Saturday, April 14, 2007

Stephen Speicher (b. 13 December 1939, d. 31 March 2007): The "Speicher Plan" of 4 May 2000 to Nuke Teheran, Iran

Christopher Jon Bjerknes

http://www.jewishracism.com

Stephen Speicher has recently passed away. I first encountered this strange, unbelievably obnoxious and juvenile little man at the turn of the century, when I disclosed the fact on usenet forums that Albert Einstein was a career plagiarist. Speicher led a group, mostly composed of other Zionist Jews, who would stalk the usenet forums and viciously defame those of us who disagreed with the theory of relativity, and/or exposed the fact that Albert Einstein was a plagiarist. By challenging us to stoop to his abysmally low level of gutter personal attack, so as to provoke us to discredit ourselves, he and his rabid claque disrupted many civil discussions on these issues and made it impossible for us carry out a useful and productive discourse about Einstein and the theory of relativity on usenet, which was evidently his goal.

Speicher worked for Caltech and advertised that fact while conducting his smear campaign against me. When I asked him if he was conducting his smear campaign against me on behalf of Caltech, he stated that he was not. Speicher, who was the most offensive human being I have ever encountered, became especially toxic when I brought up the issue of the article "Belated Decision in the Hilbert-Einstein Priority Dispute" in the journal Science, Volume 278, (14 November 1997), pp. 1270-1273, and the fact that the contentions of this article were based on mutilated printer's proofs of David Hilbert's lecture "The Foundations of Physics", but the article did not disclose that the evidence was mutilated.

I repeatedly asked Speicher, who was a namedropper who asserted that he knew several prominent figures in the Einstein papers project, if he had a relationship with one of the authors of this article, and if so what it was, but he refused to respond directly to my refutations of his attacks or to my questions and simply intensified his already intense smear campaign against me. Note that this refusal to respond to me came after Speicher had opened threads under my name, directed his postings to personally attacking me, and read my postings. Speicher had previously attempted to engage me in debate, and I destroyed and embarrassed him each and every time.

Speicher was also especially devoted to personally attacking me for exposing the fact that Mileva Einstein-Marity was the co-author, or sole author, of the 1905 paper attributed to Albert Einstein on the electrodynamics of moving bodies. This was years before the PBS documentary "Einstein's Wife" appeared, and Speicher and his cohorts depended upon the ignorance of others to defame me for bringing up this then little known issue. Was it Speicher's goal to suppress the information I was disseminating and to intimidate others from relying on, or even mentioning, my work, which neither Speicher, nor his defamation squad could refute?

On 4 May 2000, on the usenet group humanities.philosphy.objectivism, in the thread "Re: Roofs and Ceilings", Stephen Speicher stated,

"Teheran has some ten million people or so. About eight hours from my time now it will be noon on Thursday in Teheran. At that time I say we issue an ultimatum. We tell Iran that they have forty-eight hours to give up their terrorists -- all of them -- and completely cease all terrorist activities. If they do not comply by noon on Saturday, we will destroy Teheran with a nuclear bomb."

http://groups.google.com/group/humanities.philosophy.objectivism/msg/fd3919a5d7800413?dmode=source&hl=en

http://groups.google.com/group/humanities.philosophy.objectivism/msg/fd3919a5d7800413?hl=en&

http://groups.google.com/group/humanities.philosophy.objectivism/browse_thread/thread/475a3d05d003f708/467264557a5dcda6?q=re%3A+roofs+and+ceilings&lnk=ol&hl=en&

As you can see, I have, for many years, been battling Zionist Jews who have advocated a nuclear attack on Iran. Stephen Speicher moved to California in 1978, where he worked on "top secret" software and mathematical analysis methods used by the Defense Nuclear Agency, according to the death notice posted here:

http://groups.google.com/group/humanities.philosophy.objectivism/msg/fa9294247ee312fa?dmode=source&hl=en

It would be interesting to investigate whether or not Stephen Speicher had connections to any intelligence agencies. The methods he and his crew used on internet forums to stifle civil and productive discourse, and to suppress the dissemination of verifiable factual information unfavorable to International Zionism, were similar to the methods some Zionist organizations have advocated.

Friday, April 13, 2007

Allen Esterson and the Mileva Einstein-Marity Dispute

Christopher Jon Bjerknes


http://www.jewishracism.com



In addition to following article, I invite my readers to investigate my other related writings:


C. J. Bjerknes, The Manufacture and Sale of Saint Einstein and especially chapter 18, "Mileva Einstein-Marity:


C. J. Bjerknes, "A Response to Physics World's 'Review' of Albert Einstein: The Incorrigible Plagiarist", Infinite Energy Magazine, Volume 8, Number 49, (May/June, 2003), pp. 65-68.


C. J. Bjerknes, ARGUING ABOUT EINSTEIN-MARITY'S HUSBAND.



Allen Esterson and the Mileva Einstein-Marity Dispute

(Christopher Jon Bjerknes)

In an obituary for Albert Einstein, physicist Abram Joffe wrote in reference to three famous papers published under the name "A. Einstein" in the Annalen der Physik, in 1905,

"The author of these articles--an unknown person at that time, was a bureaucrat at the Patent Office in Bern, Einstein-Marity (Marity--the maiden name of his wife, which by Swiss custom is added to the husband's family name)."--A. F. Joffe (also: Ioffe), "In Remembrance of Albert Einstein", Uspekhi fizicheskikh nauk, Volume 57, Number 2, (1955), p. 187.

Joffe's statement, together with a large number of other facts, has led many to conclude that Mileva Einstein-Marity was co-author, or the sole author, of three important works attributed to Albert Einstein. Consider the clues Joffe is giving us. Note that Joffe does not state that the author was "Albert Einstein", but rather Joffe states that the author was "Einstein-Marity". The only person who went by the name "Einstein-Marity" was Mileva Maric, Albert Einstein's first wife and scientific collaborator. Furthermore, Joffe tells us that the author was an unknown person until that time, "Einstein-Marity", i. e. Mileva. It is well documented that Mileva Maric went by the name "Einstein-Marity" during and after her marriage to Albert Einstein, and her death notice states "Einstein-Marity". Albert Einstein is not known to have ever used the name "Einstein-Marity".

Allen Esterson ignores the contradiction in Joffe's statement. On the one hand, Joffe states,

"The author of these articles--an unknown person at that time, was a bureaucrat at the Patent Office in Bern,"

which indicates that the author was Albert Einstein. On the other hand, Joffe states that,

"The author of these articles--an unknown person at that time, was [***] Einstein-Marity",

which indicates that the author was Mileva Einstein-Marity. Not only does Joffe never use the name "Einstein-Marity" in any other context than this, he avoids the first name when identifying the author as "Einstein-Marity", while adding a fallacious parenthetical explanation. I suspect that the explanation came from Mileva, who met Joffe and told him that Albert was, by his own admission, a man who had, "no serious thoughts about science, much less about experiments." After meeting with Mileva, Joffe, who had gone out of his way to meet the author of the papers, left without speaking to Albert, who was not at home at the time. Joffe did not return, content with having met Mileva Einstein-Marity.

We know that Joffe meant that the papers were signed "Einstein-Marity" both from the identity Joffe makes of "author"="Einstein-Marity" and from Daniil Semenovich Danin's explicit statement that the papers were signed "Einstein-Marity",

"The unsuccessful teacher, who, in search of a reasonable income, had become a third class engineering expert in the Swiss Patent Office, this yet completely unknown theoretician in 1905 published three articles in the same volume of the famous 'Annalen der Physik' signed 'Einstein-Marity' (or Maric--which was his first wife's family name)."--D. S. Danin, Neizbezhnost strannogo mira, Molodaia Gvardiia, Moscow, (1962), p. 57.

Desanka Trbuhovic-Gjuric informs us that Joffe had seen the original manuscripts, and though she does not name the source of her information, her assertion is in perfect conformity with the known facts,

"The distinguished Russian physicist [***] Abraham F. Joffe (1880-1960), pointed out in his 'In Remembrance of Albert Einstein', that Einstein's three epochal articles in Volume 17 of 'Annalen der Physik' of 1905 were originally signed 'Einstein-Maric'. Joffe had seen the originals as assistant to Roentgen, who belonged to the Board of the 'Annalen', which had examined submitted contributions for editorial purposes. Roentgen showed his summa cum laude student this work, and Joffe thereby came face to face with the manuscripts, which are no longer available today."--D. Trbuhovic-Gjuric, Im Schatten Albert Einsteins, Das tragische Leben der Mileva Einstein-Maric, Paul Haupt, Bern & Stuttgart, (1983), p. 79.

