A Review of “Why the Germans? Why the Jews?” — Part 1

Brenton Sanderson

A Review of “Why the Germans? Why the Jews?”
by Götz Aly


The culture of the Holocaust is destroying Germany. Endlessly reinforced over decades by the intellectual and media elite, the notion that Germans and their descendants are responsible for “the single most evil event in human history” has had such a demoralizing effect that millions fully support Angela Merkel’s current attempt to destroy the ethnic basis of their nation. The culture of the Holocaust has been used to devastating effect right throughout the West to stifle opposition to the Jewish diaspora strategies of mass non-White immigration and multiculturalism. “The Holocaust” is the absolute lynchpin of the White displacement agenda, with any hint of European racial or ethnic identification or solidarity being instantly linked with Auschwitz and its alleged horrors in the minds of millions (probably billions) of people.

The entire social and political order of the contemporary West — based as it is on spurious notions of racial equality and the alleged virtues of racial diversity and multiculturalism — has been erected on the moral foundations of the Holocaust. White people cannot be recognized as a group with interests because “never again.” Western nations have a moral obligation to accept unlimited non-White immigration from the Third World because “never again.” Europe must open its borders to hostile Islamic invaders because “never again.” Whites should meekly accept their deliberate displacement (and ultimate extinction) because “never again.”

Jewish historian Peter Novick has described how today’s culture of “the Holocaust” emerged as part of the collective Jewish response to the Eichmann trial in 1961–62, the Six-Day War in the Middle East in 1967, and, in particular, the Yom Kippur War in 1973. While the foundation was laid at Nuremberg in 1946, it was with these later events, and the anxieties they engendered among Jews throughout the world, that “there emerged in American culture a distinct thing called ‘the Holocaust’ — an event in its own right,” and with it a term that entered the English language as a description of all manner of horrors. From that time on, he notes, “the Holocaust” has become “ever more central in American public discourse — particularly, of course, among Jews, but also in the culture at large” and has since “attained transcendent status as the bearer of eternal truths or lessons that could be derived from contemplating it.”[i]

Advertisement - Time to SUBSCRIBE now!

Novick acknowledges the primary reason for this state of affairs: that Jews, with their domination of academia and the media and entertainment industries, virtually dictate this “American” (and by extension “Western” culture) which has become so Holocaust-obsessed. He argues that the importance of the Holocaust is not a spontaneous phenomenon but stems from highly focused, well-funded efforts of Jewish organizations and individual Jews with access to the major media:

We are not just “the people of the book,” but the people of the Hollywood film and the television miniseries, of the magazine article and the newspaper column, of the comic book and the academic symposium. When a high level of concern with the Holocaust became widespread in American Jewry, it was, given the important role that Jews play in American media and opinion-making elites, not only natural, but virtually inevitable that it would spread throughout the culture at large. (Peter Novick, The Holocaust in American Life (Mariner Books, 1999), 12)

The Jewish director Jill Soloway observed that Jews in Hollywood are “recreating culture to defend ourselves post-Holocaust.” This ethnic “defense” has entailed the intensive promotion of racial diversity and mixing, the denigration of White people and their traditional culture, the hyper-sexualization of what now passes for Western culture, the glamorizing of sexual non-conformity and the breakdown of traditional gender roles — all alongside constant reminders of “the Holocaust” with its concomitant themes of noble Jewish victimhood and unsurpassed German (White, European) evil.

Since 1945, some 148 feature films have been made about “the Holocaust” — the majority after 1970. The Jewish intellectual Chaim Bermant observed that “the Jews that came to dominate Hollywood” between them “did more to determine American attitudes and tastes than the churches or even the schools.”[ii] The psychological effects of Hollywood’s Holocaust-obsession were clear by the 1990s when one survey found that 97 percent of Americans knew what “the Holocaust” was — substantially more than knew what “Pearl Harbor” related to, or that the United States has dropped two atomic bombs on Japan, and far more than the 49 percent that knew that the Soviet Union had fought on the American side in World War Two.[iii]

Throughout the West proliferating “Holocaust” memorials and museums are lavishly funded by taxpayers, and study of “the Holocaust” in schools is mandated by law in many jurisdictions. As well as serving to morally disarm Whites concerned about their own immigrant-led displacement, the culture of “the Holocaust” is a key part of Jewish efforts to prevent intermarriage in the diaspora. Eric Goldstein, for instance, notes how “Jews discuss, read about, and memorialize the Holocaust with zeal as a means of keeping their sense of difference from non-Jews alive.”[iv]

Holocaust films

“The Holocaust” has become, in the words of Nicholas Kollerstrom, “an ersatz substitute for genuine metaphysical knowledge,” with Auschwitz now serving as the spiritual center of a new religion and a place of awed pilgrimage for millions of penitent Europeans. The narrative has also unleashed an endless flow of money from Germany to Israel and to compensate more “Holocaust” survivors than there were ever Jews in countries under German control.[v]

Without the “Holocaust” narrative, and the veneer of moral rectitude it confers upon Jewish activism, it is doubtful the 1965 immigration laws in the United States would have passed. Likewise, the toppling of the White Australia policy just eight years later — a direct result of Jewish ethno-politics — would probably not have occurred without the moral leverage “the Holocaust” afforded Jewish activists and their non-Jewish collaborators. The leftwing Australian historian Professor Henry Reynolds has acknowledged the Jewish ethno-political (and Holocaust-centered) origins of the regnant belief in biological racial equality when he noted that: “My students often ask me how it was that people in the past held such objectionable views [about race]. They have no understanding of just how pervasive racial thought was a generation or two ago, how the Second World War and the Holocaust marked an intellectual watershed after which nothing would be the same again.”[vi]

Boasian anthropology and the “the Holocaust”  

While the Jewish critique of racialist thought, spearheaded by Franz Boas, preceded World War II  by several decades, it gained urgency following Hitler’s assumption of power in 1933. In his book Racism, posthumously published in 1938, the Jewish “sexologist” Magnus Hirschfeld set out to provide a refutation of the racial doctrines of the National Socialists. “If it were practicable,” he wrote, “we should certainly do well to eradicate the term ‘race’ as far as subdivisions of the human species are concerned.”[vii] During the war the writings of Boas, his students Ruth Benedict, Melville Herskovits and others critical of the link between race, culture and ability began to reach a mass audience. Benedict’s Races and Racism, published in 1942, dismissed racial thought as “a travesty of scientific knowledge.”[viii] In the same year, the Jewish intellectual Ashley Montagu (born Israel Ehrenberg) published Man’s Most Dangerous Myth: The Fallacy of Race which became a best seller.

An illustration from Ruth Benedict’s The Races of Mankind (1946)

An illustration from Ruth Benedict’s The Races of Mankind (1946)

These Jewish ethnic activists and their allies, with their pseudo-scientific theories, were only able to reach a mass audience through the eager assistance and promotion of Jewish influence in the press and publishing houses — not because of the intrinsic merits of their arguments. As a result of these efforts, the British historian David Cannadine has noted that: “By the end of the Second World War, the notion that race was the most significant form of collective human identity, consciousness, and ranking had been stripped of any serious claim to intellectual respectability.”[ix]

In 1949 the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) convened a panel of “scientists,” chaired by Montagu, to “produce a definitive verdict on race.” One leftist historian has pointed out how the panel was comprised of “a team of ten scientists all of whom were recruited from the marginal group of anthropologists, sociologists and ethnographers who perceived the race concept primarily as a social construct.” He also notes that: “Most of these had at some point either been affiliated with the scientifically marginalized groups of cultural anthropologists that were mostly students of Franz Boas at Columbia University in New York.”[x]

After the panel’s first meeting at the UNESCO headquarters in Paris, Montagu wrote a proposal for a final statement on race during one night at a nearby hotel, and over the following days the participants discussed “the race concept” in light of Montagu’s draft.[xi] Montagu claimed that “only if our deliberations had taken place at Auschwitz or Dachau could there have been a more fitting environment to impress upon the committee members the immense significance of their work.”[xii] At that time UNESCO House was the former headquarters of the German military during its occupation of France during World War II. Underpinning the words of the UNESCO declaration “was widespread revulsion at the Jewish Holocaust.”[xiii] Leftist academic Anthony Hazard notes that “a clear rejection of anti-Semitism seemed to underline the entire effort.”[xiv]

Ashley Montagu

Ashley Montagu

The Montagu-led UNESCO panel’s statement (replete with falsehoods and specious arguments) was issued in 1950. “Scientists,” it claimed, “have reached general agreement in recognizing that mankind is one: that all men belong to the same species, Homo sapiens.” Genes responsible for the “hereditary differences between men” were “always few when compared to the whole genetic constitution of man and the vast number of genes common to all human beings regardless of the populations to which they belong.” It therefore followed that “the likenesses among men are far greater than their differences.” The error here is assuming that small differences in the input to a system must yield small differences in the system’s output. On the contrary, it is often the case that small differences in the input result in large differences in the final outcome. For instance, it has often been pointed out that human beings and chimpanzees differ in less than two percent of their DNA; nevertheless, the difference in intelligence between the species is enormous. Many genetic diseases are caused by a single gene, and some of these are deadly.

The UNESCO panel’s statement proposed that it would be best “to drop the term ‘race’ altogether,” since “for all practical purposes, ‘race’ is not so much a biological phenomenon as a social myth.” Montagu and his colleagues ended their “definitive statement on race” with a ringing endorsement of the idea of a common humanity: “Biological studies lend support to the ethic of universal brotherhood; for man is born with drives towards co-operation. … In this sense, every man is his brother’s keeper.” Here we find the invariable Jewish tendency to couch the pursuit of specific Jewish interests in a pretended universal benevolence.

UNESCO’s Montagu-drafted “definitive verdict on race,” was published with a press release with the headline: “No biological justification for race discrimination, say world scientists: Most authoritative statement on the subject.”[xv] The New York Times reported on the statement with a story whose headline proclaimed: “No Scientific Basis for Race Bias Found by World Panel of Experts.”[xvi] The UNESCO Statement on Race amounted to the foisting of a Jewish ethno-political agenda onto the global polity — with devastating consequences for the interests of Europeans.

With this new agenda now in place at the highest level, and with the demonization and marginalization of dissenters, it was almost inevitable in the decades following the defeat of Germany that the remaining policies constructed on the basis of racialist thought and identity would be dismantled. The 1950 statement on race (which contributed to the 1954 U.S. Supreme Court desegregation decision in Brown v. Board of Education in Topeka) was described by one sympathetic commentator as “the triumph of Boasian anthropology on a world-historical scale.”[xvii]

Cannadine notes that, during the decades that followed, the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand “abandoned their policies of racial discrimination, ended their restrictions on immigration … and embraced multiculturalism.” This misleadingly implies that these changes occurred as a result of a shift in popular sentiment, of people suddenly coming to their senses and “embracing” racial diversity. The reality in the U.S., and, as I explicated in my series of essays on Australia, was that the movement toward the liberalization of immigration policies in countries like Australia was a top-down, totally undemocratic movement pursued for specifically Jewish ends.

Götz Aly — Reinforcing the culture of “the Holocaust” in Germany

Roger Devlin has observed that “all of us in the West are supposed to be responsible for the ills of the rest of the world, but only Germans have had their identity entirely constructed on guilt for 70 years.” One of those who has worked hard to reinforce the culture of “the Holocaust” in Germany, and to entrench the climate of opinion that is leading the German people to destruction, is the University of Frankfurt historian Professor Götz Aly who has written a series of books on German “anti-Semitism,” the Third Reich and “the Holocaust.” Aly, who was involved with militant far left organizations in the sixties and seventies, is the descendent of a Turkish soldier who converted to Christianity in the seventeenth century. Despite his partial Turkish ancestry, Aly identifies as an ethnic German. He is, nevertheless, acutely critical of the German people and their history. Aly’s latest book (recently translated into English) is Why the Germans? Why the Jews? Envy, Race Hatred, and the Prehistory of the Holocaust, which is Aly’s attempt to explain “why German history culminated in genocide.”[xviii]

Götz Aly

Götz Aly

Unlike the bulk of establishment historians, such as the egregious Daniel Jonah Goldhagen, Aly is at least willing to accept that the origins of post-Enlightenment German “anti-Semitism” can be traced to conflicts of interest between Jews and non-Jews — or rather, in his view, to the envy of average Germans at the rapid social and economic advancement of Jews in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. He regards attempts to account for the rise of National Socialism solely on the basis of political ideology as unsatisfactory, observing that “conservatives weren’t the only ones guided by hostility toward and even hatred of Jews. Reformers and pioneers of political liberty often were as well. We must look for explanations elsewhere.”[xix]

Despite these small concessions to reality, Aly remains firmly within the camp of intellectual apologists for Jews in proposing that “anti-Semitism” is a phenomenon that always has its wellspring in the psychopathology or delusions of non-Jews — in this case in the pathological jealousy of Germans. His exoneration of Jews from any role whatever in contributing to manifestations of “anti-Semitism” is hardly surprising given that Aly’s book has the imprimatur of the leading Jewish representatives of the Holocaust industry. The author, who is a past winner of a Jewish Book Award, notes, for example, how his research was “made a lot easier and a lot more pleasant by my helpful and welcoming colleagues at Yad Vashem” and that his work was underwritten by the Baron Friedrich Carl von Oppenheim Stipend for Research on Racism, Anti-Semitism, and the Holocaust.

