of almost 3000(!) pages “Saint Einstein” (~17Mbs) took me 1-2 minutes, without pain (I live in the Internet-wise backward country).
    Strangely, while downloading, you had opportunity to read other contents of the site and formulate conclusions.

    Question is: do you reside in a Mongolia, or you simply attempt to discourage others from downloading the text, meanwhile slandering the author?

    I have spent 5+ hours on leafing through the book (Saint Einstein, and I find it to be impressive work, the more so, if it had been, indeed, written by one person.

  202. John Bonaccorsi, Philadelphia's Gravatar John Bonaccorsi, Philadelphia
    March 25, 2012 - 10:21 pm | Permalink

    To Roger, @ March 25, 9:35 PM:

    Lorentz’s very use of the term “local time” reveals that he was still thinking in conventional terms, i.e., he was assuming that there was some sort of “real time,” some sort of cosmic clock, some sort of universal frame of reference, with whose time, “local time” could be compared. Einstein recognized that all time is local time. As I’ve said, Lorentz himself acknowledged this.

  203. Bobby's Gravatar Bobby
    March 25, 2012 - 10:01 pm | Permalink

    All of this talk about Einstein, suddenly brought my high school geometry book out of my memory. Every chapter had a little story describing some mathematcians personality or some aspect of his work. I remember nothing about the comments on Einstein, except that there was a picture of him standing at a blackboard doing some problem, and the first sentence about him was, a story of a “modest” man. The word “modest”, was burned into my memory because it impressed me at the time. Reading about Dr. Einstein later, disabused me of that characterization. If anything he was NOT a modest man.

  204. Bobby's Gravatar Bobby
    March 25, 2012 - 9:41 pm | Permalink

    @fender: Agreed. What I have noticed about many people who comment on Einstein in a negative way, is, that he never gave any credit, or very little to others that he built upon. Sir Isaac Newton, probably the greatest of them all said something like, If I have seen further, it’s because I have stood on the shoulders of giants. Mindboggling modesty, considering what he acheived.

  205. Marcy Fleming's Gravatar Marcy Fleming
    March 25, 2012 - 9:41 pm | Permalink

    Not A Jonkey, I was criticizing Bjerknes’s views on Rand, that’s not an ad hominem attack focusing on him personally but on his views.
    I would have to begin at least reading his 2825 page work to see if it makes any more sense than his piece on Rand did.
    Right now I have no reason at all to think he’s proven Einstein fraudulent.
    Questioning Einstein by the conservative writer Tom Bethel might be a better bet. I was just looking at it.
    I agree with you that way too many Jews are too quick to play the anti-Semitism card. It’s wrong.
    But there are real anti-Semites or anti-Jews out there too.
    It’s not either/or by any means.
    Appreciate your feedback.

  206. March 25, 2012 - 9:35 pm | Permalink

    John, you nicely illustrate Einstein idol worship. With most great scientists, it is easy to say what they did that was original. In Einstein’s case, you say he is great, but there is nothing of substance that you can point to. You commend him on his terminology, but then deny that his genius was just terminology. Following the above analogy with Freud, Freudians say similar things. They rave about what a great genius he was. But when they are quizzed for details, they only give vague generalities and insubstantial claims about terminology.

    Fender, Einstein did no significant work as a mathematician. If he synthesized ideas, what were they? It would be original if he combined ideas that no one else thought to combine. Sometimes his 1905 paper is said to be a combination of Lorentz’s transformations with Poincare’s simultaneity. Is that what made him a genius?

  207. fender's Gravatar fender
    March 25, 2012 - 8:45 pm | Permalink

    I don’t buy a lot of this. Einstein’s personality and political opinions may have been typical of his tribe, and he may have been helped by the standard Jewish networking, but they don’t invalidate his work as a mathematician. Did he take ideas from others? Of course– part of being a great person is knowing the accomplishments of others and building off them. But greatness isn’t just found in originality, it’s found in the synthesis of ideas, which is what Einstein’s work is.

  208. John Bonaccorsi, Philadelphia's Gravatar John Bonaccorsi, Philadelphia
    March 25, 2012 - 8:40 pm | Permalink

    To Roger, @ March 25, 8:28 PM:

    Einstein and Lorentz didn’t merely use slightly different terminology.

  209. John Bonaccorsi, Philadelphia's Gravatar John Bonaccorsi, Philadelphia
    March 25, 2012 - 8:36 pm | Permalink

    To Poggo, @ March 25, 7:28 PM:

    That article you linked doesn’t have anything to do with the question that’s being discussed here. Should physical theory end up requiring some sort of adjustment because the speed of light will have been found to have differed throughout the universe’s history, so, what? For two centuries, while efforts were being made to determine the speed of light, the idea that such a speed existed was assumed. That means, in effect, that it was assumed to be a constant. Whether that’s true or not, doesn’t bear on the question whether Einstein was the only one who recognized the implications of the assumption.

  210. March 25, 2012 - 8:28 pm | Permalink

    John, Lorentz and Einstein did use slightly different terminology. Lorentz used “local time” in 1895. Einstein’s 1905 term was “time of the stationary system”. Einstein’s 1905 time used the same definitions and formulas as had been previously used by Lorentz and Poincare. Einstein did not understand that time was the fourth dimension and that time can be understood to have a geometrical relationship to the three spatial dimensions. That is one of the chief lessons of special relativity, and Einstein missed it entirely.

  211. March 25, 2012 - 7:58 pm | Permalink

    I want to apologize for my comment above. Not because of what I wrote, but because it was already written in the piece above — the part about Time magazine naming Einstein as “Person of the Century”.

    I remembered that myself (without reading it in the article) and after I saw Harumphty Dumpty’s comment, I thought I’d share my memory (of Einstein being given that honor by Time magazine.)

    The reason I didn’t finish reading the article is because much of it was over my head. I don’t have any kind of advanced education in math or physics, etc.

    Have a good week, everyone.

  212. Joe Pakutka's Gravatar Joe Pakutka
    March 25, 2012 - 7:57 pm | Permalink

    I’d like to suggest an article in the January 2012 issue of
    Culture Wars. It’s titled “Darwin,Newton, and Einstein: At
    the end of thier rope”.