Roentgen reviewed the manuscripts. At the time, Joffe worked with Roentgen. We know from Joffe's accounts that both Roentgen and Joffe were intensely interested in Lorentz' theory on the electrodynamics of moving bodies, the mathematical formalisms of which are reiterated in the Einsteins' 1905 paper without an attribution, and with which the Einsteins were very familiar. Joffe identified Lorentz work, which he was studiously pursuing in 1905, as the "prehistory" of the theory of relativity, and would very much have wanted to have seen the Einsteins' submission and Roentgen would have been eager to have presented it to Joffe and would have wanted to discuss it with him.

Esterson apparently has nothing original to add to the debate over the meaning of Joffe's statements, and instead relies upon John Stachel and Alberto Martinez as authorities to claim that Danin has misquoted Joffe, but such a claim is entirely unjustified by any known evidence, and is based upon the false premise that Danin was supposedly attempting to quote Joffe. Esterson wrote in his article "My responses to Geraldine Hilton's replies to my rebuttals of claims in her 'Einstein's Wife' documentary":

"Martinez and Stachel (2005) have both documented that Danin misquoted Joffe's 1995 [sic] statement[.]"

In point of fact, neither Martinez, nor Stachel have demonstrated that Danin was attempting to quote Joffe. Danin clearly was not quoting Joffe. Danin was very careful in what he wrote, and barring any evidence to the contrary, and none has yet emerged, we must conclude that Danin knew whereof he spoke. To the best of my knowledge, neither Stachel, nor anyone else, has brought any new facts to fore to discredit Danin's statement that the papers were signed Einstein-Marity. It is simply Stachel and a few others baseless opinion that Danin was mistaken. Esterson disregards the facts in favor of baseless opinion.

Juxtaposing a Fitting Hypothetical

In order to clarify the issues, let us first consider a hypothetical situation which will parallel the known facts. Assume for the sake of argument that Abram Joffe had written in the context of the three most famous papers published in 1905 in the Annalen der Physik under the name "A. Einstein", that,

"The author of these articles--an unknown person at that time, was a bureaucrat at the Patent Office in Leiden, Einstein-Lorentz (Lorentz--the name of his former professor, which by Dutch custom is added to the student's family name)."

Assume Daniil Semenovich Danin explicitly stated that the papers were signed "Einstein-Lorentz",

"The unsuccessful teacher, who, in search of a reasonable income, had become a third class engineering expert in the Dutch Patent Office, this yet completely unknown theoretician in 1905 published three articles in the same volume of the famous 'Annalen der Physik' signed 'Einstein-Lorentz' (or Hendrik Antoon Lorentz--which was his former professor's name)."

Let us further assume that Joffe recounted a story of his attempts to visit Albert Einstein, who we will suppose was at the time living with Hendrik Antoon Lorentz. And that Joffe then said,

"I did not come to know Albert Einstein, until I met him in Berlin. [***] I wanted very much to talk to Einstein [***] and visited him in Leiden together with my friend Wagner. But we did not find him home, so we did not have a chance to talk, and his former professor, Hendrik Antoon Lorentz, told us that, according to his own words, Albert Einstein is only a civil servant in the patent office, and he has no serious thoughts about science, much less about experiments."

Now, in our hypothetical example, assume that many years later letters surfaced, the contents of which were unknown to Joffe, letters from Albert Einstein to Hendrik Antoon Lorentz, one of which stated,

"I am going to set about earnestly studying everything you and Drude have written on the electrodynamics of moving bodies. [***] When I become your research partner, we will want to engage in a quite diligent scientific collaboration, so that we don't become old Philistines, isn't it so?"

And assume in our hypothetical that Albert Einstein wrote the following words to Lorentz, which he in fact sent to Mileva Maric,

"How happy and proud I will be, when we two together have victoriously led our work on relative motion to an end!"--Letter from Albert Einstein to Mileva Maric of 27 March 1901, J. Stachel, Ed., The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Volume 1, Document 94, Princeton University Press, (1987), p. 282.

And assume that the early Einstein biographer, Alexander Moszkowski, who obtained his information from extensive conversations with Albert Einstein, wrote in 1921,

"Albert Einstein found consolation in the fact that he preserved a certain independence, which meant the more to him as his instinct for freedom led him to discover the essential things in himself. Thus, earlier, too, during his studies at Leiden he had carried on his work in theoretical physics at home, almost entirely apart from the lectures at the University of Leiden plunging himself into the writings of Kirchhoff, Helmholtz, Hertz, Boltzmann, and Drude. Disregarding chronological order, we must here mention that he found a partner in these studies who was working in a similar direction, a professor at the University of Leiden, Hendrik Antoon Lorentz, with whom he became a research partner in the year 1903."

Given such a hypothetical situation, we would conclude that Hendrik Antoon Lorentz was the co-author, or sole author, of the three papers in question. In an interesting aside, the special theory of relativity was in fact known as the Lorentz-Einstein theory for decades, up until Lorentz' death. In the same period, Albert Einstein was ridiculed in the international scientific community for being a career plagiarist.

The Facts

Now let us consider the established facts, which cannot be disputed, and which lead us to conclude that Mileva Einstein-Marity was the co-author, or sole author, of the three 1905 papers in question. Bear in mind that many who have criticized Albert Einstein in the past (including Nobel Prize laureates) were immediately smeared in the international press, their careers were impeded, or destroyed, and a horde of sycophants, who wanted to promote themselves by promoting Albert Einstein, howled in cowardly chorus to drown out the truth and assassinate the messenger in order to avoid the honest message. The press would publicize their lies, while suppressing the truth. This was once known as the "Einstein Terror". It continues to this day, and it has led, and continues to lead many to use guarded language when criticizing Albert Einstein, or when revealing embarrassing facts about him.

The facts establish even more firmly than our hypothetical could, that Mileva Einstein-Marity was the author, or co-author of the works in question, because, though Lorentz was not known as "Einstein-Lorentz", Mileva Maric was known as "Einstein-Marity", and she alone was known as "Einstein-Marity". I will not recount all of the evidence which supports the contention that Mileva and Albert collaborated, merely enough to make the case.

In an obituary physicist Abram Joffe published on the occasion of Albert Einstein's death, Joffe wrote in reference to three famous papers published in the Annalen der Physik, in 1905, under the name "A. Einstein",

"The author of these articles--an unknown person at that time, was a bureaucrat at the Patent Office in Bern, Einstein-Marity (Marity--the maiden name of his wife, which by Swiss custom is added to the husband's family name)."--A. F. Joffe (also: Ioffe), "In Remembrance of Albert Einstein", Uspekhi fizicheskikh nauk, Volume 57, Number 2, (1955), p. 187.

In addition, Joffe wrote,

"I did not come to know Albert Einstein, until I met him in Berlin. [***] I wanted very much to talk to Einstein [***] and visited him in Zurich together with my friend Wagner. But we did not find him home, so we did not have a chance to talk, and his wife told us that, according to his own words, he is only a civil servant in the patent office, and he has no serious thoughts about science, much less about experiments."-- A. F. Joffe, Vstrechi s fizikami, moi vospominaniia o zarubezhnykh fizikah, Gosudarstvenoye Izdatelstvo Fiziko-Matematitsheskoi Literatury, Moscow, (1962), pp. 86-87.

Joffe also wrote,

"Therefore Roentgen suggested to me that when I defended my doctoral dissertation in May of 1905, that I ought to discuss what one could now look upon as the prehistory of the theory of relativity: the Lorentz-equations and the hypothesis of FitzGerald. And then he asked me a question, 'Do you believe that there are spheres which are flattened when they move? Can you confirm the fact that such electrons will forever remain a part of Physics?'--I answered, 'Yes, I am convinced that they exist, only we don't yet know everything about them. Consequently, we must study them further.'

