Monday, 12 June 2006

Intellectuals, philosophers and historians

Those who produce our most accessible histories have an enormous influence upon the way the rest of us think about our place in the world.

Those who create and shape the history that we are allowed to know have a tremendous effect on the way we perceive the world and our place within it. The historian’s interpretation of past events quite obviously colours what we believe ourselves and others to be.

In this generation, probably the best known 'British' historian, and certainly the one who makes the most money, is Simon Schama. Schama wrote and presented the BBC series, A History of Britain.

In the 8 April 2002 edition of The Guardian, Jonathan Freedland had this to say:
"The New York-based professor who is fast becoming Britain's unofficial historian laureate… after 20 years of teaching and writing in America, Schama has become like many top-flight US academics: clear and eloquent, with a layer of warmth and accessibility that is often missing in their British counterparts… Schama lives in America…

He loves the American constitution, he says. He reads the Declaration of Independence every Fourth of July, in his lovely home overlooking the Hudson Valley... And maybe if Britain was a blank slate, it too could adopt such a hyper-rational, enlightened system of government…

How did this task fall to a man who is a kind of double outsider: based in Manhattan and the grandson of Jewish immigrants? ‘It's chutzpah, (Jewish cheek) certainly,’ he laughs."
In the above interview Schama is on record as having said:
"If you get excessively tribal and misty-eyed and sentimental, you can do a lot of homicide."
It is interesting to note that the Creative Director of BBC TV History Programmes, Laurence Rees, the man who produced and directed A History of Britain and, presumably, employed Schama in the first place, was the writer and producer of both ‘The Nazis - A Warning From History’, and ‘War of the Century’ for the BBC.

Tony Blair thought fit to award Schama a CBE in 2001.

If Schama is the predominant delineator of what the British were in this generation who, apart from those who produced The World at War, (Jeremy Isaacs and David Elstein, both Jewish, would later become the first Chairmen of Channel 4 and Channel 5 respectively) were the historians who got us to this point in our history? Who else has been at the forefront of the teaching of British history to the descendants of those who created it?

Adolphe (Ralph) Miliband was born in Brussels on 7 January 1924.

His parents were Polish Jews and his father, Sam Miliband, had been a soldier in the Bolsheviks' Red Army.

On 28 February 2004, The Guardian reported thus:
"In May 1940, the ominous world situation he enjoyed discussing with his fellow teenage activists became an indisputable reality. On the 10th, the Germans invaded Belgium. By the 16th, they had almost reached Brussels...

Ralph heard a radio announcement that all boys of his age - he was now 16 - were to be conscripted into the Belgian army... This was not his idea of useful political sacrifice; he decided he would walk to France.

After a frantic family debate, the plan was amended: Ralph and his father would walk to the Channel instead, a distance of more than 60 miles, while the rest of the family stayed in Brussels and looked for another way out...

At Ostend, they talked their way on to the last boat to England. Once they were at sea, they asked for refugee status. It was granted".
Almost immediately upon arrival in 1940, the Milibands' father was moved to write the following in his diary:
"The Englishman is a rabid nationalist... they are perhaps the most nationalist people in the world... When you hear the English talk of this war you sometimes almost want them to lose it to show them how things are".
Which does tend to make you think that old Adolphe wasn't exactly all that grateful to those who had just given him and his dad sanctuary.

The Guardian article continues:
"Driving around the capital with other labourers, looking at everything with the quick eyes of a new arrival, Ralph acquired a sense of England and its underlying structures: 'We found out about middle-class meanness and snobbery'...

One boiling afternoon during his first summer in London, he went to Highgate cemetery, found Karl Marx's grave and, standing with his fist clenched, swore 'My own private oath that I would be faithful to the workers' cause'. Not that he intended to remain a worker himself: he found clearing bombsites 'an arduous business' and felt a distance from his fellow labourers... He wanted to be an intellectual."
I guess, the Milibands' dad was one of those Jews who wanted to do the thinking for the labouring classes but wasn't all that keen on doing any labouring himself. The Guardian continues:
"In 1941, he applied to study politics at the London School of Economics. He was accepted. The LSE had temporarily moved to Cambridge to escape the bombing. For the next two years, Ralph relished the cloisters and the quiet, worked closely with the local Communist party... 'A grand lad - one of the best I have had in years,' wrote the famous socialist professor, who became a mentor".
Harold Laski was the foremost Jewish Marxist teaching in England at this time and, at the time of the landslide election victory of 1945, was the Chairman of the Labour Party.