  213. poggo's Gravatar poggo
    March 25, 2012 - 7:28 pm | Permalink
  214. John Bonaccorsi, Philadelphia's Gravatar John Bonaccorsi, Philadelphia
    March 25, 2012 - 7:17 pm | Permalink

    To Not a jonkey, @ March 25, 6:11:

    What’s that supposed to mean — “So clever”? You ask a stupid question, what kind of answer do you expect?

  215. John Bonaccorsi, Philadelphia's Gravatar John Bonaccorsi, Philadelphia
    March 25, 2012 - 7:12 pm | Permalink

    To Bob Smith, @ March 25, 7:00 PM:

    Are you suggesting that the calculations employed in the GPS system don’t involve correction for the relativistic effects of the orbits of the GPS satellites? If so, I think you’re mistaken.

  216. John Bonaccorsi, Philadelphia's Gravatar John Bonaccorsi, Philadelphia
    March 25, 2012 - 7:07 pm | Permalink

    To Free Thinker, @ March 25, 6:08:

    You have just said nothing. The statement you have characterized as a hustle is arguably the single most important sentence in the history of physics.

    To Roger @ March 25, 6:18 PM:

    I don’t have anything backwards, certainly not whether Lorentz understood anything better than Einstein did. I won’t struggle to see whether it’s somewhere on the internet, but there is a Lorentz statement to the effect that while he (Lorentz) was attempting to make sense of his experimental results with the concept of “local time,” Einstein understood that these and other results were a reflections of the very nature of time. I didn’t say Fitzgerald’s contraction theory had anything to do with “mass”; I said it had to do with bodies with mass (as opposed to light, that is).

  217. Bob Smith's Gravatar Bob Smith
    March 25, 2012 - 7:00 pm | Permalink

    @John Bonaccorsi, Philadelphia
    Oops, stand corrected. I read your comment quickly and saw the word ‘insane’ instead of “inane”. That aside, you ignore the main points of the article-Einstein was a creative borrower whose reputation is largely the creation of Jewish propaganda. Physics forums are littered with dilettantes who regard the man at the greatest thing since chocolate cake. Clocks, frame of reference and a link to SR? Thanks for that! Very basic stuff. If you wish to impress, provide a link to a forum where you can apply relativity to any time corrections for satellites in different orbits. You can ask me to explain the terms I used previously and provide the url where I predict the superluminal neutrino thingy. I’ll check back tomorrow.
    Here it would be better to deal with points the author made.

  218. Bear's Gravatar Bear
    March 25, 2012 - 6:52 pm | Permalink

    @Mickey Meadows:
    Things can come across a little too overly focused on the Jewish attack on White problem we have on the discusions on this “Occidental” forum, but that is because this forum is one of the few places where this can be discussed intelligently. If you look at the huge volumes of anti White dreck comming out of jews inhabiting the commanding heights of media it is not suprising that we vent a little here.

    We should certainly discuss outside the jewish effect (as we do) as excessive focus will narrow down our analysis and tactics far too much but its dam hard to notice who many of those who are undermining and overtly depracating the non existant White race are.

  219. Not a Jonkey's Gravatar Not a Jonkey
    March 25, 2012 - 6:47 pm | Permalink

    @Marcy Fleming: Mary ,Mary their you go again playing the man not the ball . Hating the flower arrangement because of the person that picked them .
    In the bigots mind all sorts of things get distorted . Jewish obsession with anti-Semitism is destroying the whole world to get self interest to fit truth or even any sort of ethical reality .
    Have a glass of clean water dear .
    Lets agree on this fact : anyone who writes a 2885 page book on Einsteins fraudulent life has a very real problem .

  220. Bear's Gravatar Bear
    March 25, 2012 - 6:29 pm | Permalink

    I have the same professional background as Schlafy thougn by no means as accomplished. By just brushing on the more elegant work of Maxwell, Fitzgerald, Lorentz, Planck one can easily see how Einstein simply fused the hard earned fruits of these men into an uncredited paper.

    The Einstein phenomena is paradigmatic of how an otherwise mediocrity within this field whose contributions had been concurrently duplicated and exceeded by others can be turned into an icon whose boosted image was used to enhance Jewish ethnic interests.

    It’s worth noting the Paul Hilbert / Albert Einstein priority dispute in which it seems Einstein was able to manipulate the peer review process in order to publish his paper before the gentile mathematician Paul Hilbert.
    Hilberts original paper seems to have been mutilated ti excise a critical equation to try and hide hide Hilberts prior assembly of relativity.

    This is reminiscent of the probable case of Boasian anthropologist Ashely Montague (real name Ehrenberg) in which it was found that after he gained access to the deceased data of Sir Cyrill Burts work in Hereditary and intelligence that some of the data had disappeared after his visit.

    Relativity is also of dubious practical value.
    “Einstein…was deeply disturbed by the work of Werner Heisenberg in Copenhagen, Paul Dirac in Cambridge and Erwin Schrödinger in Zurich, who developed a new picture of reality called quantum mechanics. … Einstein was horrified by this … Most scientists, however, accepted
    the validity of the new quantum laws because they showed excellent agreement with observations … They are the basis of modern developments in chemistry, molecular biology and electronics and the foundation of the technology that has transformed the world in the past half-century.”

    The transistor was developed by Schokley, as man who would be at home with us at Occidental Quaterly and almost simultaneous by two Germans Herbert Mataré and Heinrich Welker.

    Here is an evil and disgusting quote by Einstein.

    “The nation has been on the decline mentally and morally since 1870…Behind the Nazi party stands the German people, who elected Hitler after he had in his book and in his speeches made his shameful intentions clear beyond the possibility of misunderstanding. … The
    Germans can be killed or constrained after the war, but they cannot be re-educated to a democratic way of thinking and acting…”

    Its worth noting that 1870 marked the unification of Germany which became possible after the defeat of France in the Franco Prussian war. Jews have it in for Bismark despite the fact there was no Dreyfuss case in Germany nor any supposed Pogroms as under the Tsar and that Bismarck kept Jewish friends.