From the standpoint of an unquestioning acceptance of the dogmatic Hollywood version of “the Holocaust,” Götz Aly asserts that: “What remains contentious are questions of its ultimate meaning and deeper causes,” and argues that “the answers will, no doubt, continue to be fragmentary. Nonetheless, historians have a duty to seek them.” So, according to the author, historians have a moral and intellectual duty to search for the ultimate meaning of “the Holocaust” (provided of course this fully exonerates Jews) but not a duty to determine the actual facts regarding the alleged event itself. So much for the once revered academic tradition of fearlessly seeking out the truth wherever it leads. In the subsequent parts of this review I critically analyze Aly’s “envy” theory of the German “anti-Semitism” which forms the basis of his much praised book.

Go to Part 2.


[i] Peter Novick, The Holocaust and Collective Memory (London: Bloomsbury, 2000), 144.

[ii] Chaim Bermant, Jews (London; Weidenfeld & Nicholson, 1977), 91.

[iii] Novick, Holocaust, 232.

[iv] Eric L. Goldstein, The Price of Whiteness: Jews, Race, and American Identity (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2008), 211.

[v] Nicholas Kollerstrom, Breaking the Spell: The Holocaust, Myth & Reality (Uckfield: Castle Hill, 2014), 133.

[vi] Henry Reynolds, Why Weren’t We Told? — A personal search for the truth about our history (Melbourne: Penguin, 2000), 248-249.

[vii] David Cannadine, The Undivided Past: Humanity Beyond Our Differences (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2013), 205.

[viii] Ibid., 210.

[ix] Ibid., 211.

[x] Poul Duedahl, “From racial strangers to ethnic minorities, On the socio-political impact of UNESCO, 1945-60.” Paper presented at 7th Annual International Conference on Politics and International Affairs in Athens, Greece, in 2009.

[xi] Ibid.

[xii] Anthony Q. Hazard, Postwar Anti-Racism: The United States, UNESCO, and “Race,”1945-1968 (New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2012), 38.

[xiii] Cannadine, The Undivided Past, 212.

[xiv] Hazard, Postwar Anti-Racism, 39.

[xv] Duedahl, “From racial strangers.”

[xvi] Elazar Barkan, The Retreat of Scientific Racism: Changing Concepts of Race in Britain and the United States between the World Wars (Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 341.

[xvii] Robert Wald Sussman, The Myth of Race: The Troubling Persistence of an Unscientific Idea (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 2014), 207.

[xviii] Götz Aly, Why the Germans? Why the Jews?: Envy, Race Hatred, and the Prehistory of the Holocaust (New York: Metropolitan Books, 2014), 2.

[xix] Ibid., 3.

[xx] Ibid., 1.

[xxi] Ibid., 9.

[xxii] Ibid.

[xxiii] Ibid., 110.

Print Friendly
  • Print
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • RSS
  • Add to favorites
  • del.icio.us
  • Reddit
  • Technorati

79 Comments to "A Review of “Why the Germans? Why the Jews?” — Part 1"

  1. Karen T's Gravatar Karen T
    January 22, 2016 - 7:23 am | Permalink

    About the Author

    The disappearance into almost total oblivion of Douglas Reed and all his works was a change that could not have been wrought by time alone; indeed, the correctness of his interpretation of the unfolding history of the times found some confirmation in what happened to him when at the height of his powers. After 1951, with the publication of Far and Wide, in which he set the history of the United States of America into the context of all he had learned in Europe of the politics of the world, Reed found himself banished from the bookstands, all publishers’ doors closed to him, and those books already published liable to be withdrawn from library shelves and “lost”, never to be replaced. His public career as a writer now apparently at an end, Reed was at last free to undertake a great task for which all that had gone before was but a kind of preparation and education that no university could provide and which only the fortunate and gifted few could fully use – his years as a foreign correspondent, his travels in Europe and America, his conversations and contacts with the great political leaders of his day, plus his eager absorption through reading and observation of all that was best in European culture. Experiences which other men might have accepted as defeat, served only to focus Douglas Reed’s powers on what was to be his most important undertaking – that of researching and retelling the story of the last 2000 years and more in such a way as to render intelligible much of modern history which for the masses remains in our time steeped in darkness and closely guarded by the terrors of an invisible system of censorship. –This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.

  2. ikat's Gravatar ikat
    January 21, 2016 - 1:16 am | Permalink

    @Pierre de Craon
    I am glad to have found a “partner in crime, enjoying the WRONG history”. The exchanges in the review showed on both sides a very deep knowledge of the subject at hand. But when Docherty took over Carragher had to throw the towel. Regarding the JQ, the authors mention only once or twice the name Herzel and the Balfour declaration. That is all. The reader has to Connect the dots him/her-self. That should be rather easy, considering the machinations, manipulations and outright evilness that Rhodes and his co-conspirators indulged in to lay the WW I trap for Germany.

    Since it worked brilliantly for WW I, why not try it again, but this time with a “heavy gun” in the form of that little Vienna street pimp and -cleaner cum part time post card painter. Yes, and how it worked. And we dumb Krauts pay again and carry not only our eternal “guilt” but also the crimes and sins of our to-days friends as our own. For those that occupy the moral high ground, life is a bliss. The “Refugrad” should show the Germans: It’s Game Over!

    • rosa's Gravatar rosa
      January 22, 2016 - 12:49 am | Permalink

      “partner in crime, enjoying the WRONG history”

      Count me on too, and we are three! Even though I’m quite skeptical on what you write about “the little man with moustaches” (who, by the way, begins to be sorely missed in some parts of Europe…)

  3. Aitch's Gravatar Aitch
    January 20, 2016 - 7:33 am | Permalink

    In response to Ikat’s post (20 January at 5.55am ), the idea that Hitler’s mission was to destroy Germany rather than empower her is interesting, since it occurred also to the British journalist and eye-witness to events, Douglas Reed. You can watch his ideas unfolding in the various books he wrote, beginning with ‘Insanity Fair’ in April 1938 and continuing through the war and post-war years. Incidentally, if anyone knows of any reason why I should discount Douglas Reed, I’d be glad if they’d tell me about it. So far, there’s been so little said about him on the internet that I’ve had to make my own tentative evaluation of him from reading his books. He seems perfectly sound and objective to me.

    • Rosa's Gravatar Rosa
      January 20, 2016 - 2:25 pm | Permalink

      Nothing on Douglas Reed because he made a fatal mistake. Reading his books, you will understand which one. So, memory hole for him.

      • Karen T's Gravatar Karen T
        January 20, 2016 - 5:13 pm | Permalink

        What was that fatal mistake?

        • Rosa's Gravatar Rosa
          January 21, 2016 - 5:39 am | Permalink

          Have written ” The Controversy of Sion”

        • Karen T's Gravatar Karen T
          January 21, 2016 - 7:40 am | Permalink

          I remember many years ago Bill Cooper on one of his Alien Agenda videos mentioning Sion, that the world is controlled by Mystery Babylon and their footsoldiers the Prieure de Sion, the international bankers are descendents of the Knights Templers, the U.S. military had an ET in captivity called Krill that only drank liquid chlorophyl ( we juice as well), and that Nasa was going to explode the planet Jupiter creating a second sun by the year 2000, Judaism was going to be destroyed and we were all going to be forced to worship Lucifer the Light Bringer…if only, sigh

    • Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
      January 20, 2016 - 2:43 pm | Permalink

      Reed seems perfectly sound to me, too. My only objection to signing on to “objective,” too, relates to the fact that I am no longer sure whether that word retains any useful absolute-sense meaning. I am sure, however, that “objective” is the first term of refuge of every scoundrel demanding acceptance of his own opinion, however uninformed or bigoted it might be, on any topic under the sun.

    • Karen T's Gravatar Karen T
      January 20, 2016 - 5:09 pm | Permalink

      I’ve read Douglas Reeds’ Far and Wide and Controversy of Zion, the latter, in my opinion, being one of the most important books on Judaism/Talmudism and Zionism. I understand your misgivings which is why I’ve read it twice and have returned to it many times and I’ve concluded that Hitler was played, no one is infallible let alone an artist with little political savvy or ‘worldly’ experience. That millions of white Gentile lives were lost during the wars of the ‘Jewish Century’ all for the sake of creating Israel, a misnomer that should have been called Judah, is testimony to the psychotic ruthlessness of this cutthroat tribe, not to excuse the inexcusable, the white Gentile politicians who cynically went along it.

  4. Clyde's Gravatar Clyde
    January 20, 2016 - 6:23 am | Permalink

    Just another goy zionist toady sellout. Nothing new about that.

    • Karen T's Gravatar Karen T
      January 20, 2016 - 5:14 pm | Permalink

      So , you’ve never read him.

  5. ikat's Gravatar ikat
    January 20, 2016 - 5:55 am | Permalink

    The BIG H is cast in concrete and covered with tons of lead, whether you believe it or not. Look at the no of Holocaust museums in the USA. The country is covered with it. One only for slavery! Live with it. You don’t really believe if the truth and nothing but the truth is published on this site, that all the museums will be levelled?
    It is far more interesting to find out what led to nazism. Who was AH and who were AH’s closest NAZIS really? (NAZI a word created by Goebbels and embossed on a plaque. Front: Swastika surrounded by ” A NAZI in Palestine”. Back: the star of David). All those “truly” Aryan looking men, Hitler, Eichmann, Goering, Goebbels, Hess, who received a helping hand for their race laws from the British Eugenics Society.

    “Other IEA founders included Friedrich von Hayek, who at this point was at the University of Chicago; Keith Joseph, and Ralph Harris, a fellow of the British Eugenics Society which had earlier helped draft Hitler’s race laws.”

    To my mind the best way to get a grips with WW II and its aftermath is to start with WW I.

    Read this and the reviews on amazon
    or buy the book. It is the most fascinating piece of history that I have ever read. My book is on the way.

    After this it is not only NOT a gigantic leap but only a very a small step to place the GWOAT (Greatest Warlord Of All Time. I always leave the “W” out) into the right slot. Don’t get stuck with his rants (writtne in primitive German) in ‘Mein Kampf’, which he was allowed to write on a provided TYPEWRITER whilst “languishing” in a very comfortable ‘prison cell’. Why was he let out after 1 1/2 years instead of serving his 5 year sentence? The book was probably finished. Did he even have here one or two helping hands cluttering away on the keyboard? Look at the man’s military decisions.Starting with Dunkirk and ending with a GREAT VICTORY. (Which one?). One idiocy after another.

    Prof G.C.Preparata lost his tenure, although he put it down in writing, that he firmly believed in the holocaust. I don’t live in Germany. But I cannot get the book from the book shop here. Search:
    “conjuring Hitler”
    The AH “admirers” will be confronted with some uncomfortable truths.

    Just in time when Germany is flooded with refugees, there comes “Mein Kampf” with thousands of footnotes for a mere $6K its yours. I have the original (not signed). I’ll let it go for $3K(LOL). What the “Fuehrer” didn’t manage-to finish Germany- Merkel has done for once and for all. One woman – single handedly -did it without firering a single shot. That for Germany is rather humiliating

    • Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
      January 20, 2016 - 2:56 pm | Permalink


      I am grateful to you for the link to Docherty and Macgregor’s Hidden History, of which I had never heard before today. One or two of the Amazon reviews are startling in their insight and erudition. Of particular note is a reviewer named Peter Hof, whose review is topped only by his far more extended and learned comments on the thread hanging from a troll review by a certain Michael Carragher, who is evidently an Irishman wedded to the idea that the defense of Establishment history, especially as it relates to protecting the Jews from any and all criticism, is his raison d’être.