At Cambridge, Miliband was active in a variety of left-wing groups and in January 1943 was elected Vice President of the LSE Students' Union. Of Laski, Adolphe was moved to write:
"His lectures taught more, much more than political science. They taught a faith that ideas mattered... he loved students because they were young... he was helping the future and bringing nearer that brave world in which he so passionately believed."
In the 1955 essay, The Political Ideas of Harold Laski, Miliband wrote:
"He also believed that... one of the essential causes of the postwar tensions was the determination of the West to pursue its ancient and futile crusade against the idea which Russia had come to embody. And it was one of his most bitter disappointments that a Labour Government should have been willing to pursue foreign policies which only had meaning in terms of an acceptance of the values implicit in such a crusade.

The first duty of a Labour Government, he insisted, was to come to terms, despite all difficulties, with the Communist world. Nothing that has happened since he died suggests that duty to be less imperative or less urgent."
So, here we see that both Miliband and his mentor, Laski, believed that accommodation should have been made with a regime that had so brutally murdered tens of millions of its own citizens. Most of whom were entirely innocent of any crime.

Miliband will certainly have known of the genocidal role played in the extermination policies of the predominantly Jewish Cheka at the time he was writing the above. In the aforementioned Guardian article we are also told:
"In 1967, Leo Panitch, who today edits the Socialist Register, was a bored would-be lawyer from Canada with vague leftwing sympathies...

To Panitch, who was also Jewish, Miliband exposed a part of himself that he did not display to his usual, generally secular, leftwing circle: they would sometimes chat in Yiddish.

In other ways, too, Miliband's life was less austere than his public persona suggested. In 1961, he had married Marion Kozak... Her background and politics were similar to his...

David was only a few weeks old when they moved in, but Marion quickly filled the house with visitors: relatives and fellow leftwing writers, dissidents and academics from abroad, the occasional politician - all of them arguing around the basement dining table or on the narrow stairs at parties. As soon as David and Ed were old enough, they were encouraged to join in...

One afternoon while David was still a schoolboy, he was at home studying when the doorbell rang. No one else was in, so he answered it, to find Joe Slovo, head of the military wing of the African National Congress, then engaged in armed actions against the South African government."
Jo Slovo was also Jewish.

Leo Panitch wrote the following in the essay: Ralph Miliband, Socialist Intellectual, 1924-1994:
"Ralph Miliband stood as a beacon on the international Left... He ranks among those most directly associated with the emergence of the British New Left after 1956, and for the flourishing Marxist scholarship it spawned in the following decades...

I knew Ralph Miliband for 27 years. He was my teacher and supervisor, later briefly my academic colleague, and for the past ten years I had the great privilege of sharing the editorship of The Socialist Register with him. We were very close friends...

His family's circle in Brussels was that of Jewish immigrants who were `authentic products of the ghetto': Yiddish was their common tongue... The rise of German fascism, closely observed by these immigrants, merged with their own experience of Polish and Russian anti-semitism to reinforce a culture of isolation, reflecting a sense that 'the world outside the Jews was more or less hostile, suspect at least, not to be trusted or even penetrated'!...

Ralph had joined his father in paying `close attention' to French politics in general... The fact that it was French rather than Belgian politics that was the object of their attention, had, of course, much to do with Leon Blum's leadership of the 3 French Socialist Party, and his becoming Premier in the Popular Front Government in 1936...

The political climate in our house was generally and loosely left: it was unthinkable that a Jew, our sort of Jew, the artisan Jewish worker, self-employed, poor, Yiddish speaking, unassimilated, non religious, could be anything but socialistic, undoctrinally.

The right was taken to be antisemitic, the left less so or not at all - after all Blum was Prime Minister of France."
Leon Blum was also Jewish.

After graduating with a PhD, he taught at Roosevelt College in Chicago, before, in 1949, taking up the post of Assistant Lecturer in Political Science at the LSE. He was to teach there for the next 23 years.

He left in 1972 after being offered the Professorship of Politics at the University of Leeds. However, he wasn't there long and left to take up lucrative job offers in Canada which was followed by a long spell in prestigious New York universities.

In a lecture delivered in Amsterdam in February 1993, Miliband said:
"It is a great deal easier to attribute social ills to Jews, black people, immigrants, other ethnic or religious groups than to a social system and to the men who run it and who are of the same nationality, ethnicity, or religion."
So minorities never do anything wrong? It's always the fault of the 'social system' and 'the men who run it'? Who are, of course, 'of the same nationality, ethnicity, or religion.'

Sound familiar? Ralph Miliband's Marxist socialism greatly influenced the Blair/Brown generation. As his obituary in The Independent tells us:
"In the late Sixties and Seventies, he was in great demand at campuses throughout Britain and North America."
Jeremy Paxman, as well as being the presenter of University Challenge, made his name as the main presenter on BBC2’s top political and current affairs programme, Newsnight.