    This is a bit of a seque but consider the care of the biography “Bismarck: A Life by Jonathan Steinberg” which achieved exceptional sales due to an incredibly favourable but incongruent literary review by Henry Kissinger. It is a cumbersome boring work by a Holocaust researcher turned biographer that basically turns Bismarck into a lineal ancestor of Hitler and restores old myths. It essentially is an oblique disparagement of Bismarck, Germans and Whites in General, yet the dam thing is on the best seller list despite being a cumbersome read.

    Thanks to Kissinger.

    Albert Einstein: The Incorrigible Plagiarist (ISBN0971962987) is also worth a look.

  221. Free Thinker's Gravatar Free Thinker
    March 25, 2012 - 6:24 pm | Permalink

    @Free Thinker: And perhaps its worth considering that this sort of speculation with out experimental evidence is as meaning full as alchemists investigations of god .
    Is this not what this book ” How Eienstein Ruined Physics ” is pointing out .
    The Political West is also suffering from this Jewish obsession with theories , that avoid a one giant fact . Remove that factual obstacle by ignoring it and its easy to to then justify twisting people into any construction.
    It can be darned frightening to hear psychologist with their latest theories about child rearing and prejudice development . Mad science .

    Imagine a state where democracy was corrupted and degraded and technocrats started making decision via ‘the web’.

  222. March 25, 2012 - 6:22 pm | Permalink


    Do you know who owns Time?

    I want to clarify that I wasn’t trying to say that Einstein deserved to be Time magazine’s Person of the Century.

    (I don’t know enough about Einstein or his actual contribution to science/mankind to give an opinion on whether he deserved that honor from Time magazine.)

    I was providing some possible supporting evidence for Harumphty Dumpty’s assertion:

    What strikes me is the popular worship of Einstein almost as a god, in contrast to the total ignorance about other great contributors to science!

  223. Marcy Fleming's Gravatar Marcy Fleming
    March 25, 2012 - 6:20 pm | Permalink

    Christopher Jon Bjerknes is a flaming anti-Semite. Just looked up his Jewish Racism site while I’m downloading his massive tome.
    He had a 2008 hit piece on Ron Paul, Ayn Rand and the Jews.
    In it he criticizes Rand for opposing statist civil rights legislation in private property, public accomodations, fair employment and fair housing. Rand favored only government outlawing government discrimination and the very stupid Bjerknes thinks Rand is advising Blacks to act against their own interests ! He then goes on to have the usual stupid Communist arguments for altruism and against selfishness.
    I need a bath after reading this bilge.
    If this is any indication of what his work on Einstein is like then John B from Philly has the best of the argument here.
    But I will reserve judgment till I get to read what I can of the 2825 page opus.
    The David Harriman book, The Logical Leap, is a great look at the serious philosophical problems in contemporary physics.

  224. March 25, 2012 - 6:18 pm | Permalink

    John, you have it backwards about who understood relativity. Lorentz understood those experiments much better than Einstein ever did, and 10 years earlier. FitzGerald’s argument had nothing to do with mass. Poincare understood the hard part of special relativity, namely the spacetime geometry and electromagnetic covariance. Einstein did not understand these core concepts until several years after many other physicists learned them from Poincare. I don’t know how Einstein could be the “greatest physicist that ever lived” when he did not even understand relativity as it had been published.

  225. TabuLa Raza's Gravatar TabuLa Raza
    March 25, 2012 - 6:16 pm | Permalink

    Einstein’s relatives.

  226. 90404's Gravatar 90404
    March 25, 2012 - 6:12 pm | Permalink

    Do you know who owns Time?

  227. Not a Jonkey's Gravatar Not a Jonkey
    March 25, 2012 - 6:11 pm | Permalink
  228. Free Thinker's Gravatar Free Thinker
    March 25, 2012 - 6:08 pm | Permalink

    @John Bonaccorsi, Philadelphia:
    This is in itself the standard type of sales hustle that any none physicist can see through :
    If, for instance, I say, “That train arrives here at 7 o’clock,” I mean something like this: “The pointing of the small hand of my watch to 7 and the arrival of the train are simultaneous events.”

    If I said that the earth was turning around the sun and in a year’s time it is back at the same point , then you understand the hustle . Modern art is the same . Wow the masses with something that looks cool but has little merit on better examination .

  229. John Bonaccorsi, Philadelphia's Gravatar John Bonaccorsi, Philadelphia
    March 25, 2012 - 5:52 pm | Permalink

    To Not a jonkey, @ March 25, 5:31 PM:

    If the choices are (1) “greatest physicist that ever lived” and (2) “famous only because of tribal boasting,” I’ll go with 1.

  230. tadzio's Gravatar tadzio
    March 25, 2012 - 5:48 pm | Permalink

    For an insight into the crass boosterism surrounding Einstein’s celebrity read Walter Isaacson’s How Einstein Divided America’s Jews in the Dec., 2009 Atlantic. It covers a visit to New York just after the Nobel Prize was snagged. The grasping for money is nauseating. The parades. The hucksterism. It was pretty much on Hollywood’s scale today. The best part has Louis Brandeis opining on the dangers of who to deal with in New York City, “The Easterners – like the Russian Jews in this country – don’t know what honesty is & we simply won’t entrust our money to them.” So much for the idea that they only steal from the goyim. The Justice thought differently.

  231. Not a Jonkey's Gravatar Not a Jonkey
    March 25, 2012 - 5:47 pm | Permalink

    @Roger: Thanks Roger . Clear as crystal . Perhaps another way of looking at Jewish bias is as the ‘refractive index’ of the hyperethnocentric vision . Jews are always qualifying who is a Jew and who isn’t .Always looking to boost their own ego .Mostly aways willing to promote any idea that has beneficial political implication for Jews .

  232. Farnham O'Reilly's Gravatar Farnham O'Reilly
    March 25, 2012 - 5:39 pm | Permalink

    @Someday: “Read what physics professor William L. Pierce wrote in his novel ‘Hunter’ about Einstein.”

    Yes, I’ve known a few physicists, and while they have all been strong on their various opinions, they are curiously (yet typical to scientists in general) open-minded on the merits of fellow colleagues. Dr. Pierce was this way; he was willing to credit Einstein where credit was deserved, but he was also quick to point out what Einstein was not deserving of credit for, as this article so well illustrates.