When I defended my dissertation, something remarkable happened. The dean gave the welcoming address in Latin, which I did not understand. The only thing I could fathom was that my defense had gone well, because the speech ended with a handshake. But when I met Roentgen in the laboratory, he was indignant at the cold response I had given to the dean's speech. It turned out that the faculty had awarded me the degree of 'summa cum laude'--'with the highest praise possible'--for the first time in 20 years. This degree awarded me the right to give lectures. It was to be expected that I would have been overwhelmed with joy--and I did not know at that time that there were four levels of evaluation and I had received the highest. For a long time Roentgen refused to believe that I had not known of the rankings of the evaluation levels when I was presenting my defense. Afterwards, he reminded me of this incident, 'You are really a ridiculous person.'

In August of 1906, I traveled to Russia and witnessed the intelligentsia leaving the revolution with my own eyes. Given my Marxist convictions, I felt that at such a time I did not have the right to only concern myself with Physics far away from my homeland in Munich. I wrote Roentgen that I would not return and that my conscience would not allow me to leave the homeland while the reactionaries triumphed."--A. F. Joffe, Vstrechi s fizikami, moi vospominaniia o zarubezhnykh fizikah, Gosudarstvenoye Izdatelstvo Fiziko-Matematitsheskoi Literatury, Moscow, (1960), pp. 19-20.

Daniil Semenovich Danin explicitly stated that the papers were signed "Einstein-Marity",

"The unsuccessful teacher, who, in search of a reasonable income, had become a third class engineering expert in the Swiss Patent Office, this yet completely unknown theoretician in 1905 published three articles in the same volume of the famous 'Annalen der Physik' signed 'Einstein-Marity' (or Maric--which was his first wife's family name)."--D. S. Danin, Neizbezhnost strannogo mira, Molodaia Gvardiia, Moscow, (1962), p. 57.

Desanka Trbuhovic-Gjuric informs us that Joffe had seen the original manuscripts, and though she does not name the source of her information, her assertion is in perfect conformity with the known facts,

"The distinguished Russian physicist [***] Abraham F. Joffe (1880-1960), pointed out in his 'In Remembrance of Albert Einstein', that Einstein's three epochal articles in Volume 17 of 'Annalen der Physik' of 1905 were originally signed 'Einstein-Maric'. Joffe had seen the originals as assistant to Roentgen, who belonged to the Board of the 'Annalen', which had examined submitted contributions for editorial purposes. Roentgen showed his summa cum laude student this work, and Joffe thereby came face to face with the manuscripts, which are no longer available today."--D. Trbuhovic-Gjuric, Im Schatten Albert Einsteins, Das tragische Leben der Mileva Einstein-Maric, Paul Haupt, Bern & Stuttgart, (1983), p. 79.

Many years later letters surfaced, the contents of which were unknown to Joffe, letters from Albert Einstein to Mileva Maric, one of which stated,

"I am going to set about earnestly studying everything Lorentz and Drude have written on the electrodynamics of moving bodies. [***] As my dear wife, we will want to engage in a quite diligent scientific collaboration, so that we don't become old Philistines, isn't it so"--Letter from Albert Einstein to Mileva Maric of 28 December 1901, J. Stachel, Ed., The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Volume 1, Document 131, Princeton University Press, (1987), p. 330.

Albert Einstein also wrote to Mileva Maric,

"How happy and proud I will be, when we two together have victoriously led our work on relative motion to an end!"--Letter from Albert Einstein to Mileva Maric of 27 March 1901, J. Stachel, Ed., The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Volume 1, Document 94, Princeton University Press, (1987), p. 282.

Albert Einstein was an habitual plagiarist and a virulent misogynist. It was very much against his nature to award credit to Mileva Einstein-Marity. Albert would not have called the work "our work" were Mileva not his collaborator, or the sole source of the work. Note that Albert would indeed at times take sole credit for the work, but he was also concurrently taking sole credit for the work of Poincare and others when doing so, such that this is only further proof that Albert was an habitual plagiarist, and Albert's claims are contradicted by his own express statements.

It was Albert's nature to plagiarize. Albert Einstein was a self-promoter, a parrot and a thief, not an exceptional innovator.

Early Einstein biographer Alexander Moszkowski, who obtained his information from extensive conversations with Albert Einstein, wrote in 1921,

"[Albert Einstein] found consolation in the fact that he preserved a certain independence, which meant the more to him as his instinct for freedom led him to discover the essential things in himself. Thus, earlier, too, during his studies at Zuerich he had carried on his work in theoretical physics at home, almost entirely apart from the lectures at the Polytechnic plunging himself into the writings of Kirchhoff, Helmholtz, Hertz, Boltzmann, and Drude. Disregarding chronological order, we must here mention that he found a partner in these studies who was working in a similar direction, a Southern Slavonic student, whom he married in the year 1903. This union was dissolved after a number of years. Later he found the ideal of domestic happiness at the side of a woman whose grace is matched by her intelligence, Else Einstein, his cousin, whom he married in Berlin."--A. Moszkowski, Einstein: The Searcher, E. P. Dutton, New York, (1921), p. 229.

Note that Moszkowski states that Mileva was working in a similar direction to Albert, and that they were "partner[s] in these studies". In addition to considering these facts individually, we must consider them collectively. It cannot be a coincidence that all of these independent sources individually and collectively point us to the same conclusion, that Mileva Einstein-Marity was the co-author, or sole author of the three 1905 papers.

Allen Esterson's Defamations and His Repeated Attempts to Render My Research Taboo

Let us consider the defamatory attack Allen Esterson made against me when some of the text from pages 195-196 and 200 of my book Albert Einstein: The Incorrigible Plagiarist was quoted in defense of the truth. Note that Esterson does not contest my statements, and in no way attempts to refute them, rather he instead launches into a lengthy unprovoked assault on my character and asserts that it is taboo for anyone to quote me in a favorable way. Allen Esterson wrote in his article "My responses to Geraldine Hilton's replies to my rebuttals of the claims on the PBS 'Einstein's Wife' Website", published on Esterson's website http://www.esterson.org/Defending_Einsteins_Wife_Website.htm,

"ABRAM FEDOROVICH JOFFE (IOFFE) RECOUNTS THAT THE ORIGINAL PAPERS HE SAW WERE SIGNED "EINSTEIN-MARITY." "MARITY" IS A VARIANT OF THE SERBIAN "MARIC," MILEVA'S MAIDEN NAME. JOFFE, WHO HAD SEEN THE ORIGINAL 1905 MANUSCRIPT, IS ON RECORD AS STATING: "FOR PHYSICS, AND ESPECIALLY FOR THE PHYSICS OF MY GENERATION -- THAT OF EINSTEIN'S CONTEMPORARIES, EINSTEIN'S ENTRANCE INTO THE ARENA OF SCIENCE IS UNFORGETTABLE. IN 1905, THREE ARTICLES APPEARED IN THE 'ANNALEN DER PHYSIK', WHICH BEGAN THREE VERY IMPORTANT BRANCHES OF 20TH CENTURY PHYSICS. THOSE WERE THE THEORY OF BROWNIAN MOVEMENT, THE THEORY OF THE PHOTOELECTRIC EFFECT AND THE THEORY OF RELATIVITY. THE AUTHOR OF THESE ARTICLES -- AN UNKNOWN PERSON AT THAT TIME, WAS A BUREAUCRAT AT THE PATENT OFFICE IN BERN, EINSTEIN-MARITY (MARITY -- THE MAIDEN NAME OF HIS WIFE, WHICH BY SWISS CUSTOM IS ADDED TO THE HUSBAND'S FAMILY NAME)." 286 . . .

ALBERT EINSTEIN NEVER SIGNED HIS NAME "EINSTEIN-MARITY" IN ANY OF HIS PUBLISHED PAPERS. SWISS LAW PERMITS THE MALE, THE FEMALE, OR BOTH, TO USE A DOUBLE LAST NAME, BUT THIS MUST BE DECLARED BEFORE THE MARRIAGE, AND IT WAS MILEVA, NOT ALBERT, WHO OPTED FOR THE LAST NAME "EINSTEIN-MARITY." A MARRIED PERSON MAY USE THE HYPHENATED "ALLIANZNAME" IN EVERYDAY USE, BUT IT WAS MILEVA WHO WENT BY "EINSTEIN-MARITY," NOT ALBERT. ALBERT SIGNED HIS MARRIAGE RECORDS SIMPLY "EINSTEIN." MILEVA'S DEATH NOTICE READS "EINSTEIN-MARITY." [***] 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."