He has a particularly abrasive style which makes for fun viewing if, like me, you like to see the establishment squirm.
However, when interviewing Eric Hobsbawm on 3 October 2002, Paxman the tough guy became, all of a sudden, Paxman the pussy cat. Paxman, like David Frost, who once described Hobsbawm as 'arguably Britain's most distinguished living historian,' introduced Hobsbawm as the greatest historian of the twentieth century.

The great man is, wouldn’t you just know it, a Jewish immigrant. He was born in Egypt in 1917 but moved to Vienna soon afterwards and was brought up there.

When asked on Radio 4's Desert Island Discs in 1995 whether he thought the chance of bringing about a communist utopia was worth any sacrifice, he Hobsbawm, an active and declared pro-Soviet Communist from his university days, immediately answered 'yes.' The horrified questioner repeated the question:
"Even the sacrifice of millions of lives?"
"That's what we felt when we fought the second world war," Hobsbawm replied.
We know this sentiment was no slip of the tongue as he has not been afraid to repeat it, as we shall see.

On 21 January 2003, David Pryce-Jones said this in The New Criterion:
"In the course of his life, the only people Hobsbawm seems ever to have known were Communist intellectuals like himself, a good many of them privileged people with private incomes. For many years he had a cottage in Wales on the estate of Clough Williams-Ellis, a rich landowner and baroque architect whose wife Amabel, born into the Strachey family of Bloomsbury fame, was a salon Communist."
Hobsbawm himself admitted that he had no time for those he considered to be his social inferiors, saying:
"I refused all contact with the suburban petty-bourgeoisie, which I naturally regarded with contempt."
Let’s check out what the contemptuous historian had to say in Paxman’s 2002 interview:
Paxman: "You were, famously, a very long-standing member of the Communist Party. Yet, everywhere one looks during the course of the 20th century, where communism was applied it failed. Do you think your commitment was a mistake?"
Hobsbawm: "If it hadn't been Russia, it would certainly not have been anything near as barbarous as it was. On the other hand, looking back, I must now say, I can't call myself a communist any more because the kind of party which I believed was necessary, which Lenin pioneered, and which was for a period in the 20th century an incredibly formidable device for changing states and societies, has run out."
Paxman: "The problem is the methodology, isn't it? No-one disputes the ideals. Of course we would all seek a fairer world. But can you think of anywhere where those principles were applied in practice which created a society you admired?"
Hobsbawm: "In some instances it created better societies."
Paxman: "Where"?
Hobsbawm: "I remember my friends from India going to Soviet Central Asia and saying ‘At least they've taught them all to read and write’."
Paxman: "They taught them to read and write but they didn't let them vote… What was it that made you decide to become a communist"?
Hobsbawm: "It seemed clear that there was no solution for the problems of the world… which was not revolutionary… Obviously, if I had been a German… I might have become a Nazi… You wanted to change the world. You see, we were the first globalisers, we believed as, indeed Marx believed from the word go, that this is the way history was going, therefore there must be global solutions… Nobody else produced global solutions… I wanted to stay to pay tribute to a cause which was a good cause, a global cause."
"Wanted to change the world"? "Globalisers"? "Global solutions" "Good cause"? "Global cause"? At least we know now where our own Dear Leader gets his ideas from.

As I previously suggested Paxman and Frost are not Hobsbawm’s only admirers. Top political correspondent, David Aaronovitch, is also a paid up member of the Hobsbawm fan club.

Aaronovitch, currently a Times journalist, has worked for The Guardian and The Independent and had previously been an editor of On The Record, and had presented The Roman Way, On Air, The Argument, Copy Snatcher, often stood in for Libby Purves on Radio 4’s Midweek and rumour has it that he wanted Jimmy Young’s Radio 2 slot after hosting his programme a couple of times.

In his youth Aaronovitch was a student radical from the Europhile wing of the Communist Party of Great Britain. An ardent Blairite, he was, perhaps, the foremost 'British' journalist who was foursquare behind the war with Iraq. Aaronovitch and Janet Daley, (also an Iraq 'hawk') appeared together regularly on News 24’s Head 2 Head, she supposedly standing up for a right wing conservative view, he representing an allegedly third way/humanistic New World Order, Tony Blair type overview.

Of course, as they are both establishment Jews having an in-house conversation, it hardly ever came across that they were having much of a disagreement.

Anyway, after describing Hobsbawm as 'a historian of cosmopolitan scope and elegance,' Aaronovitch said this in the 2 November 2003 edition of The Observer:
"Historian Eric Hobsbawm, whose autobiography Interesting Times has just come out in paperback, will receive a huge cash prize from the Swiss-based International Balzan Foundation…

His detractors on the Right have made much of an interview that he once gave to Michael Ignatieff, on whether the sufferings following the Russian Revolution could have been justified had real communism come about.