      Of course, those who follow my lead to Amazon will note, as I did, that Peter Hof steers 100 percent clear of the Jewish Question. (In fairness, though, it is hard to tell whether Docherty and Macgregor themselves get any closer to the JQ. I can’t imagine that they would have landed so much praise were outspokenness on this topic a hallmark of their book!) Whether he would be comfortable with TOO and its commentariat is not for me to say, but I am always glad to encounter someone who does not rely upon Wikipedia to do his thinking for him.

      • January 20, 2016 - 9:53 pm | Permalink

        Pierre, some more on that book:

        HIDDEN HISTORY — The Secret Origins of the First World War

        by Gerry Docherty and Jim Macgregor

        Dedicated to the victims of an unspeakable evil.


        Title Page

        CHAPTER 1 The Secret Society
        CHAPTER 2 South Africa — Disregard the Screamers
        CHAPTER 3 The Edward Conspiracy — First Steps and New Beginnings
        CHAPTER 4 Testing Warmer Waters
        CHAPTER 5 Taming the Bear
        CHAPTER 6 The Changing of the Guard
        CHAPTER 7 1906 — Landslide to Continuity
        CHAPTER 8 Alexander Isvolsky — Hero and Villain
        CHAPTER 9 Scams and Scandals
        CHAPTER 10 Creating the Fear
        CHAPTER 11 Preparing the Empire — Alfred Milner and the Round Table
        CHAPTER 12 Catch a Rising Star and Put it in Your Pocket
        CHAPTER 13 Moroccan Myths — Fez and Agadir
        CHAPTER 14 Churchill and Haldane — Buying Time and Telling Lies
        CHAPTER 15 The Roberts Academy
        CHAPTER 16 Poincare — The Man Who Would be Bought
        CHAPTER 17 America — A Very Special Relationship
        CHAPTER 18 The Balkan Pressure Cooker — 1912-13
        CHAPTER 19 From Balmoral to the Balkans
        CHAPTER 20 Sarajevo — The Web of Culpability
        CHAPTER 21 July 1914 — Deception, Manipulation and Misrepresentation
        CHAPTER 22 July 1914 — Leading Europe Towards the Brink
        CHAPTER 23 July 1914 — The First Mobilisations
        CHAPTER 24 July 1914 — Buying Time — The Charade of Mediation
        CHAPTER 25 Ireland — Plan B
        CHAPTER 26 August 1914 — Of Neutrality and Just Causes
        CHAPTER 27 The Speech That Cost a Million Dead

        Conclusion — Lies, Myths and Stolen History

        Appendix 1 — The Secret Elite’s Hidden Control and Connections, 1891-1914

        Appendix 2 — Key Players



        THE HISTORY OF THE FIRST World War is a deliberately concocted lie. Not the sacrifice, the heroism, the horrendous waste of life or the misery that followed. No, these were very real, but the truth of how it all began and how it was unnecessarily and deliberately prolonged beyond 1915 has been successfully covered up for a century. A carefully falsified history was created to conceal the fact that Britain, not Germany, was responsible for the war. Had the truth become widely known after 1918, the consequences for the British Establishment would have been cataclysmic.

        At the end of the war Britain, France and the United States laid the blame squarely on Germany and took steps to remove, conceal or falsify documents and reports to justify such a verdict. In 1919, at Versailles near Paris, the victors decreed that Germany was solely responsible for the global catastrophe. She had, they claimed, deliberately planned the war and rejected all of their proposals for conciliation and mediation. Germany protested vehemently that she was not responsible and that it had been, for her, a defensive war against the aggression of Russia and France.

        To the victors go the spoils, and their judgement was immediately reflected in the official accounts. What became the generally accepted history of the First World War revolved around German militarism, German expansionism, the kaiser’s bombastic nature and ambitions, and Germany’s invasion of innocent, neutral Belgium. The system of secret alliances, a ‘naval race’, economic imperialism, and the theory of an ‘inevitable war’ later softened the attack on Germany, though the spurious notion that she alone had wanted war remained understood in the background.

        In the 1920s, a number of highly regarded American and Canadian professors of history, including Sidney B. Fay, Harry Elmer Barnes and John S. Ewart seriously questioned the Versailles verdict and the ‘evidence’ on which the assumption of German war guilt was based. Their work in revising the official Versailles findings was attacked by historians who insisted that Germany was indeed responsible. Today, eminent British war historians place the blame on Germany, though most are willing to concede that ‘other factors’ were also involved. Professor Niall Ferguson writes of the kaiser’s strategy of global war. [1] Professor Hew Strachan maintains that the war was about liberal countries struggling to defend their freedoms (against German aggression), [2] while Professor Norman Stone states that the greatest mistake of the twentieth century was made when Germany built a navy to attack Britain. [3] Professor David Stevenson quite unequivocally writes that ‘it is ultimately in Berlin that we must seek the keys to the destruction of peace’. [4] It was Germany’s fault. End of story.

        Continued here (including Chapter 1 & 2):

        HIDDEN HISTORY — The Secret Origins of the First World War


        • Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
          January 22, 2016 - 1:45 pm | Permalink

          Thanks for the outline. It’s very informative.

      • Rosa's Gravatar Rosa
        January 21, 2016 - 5:47 am | Permalink

        I read the book. No clear mention of the JQ, but a lot of hints for intelligent readers ( ” intelligenti pauca”). I highly recommend the book.
        The two authors have a blog, in which they are keeping posting their researches on topics related to WWI. As you perfectly know, WWI was the first “time” of the battle to destroy Europe, being WWII the second one and
        now Politically Correctness, Gender Theory and Mamas Immigration being the third and probably the last.

        • Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
          January 21, 2016 - 1:28 pm | Permalink

          Mille grazie for the information, Rosa! Do you perchance have a link to their blog?

      • January 21, 2016 - 7:16 am | Permalink

        Google Amazon reviews “Peter Hof” to find the reviews Pierre de Craon describes. (Ignore the ‘peterhof’ ones)

        • Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
          January 21, 2016 - 1:12 pm | Permalink

          Great suggestion, Rerevisionist!

          You inspired me to search for an even more direct recourse: a link to Hof’s profile page at Amazon.

          In the course of dredging up this link, I noticed that the profile page includes a link to a history of the twentieth century’s two world wars written by Hof himself.

          Would that I myself had even half of this man’s energy and focus, not to mention the breadth of his familiarity with the political and diplomatic machinations that gave birth to these disasters!

      • rosa's Gravatar rosa
        January 22, 2016 - 12:43 am | Permalink

        the blog site you asked me for is: firstworldwarhiddenhistory.wordpress.com.
        Enjoy !

    • T. J.'s Gravatar T. J.
      January 21, 2016 - 9:38 am | Permalink

      1913- Federal Reserve counterfeiting factory established by internationalists
      1914- international war commences
      1917- “Russian” Revolution commences

      “The Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world.” Mel Gibson

      Was He Drinking?

      “Get hold of fifty of the wealthiest Jewish financiers, the men who are interested in making wars for their own profit. Control them, and you will put an end to it all.’ (Henry Ford, father of the automobile industry, the Cleveland News, 20th September 1923.)

      Are These Jews Anti-Semitic?

      “We are at the bottom, not merely of the latest Great War, but of nearly all your wars; not only of the Russian, but of every other major Revolution in, your history . . . We did it solely with the irresistible might of our spirit, with ideas and propaganda.” A Real Case Against the Jews by the Jewish writer and Rothschild biographer, Marcus Eli Ravage, Century Magazine, January 1928, Volume 115, Number 3, pages 346-350.

      ‘There is scarcely an event in modern Europe that cannot be traced back to the Jews. We Jews are today nothing else but the World’s seducers, its destroyers, its incendiaries, its executioners.’ By the Jewish scholar, Oscar Levy; in his preface to G. Lane-Fox Pitt-Rivers, The World Significance of the Russian Revolution.

      ‘Thanks to the terrible power of our International Banks, we have forced the Christians into wars without number. Wars have a special value for Jews, since Christians massacre each other and make more room for us Jews. Wars are the Jews’ Harvest: The Jew banks grow fat on Christian wars. Over 100-million Christians have been swept off the face of the earth by wars, and the end is not yet.’ (Rabbi Reichorn, speaking at the funeral of Grand Rabbi Simeon Ben-Iudah, 1869, Henry Ford also noted that: ‘It was a Jew who said, ‘Wars are the Jews’ harvest’; but no harvest is so rich as civil wars.’

    • January 21, 2016 - 1:15 pm | Permalink

      “(NAZI a word created by Goebbels and embossed on a plaque. Front: Swastika surrounded by ” A NAZI in Palestine”. Back: the star of David)”

      You might want to read the following:


      Never saw the plaque, but I would bet my last shekel it’s a Chooish “forgery”.

      After all, this comes from entire tribe of Ash-can-Nazis.

      • January 21, 2016 - 1:29 pm | Permalink

        I believe the above article contains the explanation for the “plaque” of which you write. It is actually a medallion but is often mistakenly identified as a “coin”.

    • Jon's Gravatar Jon
      January 28, 2016 - 4:59 pm | Permalink

      “NAZI a word created by Goebbels and embossed on a plaque.”

      I just address one of your nonsensical and dead wrong statements. The National Socialists never called themselves “Nazis.” That was a epithet was coined by a Jewish propagandist named Konrad Heiden and used by the enemies of National Socialism.


  6. Jacob's Gravatar Jacob
    January 20, 2016 - 4:00 am | Permalink
  7. BlackedOut's Gravatar BlackedOut
    January 20, 2016 - 3:52 am | Permalink

    Looking at the illustration depicting “Edisons in all Times and Places”, it looks like the White guy is amorous with his horse and the native is about to be amorous with the sheep. Probably NOT an accident given WHO wrote the book.

  8. Stogumber's Gravatar Stogumber
    January 20, 2016 - 12:12 am | Permalink

    Aly’s book is definitely a progress, because he gets nearer to the truth. He profits from the neoliberal poltical climate in which (Jewish/German) inequality can openly be supported, justice is inexistent, and the weaker part (the envious) can be stigmatized as the evil (a tradition which goes back to Helmut Schoeck’s classical work about “Envy”).
    Whereas Fromm and Adorno had to do lip service to equality and justice, to avert eyes from Jewish/German inequality and to concoct a theory about Gentile subconscious projections which had nothing to do with the real Jews.
    Take the neo-liberal sauce away, and Aly’s book confirms the hard facts of antijewish literature.

  9. January 19, 2016 - 11:58 pm | Permalink

    Chronologically the year may be 2016, but existentially, politically and spiritually it is still … 1945.

  10. Kyra+Marat's Gravatar Kyra+Marat
    January 19, 2016 - 11:34 pm | Permalink

    I was depressed by this article because there is nothing to be done about this state of affairs. And Mike’s comment hit the nail on the head. We can read, we can say a few things but ultimately we are still censored. Mike is right.

  11. January 19, 2016 - 10:04 pm | Permalink

    Equality is a social construct.

    Justice is a social construct.

    Society is a social construct.

    One thing for sure, certain social constructs come and go. Look at communism.

    But Russians were Russian before communism, during communism, and after communism.

    So, it seems to me that the most stable things in life are ethnos and territory.

    Of course, Jews know this. Jews know ethnos + territory is the most powerful obstacle to their globalist penetrative power.

    So, they wage war on ethnicity. Once a people reject something as stable and powerful as ethnos, they will lose the will to defend their own territory. And then Jewish globalists will take all.

  12. Europa's Gravatar Europa
    January 19, 2016 - 9:58 pm | Permalink

    So the German people have to depend on a Turk to tell them they are destroying themselves?

    Little mention is made of the fact that Holocaust Idol Worship has been imposed on the German people by a Self-Righteous America controlled by Jews and its ethos of All Men are Created Equal and whose troops occupy the Fatherland. This the same country that killed 700,000 of its own people to “free” the Blacks who are now disproportionately represented in petty and violent crime plus are a huge drain through dependency.

    What is happening to the German people is appalling to watch. In several town and cities crime rates (burglary, shoplifting, rapes) have gone through the roof since the puppet called Merkel opened the door to backward peoples, many are afraid to speak out for fear of being branded a “nazi” or being linked to PEGIDA or the NPD.

  13. John's Gravatar John
    January 19, 2016 - 9:34 pm | Permalink

    So I guess this article from a set of encyclopedias circa 1972 wouldn’t be PC today?


  14. John's Gravatar John
    January 19, 2016 - 9:11 pm | Permalink

    Excellent article! A couple things come to mind about the Jews and their deceit.

    1) The pure Jewish hypocrisy when it comes to citizenship and immigration law.