Let me stress the fact that I, Christopher Jon Bjerknes, am Jewish, and I oppose all forms of racism, including Zionist racism and anti-Semitism.

Esterson relies upon the work of Alberto Martinez. Martinez was one of the first to come out against the PBS documentary "Einstein's Wife" which exposed the issue of the Maric-Einstein collaboration to a broad public. In his critique, Martinez asserted several facts which he first learned from my book, and Martinez has conceded to me in correspondence which I have recorded, that he gleaned these facts from my book. Martinez learned from my book Albert Einstein: The Incorrigible Plagiarist that a passage of text mistakenly attributed to Abram Joffe in "Einstein's Wife" was in fact written by Danin. He discovered in my book my insight that Joffe met Mileva and learned that she went by the name "Einstein-Marity" at this meeting. Martinez also read a correct full translation of Joffe's comments about Einstein-Marity in my book, before writing his critique of "Einstein's Wife", then published a, to use his words, "virtually identical" translation to that found in my book. My book, which Esterson is trying to make taboo, was very useful to Martinez in forming his arguments and he relied heavily upon it.

Esterson relies upon the work of John Jay Stachel (not to be confused with his deceased father Jacob Abraham Stachel) and refers his readers to John Stachel's "hit piece" against me. However, Esterson does not mention my rebuttal of John Stachel's nonsense, nor does he mention the facts surrounding John Stachel's "review" of my work, nor does Esterson mention that in addition to my refutations, John Jay Stachel has been criticized by A. A. Logunov, V. A. Petrov, M. A. Mestvirishvili, F. Winterberg, K. Sommer, D. Wuensch, etc. for failing to mention the fact that his evidence was mutilated in an article Stachel published in the journal Science in 1997 in an effort to dispute David Hilbert's well established priority for the generally covariant field equations of the general theory of relativity.

John Jay Stachel published his "review" after I informed him that I intended to write about his failure to inform his readers that the evidence upon which he relied was mutilated in a substantial way, and that he had failed to mention that fact in his article in Science. Obviously, these circumstances were apt to bias John Stachel against me and my work.

John Stachel did not mention these circumstances in his "hit piece" against me and my work. In an apparent effort to change the subject, he falsely claimed that I had cited Johannes Stark in my book Albert Einstein: The Incorrigible Plagiarist. The meagerest act of due diligence of simply checking the index of the book John Stachel pretended to "review" would have shown him that I did not cite Stark, but John Stachel did not appear to be overly interested in the facts when "reviewing" my book. He recused himself from addressing the general theory of relativity (he didn't really address the special theory, either), and this should be examined in light of the avalanche of work which soon followed on the heels of my books and my response to Stachel, which rebuked John Stachel for his 1997 paper in Science on the Hilbert-Einstein priority dispute.

John Stachel did, however, falsely claim that I had difficulty demonstrating Albert Einstein's plagiarism in the general theory of relativity. I did not, and in my book I referred to Einstein's plagiarism of Galileo, Newton, Soldner, Bessel, Mach, Eotvos, Gerber, Planck, Varicek, Bateman, Hilbert, etc., and I expressly stated on page 109 of my book Albert Einstein: The Incorrigible Plagiarist that I would address the general theory of relativity in another book in my series of books on Albert Einstein's plagiarism. This work has since appeared and is entitled "Anticipations of Einstein in the General Theory of Relativity".

The following is a short list of works critical of John Stachel's Science article on the Hilbert-Einstein priority dispute--note that I reasserted Hilbert's priority in 2002 in Albert Einstein: The Incorrigible Plagiarist which prompted Prof. Friedwardt Winterberg to investigate the matter, and he found that the galley proofs of Hilbert's paper were mutilated in a way that removed the relevant equations, but that one could nevertheless determine from the remainder that Hilbert had the equations before Einstein:


C. J. Bjerknes, "A Response to Physics World's 'Review' of Albert Einstein: The Incorrigible Plagiarist", Infinite Energy Magazine, Volume 8, Number 49, (May/June, 2003), pp. 65-68.


C. J. Bjerknes, Anticipations of Einstein in the General Theory of Relativity, XTX Inc., Downers Grove, Illinois, (2003).


F. Winterberg, "On 'Belated Decision in the Hilbert-Einstein Priority Dispute', published by L. Corry, J. Renn, and J. Stachel", Zeitschrift fuer Naturforschung A, Volume 59a, Number 10, (Submitted 5 June 2003, published October, 2004), pp. 715-719.


A. A. Logunov, M. A. Mestvirishvili and V. A. Petrov, "How Were the Hilbert-Einstein Equations Discovered?", Uspekhi Fizicheskikh Nauk, Volume 174, Number 6, (June, 2004), pp. 663-678. In English translation: A. A. Logunov, M. A. Mestvirishvili and V. A. Petrov, "How Were the Hilbert-Einstein Equations Discovered?" Physics-Uspekhi, Volume 47, Number 6, (June, 2004), pp. 607-621.


V.A. Petrov, Einstein, Hilbert and Equations of Gravitation, http://dbserv.ihep.su/~pubs/tconf04/ps/c6-1.pdf.


K. P. Sommer, "Wer entdeckte die Allgemeine Relativitaetstheorie? Prioritaetsstreit zwischen Hilbert und Einstein", Physik in unserer Zeit, Volume 36, Number 5, (September, 2005), pp. 230-235.


D. Wuensch, ,,zwei wirkliche Kerle'': Neues zur Entdeckung der Gravitationsgleichungen der Allgemeinen Relativitaetstheorie durch Albert Einstein und David Hilbert, Termessos, Goettingen, (2005).


In addition to Esterson's personal attack quoted above, Esterson has made other attacks on my character in a comment posted on this "Cosmic Log" website:

http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2006/11/27/15908.aspx

Esterson also published comments here:

http://www.mail-archive.com/tips@acsun.frostburg.edu/msg15289.html

There is a "review" of my book Albert Einstein: The Incorrigible Plagiarist posted on amazon.com which may have been the work of Esterson:

http://www.amazon.com/Albert-Einstein-Incorrigible-Christopher-Bjerknes/dp/0971962987

I will address Esterson's personal attacks made against me for exposing Albert Einstein's racism, which is well known to Einstein scholars, in greater detail at another time.

Thursday, April 12, 2007

Jacob Abraham Stachel (b. May of 1900, d. 31 December 1965)

Christopher Jon Bjerknes

http://www.jewishracism.com

Jacob Abraham Stachel, a. k. a. "Jack" Stachel (deceased), was successfully prosecuted by the United States Government and spent five in years in prison. He was a foreign born Communist of Jewish descent, who emigrated to the United States of America from Galicia. The New York Times stated in Stachel's obituary, on 2 January 1966, inter alia,

"Less well known than such party leaders as Eugene Dennis and Gus Hall, Jacob A. Stachel was one of the first 11 Communists convicted under the Smith Act in 1949 for conspiring to overthrow the United States Government and served five years in prison."[1]

Jacob Abraham Stachel was a follower of the "self-hating Jew" Karl Marx.[2] Galician Jews had an especially bad reputation and were criticized by friend and foe, Gentiles and Jews alike, from the racist Zionist Theodor Herzl to the racist Zionist Adolf Hitler. They were the grimiest prostitutes and greasiest pimps in the Ghettoes of Poland and New York, the most shameless and obnoxious shysters, and the most vile Communist infiltrators. A typical characterization of the Galician Jew of Jacob Abraham Stachel's generation is found in: E. A. Ross, The Old World in the New: The Significance of Past and Present Immigration to the American People, The Century Company, (1914), p. 146,

"Besides the Russian Jews we are receiving large numbers from Galicia, Hungary, and Roumania. The last are said to be of a high type, whereas the Galician Jews are the lowest. It is these whom Joseph Pennell, the illustrator, found to be 'people who, despite their poverty, never work with their hands; whose town. . . is but a hideous nightmare of dirt, disease and poverty' and its misery and ugliness 'the outcome of their own habits and way of life and not, as is usually supposed, forced upon them by Christian persecutors.'"

There was a high concentration of Frankist Hasidic Jews in Galicia and one wonders how many of those Jewish Communist subversives who emigrated to America from Galicia were Frankist subversives. Frankists often promoted anti-Semitism as means to promote themselves and as a means to take over Gentile governments. Communist Jews used this tactic in America.