Hobsbawm's answer was that, given the suffering that had already been going on, it might have been worth it. This was an honest answer."
So, that’s alright then. What Aaronovitch seems to be saying is that the opinions of a bloke who believes that the mass murder of more than sixty million Russians alone was justified, should be listened to because he honestly believes it. Later in the article Aaronovitch admits:
"The shining city on the hill of course, turned out to be an illusion."
Then he says:
"That doesn't mean that there aren't better places than this… and real ways of getting to them… Reading… Eric… should help those who would like to make the journey".
Elsewhere in the article Aaronovitch warns us that the great Jewish seer is not optimistic about the future:
"At the end of Hobsbawm's 1994 history of the twentieth century, The Age of Extremes, there is a curiously pessimistic passage cautiously predicting that things may well get worse".
Yep, if a megalomaniac, messianic New World Order junkie called Tony Blair gets to call the shots, I’d say 'may well get worse' would be a bit of an underestimate. Towards the end of his essay, Aaronovitch demonstrates that he has learned his Hobsbawmian lessons well:
"One great advantage of political parties of the Left used to be that they would furnish the supporter with a bespoke opinion on subjects that were barely understood, with respected leaders whose words could be quoted, with answers to awkward questions… The Left must now be both internationalist… in character and preoccupation. It must… abandon outdated notions of the supremacy of borders".
Aaronovitch can’t resist a bit of a sneer at the usual suspects:
"We have movements generally popular only in their culture of objection: anti-war, anti-globalisation".
But what is your thing, David?
"But what is our thing? Things may need changing, but they don't require the replacement of the entire system. This is a disappointment to those who prefer their politics to have edge."
Finally, the portly penman clambers up the ramparts and bangs the Bolshevik drum for his hero’s ideals:
"The spirit that acted as the impulse for… the young Hobsbawm can still be invoked. The conditions that forced (him) to demand great reforms… exist for us now... The Left must now be… internationalist… in character and preoccupation. It must… abandon outdated notions of the supremacy of borders".
In other words bring on the World Government of the New World Order where nobody belongs and no man’s home is his castle when lots of lovely, fluffy immigrants want to live there as well.

Oh, I was forgetting, this dictat will not apply in Israel.

The interview with Michael Ignatieff that Aaronovitch referred to, where Ignatieff asked Hobsbawm if he thought that 'the sufferings following the Russian Revolution could have been justified,' was written up in The Times Literary Supplement on 28 October 1994.

This is what was said:
Ignatieff: "In 1934, millions of people are dying in the Soviet experiment. If you had known that, would it have made a difference to you at that time? To your commitment? To being a Communist?"
Hobsbawm: "Probably not."
Ignatieff: "Why?"
Hobsbawm: "Because in a period in which, as you might imagine, mass murder and mass suffering are absolutely universal, the chance of a new world being born in great suffering would still have been worth backing… Looking back as an historian, I would say that the sacrifices made by the Russian people were probably only marginally worthwhile."
Ignatieff: "What that comes down to is saying that had the radiant tomorrow actually been created, the loss of fifteen, twenty million people might have been justified?"
Hobsbawm: "Yes."
Let’s have a look at what Hobsbawm says in his 1990 offering, Nations and Nationalism Since 1780.
"The word 'nation' is today used so widely and imprecisely that the use of the vocabulary of nationalism today may mean very little indeed…

Like most serious students, I do not regard the 'nation' as a primary nor as an unchanging social entity… Nations as a natural, God-given way of classifying men, as an inherent ... political destiny, are a myth; nationalism, which sometimes takes pre-existing cultures and turns them into nations, sometimes invents them, and often obliterates pre-existing cultures: that is a reality'… I cannot but add that no serious historian of nations and nationalism can be a committed political nationalist… Nationalism requires too much belief in what is patently not so."
So now you know.

If you were ever proud to be an Englishman, Irishman, Scotsman, Welshman or Eskimo, if you ever loved the land that gave you birth and the tribe that formed your identity, well, you are a fantasist, a fool who believes in fairy stories. At least, that’s what it says in the Gospel according to an Egyptian Jew called Hobsbawm. Hobsbawm’s Gospel also tells us that the 'loss of fifteen, twenty million' of the Russian, Ukrainian, Hungarian and Polish people to the murder gangs of Lenin, Stalin and Trotsky, was 'justified.'

One wonders if the fact that almost all of those who died were practicing Christians had anything to do with Hobsbawm’s casual indifference to the mass murder of so many innocents. One wonders if the fact that most of those killing these Christians were Jewish influenced his thinking in any way.

One wonders if the fact that these matters have been erased from the historical record has anything to do with historians such as Hobsbawm.