  233. Not a Jonkey's Gravatar Not a Jonkey
    March 25, 2012 - 5:31 pm | Permalink

    @John Bonaccorsi, P{hiladelphia: So you think he was the greatest physicist that ever lived ? OR is his fame really tribal boasting .

  234. Marcy Fleming's Gravatar Marcy Fleming
    March 25, 2012 - 5:30 pm | Permalink

    Henry, thanks for the ref to the massive 2825 page book, downloading it now to save in a file.
    It would use up my printer for many years if I tried to print it.
    Right now I’m largely an agnostic on this debate, a philosophy major with much study in philosophy of science, particularly physics but no expert.

  235. Jarvis Dingle-Daden's Gravatar Jarvis Dingle-Daden
    March 25, 2012 - 4:55 pm | Permalink

    The fact of the matter is that Trotsky had been passed around more times than a joint @ the original Woodstock.
    Since the early 1900-s and for over two decades on he intermittently operated on the orders coming from the City of London, along with certain Wall Street-based Judaic cash management virtuosos. Regardless of sourcing, the chief goal was always to implode Russia from within.
    For that reason attributing Trotsky’s notorious hallucinations as regards ‘permanent revolution’, ‘perpetual class struggle’ and so forth to him exclusively may tell only half of the story. As his kosher controllers were clearly handing him down a script.
    Why and how that raving murderous lunatic earned in the non-Jew circles the designation of an ‘intellectual’ mystifies me.

  236. Rob's Gravatar Rob
    March 25, 2012 - 4:46 pm | Permalink

    Here are a couple of Einstein links I’ve had laying around for a few years:

    Albert Einstein: Prophet or Plagiarist?

    A letter about Einstein someone wrote to a University student:

  237. Bobby's Gravatar Bobby
    March 25, 2012 - 4:37 pm | Permalink

    @Hedgerow: @Hmmm: But what if we were created by a superior race. wouldn’t that qualify as creationism? It wouldn’t shake my faith in an all powerfull God.

  238. Bobby's Gravatar Bobby
    March 25, 2012 - 4:28 pm | Permalink

    Final point for consideration. The great physicist, Max Born, (Olivia Newton Johns’ grandfather) considered himself a disciple of Einsteins, great as Born himself was. He won the noble prize in physics in 1954.

  239. Bobby's Gravatar Bobby
    March 25, 2012 - 4:19 pm | Permalink

    By the way, the great German mathematician David Hilbert, proved one of Einsteins speculations using pure math, before it was proved by observation. Hilbert was Einsteins superior in math as were many of the people mentioned in the article, including Henry Poincare.

  240. Bobby's Gravatar Bobby
    March 25, 2012 - 4:15 pm | Permalink

    P.S. my above post was written with the point that because of the dumbed down American educational system in grade school and higher, most of us couldn’t comprehend the writers critique of Einstein, where the finer points are concerned.

  241. Bobby's Gravatar Bobby
    March 25, 2012 - 4:12 pm | Permalink

    Let’s be honest. The American school system has been so utterly dumbed down in the past 60 years, at least, that we have had a couple of generations of Americans totally clueless about science and math. When that little satellite Sputnik crossed the U.S. every few hours with its irritating little beep we realized that the dumb Russians weren’t so very dumb. So a huge program to educate American kids in math and science was begun. Unfortunately, the “new math”, that was taught so that kids could see the “skeleton” of mathematics, screwed us up further. Millions of kids gave up on even trying to get it. It turned out the traditional way of rote memorizing and trying to understand by doing, was the right way afterall. Theorizing as the article says, if fine to a point, but a person needs to get down and dirty, and practice practical problems to achieve real understanding. It’s true, there’s no royal road to knowledge. Peace.

  242. Franklin Ryckaert's Gravatar Franklin Ryckaert
    March 25, 2012 - 3:41 pm | Permalink

    Well Someday (Somestein?), since few of us are willing to take the trouble to read Hunter, tell us in a few words what Pierce did write about Einstein.

  243. John Bonaccorsi, Philadelphia's Gravatar John Bonaccorsi, Philadelphia
    March 25, 2012 - 3:27 pm | Permalink

    To Bob Smith, @ March 25, 2:48 PM:

    In the first place, I said “inane,” not “crazy.” Inane is much more dangerous.

    In the second place, you’re just throwing out a lot of terminology that obviously doesn’t mean anything to you at all. Poincare was struggling to understand what the simple fact that observation is dependent on the traveling of light said about simultaneity; Lorentz was struggling with experimental results that indicated that measurement of electron flow could be brought into harmony with the Newtonian scheme only if an adjustment could be made, for what he dubbed an electron’s “local time.” Fitzgerald attempted to explain the constancy of the speed of light by suggesting that bodies with mass are compressed as they move against the ether and that measurement of their speed — i.e., of the distance they travel over time — is thus affected so as to render the measured speed of light a constant.

    All three of these men were struggling with the same problem — a problem they were approaching from different ways — but Einstein solved it, by recognizing that time is inseparable, conceptually, from simultaneity. (From Part I, paragraph 1 of “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies,” the original “relativity” paper, 1905: We have to take into account that all our judgments in which time plays a part are always judgments of simultaneous events. If, for instance, I say, “That train arrives here at 7 o’clock,” I mean something like this: “The pointing of the small hand of my watch to 7 and the arrival of the train are simultaneous events.” See )

    And no, I won’t be commenting at any physics forums. I am unlike you in that I know when I’m in over my head.

  244. Tom's Gravatar Tom
    March 25, 2012 - 2:53 pm | Permalink

    The Jews are great popularizers of science, because they are natural salesmen & exaggerators. If it wasn’t physics it would be home improvements, or some such advocacy. The semitic exaggeration has become confused in the popular mind as actual science itself.

  245. Someday's Gravatar Someday
    March 25, 2012 - 2:51 pm | Permalink

    Read what physics professor William L. Pierce wrote in his novel ‘Hunter’ about Einstein.