Nathaniel Weyl wrote in his book The Jew in American Politics,

"Although Communist leaders were normally taciturn about the extent to which Party membership was Jewish, Jack Stachel complained in The Communist for April 1929 that in Los Angeles 'practically 90 per cent of the membership is Jewish.' In 1945, John Williamson, another national leader of the American Communist Party, observed that, while a seventh of the Party membership was concentrated in Brooklyn, it was not the working-class districts, but in Brownsville, Williamsburg, Coney Island and Bensonhurst, which he characterized as 'primarily Jewish American communities.' [***] The extent to which American Communism remained an organization of the foreign-born was revealed by a boast in The Communist for July 1936 that 45% of Party section organizers were now native-born as against none native-born in 1934. [***] In 1929, massacres of Jews by Palestine Arabs were described by the Freiheit, New York's Communist Party Yiddish organ, as a 'pogrom'. The Party promptly reprimanded the Freiheit for having failed to realize that these murders were a 'class war. . . against British imperialism and their Zionist agents.' The Freiheit proceeded to report the Palestine struggle in a Nazi fashion. 'Indeed,' comments Glazer, 'the cartoons it ran of hook-nosed and bloated Jews sadistically attacking Arabs could have appeared in any German anti-Semitic newspaper.'"[3]




1. "Jack Stachel, U. S. Communist And Party Official, Dies at 65", The New York Times, (2 January 1966), p. 73.

2. J. Prinz, Wir Juden, Erich Reiss, Berlin, (1934), p. 44.

3. N. Weyl, The Jew in American Politics, Arlington House, New Rochelle, New York, (1968), pp. 118-120. Weyl cites: M. Epstein, The Jew and Communism, Trade Union Sponsoring Committee, New York, (1959); and N. Glazer, The Social Basis of American Communism, Harcourt, Brace, New York, (1961), pp. 151-152.






For more information on the Communist Party leader Jacob Abraham Stachel, see the following articles in The New York Times:

"SOVIET REVOLUTION IS CELEBRATED HERE; Workers Party Masses at Two Meetings to Mark the Tenth Anniversary Today. BOLSHEVIST RISE REVIEWED Injunctions in Strikes Assailed -Support for Panken Pledged Despite His Rejection of It", The New York Times, (7 November 1927), p. 43

"COMMUNIST INQUIRY IS DEMANDED HERE", The New York Times, (18 March 1947), p. 3

"Communist Leader Seized As an Illegal Alien Here; ACCUSED AS ALIEN COMMUNIST SEIZED AS ILLEGAL ALIEN", The New York Times, (2 June 1948), p. 1 (Includes photograph of Jacob Abraham Stachel, which accurately depicts his gangster-like physical appearance.)

"CAREER OF FOSTER TRACED; Son of Cab Washer Born in 1881 -- Other Biographies", The New York Times, (21 July 1948), p. 3. (Identifies Jacob Abraham Stachel as one-time "general secretary" of the Communist Party in America, and as the then current "head of its Department of Education, Agitation and Publications".)

"8 COMMUNIST CHIEFS AT LIBERTY ON BAIL; 9TH IN COURT TODAY; Civil Rights Congress Puts Up $35,000 in Treasury Bonds to Free 7 Here WORKER EDITOR GIVES UP Borrows Coat and Tie to Face Judge -- Left Wing, Liberal Groups Assail Arrests COMMUNIST LEADERS APPEAR TO POST BAIL BONDS 8 COMMUNIST CHIEFS AT LIBERTY ON BAIL", The New York Times, (22 July 1948), p. 1

"World News Summarized; THURSDAY, AUGUST 5, 1948", The New York Times, (5 August 1948), p. 1

"WITNESS MISSING, ALIEN CASE HALTS; Search to Be Made for Person Who Previously Testified Against Communists", The New York Times, (14 September 1948), p. 11

"STACHEL INQUIRY ALLOWED; Judge Kaufman Will Not Oppose Deportation Proceedings", The New York Times, (18 September 1948), p. 30

"COMMUNIST PLEA GOES TO HIGH COURT; 12 Accused Here Petition U. S. Supreme Tribunal to Void Indictments", The New York Times, (8 January 1949), p. 13.

"INDICTED READS LOSE HIGH COURT PLEAS; Tribunal Refuses to Intervene in Trial -- Defense Charged Bias, 'Rich' Juries", The New York Times, (11 January 1949), p. 3.

"Text of Indictment of 12 Communists", The New York Times, (17 January 1949), p. 9.

"Communists Here Lose Move To Bring In an Outside Judge; PROSECUTION AND DEFENSE ATTORNEYS IN COMMUNISTS TRIAL COMMUNISTS LOSE ON CHANGING JUDGE", The New York Times, (20 January 1949), p. 1.

"COMMUNISTS WIN RIGHT TO WITNESSES AGAINST U. S. JURY; Will Call First Today in Effort to Prove Illegality of Body That Indicted Them Here MIGHT SUMMON 12 JUDGES Medina Permits Defense Step While Studying Motion to Strike Out Challenge COMMUNISTS WIN POINT IN JURY FIGHT", The New York Times, (21 January 1949), p. 1.

"WALLACE PROTESTS JAILING OF 3 REDS; Says It Is Using Court Power to Promote Injustice -- 500 Picket Detention House", The New York Times, (5 June 1949), p. 2.

"Sketchbook of the Communists' Trial
Text and Drawings", The New York Times, (19 June 1949), p. SM8.

"Text of Judge Medina's Charge to the Jury at the Trial of the Communist Leaders; Court Defines Crime of Conspiracy, Points Out Burden of Proof and Reasonable Doubt THE PROSECUTING STAFF IN THE COMMUNIST TRIAL", The New York Times, (14 October 1949), p. 14.

"BRIEF BIOGRAPHIES OF ACCUSED REDS; Data Include Places of Birth Activities, Records, Party Posts and Varied Names", The New York Times, (15 October 1949), p. 2.

"11 COMMUNISTS CONVICTED OF PLOT; MEDINA TO SENTENCE THEM FRIDAY; 6 OF COUNSEL JAILED IN CONTEMPT; VERDICT IN 7 HOURS Judge Approves It and Thanks Jurors at Tense Close of 9-Month Trial TEN-YEAR TERMS FACED Defendants and Advocates to Appeal -- Latter Get One to Six Months as 'Example' AFTER LAWYERS WERE SENTENCED FOR CONTEMPT IN COMMUNIST TRIAL 11 REDS CONVICTED; 6 COUNSEL JAILED", The New York Times, (15 October 1949), p. 1.

"VERDICT RECEIVED BY TENSE AUDIENCE; Efforts to Seem Relaxed Fail as Facial Twitches, Clenching of Fists Betray Emotions COUGHS BREAK SILENCE Spectators Strain to Hear the Foreman's Answers -- Judge Rocks Throughout Session", The New York Times, (15 October 1949), p. 4.

"Guilty", The New York Times, (16 October 1949), p. E1.

"11 CONVICTED REDS ASK TRAVEL RIGHT; Court Will Hear Plea Today to Alter Restriction -- Four Post Bonds Toward Fines", The New York Times, (26 November 1949), p. 28.

"11 CONVICTED REDS ATTACK SMITH ACT; EXPLAINING IT TO THE BOSS", The New York Times, (2 May 1950), p. 8.

"ORDERS OF STACHEL OBEYED BY THE I.W.O.", The New York Times, (14 July 1950), p. 15.

"U.S. COURT REVOKES 11 REDS' BAIL, GIVING 30 DAYS FOR APPEAL; Circuit Bench, 2 to 1, Agrees With Saypol Plea That They Are Menace to Nation REHEARING HERE IS DENIED But Application to the Supreme Tribunal Is Permitted--Judge Learned Hand Dissents Rehearing of Appeal Denied Bail of 11 Red Leaders Revoked 30 Days Hence to Permit Appeal Bail Won on Appeal Bridges Case of No Help", The New York Times, (29 August 1950), p. 1.

"JACKSON SETS BAIL FOR 10 RED LEADERS; Justice Overturns Appellate Court's Revocation--Would Not Make Martyrs of Them JACKSON SETS BAIL FOR 10 RED LEADERS", The New York Times, (26 September 1950), p. 1.

"United States Supreme Court", The New York Times, (24 October 1950), p. 49.

"WORKER GETS WRIT ON NEWSSTAND BAN; NEWSDEALERS' HEAD", The New York Times, (4 December 1950), p. 31.