    Ted Kennedy quoting the Talmud to convince Americans that it was right to let the third-world flood in even though Israel keeps non-Jews out.


    Israel’s Two-Tiered Citizenship Law Bars Non-Jews From 93 Percent of Its Lands


    2) This guy was three-quarters white but his chance of getting a bone marrow match with a full white was effectively zero

    HAYWARD, Calif. – If Nick Glasgow, 28, were white, he would have a nearly 90 percent chance of finding a matching bone marrow donor who could cure his leukemia.

    But because the bodybuilder is one-quarter Japanese, his doctor warned him the outlook was grim. Glasgow’s background would make it almost impossible to find a match, which usually comes from a patient’s own ethnic group.

    The doctor “didn’t say it was slim-to-none. He didn’t say it would be hard. He said ‘zero chance,’ ” Glasgow’s mother, Carole Wiegand, recalled with tears in her eyes.


  15. January 19, 2016 - 9:11 pm | Permalink

    Victim culture has led to something like an aristocracy.

    Aristocrats were BORN to favored status. Just on the basis of blood lineage, they were deemed superior to the rabble and deserving of privilege and power. Even if they didn’t do anything positive, they were part of a superior breed. They could be vain, wasteful, indulgent, abusive, and vile. But no matter how they acted, they had superior status over everyone else because of their blood lineage.

    Well, that kind of aristocracy is long gone.

    But we have the same logic in what might called the AGGRIEVE-TOCRACY or Aggrievtocracy. Just because some of your ancestors were victimized or oppressed for a certain period many generations ago, you get to act morally superior toward everyone else.
    Even if you’re a lout, punk, moron, thug, bum, or total idiot, YOU ARE SPECIAL simply by the virtue of having been born with the noble blood of past ‘aggrievement’
    So never mind that you’re infantile, stupid, puerile, irresponsible, thuggish, criminal, and/or a menace to society. You can claim superiority simply on the basis that you carry the blood of past suffering..

    Long long ago, the warrior class of noblemen fought to defend their domain and the people in it. Since they fought bravely and made sacrifices, a system developed whereupon their descendants were to inherit noble privilege forever and ever. And this privilege didn’t just pass onto brave and honorable children but to craven and cowardly children as well. Just because the first breed of warriors fought bravely, all their descendants for all time were supposed to be consecrated with noble blood.

    Likewise, just because a certain people were oppressed in the past, the blood of all their descendants are supposed to be consecrated forever with the holiness of noble suffering. So, it doesn’t matter if the descendants no longer suffer and, if anything, do wrong onto others with bad behavior, trashiness, obscenity, criminality, and rampages.

    In some ways, the logic of aggrievtocracy is worse than that of the aristocracy.
    While it is true that the descendants of aristocrats inherited privilege simply by being born with noble blood, they also inherited the responsibilities of warrior-hood and good governance. Even though some aristocratic children turned out to be loutish brats, many did honor their responsibilities, and many gave their lives in war to defend the domain. And some lived up to the principle of noblesse oblige. So, aristocrats were born with privilege and obligations.

    In contrast, the aggrievtocracy is about being with the privilege of complaint and moral upmanship without any obligation to one’s fellow man or woman whatsoever.

    A nobleman or aristocrat was born superior but also burdened with responsibilities to demonstrate his superiority in battle and governance.
    In contrast, the aggrievtocrat can feel better than everyone else without any sense of obligation on his part to fix his own problems or care about other people.

    In America, not only blacks with slave ancestry get to play the aggrievtocrat but even black African immigrants whose ancestors captured and sold slaves to whites. Obama hasn’t any black American slave blood — his father’s side is Kenyan — , but he talks like any other black aggrievtocrat.

    White Liberals may think they are doing a favor to blacks by upholding this aggrievtocratic principle, but it has only created more problems in the black community, usually in the form of black-on-black violence. Since every black American feels totally justified on the basis of past history, he or she is incapable of any self-reflection or moral self-examination. Every black person, man and woman, thinks he or she is totally right all the time on the basis of his or her noble aggrievtocratic blood. So, naturally, there is a lot of black-on-black violence. Every black person, on the basis of his or her noble-victim-blood, thinks he or she is never ever wrong.
    To be sure, blacks are naturally wilder and more aggressive, but the culture of aggrievtocracy makes them much worse.

    All this BLM nonsense is the product of the aggrievetocratic mindset. In actual fact, most blacks are killed by other blacks. And there are tons of black-on-white violence, as well as black-on-brown, black-on-yellow, black-on-Arab violence.
    But blacks are completely blind to their own foulness because they think their blood makes them naturally noble and morally superior.
    Indeed, why make an effort to be good when you are said to be born with the superior blood of goodness?

    Indeed, a black guy can become a thug rapper and sing awful garbage, but the Liberal media will treat him like a poet and prophet spouting the most amazing sermon.
    Or a total idiot like Tahenesi Coates can babble on and on something that makes little sense, but the Liberal community will shower him with praise and treat him like a genius and prophet because he was born with black blood, or the noble blood of black victimhood.

    The culture of aggrievtocracy + naturally disposition of blacks toward aggression + lower IQ among American blacks(though not necessarily among Nigerian blacks) = worsening racial problems with the black underclass.

    PS: Aggrievtocracy is even crazier among Jews. At least, many blacks can still make the case that they are faced with economic problems and hardships, even if much of it is caused by themselves.

    In contrast, Jews are, bar none, the most powerful and privileged people on earth. And yet, all Jews everywhere think they are holy and noble simply because certain populations of European Jews were killed in huge numbers during WWII.
    So, even the likes of Jordan Befort and Anthony Wiener think they have some right to feel superior to the rest of us.

    • Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
      January 20, 2016 - 9:30 pm | Permalink

      “killed” or “died”? Deaths in custody are not necessarily homicide.

    • Rosa's Gravatar Rosa
      January 21, 2016 - 6:11 am | Permalink

      Not because they were killed in WWIi, but simply because they are Jew, ” the chosen people”., for ever and ever victim of other tribes and people.

  16. January 19, 2016 - 8:13 pm | Permalink


    This homo guy complains about how vulgar, obscene, violent, and crude blacks(and some Hispanics) are, but he completely overlooks the fact that Hollywood, TV, and music industry(that are largely controlled by homosexuals and Liberals) have encouraged thuggish, trashy, porny, and degenerate behavior among the youth of America.

    Just look at the makeup of the upper echelons of Hollywood, MTV, and US media.

    Thanks to Liberals, globalists, and homosexuals, the new religion of America is Worship of the Homo Anus. And businesses that won’t bake ‘gay wedding cakes’ are bullied, denounced, fined, and destroyed.

    Entire city blocks are shut down to celebrate the decadent lifestyles of homosexuals. And anyone who is critical of the ‘gay’ lifestyle or agenda is destroyed quicker than any Stalinist during the so-called McCarthy Era.

    Liberals, homosexuals, and globalists have raked in countless billions by feeding the young of America with ugly trash culture. Young girls are encouraged to dress and act like whores. Young boys are encouraged to emulate gangsta rappers.

    ‘Sophisticated’ Liberal journals run story after story in praise of hook-up culture, loose sex, and even adultery.

    And school children’s minds are drummed day in and day out with the notion that fecal penetrative ‘sex’ among homos is wonderful and that Bruce ‘Caitlyn’ Jenner is really a woman.

    We have full-grown adults indulging in tattoos and body-piercing instead of taking on adult responsibilities.

    And the elites who control the media and entertainment complex have been telling people that they should never grow up and should just act like pigs.

    And even in elite colleges, there are classes in porn, and in some cases, porn performers and prostitutes are invited to give lectures to students.

    And of course, the timelessly meaningful concept of marriage has been degraded by homosexuals who claim that their obscene act is deserving of being recognized as worthy of matrimony.

    This homosexual Liberal school-teacher merely got a taste of his own medicine. His ilk have been spreading cultural filth all around, and especially the lower elements, who are trashy and vulgar to begin with, have been encouraged by the media and entertainment complex to be even trashier, more thuggish, and more demented.

    So, excuse me if I don’t feel any sympathy for this phony baloney ‘liberal’.

  17. Hbm's Gravatar Hbm
    January 19, 2016 - 7:45 pm | Permalink

    Race is reality. The Holocaust is a social construct.

  18. Max's Gravatar Max
    January 19, 2016 - 5:45 pm | Permalink

    At the moment there is a “controversy” in Hollywood (a propaganda campaign) about the Academy Awards concerning the number of Blacks and other none whites nominated. There is an OBVIOUSLY suppressed part of this artificial controversy:

    1. Jews have run Hollywood with an iron mobster racially base openly proud of it… hand for 100 years.

    2. After the homosexuality as normal agenda was passed with the U.S. Defense Department actions couple years ago… any person paying attention saw that the agenda switched to interracial couples and marriage.

    We see it everywhere in ads, in movies and TV, in music videos, computer games, hip music. The idea is from this article… to literally attack all Northern European tribal continuity while leaving Talmudic culture and racial integrity untouched or rather, stronger relative to other cultures.

    3. I suspect if you looked closely at who is behind this Academy Awards protest of racial content of those nominated… you would find Ashkenazi Jews. The outcome has to be some kind of quota MENTALLY self administered in the academy and in America, likely in Hollywood with Blacks and other races, given membership in the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts as a seed to the next level of psychological processing, to come with the next President that will include quotas. For those of us that look at all people as our brothers and sisters and who thought that most of this racial thought forms were now beyond Americans by the mid 90s… we now have to realize that the real agenda is world domination, nothing short of Zion is ACKNOWLEDGED control of the world.

    4. Although I have not seen the movie, Wil Smith’s portrayal of a black African doctor immigrant who in part discovered concussion brain trauma in NFL athletes… looks to be an obvious nominee for best actor. BUT… he was not nominated.

    I suspect that this was purposeful to give an example of prejudice.

    5. This presents a great opportunity for pointing at Ashkenazi racist criminality under federal RICO laws and their sick agenda through control of Hollywood, which obviously has a very dense, racist agenda.

    6. And, I suspect that there will be a protest of some sort at this year’s Academy Awards… that too is an opportunity for the fact of Ashkenazi Jewish Talmudic agendas in Hollywood and their outcome, mind/emotional control to be openly pointed to.

  19. Santoculto's Gravatar Santoculto
    January 19, 2016 - 5:40 pm | Permalink

    The idea of “race as just a social construct” is so vague and incorrect that made me ask why MOST white people still believe in it, and many (or most of) the smarter!?!?!

    • Jon's Gravatar Jon
      January 28, 2016 - 5:30 pm | Permalink

      Race is just a “social construct” is akin to saying different breeds of dogs, cats, horses, etc. is just a “social construct.” And no one questions or challenges the FACT that different breeds (i.e., races) of the aforementioned animals are a REALITY. Ditto human beings.

      Bottom line: Jews are the great masters of lying, to paraphrase Arthur Schopenhauer.

  20. peter's Gravatar peter
    January 19, 2016 - 4:35 pm | Permalink

    From the Cologne official Tourist web site, ” We are deeply concerned about the attacks on New Year‘s Eve at Cologne Central Station. This never happened before and we do not expect that it will become the rule. We count on the quick clarification of facts ”
    Charmingly naive ?

  21. peter's Gravatar peter
    January 19, 2016 - 4:16 pm | Permalink

    Excellent summary of the post 1945 western world. Opinions which were held to be respectable and mainstream in the 1930 s became within 40 years marginalised and despised. Anyone growing up in the west within the last 50 years would be aware that the older generation often had views which were directly opposite to those you were being fed with at school, college and university.
    They used to call 1945 year zero in Germany; it is actually year zero for the western world.

  22. Veritas's Gravatar Veritas
    January 19, 2016 - 2:41 pm | Permalink

    Götz Aly is an utterly evil, self-hating German *anti-German* bigot.

    It’s, uh, ‘males’ like ‘him’ that are the cause of virtually all that is wrong with Germany after WW2.

    ‘He’ is ein Verräter of the first order .. and should get a medal from the Left, and the Zionists, for ‘his’ schweinisch, verräterische ways, perhaps a Verräterkreuz der ersten Klasse – mit Goldenem Eichenlaub, Schwertern und Brillanten

    *I’m sure some of you know what that means ;)

    • roy albrecht's Gravatar roy albrecht
      January 20, 2016 - 6:49 am | Permalink

      “…How “smart” is it to adopt a group evolutionary strategy (to use Kevin MacDonald’s terminology) which will undermine the people with whom one has lived for centuries? How “smart” is it to expect the Chinese and Indians, the likely powers to replace Whites after the fall of America, to fall for the same ruse?…”

      The Rothschild Syndicate led, Talmudic fed, racially related mongrel Jews are, in my estimation, have been and are, break-and-entering through cross-breeding their way to the tops of both the Indian and Chinese power structures.