Hobsbawm is no original thinker. He is a bitter squeak at the end of a long, long line of disingenuous Jewish thinkers who thought and said exactly similar things.

At one point in Nations and Nationalism Hobsbawm does say something I wholeheartedly agree with.
"Historians are professionally obliged not to get it wrong, or at least to make an effort not to".
However, for a self-serving propagandist like him to say such a thing is, pardon my French, b***ocks. As David Pryce-Jones has said, in an admirably honest essay:
"The purpose of all Hobsbawm’s writing, indeed of his life, has been to certify the inevitable triumph of Communism. In the face of whatever might actually have been happening in the Soviet Union and its satellites, he devised reasons to justify or excuse the Communist Party right to its end, long after Russians themselves had realized that Communism had ruined morally and materially everybody and everything within its reach.

He loves to describe himself as a professional historian, but someone who has steadily corrupted knowledge into propaganda, and scorns the concept of objective truth, is nothing of the kind…His best-known book, Age of Extremes, published as recently as 1994, still attempts to whitewash Communism as ‘a formidable innovation’ in social engineering, glossing with fundamental dishonesty over such integral features as enforced famine through collectivization, the Hitler-Stalin Pact, omitting all mention of the massacre at Katyn, the terrifying secret police apparatus of Beria, and the Gulag…

A mystery peculiar to the twentieth century is that intellectuals were eager to endorse the terror and mass-murder which characterized Soviet rule, at one and the same time abdicating humane feelings and all sense of responsibility towards others, and, of course, perverting the pursuit of truth. The man who sets dogs on concentration camp victims or fires his revolver into the back of their necks is evidently a brute; the intellectual who devises justifications for the brutality is harder to deal with, and far more sinister in the long run.

Apologizing for the Soviet Union, such intellectuals licensed and ratified unprecedented crime and tyranny, to degrade and confuse all standards of humanity and morality. Hobsbawm is an outstanding example of the type… A scholarship to King’s College, Cambridge, refashioned Hobsbawm’s life after 1935… In the college was a semi-secret society known as the Apostles, which in the Thirties evolved from embracing a Bloomsbury aestheticism to Communism. Blunt and Burgess (both homosexual) and Maclean, as well as other traitors and Soviet agents, had been Apostles slightly ahead of Hobsbawm.

It was from this vantage-point that Hobsbawm applauded the Hitler-Stalin Pact of 1939, another of Stalin’s major mistakes… The Cold War saw him become a spokesman for Communism, and a visitor to the Soviet Union and its satellites. In this memoir he continues to glide over Stalin and the criminality of Stalinism. He was a friend of Jürgen Kuczynski, an East German Marxist, and his sister Ruth, a Soviet agent who was the contact for Klaus Fuchs, who gave the Soviets the drawings for the atom bomb…

Hobsbawm was a contemporary at King’s of James Klugmann, already then a Communist, and later a member of the British party’s Politburo… Klugmann was able to worm his way into a senior position in the Special Operations Executive bureaucracy. As the intercepts in the archives now reveal, as a good Stalinist he falsified the reports from agents in the field in Yugoslavia to SOE headquarters, in order to attribute monarchist acts of resistance to Tito’s Communists. This influenced Churchill to switch support from the monarchists to Tito, an essential step facilitating the Communist take-over of Yugoslavia.

At the time of the break with Yugoslavia, Moscow forced Klugmann to write a book denouncing Tito whom he had done so much to empower. This book is a collector’s item in the rich library of Communist absurdity, along with the defense by Hobsbawm and Williams of the Soviet invasion of Finland. Hobsbawm’s final judgment on Klugmann is:‘He knew what was right, but shied away from saying it in public’.

That ‘shied away’ is also worth a moment’s pause. What else did Hobsbawm ever do but shy away from what was right? The Communist Party and its claim to unconditional obedience governed him. ‘We did what it ordered us to do,’ he writes. Besides ‘The Party got things done.’ The justification is still more childish because he makes sure not to specify or to analyze, and certainly not to criticize, what exactly were these things that the Party got done…

Hobsbawm’s success is huge. Portentously but for once truthfully, he declares that he is at the center of the establishment… According to Who’s Who, he holds something like twenty honorary degrees, many from distinguished institutions such as the University of Chicago, Bard College, and Columbia University. He is also the recipient of many other honours including membership in the American Academy of Arts and Sciences…

What can be going on? Part of the indulgence shown to Hobsbawm no doubt stems from admirable British civility, and the desire to accommodate even the most unaccommodating Jewish intellectual. And part of it is hagiography, the left on their knees chanting prayers for one another. But more generally here is a hangover from the Thirties, when apologia for Communism swept aside rationality and common humanity. Proof against all evidence, proof against political reality, a fictitious representation of Communism as a benign force retains its hold somewhere in the imagination even of quite intelligent people.