"DECISION IS 6 TO 2; Vinson Ruling Affirms Smith Act--Cites the 'Clear, Present' Peril BLACK, DOUGLAS DISSENT Frankfurter, Concurring, Calls Aim of Conspiracy Clear-- Jackson Chides Minority Majority Upholds Law Dennis Served Contempt Term HIGH COURT BACKS GUILT OF 11 REDS Charged "Suppression of Ideas" Jackson Chides Dissenters Sees Conspiracy's Object Clear Black Sees "Prior Censorship" Douglas Questions Danger", The New York Times, (5 June 1951), p. 1.

"Saypol Reports New Data On Reds Given Given Grand Jury; Party Leaders Face Jail in About Month Eugene Dennis Says 'Truman Court Majority' Backed Thought Control REDS IN U.S. FACE WIDE PROSECUTIONS", The New York Times, (5 June 1951), p. 1.

"United States Supreme Court", The New York Times, (5 June 1951), p. 64.

"REDS' LAWYERS SEEK A STAY IN CONTEMPT", The New York Times, (8 June 1951), p. 17.

"Text of Indictment of 21 Communist Leaders on Conspiracy Charges; COMMUNIST LEADERS SEIZED HERE YESTERDAY IN F.B.I. ROUND-UP", The New York Times, (21 June 1951), p. 16.

"7 CONVICTED REDS ARE TAKEN TO JAIL; 4 FAIL TO APPEAR; COMMUNISTS ON WAY TO JAIL AND FOUR WHO FAILED TO APPEAR", The New York Times, (3 July 1951), p. 1.

"FIELD SENT TO JAIL IN CONTEMPT CASE, BUT WINS BAIL BID; Again Refuses to Name Those Who Put Up $80,000 Bond for Fugitive Communists MAY BE RELEASED TODAY Another Trustee and Woman Bookkeeper of Fund Also Flout Orders of Court Eight Now Being Hunted FIELD SEND TO JAIL; BUT WINS BAIL PLEA Judge Rejects Legal Doubts Trustee, Bookkeeper Called Prison Bars Spectators", The New York Times, (7 July 1951), p. 1.

"Red Prisoners to Be Separated", The New York Times, (9 July 1951), p. 13.

"RED PARTY CHIEFS INDICTED ON COAST; Bail of $75,000 and $100,000 Set for Twelve Accused of Violence Conspiracy Bail Rises Asked 7 Specifications Listed", The New York Times, (1 August 1951), p. 7.

"Court Offers '2d Team' Reds 10 Lawyers to Defend Them; LAWYERS OFFERED FOR '2D TEAM' REDS Reads Statement to Court Some Sought in Vain Off to a Slow Start Defense Attorneys Relieved", The New York Times, (9 August 1951), p. 1.

"8 QUIZZED IN HUNT FOR FUGITIVE REDS; Isserman and Sacher Among Those Questioned--Bittelman Files Habeas Corpus Plea Silver Before Grand Jury Bittelman Files for Writ", The New York Times, (10 August 1951), p. 6.

"HAWAII JURY CITES 7 AS RED PLOTTERS; HELD IN HAWAII COMMUNIST ROUND-UP", The New York Times, (30 August 1951), p. 12.

"United States Supreme Court", The New York Times, (9 October 1951), p. 59.

"Hall, Fugitive Red Taken in Mexico, Quickly Lodged in Prison in Texas; GUS HALL IS LODGED IN U.S. JAIL IN TEXAS Hall Had Moscow Training", The New York Times, (11 October 1951), p. 1.

"RED AS U. S. PRESIDENT CITED AS PARTY GOAL", The New York Times, (18 April 1952), p. 5.

"U. S. Acts to Deport Reds And Bring Foster to Trial; U. S. ACTS TO SPEND DEPORTING OF REDS", The New York Times, (23 October 1952), p. 1.

"COSTELLO, 2 REDS LOSE PAROLE BIDS; Gambler Eligible Today, Davis and Potash, of 11 Top Party Leaders, on Feb. 21 COSTELLO, 2 REDS LOSE PAROLE BIDS", The New York Times, (14 February 1953), p. 1.

"STACHEL LOSES APPEAL; Communist Will Be Deported When Sentence Is Over", The New York Times, (14 May 1953), p. 20.

"REDS' JAIL TERMS TO END TUESDAY; Two of Six Face Deportation -- Others Will Be Tried on New Charges", The New York Times, (27 February 1955), p. 34.

"SIX RED LEADERS END PRISON TERMS; 6 OF COMMUNISTS END PRISON TERMS Five Rearrested and Freed on Bond on New Charges-- Sixth Jailed in Contempt", The New York Times, (2 March 1955), p. 1.

"Who's Who? FIFTEEN NEWS QUESTIONS What's What?", The New York Times, (6 March 1955), p. E2.

"FREED REDS POSE PROBATION TESTS; Gates' Desire to Return to Editorship of Worker May Present First Hurdle", The New York Times, (13 March 1955), p. 29.

"U.S. REDS CONFESS PARTY MISTAKES; DRAFT REFORMS; Convention Resolution Would Assail Left Wing and Urge Labor and Negro Ties Leadership Changes Seen U.S. REDS PROPOSE REFORM OF PARTY First Convention Since '50 Denies External Discipline Post-War 'Errors' Listed", The New York Times, (23 September 1956), p. 1.

"U.S. ENDS OLD SUIT AGAINST 8 REDS; 15-Year-Old Cases Based on Membership Are Dropped", The New York Times, (30 May 1963), p. 7.

"U.S. Reds Weigh New Command; Must Fill Top Ranks Thinned by Deaths at Critical Time Party Being Pressed by Militants, Who Favor Chinese", The New York Times, (26 September 1964), p. 11.

"Jack Stachel, U.S. Communist And Party Official, Dies at 65", The New York Times, (2 January 1966), p. 73.

Still More Proof the Israelis Have, for Many Decades, Controlled the American Government

Christopher Jon Bjerknes

http://www.jewishracism.com

Shmuel Rosner has called our attention to some very interesting text from the U. S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations hearings of 9 June 1967:

"SUBSIDIZING THE REFUGEE CAMPS

Senator GORE. Mr. Secretary, I realize that we do not have power, as Senator Symington has punctuated, to give instructions and directions there.

There is one problem, it seems to me, about which we can have a say, and that is continued subsidization of this refugee camp. I went there ten years ago and found it an impossible situation in which they have continued all the while to feed and clothe, support those people, and there are some 200,000 more than when they went into the camp. So surely we can have something to say about no longer continuing to subsidize this.

Secretary RUSK. Well, that constitutes some pressure on the Arabs. It does not constitute any pressure on Israel.

Senator GORE. Well, Israel has taken over some of them, in the Gaza Strip and also in Jordan. They are now claiming sovereignty. So it seems to me it might be a pressure on both.

Secretary RUSK. Well, I do think that the refugee matter should be raised and looked at wholly anew in connection with a settlement of this present situation.

Senator GORE. The point I am trying to make is this is one subject on which we can have a say, and that is how long we are going to continue to pay a very heavy cost of these refugees if they are not dispersed into the countryside.

Secretary RUSK. Well, I do not want to underestimate influence in this situation, but I just want to point out that it is not necessarily decisive when you are talking with countries about what they consider the life and death issues for them.

TAX EXEMPTIONS FOR DONATIONS TO ISRAEL

Senator HICKENLOOPER. Do we not give tax forgiveness for moneys contributed to Israel, which is rather unusual? We could stop that.

Secretary RUSK. I believe contributions to the UJA are tax exempt, yes.

The CHAIRMAN. That is right.

The only country. Do you think you have the votes in the Senate to revoke that?

Senator CASE. Are you in favor yourself?

Senator HICKENLOOPER. I think we ought to treat all nations alike.

Senator CASE. That is correct. But are you in favor of it?

Senator HICKENLOOPER. As long as we do not give it to other nations, I do not——

The CHAIRMAN. The trouble is they think they have control of the Senate and they can do as they please.

Senator SYMINGTON. What was that?

The CHAIRMAN. I said they know they have control of the Senate politically, and therefore whatever the Secretary tells them, they can laugh at him. They say, 'Yes, but you don't control the Senate.''