      When (or “…if..?” ) the Jews finally succeed in destroying the West (or specifically …, America), and along the way the White population (or whatever’s left of it) at large finally comes to its senses and sees the Jews for the cancerous infiltration that they are, previous patterns of Jewish behavior indicate that they will have by that time paved the way for Jewish privileged in both China and India (to take just two examples) vis-à-vis the same banking, mass media, legislative and academic tools they used to dominate the West while immunizing themselves from guilt.

      This should become relative child’s play for the Jews since the average IQ of the Racial White Replacement will be on average a full 10 to 15 points (or more in the case of S. & W. Africans) below the White population they (may?) have succeeded in wiping out.

      Moreover, since these Third World Replacements originate from cultures where de facto slavery has been (and largely still) is a part of their existence for centuries if not millenniums, what real resistance will the people from these cultures offer against the top down continuation of an existing system if nothing changes but the ethnic and philosophical composition of the present ruling class.

      Canada is a great example of this. Traditionally a Constitutional Monarchy, in Canada the monarchy has been replaced by a “Jew-archy” and the wage-serfs have been blended with a new breed of wage-slaves with lower standards of living expectations whilst increasing the level of fear and obedience to their Jewish owners.

      • Zeus's Gravatar Zeus
        January 25, 2016 - 12:13 pm | Permalink

        That is a very perceptive comment and I fear that you are right Roy. One can see it now more openly in Indian and Chinese high society, It is already too late. I am afraid the cancer has spread.

      • Sgt. Pepper's Gravatar Sgt. Pepper
        January 25, 2016 - 8:27 pm | Permalink

        paved the way for Jewish privileged in both China and India (to take just two examples) vis-à-vis the same banking, mass media, legislative and academic tools they used to dominate the West while immunizing themselves from guilt.

        I don’t think the “Culture of Critique” is going to succeed in China.

        The Jews may achieve some economic success in China, but I don’t think they are going to be able to brainwash the Chinese like they have whites. Chinese racial personality is different than ours; they don’t have that inborn tendency toward idealism that whites appear to have. There is no inborn “Faustian spirit” to be taken advantage of. The altruism mind-trick won’t work on the Chinese.

        That’s my opinion. It would be interesting to take a poll among WN’s— what percentage of WN’s think the Jew’s altruism mind-trick will work on the Chinese, versus what percentage of WN’s think that the altruism mind-trick won’t work on the Chinese. (I am solidly in the “won’t work” camp.)

        Its a good question.

        • royalbrecht's Gravatar royalbrecht
          January 26, 2016 - 2:56 am | Permalink

          The orientals are if anything a herd animal to the extreme. All the Jews need do is infiltrate the upper strata of shepherds and then continue the pattern that already exists except with Jews replacing the Chinese at the top.

          “American companies” already have proxy interest in many Japanese firms, and have been allowed to operate in China since 1993. South Korea has long ago capitulated to Jews vis-à-vis “American military” and Jewish capital.
          Jews have been in India for over 2000 years.

          The only bright spot is that oriental people are apt to openly revolt unlike White sheep who seem to be willing to munch on Jewish pablum ad infinitum.

          Also, and this is totally without basis in fact or reason, but Biblical prophesy predicts that the kings of the East will move in after the west is done imploding due to Jew engineered wars.
          The Chinese are presently making huge economic inroads into Africa and Africans are streaming en mass into Europe.
          Where there is smoke there is often fire.

          Since I am a person without a country I can call my own, I have no choice but to die fighting for Germany until it is free of Jew control, but most other Whites do not share this predicament.

        • Sgt. Pepper's Gravatar Sgt. Pepper
          January 28, 2016 - 1:46 am | Permalink

          The orientals are if anything a herd animal to the extreme. All the Jews need do is infiltrate the upper strata of shepherds and then continue the pattern that already exists except with Jews replacing the Chinese at the top.

          The Chinese are herd-like, but they are also notoriously clannish. I predict the Chinese will set up barriers, and prevent the Jews from ever reaching the top. The Jews are in for an uphill climb.

          Even if the Jews replace the Chinese at the top, how long will this last? The Jews just don’t know when to quit— even at the top, the Jews will persist in their paranoia and their hostile and contemptuous behavior toward the Chinese majority. It is only a matter of time before the Chinese rise up and tear the Jews limb from limb, like has happened everywhere else. I don’t see much future for the Jews in China.

  23. FKA Max's Gravatar FKA Max
    January 19, 2016 - 1:43 pm | Permalink

    Great review!
    Thank you very much!

    I actually researched several topics, that apply to this discussion, over the last three days.

    Firstly, the supposed Jewish superior intelligence/intellect (that supposedly results in Jewish success/wealth, and causes all this White ”envy” towards Jews, which also apparently led to the Holocaust), the existence of which, is pretty much disproved by the following research, and the further refutation of said argument, by exposing how the Jewish narrative and policies in the regards to the Holocaust and Third World immigration, clearly display obvious logical fallacies and shortsightedness on behalf of Jews(emphasis added):

    So Jewish success is hardly surprising. They’ve leveraged their high verbal IQ, through their extraordinary racial solidarity, into a media/legal/religious combine which essentially tricks Whites into acting for Jewish interests. Since, in the United States, Whites constitute the largest pool of geniuses and high-achievers, an even greater absolute number than Jewish geniuses and high-achievers, the combination of smart Jewish brains employing captured White brains is a most formidable one. The very smart Jews are focused on their ethnic interests; with the very smart Whites deliberately prevented from focusing on their ethnic interests and in fact rewarded for opposing their own interests and either convinced that the slightest opposition to Jews is the ultimate immoral act (anti-Semitism) or convinced by empirical evidence that they will be punished for it.” [23]

    The thesis of Jewish intellectual supremacy does not withstand critical examination. This is not to say that apart from the contributions of the Jewish Left the mainstream Jewish community has had little positive impact as real anti-Semitists and race haters propose. On the contrary, many hard-working Jews with no interest in criticizing or undermining Gentile culture have made important contributions to science and polity. The opening quotations to this essay are of historical interest and are not the opinion of the authors. However these contributions, as critics such as Kevin MacDonald have shown are unfortunately over-shadowed by the “culture of critique” of Leftist Jews who, like Leftist Gentiles, see Western culture as flawed.

    There is concern by Jews and other people of goodwill about the spread of real anti-Semitism (i.e. genuine hatred of the Jews and not merely concern with the “culture of critique”) in Europe today. Those of us knowledgeable about Asia are well aware that phenomena such as Hitler-fascination and Holocaust denial are popular amongst the Chinese and especially the Indians. None of these peoples have guilt about the holocaust and none accept the Jews as a “chosen people”. [38] How “smart” is it to adopt a group evolutionary strategy (to use Kevin MacDonald’s terminology) which will undermine the people with whom one has lived for centuries? How “smart” is it to expect the Chinese and Indians, the likely powers to replace Whites after the fall of America, to fall for the same ruse? Insightful Jewish critics such as Stephen Steinlight, are already questioning the rationality of the “culture of critique” and we must do the same. [39]
    Is it too much to hope that a sizeable portion of the Jewish intellectual elite may come to see that their survival is intimately linked to ours? [40]

    Secondly, the topic and phenomenon of ”selective skepticism” explored and observed on the example of Jew Albert Einstein (emphasis added):

    The Myth of Consistent Skepticism: The Cautionary Case of Albert Einstein


    Thus, Einstein had strong beliefs in both political liberty and the Soviet style of government during the 1930s. Interestingly, Einstein refused to join or endorse an international commission headed by John Dewey to investigate the Moscow Show Trials (a consistent skeptic would seek both confirmatory and discrediting evidence) and would subsequently write to Max Born that “there are increasing signs the Russian trials are not faked, but that there is a plot among those who look upon Stalin as a stupid reactionary who has betrayed the ideas of the revolution” (quoted in Born 1971, p. 130). Born would later comment that most people in the West at the time believed the trials “to be the arbitrary acts of a cruel dictator.” Einstein, however, relied upon information from people he described as “those who know Russia best.”

    The important point, however, is that Einstein’s positive beliefs toward the Soviet Union did not change as substantial information came forth demonstrating that the Soviet Union was a totalitarian state that did not tolerate political liberty. Einstein was never shy about judging capitalism or Nazism by their deeds and actions instead of their rhetoric. He did not apply this standard to the Soviet Union. A consistent skeptic would not use double standards to evaluate different forms of governments.

    I think it is reasonable and safe to assume, that those who know Russia best, are Einstein’s fellow Jews.

    • Veritas's Gravatar Veritas
      January 19, 2016 - 6:17 pm | Permalink

      Good stuff, thanks as always for your excellent research, and posting/sharing these truths with us Max.

    • January 21, 2016 - 9:41 pm | Permalink

      Einstein the opportunist.

      Jews are by nature, opportunists. Probably the most egregious example of Jewish opportunism was Saul of Tarsus. When Paul né Saul realized the Temple and its sacrificial system days were numbered, he changed his name and religious affiliation and began promoting Jesus as the new high priest, Judaism’s new YHVH for his emerging Christian cult.

      But as often is the case with the best laid plans, it all went awry. Few listened and worse the power structure saw his radical new movement as a new threat to the stability of their social structure. So the Christians became the bullseye in their heretic galleries. Paul never lived to see his dream of religious power realized.


      Albert Einstein: Plagiarist of the Century?

      Einstein plagiarised the work of several notable scientists in his 1905 papers on special relativity and E=mc2, yet the physics community has never bothered to set the record straight.

      by Richard Moody Jr


      Proponents of Einstein have acted in a way that appears to corrupt the historical record. Albert Einstein (1879-1955), Time magazine’s “Person of the Century”, wrote a long treatise on special relativity theory (it was actually called “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies”, 1905a), without listing any references. Many of the key ideas it presented were known to Lorentz (for example, the Lorentz transformation) and Poincaré before Einstein wrote the famous 1905 paper.

      As was typical of Einstein, he did not discover theories; he merely commandeered them. He took an existing body of knowledge, picked and chose the ideas he liked, then wove them into a tale about his contribution to special relativity. This was done with the full knowledge and consent of many of his peers, such as the editors at Annalen der Physik.

      The most recognizable equation of all time is E=mc2. It is attributed by convention to be the sole province of Albert Einstein (1905). However, the conversion of matter into energy and energy into matter was known to Sir Isaac Newton (“Gross bodies and light are convertible into one another…”, 1704). The equation can be attributed to S. Tolver Preston (1875), to Jules Henri Poincaré (1900; according to Brown, 1967) and to Olinto De Pretto (1904) before Einstein. Since Einstein never correctly derived E=mc2 (Ives, 1952), there appears nothing to connect the equation with anything original by Einstein.

      Arthur Eddington’s selective presentation of data from the 1919 eclipse so that it supposedly supported “Einstein’s” general relativity theory is surely one of the biggest scientific hoaxes of the 20th century. His lavish support of Einstein corrupted the course of history. Eddington was less interested in testing a theory than he was in crowning Einstein the king of science.

      The physics community, unwittingly perhaps, has engaged in a kind of fraud and silent conspiracy; this is the byproduct of simply being bystanders as the hyperinflation of Einstein’s record and reputation took place. This silence benefited anyone supporting Einstein.


      Science, by its very nature, is insular. In general, chemists read and write about chemistry, biologists read and write about biology, and physicists read and write about physics. But they may all be competing for the same research dollar (in its broadest sense). Thus, if scientists wanted more money for themselves, they might decide to compete unfairly. The way they can do this is convince the funding agencies that they are more important than any other branch of science. If the funding agencies agree, it could spell difficulty for the remaining sciences. One way to get more money is to create a superhero-a superhero like Einstein.

      Einstein’s standing is the product of the physics community, his followers and the media. Each group benefits enormously by elevating Einstein to icon status. The physics community receives billions in research grants, Einstein’s supporters are handsomely rewarded, and media corporations like Time magazine get to sell millions of magazines by placing Einstein on the cover as “Person of the Century”.

      When the scandal breaks, the physics community, Einstein’s supporters and the media will attempt to downplay the negative news and put a positive spin on it. However, their efforts will be shown up when Einstein’s paper, “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies”, is seen for what it is: the consummate act of plagiarism in the 20th century.