The Soviet Union collapsed with hardly a sigh, like gas going out of a balloon, because it was all a lie. Hobsbawm and his supporters will never admit their share in the central intellectual and moral failure of the times."
It may interest you to note that Hobsbawm’s daughter Julia, who was a fund-raising consultant for the Labour party before the 1992 election, co-founded a public relations company with Sarah Macaulay in 1993.

Sarah Macaulay is Gordon Brown’s wife. However, even more interesting than this is the fact that Julia Hobsbawm’s 'best friend' is none other than Kimberley Fortier/Quinn, (nee Solomon) the erogenous, Jewish-American adultress who brought the career of David Blunkett, Our Dear former Home Secretary, to an end when his ardour began to grate.

Can you guess which nob-hungry, up-the-duff frump became the publishing editor of The Spectator magazine in 1996? Got it in one. The erstwhile jailbird, Lord Black of Crossharbour, owned The Spectator at the time. Wonder how she got that job.

In 1998, Tony Blair’s government saw to it that the ultra-odious Eric Hobsbawm was awarded the Companion of Honour. The fact that Hobsbawm accepted it says much about the kind of communist that he has always been.

The Companion of Honour is awarded for 'services of special importance to the nation.' If you delete 'to the nation' and substitute 'to Soviet Bolshevism, World Jewry and The New World Order,' you would be much closer to the mark.

It is arguable whether Hobsbawm thinks as well of TB as TB does of him. He is on record as saying:
"He is a Thatcher just he uses trousers".
Which statement, grammatically unfortunate as it is, is about as accurate as he has ever been.

At the same time as Hobsbawm’s butcher-hugging Stalinism was influencing the historical perceptions of two generations of credulous university students through a variety of readily available books and essays, Jacob Bronowski’s persona was titillating the working classes’ thirst for knowledge via the television screen.

In 1955, the first ever programme to feature intellectual heavyweights in converation was broadcast on BBC television.

The Brains Trust was watched regularly in Britain by anyone who had a TV for the next six years. I remember how I would sit opened mouthed and full of wonder as a torrent of wise words that I had never heard of and didn’t understand would pour forth from the profound, the wise and the merely witty. In my mind’s eye I can still see my father looking quite a bit like his little lad, utterly attentive and nodding sagaciously in one or two of the right places. Doctor Bronowski was my father’s favourite brainbox.

My parents always talked to me as though I was a grown-up and I can recall my father philosophising, in his turn, in homespun Bronowskiesque, after the show was over. Bronowski was the mainstay of The Brains Trust, appearing on more shows than anyone else, and, along with Afred Ayer, provided the majority of the seductive Shaman patter that had my father and I so enthralled. Bronowski’s last major project was to write and narrate the BBC series The Ascent of Man.

Filming began in July 1971, and ended in December 1972. It was broadcast the following year. Bronowski’s book, on which the series was based, was also published in 1973.

As you might expect, sales of the book made him a very wealthy man. However, he did not live to enjoy it. Bronowski died of a heart attack on Long Island, New York, the following year. He is buried in Highgate Cemetery in London, not too far from the grave of Karl Marx.

Bronowski said, in an episode of The Ascent of Man:
"When the future looks back on the 1930s it will think of them as a crucial confrontation of culture as I have been expounding it, The Ascent of Man, against the throwback to the despots' belief that they have absolute certainty…

This is the concentration camp and crematorium at Auschwitz… Into this pond were flushed the ashes of four million people. And that was not done by gas. It was done by arrogance. It was done by dogma. It was done by ignorance… We have to cure ourselves of the itch for absolute knowledge and power."
So, a Polish Jew, who did not speak English until he was twelve years old, appeared more times than anyone else on the first 'heavyweight discussion programme' ever featured on British television. He also got to write and introduce another of the most influential histories ever to appear on our TV screens.

Notwithstanding the fact that my father and I were completely seduced by the little, Jewish wizard, at a time when most of the working class British were not savvy enough to question those who posed as our betters, if you don’t think there something very strange happening by now, folks, you probably stopped reading long ago.

If you are acquainted with 'Holocaust' propaganda, it may interest you to know that, at the time Bronowski made the statement above, the official line as propagated by Jewish 'historians' like himself, still insisted that that four million people were killed at Auschwitz. This was the figure that the Soviets had insisted upon at Nuremburg.

At the same time as they were insisting this, they were also instructing the world to believe that the Nazis had murdered many thousands of Polish officers and intellectuals in the Katyn forest, which the Soviets knew to be untrue because it was they who had killed them.

