Authors unveil Einstein's work against racism

[The Retard]

Authors unveil Einstein's work against racism (http://www.dailyitem.com/archive/2006/0216/fea/stories/02fea.htm)

By Neil S. Cody
The Daily Item

SELINSGROVE-- There is a lot that you probably didn't know about Albert Einstein.

"Treason" is the label on his file in the U.S. Department of Justice, for instance. He was also one of the leading opponents of racism in America and a member of more than a dozen civil rights organizations.

Fred Jerome and Rodger Taylor, authors of the book "Einstein on Race and Racism," spoke Tuesday night in Bogar Hall at Susquehanna University. Their topics ranged from Mr. Einstein's like-minded friends to a seemingly government-sanctioned suppression of his civil rights speeches.

Mr. Jerome gave an example of the missing parts of Mr. Einstein's public life when he discussed W.E.B. Du Bois, another prominent activist who was investigated by the FBI for ties to communism.

When Mr. Du Bois faced trial, Mr. Einstein spoke out and agreed to be a character witness for him. The judge, upon hearing this news, called for a lunch break and then dropped all charges against Mr. Du Bois.

"You won't find that story about W.E.B. Du Bois in any of the over 100 biographies written about Einstein," Mr. Jerome said. "You won't even find the name W.E.B. Du Bois in any of those books."

The authors also spoke about Mr. Einstein's friendship with Paul Robeson, a black actor, singer, writer and athlete who also was a civil rights activist.

"Einstein and Robeson were friends for over 20 years," said Mr. Jerome. "If you want to know about Einstein's stance on civil rights, you have to learn about Robeson's beliefs."

Both men spoke out against lynchings in America. According to Mr. Jerome and Mr. Taylor, 56 blacks were hung between the end of World War II and 1946.

Mr. Einstein and Mr. Robeson also were members of the American Crusade Against Lynching, which the speakers said was deemed a "communist front" by the government.

Mr. Einstein's legacy lives on, despite the label on his Department of Justice file.

"Einstein symbolizes intelligence and genius," said Mr. Taylor. "I think by exposing this info about him, it's like issuing a challenge to people. If Einstein is against racism, why aren't you? If he can take a stand, why can't you?"

[Ahknaton]

W. E. B. Du Bois was a Black Nationalist who believed in racial separatism. He advocated that a separate economy run by blacks, for blacks that was not dependent on white people.

[wintermute]

SELINSGROVE-- There is a lot that you probably didn't know about Albert Einstein.

"Treason" is the label on his file in the U.S. Department of Justice, for instance. He was also one of the leading opponents of racism in America and a member of more than a dozen civil rights organizations.

That's just the beginning of what "we don't know" about Einstein. The article above doesn't even begin to scratch the surface.

If our side knew how to do propaganda, there would be enough material to put Einstein in the same public opinion penalty box as many of the higher ranking Nazis.

From the Preface to Culture of Critique:http://www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/books-Preface.html

This conclusion remains true even though Einstein, the leading figure among Jewish physicists, was a strongly motivated Zionist (Fölsing 1997, 494-505), opposed assimilation as a contemptible form of 'mimicry' (p. 490), preferred to mix with other Jews whom he referred to as his 'tribal companions' (p. 489), embraced the uncritical support for the Bolshevik regime in Russia typical of so many Jews during the 1920s and 1930s, including persistent apology for the Moscow show trials in the 1930s (pp. 644-5), and switched from a high-minded pacifism during World War I, when Jewish interests were not at stake, to advocating the building of atomic bombs to defeat Hitler.

Civil rights, bolshevism, and the burning of cities from the air. When one adds to this the never ending public beatification from all Jew owned media, constantly, you have the Perfect Jew. Outwardly likeable, hard even to hold negative thoughts towards the fellow. Inwardly, a burning ancient grudge nestled in the center of shifting network of lies so typical of Jews: racial separatism for me but not for thee, pacifism for thee but not for me. And of course, the full throated defense of the mass murder of gentiles, whether Russian, German, or Other. Albert Einstein is basically Dr. Mengele in a fright wig.

And if you don't think that the propaganda your brain has been bathing in since birth has a determining action on your feelings, go ahead and try to hate the fellow. You'll be lucky to keep it up for more than a few seconds. One should never underestimate the power of propaganda - if you want more practice in seeing how overwhelming repetition of stimuli can be, pick up a copy of Chris Hitchens' Sacred Cow, about Mother Teresa, who, as it turns out, was a genuinely twisted sadist who cavorted with dictators. Even after having been exposed to the worst of her excesses, it is hard unto impossible to feel anything but a sense of 'saintliness' about how, even when one knows that this is a false portrait. Information enters the neocortex, but only the music/image combinations that reach the limbic system have the power to motivate political movement, in individuals or in groups.

For my part, I especially like Einstein's quick switch between "high minded pacifism" for export to the Gentiles - when Jewish interests are not at stake - to the overwhelming urge to murder millions of German civilians with a single bomb (Einstein wrote the letter to Roosevelt which initiated the Manhattan Project) during WWII. This is another common Jewish trait, of which I believe they are genuinely unaware. I predict that someday neuroscience will discover brain structures (probably in the neocortex) in pathological liars, spies, and Jews, that allow them to engage in limitless 'doublethink' for extended periods of time without undue anxiety. And no, I am not talking about simple rationalization here, which in most Whites eventually turns to guilt.

Has there ever been a Jew who felt guilty for what they do to their host populations? What sort of race could repeat the story of Joseph, Pharoah, and the enslavement of the Egyptians via manipulation of grain futures without shame?