      Special Relativity

      Jules Henri Poincaré (1854-1912) was a great scientist who made a significant contribution to special relativity theory. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy website states that Poincaré: (1) “sketched a preliminary version of the special theory of relativity”; (2) “stated that the velocity of light is a limit velocity” (in his 1904 paper from the Bull. of Sci. Math. 28, Poincaré indicated “a whole new mechanics, where the inertia increasing with the velocity of light would become a limit and not be exceeded”); (3) suggested that “mass depends on speed”; (4) “formulated the principle of relativity, according to which no mechanical or electromagnetic experiment can discriminate between a state of uniform motion and a state of rest”; and (5) “derived the Lorentz transformation”.

      It is evident how deeply involved with special relativity Poincaré was. Even Keswani (1965) was prompted to say that “As far back as 1895, Poincaré, the innovator, had conjectured that it is impossible to detect absolute motion”, and that “In 1900, he introduced ‘the principle of relative motion’ which he later called by the equivalent terms ‘the law of relativity’ and ‘the principle of relativity’ in his book, Science and Hypothesis, published in 1902”. Einstein acknowledged none of this preceding theoretical work when he wrote his unreferenced 1905 paper.

      In addition to having sketched the preliminary version of relativity, Poincaré provided a critical part of the whole concept-namely, his treatment of local time. He also originated the idea of clock synchronisation, which is critical to special relativity.

      Charles Nordman was prompted to write “They will show that the credit for most of the things which are currently attributed to Einstein is, in reality, due to Poincaré”, and “…in the opinion of the Relativists it is the measuring rods which create space, the clocks which create time. All this was known by Poincaré and others long before the time of Einstein, and one does injustice to truth in ascribing the discovery to him”.

      Other scientists have not been quite as impressed with “Einstein’s” special relativity theory as has the public. “Another curious feature of the now famous paper, Einstein, 1905, is the absence of any reference to Poincaré or anyone else,” Max Born wrote in Physics in My Generation. “It gives you the impression of quite a new venture. But that is, of course, as I have tried to explain, not true” (Born, 1956). G. Burniston Brown (1967) noted, “It will be seen that, contrary to popular belief, Einstein played only a minor part in the derivation of the useful formulae in the restricted or special relativity theory, and Whittaker called it the relativity theory of Poincaré and Lorentz… ”

      Due to the fact that Einstein’s special relativity theory was known in some circles as the relativity theory of Poincaré and Lorentz, one would think that Poincaré and Lorentz might have had something to do with its creation. What is disturbing about the Einstein paper is that even though Poincaré was the world’s leading expert on relativity, apparently Einstein had never heard of him nor thought he had done anything worth referencing!

      Poincaré, in a public address delivered in September 1904, made some notable comments on special relativity theory. “From all these results, if they are confirmed, would arise an entirely new mechanics…would be, above all, characterised by this fact that no velocity could surpass that of light…because bodies would oppose an increasing inertia to the causes, which would tend to accelerate their motion; and this inertia would become infinite when one approached the velocity of light… No more for an observer carried along himself in a translation, he did not suspect any apparent velocity could surpass that of light: and this would be then a contradiction, if we recall that this observer would not use the same clocks as a fixed observer, but, indeed, clocks marking ‘local time’.” (Poincaré, 1905)

      Einstein, the Plagiarist
      It is now time to speak directly to the issue of what Einstein was: he was first and foremost a plagiarist. He had few qualms about stealing the work of others and submitting it as his own. That this was deliberate seems obvious.

      Take this passage from Ronald W Clark, Einstein: The Life and Times (there are no references to Poincaré here; just a few meaningless quotes). This is how page 101 reads: “‘On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies’…is in many ways one of the most remarkable scientific papers that had ever been written. Even in form and style it was unusual, lacking the notes and references which give weight to most serious expositions…” (emphasis added).

      Why would Einstein, with his training as a patent clerk, not recognise the need to cite references in his article on special relativity? One would think that Einstein, as a neophyte, would overreference rather than underreference.

      Wouldn’t one also expect somewhat higher standards from an editor when faced with a long manuscript that had obviously not been credited? Apparently there was no attempt at quality control when it was published in Annalen der Physik. Most competent editors would have rejected the paper without even reading it. At the barest minimum, one would expect the editor to research the literature to determine whether Einstein’s claim of primacy was correct.

      Max Born stated, “The striking point is that it contains not a single reference to previous literature” (emphasis added) (Born, 1956). He is clearly indicating that the absence of references is abnormal and that, even by early 20th century standards, this is most peculiar, even unprofessional.

      Einstein twisted and turned to avoid plagiarism charges, but these were transparent.

      From Bjerknes (2002), we learn the following passage from James MacKaye: “Einstein’s explanation is a dimensional disguise for Lorentz’s… Thus Einstein’s theory is not a denial of, nor an alternative for, that of Lorentz. It is only a duplicate and disguise for it… Einstein continually maintains that the theory of Lorentz is right, only he disagrees with his ‘interpretation’. Is it not clear, therefore, that in this [case], as in other cases Einstein’s theory is merely a disguise for Lorentz’s, the apparent disagreement about ‘interpretation’ being a matter of words only?”

      Poincaré wrote 30 books and over 500 papers on philosophy, mathematics and physics. Einstein wrote on mathematics, physics and philosophy, but claimed he had never read Poincaré’s contributions to physics.

      Yet many of Poincaré’s ideas – for example, that the speed of light is a limit and that mass increases with speed – wound up in Einstein’s paper “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies” without being credited.

      Einstein’s act of stealing almost the entire body of literature by Lorentz and Poincaré to write his document raised the bar for plagiarism. In the information age, this kind of plagiarism could never be perpetrated indefinitely, yet the physics community has still not set the record straight.

      In his 1907 paper, Einstein spelled out his views on plagiarism: “It appears to me that it is the nature of the business that what follows has already been partly solved by other authors. Despite that fact, since the issues of concern are here addressed from a new point of view, I am entitled to leave out a thoroughly pedantic survey of the literature…”

      With this statement, Einstein declared that plagiarism, suitably packaged, is an acceptable research tool.

      Here is the definition of “to plagiarise” from an unimpeachable source, Webster’s New International Dictionary of the English Language, Second Edition, Unabridged, 1947, p. 1,878: “To steal or purloin and pass off as one’s own (the ideas, words, artistic productions, etc. of one another); to use without due credit the ideas, expressions or productions of another. To commit plagiarism” (emphasis added). Isn’t this exactly what Einstein did?

      Giving due credit involves two aspects: timeliness and appropriateness. Telling the world that Lorentz provided the basis for special relativity 30 years after the fact is not timely (see below), is not appropriate and is not giving due credit. Nothing Einstein wrote ex post facto with respect to Lorentz’s contributions alters the fundamental act of plagiarism.

      The true nature of Einstein’s plagiarism is set forth in his 1935 paper, “Elementary Derivation of the Equivalence of Mass and Energy”, where, in a discussion on Maxwell, he wrote, “The question as to the independence of those relations is a natural one because the Lorentz transformation, the real basis of special relativity theory…” (emphasis added).

      So, Einstein even acknowledged that the Lorentz transformation was the real basis of his 1905 paper. Anyone who doubts that he was a plagiarist should ask one simple question: “What did Einstein know, and when did he know it?” Einstein got away with premeditated plagiarism, not the incidental plagiarism that is ubiquitous (Moody, 2001).

      The History of E=mc2

      Who originated the concept of matter being transformed into energy and vice versa? It dates back at least to Sir Isaac Newton (1704). Brown (1967) made the following statement: “Thus gradually arose the formula E =mc2, suggested without general proof by Poincaré in 1900”.

      One thing we can say with certainty is that Einstein did not originate the equation E=mc2. Then the question becomes: “Who did?” Bjerknes (2002) suggested as a possible candidate S Tolver Preston, who “formulated atomic energy, the atom bomb and superconductivity back in the 1870s, based on the formula E=mc2”.

      In addition to Preston, a major player in the history of E = mc2 who deserves much credit is Olinto De Pretto (1904). What makes this timing so suspicious is that Einstein was fluent in Italian, he was reviewing papers written by Italian physicists and his best friend was Michele Besso, a Swiss Italian. Clearly, Einstein (1905b) would have had access to the literature and the competence to read it. In “Einstein’s E=mc2 ‘was Italian’s idea'” (Carroll, 1999). We see clear evidence that De Pretto was ahead of Einstein in terms of the formula E = mc2.

      In terms of his understanding the vast amount of energy that could be released with a small amount of mass, Preston (1875) can be credited with knowing this before Einstein was born. Clearly, Preston was using the E = mc2 formula in his work, because the value he determined – e.g., that one grain could lift a 100,000-ton object up to a height of 1.9 miles – yields the equation E=mc2.

      According to Ives (1952), the derivation Einstein attempted of the formula E=mc2 was fatally flawed because Einstein set out to prove what he assumed. This is similar to the careless handling of the equations for radioactive decay which Einstein derived. It turns out that Einstein mixed kinematics and mechanics, and out popped the neutrino. The neutrino may be a mythical particle accidentally created by Einstein (Carezani, 1999). We have two choices with respect to neutrinos: there are at least 40 different types or there are zero types. Occam’s razor rules here.

      The Eclipse of 1919

      There can be no clearer definition of scientific fraud than what went on in the Tropics on May 29, 1919. What is particularly clear is that Eddington fudged the solar eclipse data to make the results conform to “Einstein’s” work on general relativity. Poor (1930), Brown (1967), Clark (1984) and McCausland (2001) all address the issues surrounding this eclipse.

      What makes the expeditions to Sobral and Principe so suspect is Eddington’s zealous support of Einstein, as can be seen in his statement, “By standing foremost in testing, and ultimately verifying the ‘enemy’ theory, our national observatory kept alive the finest traditions of science…” (emphasis added) (Clark, 1984). In this instance, apparently Eddington was not familiar with the basic tenets of science. His job was to collect data-not verify Einstein’s theories.

      Further evidence for the fraud can be deduced from Eddington’s own statements and the introduction to them provided by Clark (ibid., p. 285): “May 29 began with heavy rain, which stopped only about noon. Not until 1.30 pm when the eclipse had already begun did the party get its first glimpse of the sun: ‘We had to carry out our programme of photographs on faith…”‘ (emphasis added). Eddington reveals his true prejudice: he was willing to do anything to see that Einstein was proved right. But Eddington was not to be deterred: “It looked as though the effort, so far as the Principe expedition was concerned, might have been abortive”; “We developed the photographs, two each night for six nights after the eclipse… The cloudy weather upset my plans and I had to treat the measures in a different way from what I intended; consequently I have not been able to make any preliminary announcement of the result” (emphasis added) (Clark, ibid.).

      Actually, Eddington’s words speak volumes about the result. As soon as he found a shred of evidence that was consistent with “Einstein’s” general relativity theory, he immediately proclaimed it as proof of the theory. Is this science?

      Where were the astronomers when Eddington presented his findings? Did anyone besides Eddington actually look at the photographic plates? Poor did, and he completely repudiated the findings of Eddington. This should have given pause to any ethical scientist.

      Here are some quotes from Poor’s summary: “The mathematical formula, by which Einstein calculated his deflection of 1.75 seconds for light rays passing the edge o the sun, is a well known and simple formula of physical optics”; “Not a single one the fundamental concepts of varying time, or warped or twisted space, of simultaneity, or of the relativity of motion is in any way involved in Einstein’s prediction of, or formulas for, the deflection of light”; “The many and elaborate eclipse expeditions have, therefore, been given a fictitious importance. Their results can neither prove nor disprove the relativity theory… (emphasis added) (Poor, 1930).

      From Brown (1967), we learn that Eddington could not wait to get out to the world community that Einstein’s theory was confirmed. What Eddington based this on was a premature assessment of the photographic plates. Initially, stars did “appear” to bend as they should, as required by Einstein, but then, according to Brown, the unexpected happened: several stars were then observed to bend in a direction transverse to the expected direction and still others to bend in a direction opposite to that predicted by relativity.

      The absurdity of the data collected during the Eclipse of 1919 was demonstrated by Poor (1930), who pointed out that 85% of the data were discarded from the South American eclipse due to “accidental error”, i.e., it contradicted Einstein’s scale constant. By a strange coincidence, the 15% of the “good” data were consistent with Einstein’s scale constant. Somehow, the stars that did not conform to Einstein’s theories conveniently got temporarily shelved-and the myth began.