Senator SYMINGTON. They were very anxious to get every Senator they could to come out and say we ought to act unilaterally, and they got two, three.

The CHAIRMAN. They know when the chips are down you can no more reverse this tax exemption than you can fly. You could not pass a bill through the Senate.

Senator HICKENLOOPER. I do not think you could.

The CHAIRMAN. Changing that tax exemption contribution to the UJA. I would bet you ten to one you could not begin to pass a bill You do not believe they could under any circumstances.

Senator SYMINGTON. A bill to do what?

The CHAIRMAN. To revoke the tax exemption of gifts to the UJA. That is one of their major sources of income. You yourself have pointed out the money they paid for the French arms they got from the U.S.

Senator SYMINGTON. Each year the money we give annually for this is less than 1 percent of the cost of Vietnam.

The CHAIRMAN. I agree with that.

Senator HICKENLOOPER. There you go.

U.S. CONTRIBUTIONS PAY THE ISRAELI ARMS

The CHAIRMAN. But you know very well, you said yourself, that the arms they buy from France are largely paid for by contributions that come from this country.

Senator SYMINGTON. Because we would not sell it to them, so instead of selling them the arms——

Senator GORE. Has the President recommended that this be repealed?

The CHAIRMAN. No, he has not. I do not wish to make the point except the Secretary is quite correct when he says his leverage on Israel is very limited because of the political situation.

Senator HICKENLOOPER. I am sorry I brought it up.

Secretary RUSK. I did not say it.

The CHAIRMAN. If you did not say it, you do not disagree with it anyway.

Secretary RUSK. I think it should be pointed out though on this tax exempt matter that there are many other organizations, institutions, that would fall into the same principle, private foundations in their expenditures abroad, churches, the voluntary agencies; there are very large sums of money going to foreign countries that are tax exempt in this country as the origin.

Senator HICKENLOOPER. I do not think it is analogous.

Senator GORE. It is tax deductible; you said tax exempt.

Secretary RUSK. Except the organizations are exempt. Contributions to them are tax deductible.

Senator COOPER. I suggest—it is possible after this that Israel may ask that this be removed as a sign of showing they are not absolutely dependent on the U.S.""BRIEFING ON THE MIDDLE EAST SITUATION, Friday, June 9, 1967, U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, Washington, DC.", Executive Sessions of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Together with Joint Sessions with the Senate Armed Services Committee (Historical Series), Volume XIX, Ninetieth Congress, First Session, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C., (1967/2006), pp. 705-728, at 710-712.

Tuesday, April 10, 2007

Was Albert Einstein an Incestuous Rapist?

Christopher Jon Bjerknes

http://www.jewishracism.com

Albert Einstein took for his second wife his cousin Elsa Einstein, with whom he was a blood relative through both his mother and his father. We know that Albert Einstein desired to have sex with, and marry, his eventual second wife Elsa's daughter, Ilse, or her sister, Margot.[1] His second wife's daughter Ilse was disgusted by Albert Einstein's sexual advances towards her,[1] such that if Albert Einstein did indeed have sex with his wife's daughters, it is likely that this occurred, at least initially, as an act, or acts, of incestuous rape.

Albert Einstein referred to his wife Elsa, and her daughters Ilse and Margot, as his "small harem".[2] Albert Einstein was often seen with, and frequently lived with, his wife and cousin's daughters.[3] Albert Einstein often cheated on both his first and second wives—he admitted that he cheated on his first wife for years with his second wife, who was also his cousin, while still married to his first wife. Some suspect he had an affair with his cousin and wife Elsa's sister, Paula.[4]

Einstein's Violent and Perverse Nature

and

Einstein's Lack of Character.

Some suspect that Albert Einstein was a syphilitic and a whore monger.[5] We know that Albert Einstein was sadistically cruel to both of his wives.[6] From childhood onwards, Albert Einstein often exhibited the behavior of a ruthless and violent psychopath.[7] Albert was a misogynist. He may have beaten his first wife Mileva Maric,[8] and his son Hans Albert claimed that Albert Einstein beat him.[9] We know that Albert Einstein was also a virulent racist, and a segregationist, who advocated the collective punishment and genocide of the Germans and the ruin of the Europeans.[10] In addition, Einstein was a career plagiarist, who betrayed the trust of his colleagues and friends, including Mileva Maric, Marcel Grossmann, David Hilbert, and Kamerlingh Onnes, among others, and stole credit for their work.

Barring the discovery of new evidence, it cannot be stated with any certainty that Albert Einstein raped his wife's daughters, but we know that he had the desire and the opportunity to fornicate with them, and that Isle, at least, was repulsed by his sexual advances towards her. Given the fact that Albert Einstein referred to these women as his "harem", as well as the other circumstances surrounding their relationship, it is a distinct possibility that Albert Einstein forced himself on these young women.

1. D. Overbye, Einstein in Love: A Scientific Romance, Viking, New York, (2000), pp. 343, 404, note 22. A. Einstein to Ilse Einstein, The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Volume 8, Document 536, Princeton University Press, (1998); and Ilse Einstein to Georg Nikolai, The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Volume 8, Document 545, Princeton University Press, (1998).

2. A. Einstein quoted in M. Born, The Born-Einstein Letters, Walker and Company, New York, (1971), p. 8.

3. See, for example, D. K. Buchwald, et al., Editors, The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Volume 7, Princeton University Press, (2002), p. 106. 4. R. Highfield and P. Carter, The Private Lives of Albert Einstein, St. Martin’s Press, New York, (1993), p. 148. 5. M. Zackheim, Einstein's Daughter, the Search for Lieserl, Riverhead Books, Penguin Putnam, New York, (1999), p. 244.

6. As but example of many to be had, see: "Deposition in Divorce Proceedings", English translation by A. M. Hentschel, The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Volume 8, Document 676, Princeton University Press, (1998), p. 713. See also: M. Zackheim, Einstein's Daughter, the Search for Lieserl, Riverhead Books, Penguin Putnam, New York, (1999), pp. 78-79.

7. As but one example among many to be had, consider: M. Winteler-Einstein, English translation by A. Beck, "Albert Einstein—A Biographical Sketch", The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Volume 1, Princeton University Press, (1987), pp. xv-xxii, at xviii.

8. R. Highfield and P. Carter, The Private Lives of Albert Einstein, St. Martin's Press, New York, (1993), pp. 153-154.

9. G. J. Whitrow, Editor, Einstein: The Man and his Achievement, Dover, New York, (1967), p. 21.

10. A. Einstein, "To the Heroes of the Battle of the Warsaw Ghetto", Bulletin of the Society of Polish Jews, New York, (1944), reprinted in Ideas and Opinions, Crown, New York, (1954), pp. 212-213. A. Einstein, quoted in O. Nathan and H. Norton, Einstein on Peace, Avenel Books, New York, (1981), p. 331. A. Einstein quoted in A. Foelsing, Albert Einstein: A Biography, Viking, New York, (1997), pp. 727-728. M. Born, The Born-Einstein Letters, Walker and Company, New York, (1971), pp. 189, 199.

Allen Esterson's Fallacies and Fictions

Christopher Jon Bjerknes

http://www.jewishracism.com

Desanka Trbuhovic-Gjuric, Dord Krstic, Senta Troemel-Ploetz, Evan Harris Walker, Margarete Maurer and I, among others, have accumulated abundant evidence that Mileva Maric, Albert Einstein's first wife, was co-author, or the sole author, of the prominent papers published under Albert Einstein's name in 1905. Allen Esterson has comparatively recently entered into this debate. His attempts to deny Mileva Maric's role are largely built on fallacies and fictions. As I discovered only very recently, Esterson has smeared me with defamatory remarks at the following website:

http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com. . .