All of the prosecuting governments at Nuremburg also knew that the Soviets were lying but they let the lie pass into the history books. They were also deeply suspicious of the claim that four million Jews had died at Auschwitz but they didn’t question that either.

This figure was revised downwards in 1989 and the Auschwitz plaque commemorating the dead quietly subsituted a much lower figure of 1.5 million. As of now, the 'holocaust industry' and all the on-message politicians are, just as certainly as Bronowski did in The Ascent of Man, insisting that 1.1 million people died in Auschwitz, 1 million of whom were Jews.

If you are the kind of person who, without question, automatically believes everything that the powers-that-be tell you, for once in your life address your mind to this question and FIGURE IT OUT!

If the figure of six million Jewish dead in WWII was based upon Soviet propaganda which deliberately misled the gullible into believing that four million died at Auschwitz, a figure which has since been shown to be overestimated by a factor of three million or so, why, when the Auschwitz figure has since been revised downwards by almost three million, did the Jews and the politicians not revise the total number downwards by the same amount?

WHY ARE OUR CHILDREN STILL BEING TAUGHT THAT SIX MILLION JEWS DIED when the total figure should have been lowered at the same time as the Auschwitz figure was lowered? TO 3.1 MILLION AT MOST?

You see, folks, these people aren’t stupid. They’re not the kind who make simple mathematical errors. They have deliberately maintained the original figure, in the belief that they would never have to justify the deception.

Three million just isn’t as impressive as six million and you can soak the Germans for twice as much if you inflate the actuality by two. And so they maintain the lie knowing that they will get away with it as long as they have corrupt politicians in place who are prepared to deceive the world on their behalf.

My best guess is that around six hundred thousand Jews died in Europe during World War Two and some of those will not have died as a result of Nazi persecution. I guarantee the actual figure is a lot closer to 600,000 than the pseudo-official six million lie.

Bronowski can be seen saying what he said in The Ascent of Man in the YouTube video, Secrets and Lies.

At a complimentary tangent to the 'historical' book and documentary are those discussion programmes where art, philosophy, politics and current affairs are discussed by learned folk like Jacob Bronowski. In fact, as we have already seen, the same Jewish televisual personalities often appear in both genres.

The TV career of Canadian Jewish commentator and author, Michael Ignatieff, was launched by Voices, a Channel 4 programme which he presented in 1987. 

The Late Show followed in 1988. Ignatieff, who’s father was a Russian Jew, hosted the award-winning series Blood and Belonging: Journeys into the New Nationalism, first screened by the BBC in 1993. He was also the author of Dialogue in the Dark, a television play, which was directed by Jonathan Miller for the BBC in 1989.

Over the years Ignatieff presented at least five programmes on British TV and radio whose subject was the 'philosopher,' Isaiah Berlin.

Berlin was knighted in 1957, became the Master of the newly endowed Wolfson College in Oxford in 1966, was awarded the Order of Merit in 1971, and was raised to the Presidency of the British Academy in 1974. Not bad for a Latvian Jew who first set foot on British soil when he, like Jacob Bronowski, was twelve years old.

In the autobiography of Berlin, Isaiah Berlin: A Life, he exposes an astonishing historical fact about a foreign-born Jew whom some have described as 'the greatest British philosopher of the twentieth century.'

Without ever mentioning the ‘T’ word, Ignatieff presents us with conclusive evidence that Berlin betrayed our country during WWII. In 1940, Berlin was invited by the homosexual traitor, Guy Burgess, to apply to join the Ministry of Information. His first job in this role was in Moscow. From there he was transferred to the United States where he served in both Washington and New York. Ignatieff says:
"In mid-June 1940, Guy Burgess appeared in Berlin’s rooms at All Souls and suggested that they go to Russia together. Isaiah had known Burgess since early 1934, when they met at the Rothschilds’ in Cambridge in company with Anthony Blunt. (Another gay traitor) He immediately liked Burgess…

They kept in touch throughout the 1930s. It was an attraction of opposites: the fastidious, rather repressed Don and the dishevelled, homosexual adventurer…

Burgess then announced that he was bound for Russia on a mission for MI5. He had proposed to his mentor and protector, Harold Nicholson, then in a senior position at the Ministry of Information, that Isaiah… be appointed as a press officer at the British embassy in Moscow. Isaiah… leapt at the chance… In July, 1940, in company with Guy Burgess, Isaiah set off… for Moscow…

He went to see his old friend, Felix Frankfurter, now a Justice of the Supreme Court, at his summer house in Heath, Massachussetts… Through Felix Frankfurter, he was introduced to several key figures in Rossevelt’s Washington, particularly Ben Cohen… who had drafted much of the key legislation of the New Deal…

His job was to get America into the war. He was to be a propagandist working with trade unions, black organisations and Jewish groups…
He soon found common ground with the leaders of the New York garment workers’ union, David Dubinsky and Sid Hillman…