      So, based on a handful of ambiguous data points, 200 years of theory, experimentation and observation were cast aside to make room for Einstein. Yet the discredited experiment by Eddington is still quoted as gospel by Stephen Hawking (1999). It is difficult to comprehend how Hawking could comment that “The new theory of curved space-time was called general relativity… It was confirmed in spectacular fashion in 1919, when a British expedition to West Africa observed a slight shift in the position of stars near the sun during an eclipse. Their light, as Einstein had predicted, was bent as it passed the sun. Here was direct evidence that space and time were warped”. Does Hawking honestly believe that a handful of data points, massaged more thoroughly than a side of Kobe beef, constitutes the basis for overthrowing a paradigm that had survived over two centuries of acid scrutiny?

      The real question, though, is: “Where was Einstein in all this?” Surely, by the time he wrote his 1935 paper, he must have known of the work of Poor: “The actual stellar displacements, if real, do not show the slightest resemblance to the predicted Einstein deflections: they do not agree in direction, in size, or the rate of decrease with distance from the sun”. Why didn’t he go on the record and address a paper that directly contradicted his work? Why haven’t the followers of Einstein tried to set the record straight with respect to the bogus data of 1919?

      What makes this so suspicious is that both the instruments and the physical conditions were not conducive to making measurements of great precision. As pointed out in a 2002 Internet article by the British Institute of Precise Physics, the cap cameras used in the expeditions were accurate to only 1/25th of a degree. This meant that just for the cap camera uncertainty alone, Eddington was reading values over 200 times too precise.

      McCausland (2001) quotes the former Editor of Nature, Sir John Maddox: “They [Crommelin and Eddington] were bent on measuring the deflection of light…”; “What is not so well documented is that the measurements in 1919 were not particularly accurate”; “In spite of the fact that experimental evidence for relativity seems to have been very flimsy in 1919, Einstein’s enormous fame has remained intact and his theory has ever since been held to be one of the highest achievements of human thought” (emphasis added).

      It is clear that from the outset that Eddington was in no way interested in testing “Einstein’s” theory; he was only interested in confirming it. One of the motivating factors in Eddington’s decision to promote Einstein was that both men shared a similar political persuasion: pacifism. To suggest that politics played no role in Eddington’s glowing support of Einstein, one need ask only the question: “Would Eddington have been so quick to support Einstein if Einstein had been a hawk?” This is no idle observation. Eddington took his role as the great peacemaker very seriously. He wanted to unite British and German scientists after World War I. What better way than to elevate the “enemy” theorist Einstein to exalted status? In his zeal to become peacemaker, Eddington lost the fundamental objectivity that is the essential demeanour of any true scientist. Eddington ceased to be a scientist and, instead, became an advocate for Einstein.

      The obvious fudging of the data by Eddington and others is a blatant subversion of scientific process and may have misdirected scientific research for the better part of a century. It probably surpasses the Piltdown Man as the greatest hoax of 20th-century science. The BIPP asked, “Was this the hoax of the century?” and exclaimed, “Royal Society 1919 Eclipse Relativity Report Duped World for 80 Years!” McCausland stated that “In the author’s opinion, the confident announcement of the decisive confirmation of Einstein’s general theory in November 1919 was not a triumph of science, as it is often portrayed, but one of the most unfortunate incidents in the history of 20th-century science”.

      It cannot be emphasised enough that the Eclipse of 1919 made Einstein, Einstein. It propelled him to international fame overnight, despite the fact that the data were fabricated and there was no support for general relativity whatsoever. This perversion of history has been known about for over 80 years and is still supported by people like Stephen Hawking and David Levy.

      Summary and Conclusions
      The general public tends to believe that scientists are the ultimate defenders of ethics, that scientific rigour is the measure of truth. Little do people realise how science is conducted in the presence of personality.

      It seems that Einstein believed he was above scientific protocol. He thought he could bend the rules to his own liking and get away with it; hang in there long enough and his enemies would die off and his followers would win the day. In science, the last follower standing wins-and gets to write history. In the case of Einstein, his blatant and repeated dalliance with plagiarism is all but forgotten and his followers have borrowed repeatedly from the discoveries of other scientists and used them to adorn Einstein’s halo.

      Einstein’s reputation is supported by a three-legged stool. One leg is Einstein’s alleged plagiarism. Was he a plagiarist? The second leg is the physics community. What did they know about Einstein and when did they know it? The third leg is the media. Are they instruments of truth or deception when it comes to Einstein? Only time will tell.

      The physics community is also supported by a three-legged stool. The first leg is Einstein’s physics. The second leg is cold fusion. The third leg is autodynamics. The overriding problem with a three-legged stool is that if only one leg is sawn off, the stool collapses. There are at least three very serious disciplines where it is predictable that physics may collapse.

      Science is a multi-legged stool. One leg is physics; a second leg is the earth sciences; a third, biology; and a fourth, chemistry (e.g., cold fusion). What will happen if, for the sake of argument, physics collapses? Will science fall?


      Bjerknes, C.J. (2002), Albert Einslein: The Incorrigible Plagiarist, XTX Inc., Dowers Grove.

      Born, M. (1956), Physics in My Generation, Pergamon Press, London, p. 193.
      Brown, G. Burniston (1967), “What is wrong with relativity?”, Bull. of the Inst. of Physics and Physical Soc., pp. 71-77.

      Carezani, R. (1999), Autodynamics: Fundamental Basis for a New Relativistic Mechanics, SAA, Society for the Advancement of Autodynamics.
      Carroll, R., “Einstein’s E = mc2 ‘was Italian’s idea”‘, The Guardian, November 11, 1999.

      Clark, R.W. (1984), Einstein: The Life and Times, Avon Books, New York.
      De Pretto, O. (1904), “Ipotesi dell’etere nella vita dell’universo”, Reale Istituto Veneto di Scienze, Lettere ed Arti, Feb. 1904, tomo LXIII, parte II, pp. 439-500.

      Einstein, A. (1905a), “Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Korper” (“On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies”), Annalen der Physik 17:37-65.

      Einstein, A. (1905b), “Does the Inertia of a Body Depend on its Energy Content?”, Annalen der Physik 18:639-641. Einstein, A. (1907), “Uber die vom Relativitatspringzip geforderte Tragheit der Energie”, Annalen der Physik 23(4):371-384 (quote on p. 373).

      Einstein, A. (1935), “Elementary Derivation of the Equivalence of Mass and Energy”, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 61:223-230 (first delivered as The Eleventh Josiah Willard Gibbs Lecture at a joint meeting of the American Physical Society and Section A of the AAAS, Pittsburgh, December 28, 1934).

      Hawking, S., “Person of the Century”, Time magazine, December 31, 1999.
      Ives, H.E. (1952), “Derivation of the Mass-Energy Relation”, J. Opt. Soc. Amer. 42:540-543.

      Keswani, G.H. (1965), “Origin and Concept of Relativity”, Brit. J. Phil. Soc. 15:286-306.

      Mackaye, J. (1931), The Dynamic Universe, Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York, pp. 42-43.

      Maddox, J. (1995), “More Precise Solarlimb Light-bending”, Nature 377:11.

      Moody, R., Jr (2001), “Plagiarism Personified”, Mensa Bull. 442(Feb):5.

      Newton, Sir Isaac (1704), Opticks, Dover Publications Inc., New York, p.cxv.

      Nordman, C. (1921), Einstein et l’univers, translated by Joseph McCabe as

      “Einstein and the Universe”, Henry Holt and Co., New York, pp. 10-11, 16 (from
      Bjerknes, 2002).

      Poincaré, J.H. (1905), “The Principles of Mathematical Physics”, The Monist, vol. XV, no. 1, January 1905; from an address delivered before the International Congress of Arts and Sciences, St Louis, September 1904.

      Poor, Cl. (1930), “The Deflection of Light as Observed at Total Solar Eclipses”, J. Opt. Soc. Amer. 20:173-211.

      The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Jules Henri Poincaré (1854-1912), at http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/p/poincare.htm.
      Webster, N. (1947), Webster’s New International Dictionary of the English Language, Second Edition, Unabridged, p. 1878.

      ©2003 Richard Moody Jr
      777 Treadlemire Road
      Berne NY 12023 USA
      Email: Slmrea@aol.com


      Great and Imperfect
      September 5, 2008; Page A13
      Einstein’s Mistakes
      By Hans C. Ohanian

      (Norton, 394 pages, $24.95)

      Ask anyone where E=mc2 comes from and you will invariably be told “Einstein.” The name is forever paired with the famous equation, and the two together — emblazoned on T-shirts, public monuments and book covers — are synonymous with genius, like the image of the wild-haired physicist himself.

      The problem is that Einstein was not the first to discover the equation: It was known for several years before he presented it in his celebrated 1905 paper, “Does the Inertia of a Body Depend on its Energy-content?” Nor was the proof that he provided there complete. It was only in 1911 that the physicist Max von Laue offered a full proof of the startling assertion that energy equals mass times the speed of light squared — a truth that has ever since affected our understanding of matter and motion, not to mention the fabric of the universe itself. Einstein tried for years to come up with better proof of his own but could never get it quite right.

      Hans C. Ohanian’s engaging “Einstein’s Mistakes: The Human Failings of Genius” is full of such interesting revelations. “Almost all of Einstein’s seminal works contain mistakes,” he writes. “Sometimes small mistakes — mere lapses of attention — sometimes fundamental failures to understand the subtleties of his own creations, and sometimes fatal mistakes that undermined the logic of his arguments.”

      The pattern endured throughout Einstein’s career. Mr. Ohanian finds that four out of five of the seminal papers that Einstein produced in the so-called “miracle year” of 1905, when he was working as a patent inspector in Zurich, were “infested with flaws.” Einstein’s doctoral dissertation, finally accepted in the same year after a botched first submission, contained so many mistakes in its mere 17 pages that when the editors of his “Collected Papers” sought to republish it decades later, they were forced to add more than 30 footnotes to qualify and correct the mess.
      More gravely, there are flaws in Einstein’s Principle of Equivalence (concerning gravity and acceleration), an important building block in the general theory of relativity. And there are errors in Einstein’s effort to introduce a “cosmological constant” in his equations for space-time. The mathematical constant supposedly confirmed Einstein’s belief that the universe was static. He later came to grasp that the universe wasn’t static at all; he referred to the constant as his “biggest blunder.”

      But that realization didn’t prevent him from devoting the last 30 years of his life to a futile effort to formulate a unified field theory of the universe. The endeavor, as Mr. Ohanian describes it, was something of a wild goose chase, and the work for it was filled with “mistakes and more mistakes.”

      A theoretical physicist by training, Mr. Ohanian doesn’t write like one. He recounts his chronicle of errors in clear and engaging prose, giving us in the process a short course in the history of modern physics and a witty and provocative account of his subject’s life. Anyone who has read the recent biographies of Einstein by Walter Isaacson or Jürgen Neffe may find some of the material familiar, but on the whole “Einstein’s Mistakes” is original and fresh. Nor is Mr. Ohanian one of those petty biographers who delight only in turning up the failings — or turning out the dirty laundry — of great men. Rather he notes Einstein’s errors for a purpose, showing us why his achievement was all the greater for them.

      In this Mr. Ohanian provides a useful corrective, for there is a tendency, even today, to deify Einstein and other men of genius, treating them as if they were immortal gods. Einstein himself objected to the practice even as he reveled in his fame. “It is not fair,” he once observed, “to select a few individuals for boundless admiration and to attribute superhuman powers of mind and of character to them.” In doing so, ironically, we make less of the person, not more, forgetting and simplifying their struggle.

      Some of Einstein’s lapses, like his rumpled shirts and sockless shoes, are simply endearing — examples of what the 19th-century criminologist Cesare Lombroso once called the “stupidity” of men of genius. But others reveal a great mind at work. In Mr. Ohanian’s telling, Einstein had a “mystical, intuitive” approach to problem solving. That approach, coupled with a stubborn disposition and an irreverent attitude toward established truths, meant that Einstein could be right even when he was wrong. He may never have come up with a perfect proof of E=mc2, but his certainty that the equation was true led him farther than any physicist of the 20th century. He saw the forest even as he bumped into trees.

      Of course, not every tree collision in history ends up at a great thought. But Einstein’s ability to make use of his mistakes as “stepping stones and shortcuts” was central to his success, in Mr. Ohanian’s view. To see Einstein’s wanderings not as the strides of a god-like genius but as the steps and missteps of a man — fallible and imperfect — does not diminish our respect for him but rather enhances it.

      Mr. McMahon, a professor of history at Florida State University, is currently writing a history of the idea of genius in Western thought.