  246. Bob Smith's Gravatar Bob Smith
    March 25, 2012 - 2:48 pm | Permalink

    @John Bonaccorsi, P{hiladelphia
    Your post starts with a common ridicule (crazy) and contains a nonsense statement that Poincare and Lorentz suffered a conceptual impediment regarding acceleration of mass along a curve of infinite parabola, mass at rest or constant velocity and centripetal force. It is Fitzgerald, Lorentz, Poincare (largely ignored as the article correctly states) who laid the groundwork of relativistic physics. Regarding time as a transformational dimension preceded Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity, which was written without attribution to the Lorentz-Fitzgerald Transformation.
    In fact, the jury is still out with regard to proof of relativity; it has failed every attempt at proof. From atomic clocks placed on jets travelling in opposite directions, the Michelson-Morley experiments to the gravitational lensing of star clusters.
    Whenever anyone attempts to reevaluate Einstein, they can expect a lot of nipping at their heels. When reports about supraliminal neutrinos at CERN made the news I posted on another site that the results would be disproven and that Einstein would be declared vindicated and all would be right with the world. We knew the outcome in advance.
    There are physics forums where you can offer a more capable response to the article, assuming that’s possible.

  247. March 25, 2012 - 2:40 pm | Permalink

    @Harumphty Dumpty:

    What strikes me is the popular worship of Einstein almost as a god, in contrast to the total ignorance about other great contributors to science!

    In the year 2000, Einstein was named Time magazine’s Person of the Century.

    I know very little about him or his work.

  248. March 25, 2012 - 2:26 pm | Permalink

    Lorentz gave Einstein full credit for special relativity, but apparently Poincaré never commented on the issue, which at least arouses interest.

    What strikes me is the popular worship of Einstein almost as a god, in contrast to the total ignorance about other great contributors to science!

    But of course special relativity and quantum mechanics were singular in that they were the first breaks in the long development of physics as a science that made common sense. After their advent, Einstein could say as he famously did that common sense was that layer of prejudice laid down in the human mind before age 18.

    The ease with which the strange but “understandable” results of special relativity lend themselves to popular illustration as compared to the results of quantum mechanics can account in part for the popular focus on the hero of relativity (though Einstein also made begrudging contributions to quantum mechanics while never agreeing with the idea of it, and I believe his Nobel for his paper on the photoelectric effect was also a result involving quantum mechanics), but certainly the Jewish publicity machine also deserves the usual credit due it but rarely given it.

    At the Solvay Conference there was a legendary dialogue between Einstein and the towering scientific figure Neils Bohr (who I believe was part Jewish)…every morning (I may have evening and morning reversed) Einstein would present to Bohr some objection to quantum mechanics, and every evening Bohr would answer it and so on throughout the conference.

    In an autobiography by a very prominent mid-20th century physicist whose name I forget, the author discusses his acquaintance with Richard Feynman, and how Feynman’s genius was so great and so seemingly other-worldly in its nature that he actually did injury to the self-esteem of other great physicists of his time! Feynman was Jewish and wrote some very readable accounts of his life, “Surely you jest, Mr. Feynman” being one.

    Most of us know almost nothing of the world of science and physics, and even less of the world of mathematics. I have only a slight acquaintance with those two worlds, but enough to have learned that in the last century Jews were extremely prominent in both physics and mathematics. I know slightly more of the world of math, and it’s incomprehensible to me that anyone could achieve distinction in math without the distinction being deserved.

    Since we are apparently involved in an implacable Darwinian struggle with Jews, their remarkable intelligence is the scariest thing about them IMO.

  249. Henry's Gravatar Henry
    March 25, 2012 - 2:12 pm | Permalink

    In 2006 Christopher Jon Bjerknes published a massive 2825 page book on this very subject which can be downloaded for free:

    2,825 page treatise on Einstein’s plagiarism, Einstein’s Zionism, history of Zionism, racism, Judaism, and more. The complete book The Manufacture and Sale of Saint Einstein in one 17 Mb. PDF file can be downloaded by clicking on this link:

    Speaking of Christopher Bjerknes: does anyone know what’s happened to him as he’s been offline for almost a year now?

  250. tadzio's Gravatar tadzio
    March 25, 2012 - 2:01 pm | Permalink

    Einstein was an anti-nationalist and a zionist. One must suppose he had a grand unifying explanation for that contradiction. He was a devote Stalinist and was smart enough to live in the most capitalistic country in the world – America which he thought it alright to betray as his support of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg demonstrates. He was networking hypocrite who could live without a grand unifying anything.

  251. March 25, 2012 - 1:39 pm | Permalink

    John, before Einstein wrote anything about relativity, Poincare <a href=""wrote: “Let us pass to the principle of relativity … The most ingenious idea was that of local time. … From all these results, if they were confirmed, would arise an entirely new mechanics, which would be, above all, characterized by this fact, that no velocity could surpass that of light.” The constant speed of light, and the implications for time and relativity were understood before Einstein and he added very little.

  252. Hedgerow's Gravatar Hedgerow
    March 25, 2012 - 1:15 pm | Permalink


    My understanding is that the practice of awarding so many Nobel Prizes to Jews began after Nazism and the Second World War in an apparent effort to convince people that Jews were a net positive.

  253. Marcy Fleming's Gravatar Marcy Fleming
    March 25, 2012 - 1:05 pm | Permalink

    My question above is addressed to the moderator because my response to another reader is still awaiting moderation.
    I didn’t mean to imply that I was asking anyone’s approval of my comment still waiting to be published.

  254. Marcy Fleming's Gravatar Marcy Fleming
    March 25, 2012 - 1:02 pm | Permalink

    anything wrong with my comment above ?

  255. Otis Talbot's Gravatar Otis Talbot
    March 25, 2012 - 12:51 pm | Permalink

    I think it’s fair to point out the cult of personality phenomenon that tends to drive Jewish intellectuals. It’s also fair to point out that Freud and Boas and other Jewish intellectuals completely ignored the scientific method, and yet their schools of thought influenced millions of people for decades. The chutzpah theory is correct; baffle them with bullshit, grab credit, self promote.
    Obvious chutzpah is Hmmm coming onto this site to whine that we are critical of Jewish influence! Give that man a big DUH! Read “The Culture Of Critique” and learn how Jewish intellectuals have used diabolical means to degrade and demean and usurp gentiles and their cultures.