WM

[Petr]

One should never underestimate the power of propaganda - if you want more practice in seeing how overwhelming repetition of stimuli can be, pick up a copy of Chris Hitchens' Sacred Cow, about Mother Teresa, who, as it turns out, was a genuinely twisted sadist who cavorted with dictators. Even after having been exposed to the worst of her excesses, it is hard unto impossible to feel anything but a sense of 'saintliness' about how, even when one knows that this is a false portrait.
Not that I have anything at stake here, but do you uncritically believe everything that half-Jewish Christian-hater Hitchens claims about her dastardly deeds?


Petr

[wintermute]

Not that I have anything at stake here, but do you uncritically believe everything that half-Jewish Christian-hater Hitchens claims about her dastardly deeds?

About Mother Teresa in particular? Yes. His takedown of her is on a par with his Harper's magazine indictment of Henry Kissinger. Indeed, I have never known a man more tempermentally suited to the position of advocatus diaboli, nor am I alone in this opinion - the Church sought out his services during the canonization procedure for her:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=12495017&method=full&siteid=50143

And there had to be a hearing, at which the advocatus Diaboli, or Devil's Advocate, would be appointed by the Church to make the strongest possible case against the nominee.

I am not a Roman Catholic and the saint-making procedures of the Vatican are really none of my business. But it strikes me as odd that none of the above rules have been followed in the case of the newly-beatified woman who called herself "Mother" Teresa of Calcutta.

[. . . ]

And, instead of appointing a Devil's Advocate, the Vatican invited me to be a witness for the Evil One, and expected me to do the job pro bono.

Their reason for asking was that I made a documentary called Hell's Angel, and wrote a short book entitled The Missionary Position, in which I reviewed Mother Teresa's career as if she had been an ordinary person.


I discovered that she had taken money from rich dictators like the Duvalier gang in Haiti, had been a friend of poverty rather than a friend of the poor, had never given any account of the huge sums of money donated to her, had railed against birth-control in the most overpopulated city on the planet and had been the spokeswoman for the most extreme dogmas of religious fundamentalism.


Actually, it's boasting to say that I "discovered" any of this. It was all there in plain sight for anyone to notice. But in the age of celebrity, nobody had troubled to ask if such a global reputation was truly earned or was simply the result of brilliant public relations.


"Wait a minute," said a TV host in Washington a few nights ago, when I debated all this with Mr John Donahue of the Catholic Defence League. "She built hospitals." No, sir, you wait a minute.


Mother Teresa was given, to our certain knowledge, many tens of millions of pounds. But she never built any hospitals. She claimed to have built almost 150 convents, for nuns joining her own order, in several countries. Was this where ordinary donors thought their money was going?


Furthermore, she received some of this money from the Duvaliers, and from Mr Charles Keating of the notorious Lincoln Savings and Loan of California, and both these sources had acquired the money by - how shall I put it? - borrowing money from the poor and failing to give it back.


How could this possibly be true? Doesn't everyone know that she spent her time kissing the sores of lepers and healing the sick? Ah, but what everyone knows isn't always true. You were more likely to run into Mother Teresa being photographed with Nancy Reagan, or posing with Princess Diana, or in the first-class cabin of Air India (where she had a permanent reservation).


You could see her in Ireland, campaigning against a law which would permit civil divorce and remarriage (though she publicly defended Princess Diana's right to be divorced).


You could encounter her on the podium in Stockholm, accepting yet another huge cheque and telling the Nobel audience that the greatest threat to world peace was... abortion. (Since she added that contraception was morally as bad as abortion, she essentially held the view that condoms and coils were a deadly threat to world peace. The Church does not insist on that degree of fundamentalism.)


And when she got sick, she would check herself into the Mayo Clinic or some other temple of American medicine. As one who has visited her primitive "hospice" for the dying in Calcutta, I should call that a wise decision. Nobody would go there except to check out, in one way or another.


"Give a man a reputation as an early riser," said Mark Twain "and that man can sleep till noon." Give a woman a reputation for holiness and compassion and apparently nothing she does can cause her to lose it.


You and I have had variations of this discussion before - to what extent should the ethnic origin of the writer weigh on our evaluation of his work?

First, I think that it is almost always important when the author is Jewish (please note: almost always), especially in political journals, newspapers, and the like. I have no question that Hitchen's motive is to harm Christianity and Christians, not only because he is Jewish but also because his is a Communist.

Hitchens himself is more odious than Einstein and Comrade Sandalio put together - a genuinely repellant man, whose unrepentant Bolshevism - Bolshevism! - emerged during a public spat with Martin Amis during the public reception of Koba the Dread.

At the same time, I think we must always examine truth claims made quite independantly of the motives of whomever has come under question. A good example here would be Goebbels' accurate reporting to the world of the massacre at Katyn. Whatever the motive, it was his side that told the truth, and the British, Americans, and Russians who were lying.

Now, do I believe everything Chris Hitchens says generally? No. He's an adept liar, an erudite liar, and a well spoken liar. IMO, there is nothing more dangerous on this earth. However, I was able to check his claims regarding Mother Teresa with will informed (and highly motivated) Catholics, who were forced to either concede points or to use rhetoric to minimize the weakness of their position.

The best way to get to the bottom of a controversy is to have two extremely well informed and highly motivated sources going head to head. An audience member with even a nodding familiarity with rhetorical tricks will soon be able to determine what is true and what is beyond our current ability to judge. In the case of Teresa, Hitchens took the day.

WM

[Nordicist]

An interesting point: Hitchens defended the Bolshevik side (I believe it was in the pages of The Atlantic) in the Russian civil war because -- wait for it -- Whites were anti-Semitic...and had they won bad things would have happened to his tribe.

Another interesting point: Hitchens knows that the holocau$t is a hoax...and he was dumb enough to have said as much in public...well, that's what happens to alcoholics...in vino veritas...you lose control and end up talking too much...