  24. Michael Adkins's Gravatar Michael Adkins
    January 19, 2016 - 1:34 pm | Permalink

    It might be useful if we mandate (by law) the study of the abortion holocaust our people have suffered.

  25. John S.'s Gravatar John S.
    January 19, 2016 - 12:59 pm | Permalink

    The Holocaust must be understood as an ideology built on the fabricated notion that the worshiping of idols and ancestors is forbidden. The Jewish people consider Gentile nations to be the fabric of non-Jewish identity, which is prohibited according to the Noachide laws. Egalitarianism coupled with the elimination of racial identity is required in order to honor the seven universal laws outlined in the Talmud. Remember, the Noachide laws only apply to non-Jews, which is the essence of modern progress and humanitarianism. Liberals who are against group identity and racial consciousness are unaware that what they are actually representing is the Talmudic worldview. The Jewish doctrine of world peace and prosperity gave rise to the United Nations, NATO, IMF, and the World Bank, each working together to bring about a universal system designed to subjugate Gentile cultures.

  26. Junghans's Gravatar Junghans
    January 19, 2016 - 12:20 pm | Permalink

    Thank you Brenton, for this excellent review. Probably the best, and most concise book, overall, on the “Holocaust” is Peter Winter’s book, The Six Million. It is available at cost from Amazon.com. Please use the link on this web page to order it.

  27. Hadrian's Gravatar Hadrian
    January 19, 2016 - 12:14 pm | Permalink

    More gaslighting. “Let us kill your culture, your identity, your traditions, and your nations, because you are evil and we are good.” Aly is probably a turkish jew himself.

    • Rosa's Gravatar Rosa
      January 21, 2016 - 6:13 am | Permalink

      hmmm,, looking at the picture, he can perfectly be a cryto-jew.

  28. Franklin Ryckaert's Gravatar Franklin Ryckaert
    January 19, 2016 - 11:35 am | Permalink

    “…Scientists,” it claimed, “have reached general agreement in recognizing that mankind is one: that all men belong to the same species, Homo sapiens…”

    This startling “discovery” is a non-event. Scientists have always assumed that human beings form one species.

    “…The UNESCO panel’s statement proposed that it would be best “to drop the term ‘race’ altogether,” since “for all practical purposes, ‘race’ is not so much a biological phenomenon as a social myth…”

    The terms “race” or “variety” simply denote a subdivision of a species (hence also the term “sub-species”) and that is an accepted concept in biology. Nobody says that races of dogs or horses or that varieties of roses are “social myths” and yet when it comes to humans, who also are part of biological nature, the concept of race (or variety or sub-species) suddenly is no more valid ! We are talking here not about science, but politics, Jewish politics that is.

    It is astonishing how Jews always get away with the most ridiculous lies. Western civilization is based on the objective search for truth, that distinguishes it from all other civilizations. With Jews at the helm of our civilization we lose our course.

  29. Joey Virgo's Gravatar Joey Virgo
    January 19, 2016 - 11:22 am | Permalink

    Gotz Aly has written much worse about the Germans and the Third Reich in his previous writings than Brenton Sanderson reveals in this Part 1 piece. He might as well be a Jew for all his distortions and disinformation about the Third Reich economy. Aly actually asserts that Hitler had to bribe the German people in order to win the election!

  30. Rosa's Gravatar Rosa
    January 19, 2016 - 10:52 am | Permalink

    From what I have read on him ( Wiki) it seems to me the author Aly belongs to a well being family, one of those nearly noble families ( but not actual noble) who looked down on the small bourgeoisie, working class and peasantry with a sense of superiority and arrogance. Inside themselves, though, they have always feared and fear to come back to their origins, that of a simple Turk
    soldier and then a King’s Kamerier. They didn’t like NSDAP, but were too
    coward to oppose Hitler openly. They were all inscribed to the Party and enjoyed its benefits, but after the war they tried anything to distance
    themselves from the past regime.So they like, they love to “identify” with
    Jews, Poles, Russians, etc., that is with all the Nazi victims.
    And of course behaving so, especially if you are a journalist first, and then a
    ” historian” is higly rewarding, above all if you were a very leftist young in the
    ’60 and ’70 and now the Powers that be are not so leftist.
    In Wiki they tell of controversies surrounding Aly, accused by some critics in Germany to be paid by Russia and Israel !
    In sum: a vulgar, paid, trahitor of his people. With whxih even afgwr more than 200 years he and his family don’t elpng ! ( in rediblw how thwy wera a le to keep,their surname!)

  31. January 19, 2016 - 10:17 am | Permalink

    As usual on this site, we encourage comments on the Holocaust Industry and how it warps the cultures of the West, but we will delete comments dealing with the historical truth or lack of truth in the standard account of the holocaust.

    • Mike's Gravatar Mike
      January 19, 2016 - 12:13 pm | Permalink

      That’s the most depressing article I’ve read for a long time.
      Then to find at the end that we can’t comment on the truth of the Holocaust just hammers it home. Sorry! I give in, the reality has sunk in, I feel like crying at the realisation. They’ve won We’ve lost, there is just no point arguing anymore.

    • Brent Damery's Gravatar Brent Damery
      January 19, 2016 - 1:19 pm | Permalink

      Professor MacDonald, I am truly grateful for the enlightenment your work has bestowed in understanding that which has led to the state of the world as it currently exists. Most people are so lost that they simply cannot accept even a small fraction of the truth, for that which they “know” is so contrary to it and emotionally entrenched in their collective psyche as to render them virtually beyond convincing, and what’s more, every aspect of their connection to the greater world is another means of maintaining their ignorance. One must walk on egg shells if he is to dare even scratch the surface of a break through in truth, even with members of his own family, so the situation is dire. I find women the most difficult to convince of even the aspects of reality on race, for example, which are quite easily proven if one is willing to look at the evidence. As you have stated, our very nature as people of European descent makes us particularly susceptible to moral arguments against our own people, as we are willing to inflict “altruistic punishment” against our own for historical acts long since past. Much of the problem revolves around the fact that virtually every outlet of knowledge in which our children must (often by law) engage perpetuates the false narrative of the uniquely evil nature of our ancestors. Obviously, there are many aspects of ensuring our people are viewed as evil, but the main ones appear to revolve around slavery and the Holocaust. Given our very nature, part of the “cure” is to expose the fact that our people’s relation to these events as popularly conveyed is warped, skewed, and often outright fabricated. This being the case, the historical truth or lack thereof regarding the Holocaust and the white hand in slavery certainly deserves a large space for discussion. However, I understand that given the difficulty that exists in opening the eyes of those who cannot see, the Occidental Observer is not the place for this particular discussion. Sometimes too much truth on too many fronts accomplishes less than complete truth in a particular niche, so I respect your stance regarding comments on these particular issues. Your work is among that which comprises the very foundation upon which the revitalized and proud European society will begin to stand again, whether now or in the future, in Europe or somewhere else. Thank you.

    • Bob's Gravatar Bob
      January 19, 2016 - 4:39 pm | Permalink

      “we will delete comments dealing with the historical truth or lack of truth in the standard account of the holocaust.”

      I’m somewhat confused by this position. My own view is that the “holocaust” narrative itself may not be fabricated out of whole cloth (certainly many Jews were targeted for persecution and death during the war), but the essential elements of the narrative which are used against us are provable fabrications.

      I myself have visited some of these “concentration camps” and viewed the memorials, the portions of the camps that have been retained as well as certain elements that have been (as has been openly admitted) fabricated after the war.

      What struck me the most about my visits to these places (Dachau, Buchenwald, etc.) is the extent to which the victims were not Jews, but Gentiles. One of the most important (for Jews) aspects of the Jewish “holocaust” narrative is the exclusiveness of Jewish victimhood. Yes, when pressed, Jews will admit that Gentiles also perished in these places, but that the suffering of the Jews was somehow “special” and distinctly greater than that of the Gentiles who also perished in these very same camps. No Gentile who is really paying attention when they visit these places can fail to grasp the absurdity of the Jewish claims regarding this special character of the Jewish suffering that took place there.

      This is particularly true if one can place these events in the historical context of a titanic global struggle that left several tens of millions of people dead, maimed, and/or homeless. Yes what happened to many Jews during the war was terrible, but it was no more terrible than what happened to the millions of other victims (of all sides) of that war. The only way to accept the “specialness” of the Jewish suffering is to discount the suffering of everyone else. This is where Jewish Hollywood has been so effective. They have bombarded us with the suffering of the Jews, never letting us forget that primacy of their victimhood, while allowing the deaths of the other victims (who number in the tens of millions) to fade from our memories.

      The entire “holocaust” narrative hinges, not on the veracity of the claims of the number of Jewish victims, or even on the specific cause of death (gas chambers, shooting, starvation, disease, etc.), but upon this notion that what happened to the Jews was THE most terrible thing to happen, not just in that war, but in history…and that what happened was planned, premeditated and was the central event of the entire struggle with everything else, all other victims, being merely ancillary to the planned genocide of the Jews.

      I agree that arguments about whether 60,000 or 6,000,000 Jews were killed during the war, or whether these people died in gas chambers or from disease, diverts the conversation away from the more important (and more relevant) issues. The Jewish “holocaust” narrative’s power is not rooted in the actual number of Jewish lives lost or in the manner of their deaths, but in the notion that these deaths were the result of the “ultimate crime against humanity”… A crime without equal in all of human history. If one accepts the veracity of the Jewish holocaust narrative (and the guilt that goes along with it), it is impossible then to effectively resist the ongoing genocide of European peoples.

      After all, are not all people entitled to their own narrative? How can we be a truly independent and free people if we must live out our lives within an alien narrative that says that we are monsters whose evil nature is inherent to our “whiteness”?

      I do not believe that one can successfully combat the “Jewish narrative” without directly deconstructing the fundamental basis of that narrative as part of the process of reclaiming our own narrative.

      • Jon's Gravatar Jon
        January 28, 2016 - 6:17 pm | Permalink

        “A crime without equal in all of human history.”

        Yes, indeed, a crime without equal in all of human history took place in the Jewish-created and administered Soviet Union that snuffed out the lives of sixty-six million Russians, Ukrainians and other Eastern European people via mass executions, starvation in an artificial famine in Ukraine or worked to death in extremely brutal conditions in Siberian gulags (real “death camps”) that made the German camps look like a resort spa in comparison!

    • Gregor's Gravatar Gregor
      January 19, 2016 - 6:53 pm | Permalink

      Hopefully other readers won’t demand exact reasons for Dr. MacDonald’s decision to not allow comments about the “truth or non-truth” of the official narrative.

      As many of you know, he visits places where such a discussion has led to arrest and serious penalties. As many of you know, this site is monitored by many entities which are hostile to both TOO and it’s editor.
      Many of you know what has happened to well-known revisionists who merely discussed this proposition in public.

      Do you respect Dr. MacDonald? Do you want to keep this site going?

      Then use your noggin! Don’t push for “too much information”.

      • Mike's Gravatar Mike
        January 19, 2016 - 8:29 pm | Permalink

        Gregor, If that was aimed at my comment, I certainly wasn’t blaming the writer of the article for not allowing comments, after the loss of Paul Eisens site that’s the last thing I’d want.

        I was voicing my despair at the sudden realisation that nothing’s going to change, It’s too late, the damage has been done. I hope I’m wrong!

    • January 19, 2016 - 8:03 pm | Permalink

      Re how to deal with the holocaust, see Greg Johnson’s article:
      The comments section of an article is simply not the place for this sort of thing.

      • Curmudgeon's Gravatar Curmudgeon
        January 20, 2016 - 10:09 am | Permalink

        Dr. MacDonald,
        Anyone wanting to decide the historical truth or lack of truth in the standard account of the holocaust, would do well to familiarize themselves with the Zundel trials in the 1980s. Transcripts of the trial are, I believe, still available. It is important to understand that Zundel was convicted at trial, but had the convictions overturned by the Supreme Court.
        The connection to the industry is threefold: 1) How the lobby was able to coerce a government to prosecute opinion; and 2) How that opinion is now “hate” speech; and most importantly, 3) How the narrative has blinded people to reality.
        While the trial was in a Canadian court, the pattern has been repeated world wide.

      • Mike's Gravatar Mike
        January 20, 2016 - 1:15 pm | Permalink


        (Open in private window)

        I don’t expect or want you to publish this or to cause any trouble for your excellent site, or encourage any change in your comments policy. But please have a read of some of the comments that are allowed in “The Spectator” Spectacularly different from whats allowed in the Daily Mail. At least they should cheer you up.

Comments are closed.