Thursday, May 24, 2007

On Allen Esterson's Defamations

Christopher Jon Bjerknes

Allen Esterson has now confirmed that he is the person who was posting under his same name at the following website,

and has given personal details not likely to be known by others, which confirm his identity as the author of the defamations against me posted under his name at the Cosmic Log website. He has affirmed that it is wrong to call people "nasty names" including "anti-Semitic" and he has confirmed that he is the author of several articles in which he so labels me. I submitted the following article to Cosmic Log last night at about 3:00AM my time. We will see if it eventually appears on the website.

I thank Esterson for correcting my mistaken attribution of comments to him which were not his, but then we learn that Allen Esterson wrote the following:

"Writing as Jew, [***] Posted by: Allen Esterson at Aug 4, 2005 5:02:25 PM"

"On the one hand we have people perceiving anti-Jewish or anti-Semitic sentiments all around, on the other hand we have the claims of endemic 'Islamophobia', and that 'America and Britain are at war with Islam'. Let's get past this 'victim' consciousness stuff, and challenge or grapple with people's arguments instead of finding nasty names to call them: 'Jew-baiter', 'anti-Semitic', 'Islamophobic', 'fascist'. . . Posted by: Allen Esterson at Aug 4, 2005 5:50:11 PM"

Is it correct that you, Allen Esterson, wrote the above comments? If so, why do you not follow your own advice and why have you repeatedly libeled me in your widespread smear campaign against me?

Now I will address some of Esterson's sophistry. Esterson stated,

"Unfortunately there are two possible readings of the word 'racist' in this context, one that is purely descriptive, an attempt to classify different groups of human beings, the other that describes the advocating of discrimination against a particular 'racial' group. Bjerknes fails to distinguish between. [sic]"

Esterson ridiculously parses words to avoid the issue and the numerous quotations of Einstein's racist remarks found in my book, which statements by Einstein are clearly "racist" remarks in both senses of the term Esterson elects to adopt as definitions of the term "racist". Does Esterson ask me to define each word in the English language I use, and is he incapable of understanding terms without express definitions attached to each term?

My charges against Einstein are factually based and thoroughly proven, and Esterson only demonstrated his ignorance when he sought to mock them. As for Stachel's comment, my statement in reference to it was absolutely correct and Esterson simply sophistically attempts to change the subject, as he so often does, by inappropriately parsing words. Einstein was notorious for his inconsistencies, and the fact that his statements were inconsistent on the subject of his racial views, a fact I note in my book, does not change the fact that Einstein made virulently racist remarks, promoted anti-Semitism, and promoted a racist, segregationist Zionism, for which he was the most famous spokesman of the day. I have also proven that Einstein was repulsed by assimilatory Jewry. Esterson, instead of ceding the point, elects to prevaricate with sophistry and unnecessarily extend arguments which were already settled based on the facts.

Esterson loves to condemn me for standing up for the fundamental human right of freedom of speech and freedom of thought. He does not contest my arguments, but instead repeatedly smears me with innuendo. I am not ashamed of the fact that I am an advocate of the human right of free speech and I will cry out for freedom from every rooftop.

Esterson has the chutzpah to deny that he was attempting to shoot the messenger when he defamed me to Geraldine Hilton, and whoever else read his hateful remarks. Esterson writes, and note that Esterson misrepresents the context of my remark,

"Bjerknes writes: 'It appears that Allen Esterson opts to shoot the messenger with unproven defamations in order to avoid the truthful message I am telling.' In fact the point I was actually making in the passage in question was that Geraldine Hilton (writer/producer of 'Einstein's Wife') indiscriminately copies whole passages in a most unscholarly fashion from any source that accords with the message she is propagating (e.g., sections from Wikipedia and the writer Andrea Gabor). I pointed out that in the instance in question she was quoting a passage by Bjerknes, and that she would no doubt be horrified to find the source of the quotation was someone who posts on the 'Holocaust Revisionism' website CODOH, founded by the Holocaust denier Bradley R. Smith, who attended the notorious 2006 Tehran Holocaust Conference at which he endorsed the following: 'The alleged slaughter of millions of Jews by the Germans during World War II did not happen. The extermination allegation is properly termed a hoax, that is to say, a deliberately contrived falsehood.'"

In contradiction to Esterson's false claim that I was referring to his defamations against me on another website, I was referring to Esterson's vicious smears posted on Cosmic Log. He has so often defamed me with lies, that it must be difficult for him to keep track of his defamations. He attempts to weasel his way out of the fact that he sleazily introduced his smear tactics into what ought to be an academic debate, and attempts to deny that he was shooting the messenger, when it was obvious that he was doing just that. In addition, his vicious and hateful remarks stand as an open threat that any who knowingly quote me will be smeared. He is attempting to render my work taboo.

In point of fact, this is what the disingenuous smear monger Allen Esterson said, and note that Esterson again failed to mention my refutations of John Stachel's "review", though he hypocritically and incorrectly accuses me of being tendentious,

"The link on the Tesla Society webpage indicates that the passage in turn comes from a webpage on the website of Christopher John Bjerknes. Bjerknes is an eccentric anti-semite who posts on a Holocaust denier website. Bjerknes's antipathy to Einstein is indicated by his describing him as the 'chief racist' among the political Zionists of his time, and his writing that 'Einstein hated non-racist Jews'. His book on Einstein received a scathing review from John Stachel. I'm sure that Hilton would be horrified to know that, in regard to the second paragraph she has copied above (which purports to explain away the fact that Joffe clearly cited Einstein as the sole author of the three most celebrated of his 1905 papers), she is citing the arguments of a rabid anti-semite with an intense antipathy to Einstein. That does not, in itself, mean that Bjerknes's contentions in that paragraph are false. Like any assertions, they must be examined on their merits."

Esterson wastes many words confirming that what I said in my article "Was Einstein an Incestuous Rapist?" was perfectly correct, while pretending that he, Esterson, has somehow refuted what I had said. Esterson pretends that by his repeating the correctness of my assertions he has somehow discredited me, while avoiding all of the points made in my book and in my article. Esterson does not mention Einstein's perverse desire to fornicate with his cousin's daughters, or the fact that Einstein was conducting an incestuous and adulterous relationship with his same cousin, while seeking to bed her daughters. Esterson seems to miss the salient and incontestible points that Einstein was a licentious man, who had employed violence against his family on repeated occasions. Just as Esterson has failed to condemn Einstein for Einstein's racism, Esterson fails to condemn Einstein for Einstein's violence, or Einstein's sexual degeneracy, and completely avoids the issues raised in my book and in my article.