  256. John Bonaccorsi, P{hiladelphia's Gravatar John Bonaccorsi, P{hiladelphia
    March 25, 2012 - 12:34 pm | Permalink

    With my layman’s knowledge of the science, I will presume to say that this essay is inane, as is Mr. Schlafly’s book, if the essay represents it fairly. Einstein solved at a stroke the problems with which Poincare and Lorentz were grappling; he eradicated the barrier between Newton’s mechanics and the emerging understanding of electromagnetic phenomena; he dissolved the troulbing Newtonian divide between constant velocity and acceleration, a divide that had forced the creation of the unhelpful concept of centrifugal force. All of this resulted from his reflection on a simple fact that had lain unexamined for two centuries, i.e., that the speed of light is a constant. Only he, in reflecting on this, realized what it said about time, about the very notion of time, and about observation itself. He himself was startled to realize what it implied about energy and mass; and when he completed the edifice by recognizing what his understanding of acceleration said about gravity, he made himself immortal.

    I am not Jewish.

  257. March 25, 2012 - 12:29 pm | Permalink

    @Hmmm: The problem with critics of creationism is that they have no answer to where it all started. Big Bang? Whence came the material for the explosion? All creatures starting from a lightning strike in some sort of ooze? Whence came the ooze? Whence came plants? The evolution of species runs counter to the laws of physics. Things deteriorate, not advance.

  258. Bob Smith's Gravatar Bob Smith
    March 25, 2012 - 12:15 pm | Permalink

    “As for the cultivation of Einstein’s supreme reputation, Schlafly implicitly raises the question ‘Why?” without attempting to answer it.”
    It serves as a firewall against suspicions that much of the success of individual Jews is the result of nepotism and suspecting otherwise is “anti-Semitic”. If we accept that Einstein is a towering genius and a victim of anti-Semitism, we should accept that 25% of our professors, doctors, lawyers, actors, authors, civil servants may be Jewish because Jews possess superior intelligence. Call it reverse Jewish logic if you will but it works. While Einstein has been accused of being a plagiarizer for about one hundred years (over forty years ago, I remember reading that in 1910 protesters accused him of plagiarism as he delivered a lecture; predictably, the author dismissed it as A.S.) his reputation will only diminish when Jews decide that it is in their interests to diminish him.
    Few understand the Special Theory of Relativity and very few of them will have mastered tensor calculus and understand General Relativity. Einstein himself was unable to develop the mathematics of curved space and needed the help of a competent mathematician. Poincare never needed help and I’m unaware of anyone accusing him of plagiarism.
    Einstein also serves as an answer to anyone asking the question: “If you’re so brilliant, why have you never produced a genuine giant like Mozart, Bach, Handel, Haydn, Shakespeare, Mendel, Darwin or Newton? And why does Israel have a collective IQ in the low to mid nineties?” To the well informed, simply probability suggests that overt and stealth nepotism is handing a large share of the remunerative sinecures and comfortable white collar jobs to undeserving Jews.
    Sometimes even they miss the point:

  259. March 25, 2012 - 11:48 am | Permalink


    Not that it’s absolutely important one way or another, but I am not Jewish and I never have been.

  260. Tom's Gravatar Tom
    March 25, 2012 - 11:44 am | Permalink

    I had my two required semesters of college physics at Confederate Methodist & former Bible College. LOL. My physics professor Dr. Muley (not his real name) had been an All American football player in the early 1920’s, and had been drafted to work on the Manhattan Project.

    I don’t ever remember him speaking of Einstein, or any of the Jews involved with the Manhattan Project. But, I do remember him telling us about the neutron bomb before it became public knowledge.

    One thing that I noticed is that there was a real change in physics literature before, and, after WWII. In the 1930’s and early 1940’s the physics journals were very practical & experimental, later on the same journals became very abstract, with lots of dense, re-invent the wheel type math. I think this is what Dr. Schlafly is trying to get at as far as Einstein & Jewish influence.

  261. Lancashire lad's Gravatar Lancashire lad
    March 25, 2012 - 11:25 am | Permalink

    Shlafly certainly addresses evolution with a political agenda, though he also makes some fair general points on the borders between science, education, culture and politics. Interesting link.

  262. Marcy Fleming's Gravatar Marcy Fleming
    March 25, 2012 - 10:43 am | Permalink

    I disagree with Einstein on his communism-socialism (really the same thing), his advocacy of world government and his Zionism, Not A Jonkey.
    He was your standard narcissistic Ashkenazim male.
    What else do you want me to explain ?

  263. Franklin Ryckaert's Gravatar Franklin Ryckaert
    March 25, 2012 - 10:40 am | Permalink

    @Carolyn Yeager:
    According to zionist ideology “the land of Israel belongs to the Jewish people”. In this sense every Jew , wherever in the world, is a “citizen of Israel”. Acquiring an Israeli passport on arrival in Israel is just a formality for any Jew. No problem of “natural born citizenship” here. Tribal thinking at its best (or worst) .

  264. March 25, 2012 - 10:22 am | Permalink

    “anyone who was offered the presidency of Israel without being its citizen, ”

    Elie Wiesel was offered the presidency of Israel too, without being a citizen, and also declined. He says so in his memoir “All Rivers Flow to the Sea.”

  265. March 25, 2012 - 9:54 am | Permalink

    The reason Einstein is praised by Jews is that the famous equation makes it appear that nuclear weapons are credible. They appear not to be. is a snapshot of a site, Nukelies, on that and related topics.

    I think Schafly (and others) aren’t even remotely critical enough. Relativity is a hotchpotch of things – including the mistaken idea that velocity causes mass increase, and that the speed of light is a limit, both of which are mistakes based on the observation that charged particles never go faster than light. (They can’t because the magnetic fields accelerating them are themselves transmitted at the speed of light). In the same way that Kevin MacDonald avoids the ‘Holocaust’ and Khazar issues, Schafly is an over-cautious critic. As will become clear – I hope not to slowly.

  266. Not a Jonkey's Gravatar Not a Jonkey
    March 25, 2012 - 9:36 am | Permalink

    Thanks for this well written article . Is it Zionism that is really driving these decievers . Lying for the welfare of the tribe ?
    No contradiction Herr :

    ” Einstein was also a self-described international socialist, anti-nationalist, and committed Zionist—thus representing views that were entirely mainstream among Jews during his lifetime. ”

    Perhaps Ms Flemming would like to explain the obvious , but this is very unlikely .Truth is unpleasant to ethnocentric egotistical hypocrites .