Other unions – especially John L. Lewis’ American coal miners – were more hostile. They didn’t take kindly to the British Information Service’s attempts to draw American working men into an imperialist war…

The New York Office despatched him to meet Rabbi Stephen Wise, President Roosevelt’s chief fixer in New York Jewish politics and the most influential Jewish leader of his day…

Felix Frankfurter provided Berlin with an introduction to the Governor of New York, Herbert Lehmann… the figure who made the greatest impression was Supreme Court Justice, Louis Brandeis… When Isaiah asked him why American Jews were not more forthright in their supporting the allied cause in Europe, Brandeis said: ‘Because they’re just so ignorant. I can’t tell you how ignorant they are!’…

(Chaim) Weizmann came to the States in April 1941, at the behest of the British Government, to drum up support for the allied cause… Weizmann was an irrestible political seducer and Isaiah quickly succumbed. He was never blind to Weizmann’s vanity and ruthlessness…

As a Zionist, Isaiah believed that the White Paper ban on immigration to Palestine was an abomination. As a British official he was required to defend it. His friendship with Weizmann was bound to put his loyalties to the test… for Isaiah a conflict of loyalties was inevitable.

His chief role was to smooth relations between Weizmann and Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter, who had influence with Roosevelt on the Palestine issue… He also maintained ties with David Ben Gurion… Ben Gurion envisaged a totally Independent Jewish State; Weizmann imagined a Jewish entity within the madatory power or within the British Commonwealth. The one looked to Britain to grant Jewish statehood; the other looked to Jewish arms, if necessary to seize it…

In May 1943 Isaiah informed the Foreign Office that Weizmann told him that it was impossible for a ‘progressive minority’ like the Jews to be ruled by a ‘backward majority’ in Palestine, and that the sooner the Great Powers forced the Arabs to concede this, the more easily the problems of the Middle East could be resolved…

His loyalties were tested to breaking point in the summer of 1943. By then the British Government were becoming increasingly alarmed by the twin impact of Jewish agitation in Palestine and the Jewish lobby in America. 

The embassy in Cairo reported Arab concerns about Jewish pressure on British policy, and when British military moves to interdict illegal arms movements to Jewish underground groups in Palestine were shelved, because of fears of an outcry in the States, Eden became worried that that British policy was being immobilised by the American Jewish lobby…

In May 1943, Eden laid a memo before the British Cabinet outlining his concern that the Arab countries might not continue to support the war effort, if the result of victory was a Jewish state in Palestine. In June 1943, the American Ambassador in London expressed the same concerns to the British government and proposed that Roosevelt and Churchill issue a joint statement condemning Jewish agitation and insisting that the Palestinian problem be deferred until after an allied victory…

Isaiah decided to act. He secretly informed George Backer, a Zionist newspaper publisher, of the proposed declaration, and Backer immediately informed Henry Morgenthau, the Secretary of the Treasury. Having tipped off the Jewish lobby, Isaiah then told Halifax, much to the Amabassador’s consternation, that news of the declaration had leaked out. Meanwhile, Morgenthau went to the President to demand cancellation of the declaration.

Roosevelt… asked a senior advisor, Sam Rosenman, to consult with the British and with Jewish groups. Rosenman came to Isaiah and asked whether he could appease Jewish anger… to which Isaiah piously replied that he was ‘of no possible use, if only in virtue of my official position.’
As Isaiah expected, Jewish groups raised a howl of protest, and by 8 August the State department had informed the British Government that it had withdrawn the declaration.

Halifax, having informed the Foreign Office that the Jewish lobby was to blame, then asked Isaiah to establish how they had found out about the declaration, and how they had been able to mobilise opposition within the administration so effectively.

He spent sleepless nights worrying that he would be found out. He had managed his conflict of loyalties with agility… and a certain amount of cunning, but when he had to choose he had chosen his Jewish loyalties over his British ones". (Isaiah Berlin: A Life, pp. 98-115
So, Isaiah Berlin was a traitor. 

In these politically correct times, to tell such an uncomfortable truth about a Jew who has been raised to the top of the league table by his fellows for the rest of us to gawp at, is tantamount to an anti-Semitic confession of the most criminal kind. Indeed, calling such a 'great' man a traitor would itself, probably, be deemed treachery by those who rule us now. Still, at a time when the facts still counted for something, Berlin was a traitor, he betrayed the then British Government in favour of a future Jewish one.

'He had chosen his Jewish loyalties over his British ones,' says Ignatieff, seemingly with a good deal of pride in his fellow Jew’s behaviour.

Choosing one's fellow Jew over the rest is, of course, nothing new.

No comments:

Post a Comment