  267. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    March 25, 2012 - 8:46 am | Permalink

    Mark Green also interviewed Kevin MacDonald in what I thought to be thoroughly professional interview.
    and Bradley Smith on the Holocaust taboo:

    Green, I imagine, falls under the rubric of self-hater.

  268. Mickey Meadows's Gravatar Mickey Meadows
    March 25, 2012 - 6:54 am | Permalink


    Agreed. So what thoughts do you have about the *central* charges he makes against organized Jewry?

  269. Hmmm's Gravatar Hmmm
    March 25, 2012 - 6:34 am | Permalink

    Lancashire lad:

    Franklin: I think the site owner would strenuously argue that his work is scientific and that the site is meant to be factual and to use evidence rigorously.

  270. Franklin Ryckaert's Gravatar Franklin Ryckaert
    March 25, 2012 - 6:19 am | Permalink

    Mr. “Hmmm” (What’s in a name,hm?), this website doesn’t pretend to be scientific. It is intended to promote ethnic genetic interests, of Whites that is. Since there is another ethnic group that thinks it can promote its interests only at the cost of ours, it is but natural that articles on this website display what you see as “prejudice”.
    But we are very open about it. See the subtitle of this website : White Identity, Interests, and Culture. Pretty clear,no?

  271. Lancashire lad's Gravatar Lancashire lad
    March 25, 2012 - 6:12 am | Permalink

    I do not see Shlafly advocate teaching of creationism in the blog you refer to, certainly not in the particular blog entry you quote. What he says is:
    “There is a war going on to define science. The establishment scientist activists want to define science in such a way that the folks in Tennessee have to accept scientific authority without question. They want uncritical acceptance of evolution because that undermines religion, and uncritical acceptance of global warming because that promotes environmentalism. That is not science. Real scientists are not afraid of scientific evidence on controversies.”
    You quote only the last sentence and imply that the foregoing is in favour of creationism, when in fact it concerns the definition of science and what is to be accepted “without question” in an educational context.

    He also cites the Tennessee bill, which strikes me as reasonable in content and falling well short of “teaching creationism”.

    I do agree with you that there are problems in evaluating evidence when you replace the assumption that people are only seeking the truth with the assumption that they are also pursuing their “ethnic genetic interests”. Macdonald does in fact acknowledge the scientific value of Jewish work in the sciences, including Einstein, Jonathan Haight and others, alongside pointing out apparent instances of ethnic networking, etc. I find much of the evidence on this site informative and not easily accessible elsewhere, despite its flaws, if such they be.

  272. Sinensis's Gravatar Sinensis
    March 25, 2012 - 5:39 am | Permalink

    Hmmm -> the same case was made by a perfectly respectable French scientist long ago. Basically, Einstein stole everything from Poincaré and did not place any reference to him in his publications.

    Back to what I originally wanted to say: the problem with this new book is that it will basically be preaching to the choir. The mass medias, and only them, decide the popularity of a book or a person. If they have decided Einstein was the smartest guy who ever lived, then the masses will think that way.

    As long as we don’t control the mass medias, any democratic attempt at retaking a country will be a total failure.

    The Northwest Front and similar projects of separatism, for those who want to explore the political field rather than the economic field, are the only hope.

  273. Mickey Meadows's Gravatar Mickey Meadows
    March 25, 2012 - 5:32 am | Permalink

    @Lancashire lad:

    I consider myself far from knowledgeable on this matter Lancashire lad.
    Certainly – finding out Einstein was a total fraud would not even be one of the bigger outrages I had discovered since waking up. Far from it.
    But as things stand, I just happen to believe Einstein was a great physicist. I know he didn’t come up with the mass energy equation, and that relativity is based on the ideas and mathematics of Lorentz transforms, and that Maxwell previously had most of the key insights.
    Einstein should have credited them, because ultimately the disservice is to himself in that we cannot clearly see what his personal constribution was.
    But his contribution seems to be huge…bringing it all together into a self-consistent unifying paradigm.

  274. Mickey Meadows's Gravatar Mickey Meadows
    March 25, 2012 - 5:21 am | Permalink


    A lot of anger gets expressed toward organized Jewish culture hmmm and it stands to reason that some of it will not be fair.
    But what progresss have you made toward understanding the source of the anger and whether that is true?
    Have you read KM’s books?
    Let’s say that organized Jewry was responsible for the origination of the mass immigration that now threatens to dispossess European descendent people? Would that be a reasonable cause for huge resentment and anger?
    Let’s say that organized jewry is responsible for the ongoing ‘policing’ of even the smallest dissent emanating from European communities that perhaps they don’t want to be dispossessed? Would that be an understandable cause for enormous resentment and anger?
    When it comes to criticism hmmmm you are good at coming here and grabbing the low hanging fruit (i.e. angry/excessive outburtsts in articles or comments). But what steps have you taken to analyse the core positions?

  275. Hmmm's Gravatar Hmmm
    March 25, 2012 - 4:55 am | Permalink

    Go check out Roger Schlafly’s blog ( He thinks that Tennessee should be teaching creationism alongside evolution because not teaching creationism is tantamount to “uncritical acceptance” of evolution, and “real scientists are not afraid of scientific evidence on controversies.” In other words, the author of the book glowingly reviewed above believes that creationism is scientific evidence that should be considered alongside evidence supporting the theory of evolution. Sorry, but I am not going to credit a self-published book on Einstein by a guy who literally does not know what scientific evidence is.

    Apparently, the only criterion for posting on this site is that you attack the Jews, regardless of whether what you say is credible or has any evidence to back it up. The point of pieces like this seems to be to claim that Jews have not made major contributions to human knowledge. So how have they won more than a quarter of all Nobel Prizes awarded in the sciences over the last century? I guess the ethnic networking must be an incredibly vast conspiracy that has the power to secure fraudulent Nobels for scores of scientists while simultaneously silencing thousands of non-Jewish scientists, some of whom must surely have observed the massive credit-stealing that their Jewish colleagues have engaged in but have said nothing. Indeed, that the site owner’s ONLY criterion for publication is that you attack the Jews is demonstrated by the fact that he will quote Jews when they are critical of Jews (Philip Weiss, MJ Rosenberg, Paul Gottfried, and Jon Stewart have all been quoted or linked here recently with approval) but when Jews are not critical of Jews, then their statements are presumed to be deceptions reflecting their “ethnic genetic interests.” In what sense can a site be called scientific that starts with the conclusion, and judges the evidence according to whether it conforms to that pre-ordained conclusion?

  276. Hedgerow's Gravatar Hedgerow
    March 25, 2012 - 4:46 am | Permalink

    Newton (gravity, laws of motion, calculus) would have to top Einstein. Da Vinci was good at everything. I should be partial to Edison (a distant relative of mine whose Menlo Park laboratory was powered by a steam engine invented by my great-great-grandfather), but his accomplishments were of a different, practical nature. I would be interested to see the Jewish website attempt to make the case for Einstein over Newton.

  277. Lancashire lad's Gravatar Lancashire lad
    March 25, 2012 - 4:42 am | Permalink

    @Mickey Meadows:
    You’ve persuaded me Mickey, I will give the book a try and see how Albert matches up to his latest critic. If the worst comes to the worst, I will at least hopefully learn something about Poincare, etc, in the process.

    However, I still secretly think there’s something to be said for a bit of old-fashioned Euclidean realism about space and that the decline of observation-led science began with Clerk Maxwell’s over-generalisations about energy as a universal constant.

  278. Mickey Meadows's Gravatar Mickey Meadows
    March 25, 2012 - 4:19 am | Permalink

    He didn’t credit a lot of stuff, but I think it’s still important to recognize Einstein was one of the great physicists, because he brought a lot of it together into a unified whole.

  279. Lancashire lad's Gravatar Lancashire lad
    March 25, 2012 - 4:07 am | Permalink

    It is indeed remarkable how many people who set themselves up as arbiters of what is science are Jewish – the Vienna circle, Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn, who is cited above for his Structure of Scientific Revolutions, for example. Popper takes three purported theories, Marxism, psychoanalysis and Einstein and validates only Einstein, but all the examples are Jewish and his choice of them is simply that he found them “interesting”. Well you can say Jewish contributions are down to IQ and I can’t deny they have an interest, but you do wonder frankly if it’s wise to hand the foundations of something so important over to people with an ethnic agenda.

  280. Brenton Sanderson's Gravatar Brenton Sanderson
    March 25, 2012 - 3:56 am | Permalink

    Great article

  281. Al Goldstein's Gravatar Al Goldstein
    March 25, 2012 - 3:40 am | Permalink

    Jews are all about chutzpah,or audacity,if you will.
    Look at that jewish sex counselor, Dr.Ruth, for example: the ugliest muchkin you ever saw, telling every stupefied viewer in her audience how to have great sex!
    What is chutzpah? Chutzpah is to start a fight between 2 brothers and then suing the looser for agression!

    How do you define “Chutzpa”? let us know.

  282. Petronius's Gravatar Petronius
    March 25, 2012 - 3:29 am | Permalink

    “Einstein fully enjoyed the sexual benefits of being a celebrity.”

    Looking at him, one can hardly imagine that, but besides: who wouldn’t?

  283. March 25, 2012 - 3:08 am | Permalink

    Thanks for the review. I wanted to explain why Einstein’s reputation is so far in excess of his accomplishments, but I only found partial explanations. I guess Max Born’s support could be related to Jewishness, but Born converted to Lutheranism when he got married, and his friendship with Einstein could have had nothing to do with Jewishness. I just don’t know. Einstein has also had the conspicuous support of many non-Jews. He could not have gotten to be such an icon without non-Jewish support.

  284. March 25, 2012 - 2:56 am | Permalink

    Very well written and hugely informative. It seems that the Einstein myth is yet another shibboleth and inversion of truth, courtesy of those most insufferable and unconscionable of racial narcissists: the Jews.

    I recall Einstein being a big pacifist; a big pacifist who wrote a letter to FDR asking for research into the atom bomb to be continued and sped up so as to defeat the “Nazi menace” (to world Jewry).

    Such a trite breed.

  285. Marcy Fleming's Gravatar Marcy Fleming
    March 25, 2012 - 12:53 am | Permalink

    Tom Bethel wrote Questioning Einstein. I haven’t read it yet but I will soon.
    David Harriman is very critical of contemporary philosophical foundations of physics in The Logical Leap. He’s a protege of Ayn Rand, which is a largely Jewish group or cult.
    I’m in full agreement with Rand’s Objectivism but not all the particular twists her followers take.
    I’m Jewish on Mom’s side which makes me a full Jew under Jewish and Israeli law but I’m skeptical of anything done by male Ashkenazim as most are narcissists of the nth degree.
    So I’d like to get more insight from your readers here.
    Particularly intelligent Gentile males but others are fine.
    Thanks, Dr. MacDonald for this great forum.

  286. Kullervo's Gravatar Kullervo
    March 25, 2012 - 12:28 am | Permalink

    I read this book too, and I must say it is very interesting in a general way. But the book is greatly weakened by Schafly’s refusal to confront the Jewish overlay at work on the Einstein issue. I had thougth that Schafly must be Jewish from his picture, but I this does not appear to be the case. He must simply be afraid of reprisal, working in the milieu he does.

    One interesting tidbit from the book: Max Born(Jewish) begged the British science historian Edmund Whitaker not to publish the second volume of his History of the Ether and Electricity because Whitaker downplayed Einstein’s contribution to special relativity to almost nothing and left a big question mark over general relativity. Edmund Whitaker was the first scholar to try to dispel the great Einstein myth in this way. This volume is unbelievably difficult to find. I find this important because it’s a clear case of a famous Jewish scientist pressuring another academic in order to further Einstein’s reputation.

  287. Celtic_Heathen's Gravatar Celtic_Heathen
    March 25, 2012 - 12:18 am | Permalink

    Let’s not forget about the French Scientist Debye, who debunked some of Einstein’s work.

Comments are closed.