I have begun to respond with the following two posts:

"It appears that Allen Esterson opts to shoot the messenger with unproven defamations in order to avoid the truthful message I am telling. Note that Mr. Esterson does not provide links to my rebuttal of John Stachel's irresponsible and discredited "hit piece", which response can be found here:

http://home.comcast.net/~xtxinc/Response.htm

"The Author of Albert Einstein: The Incorrigible Plagiarist Responds to John Stachel's Personal Attack." Has John Stackel ever retracted the untruths he has written about my book? Far from being anti-Semitic, I am Jewish and oppose all forms of racism, including Zionist racism. John Stachel himself has written that Albert Einstein was a racist, (I am quoting a citation from my book http://www.jewishracism.com/SaintEinstein.htm "The Manufacture and Sale of Saint Einstein" on page 11, which quotes J. Stachel, "Einstein's Jewish Identity", Einstein from 'B' to 'Z', Birkhauser, Boston, Basel, Berlin, (2002), pp. 57-83, at 68), "While he lived in Germany, however, Einstein seems to have accepted the then-prevalent racist mode of thought, often invoking such concepts as 'race' and 'instinct,' and the idea that the Jews form a race." Stachel errs in asserting that I endorse the theory of relativity, if indeed that is what Stachel claims. If that is not what Stachel claims, then his unproven and unsupported empty assertions are meaningless. Stachel does not argue against what I have actually said, rather Stachel raises strawmen of John Stachel's manufacture to knock down. In addition to my refutations, John Stachel has been also been discredited by A. A. Logunov, and others:

In Russian:

data.ufn.ru//ufn04/ufn04_6/Russian/r046e.pdf

In English:

http://www.turpion.org/php/paper.phtml?journal_id=pu&paper_id=1817

"How were the Hilbert – Einstein equations discovered?"

I have published a chapter on Mileva Einstein-Marity in my book http://www.jewishracism.com/SaintEinstein.htm "The Manufacture and Sale of Saint Einstein": www.jewishracism.com/SaintEinsteinChapter18a.pdf Chapter 18: Mileva Einstein-Marity. Another relevant chapter in my book is: www.jewishracism.com/SaintEinsteinChapter4a.pdf Chapter 4: Einstein the Racist Coward. On page 597 of the book (page 184 of the pdf), there are quotations which prove, to quote Kurt Blumenfeld, Albert Einstein's, "revulsion from assimilatory Jewry." If you attempt to censor my response, I will raise the issue elsewhere and note that I have been censored by you. I give you notice that you are publishing defamations against me and I demand that you immediately remove them."


"In the brief paragraph he has published to defame me, Allen Esterson has violated several fundamental rules of ethical argumentation. He has name-called. He has relied upon emotion, instead of upon logical and factual substantive argument. He has expressed defamatory innuendo. He has repeated, and linked to, discredited statements made against me, and failed to inform his readers of my rebuttal. He has failed to state the reasons and evidence I present to substantiate my claims, and has in no substantive way attempted to answer my claims. His attack is a shallow intellectual grave he has dug for himself, and in which he lies interned.

Let me state again that I am a Jew who opposes all forms of racism including Zionist racism. Esterson's gutless attempts to change the subject, and shoot the messenger with a false personal attack, are reprehensible. I note that Esterson does not condemn Albert Einstein's well-known and well-documented racism, which even John Stachel has acknowledged. How can Esterson presume to be an authority on things "Einstein" when he was evidently unaware of Einstein's virulent racism and segregationist beliefs, and even thinks that by citing my exposure of Einstein's racism, he can discredit me?

Like the racist Zionist Theodor Herzl, Albert Einstein believed that anti-Semitism is good for Jews, in that it promotes Jewish segregation. Like ancient Jewish racists (Exodus 34:16. Deuteronomy 7:2-3. Ezra 9. Nehemiah 9:2; 13:3, 23-30), Einstein believed that Jews should not marry "Goyim", though he himself had married a Gentile. Like the racist Zionist segregationists of his day, including Israel Zangwill, Jakob Klatzkin and Ignatz Zollschan, Albert Einstein loathed Jewish assimilation and assimilationists. Esterson's apparent ignorance of these facts, which I have thoroughly documented in book "The Manufacture and Sale of Saint Einstein" http://www.jewishracism.com/SaintEinstein.htm , goes far towards discrediting him as an "Einstein scholar". Albert Einstein was the most famous racist Zionist of his age and I have documented that he was used and promoted by influential Zionists in order to promote the racist Zionist cause, especially in America. Most Jews of his age were far more enlightened than the "genius" Albert Einstein, and vehemently opposed the Zionists. If Esterson wishes to contest these facts, let him try. In so doing, he will be forced to acknowledge his embarrassing ignorance of the subject he has pretended to address as a scholar.

Esterson again reveals his unfamiliarity with the history of the theory of relativity and of the biography of Albert Einstein, when he asserts that it is "startling" that I should accuse the Einsteins of the plagiarism of the work of their unacknowledged predecessors. I note that Esterson fails to address my arguments in the alternative with respect to Mileva Maric's role in the plagiarism.

Is Esterson unaware of the fact that Einstein was accused of the plagiarism of the works of Hendrik Antoon Lorentz, Henri Poincare, Paul Gerber, David Hilbert, Johann Georg von Soldner, and many others, throughout Einstein's career? In this context it is noteworthy that Stachel misrepresents the majority of the substantial criticisms Einstein faced, in order to raise a strawman to knock down. In point of fact, Einstein was criticized for plagiarizing the works of others through fallacy of petitio principii, and thereby of creating unacceptable metaphysical delusions, which plagiarized the mathematical formalisms, as well as the more lucid metaphysical expositions, of his unacknowledged predecessors. For example, Einstein was criticized for copying the mathematical formalisms of Woldemar Voigt, FitzGerald, Larmor, Lorentz and Poincare in the misnamed "Lorentz Transformation", and the metaphysical expositions of Poincare defining relative simultaneity, and the relative nature of time and space. Einstein stood accused of turning the scientific theories of better minds into metaphysical delusions. While I acknowledge that Lorentz, Poincare, and others outshone the Einsteins as intellectuals, I do not agree with their relevant theories, nor would I argue that they are sound. Clearly, I am not to answer for John Stachel's misrepresentations of the history, nor am I to answer for the fictional beliefs he attributes to others. I will ask, though, why do these facts so easily elude our expert, Allen Esterson?

As time permits, I will rebut Esterson's fallacies and fictions regarding the Maric-Einstein priority dispute. He is apparently woefully ignorant of much of the evidence in this dispute, and his argumentation is terribly and fatally flawed, as I will prove."

Some of my other writings on the subject of Mileva Maric can be found here:

www.jewishracism.com/Saint. . .

here:

www.jewishracism.com/Albert_Einstein.pdf

here:

www.jewishracism.com/SaintEinstein.htm

and, here:

http://home.comcast.net/~xtxinc/mileva.htm

"Whoso diggeth a pit shall fall therein: and he that rolleth a stone, it will return upon him."—Proverbs 26:27

Christopher Jon Bjerknes

http://www.jewishracism.com

The Zionist Blair government has badly embarrassed the British with its desperate attempts to vilify Iran. The repercussions of the Zionists' blunders are only beginning to be felt in the UK. The vindictive Jewish controlled media are punishing the British People for their failure to attack Iran using the seizure of the famous fifteen as a pretext. They are dividing the Brits on issues ranging from the sale of the stories of the fifteen, to the presence of women in the military, to the colonial and imperialistic presence of the British Military in the Middle East. How often do we find Syrian, or Iraqi, or Iranian warships and troops in the UK, or the English Channel? What are British and American warships doing in The Persian Gulf?

Bush, too, has been threatened by the Jewish controlled media. We see that every time Bush fails to ramp up pressure for an aggressive attack on Iran, the issues of 9/11 and impeachment surface in the Jewish controlled media. These issues serve as a sword of Damocles over Bush's cowardly head. Since the Zionists control the Democrats with as tight a left rein as that with which they steer the Republicans to the right, they believe they cannot lose by pitting these tightly controlled groups against one another to forward their perceived Zionist self-interests galloping straight ahead. However, they risk broad exposure of the Israeli connection to 9/11, and the attendant backlash against Zionist Jewish traitors. They also, to the detriment of their warmongering schemes, weaken the chain of command of the American Military, and render Americans doubtful of the veracity of all politicians, politicians World Jewry control.

Eager to ridicule the Iranians, the Jewish controlled media are hyping Russian claims that the Iranians are exaggerating their nuclear development program. This, too, actually helps the Iranians and undermines the bloodlust of World Jewry to slaughter Iranians. The Jewish controlled media are so steeped in genocidal hatred and a vindictive spirit, that they seemingly cannot help themselves from undermining their own vile ambitions when confronted with an opportunity to smear those they hate.

I again urge the Iranians to drive a wedge between the Russian People (their Government is so infected with Zionist Jews, and crypto-Jews, as to be irretrievable at this time) and the Israelis, by exposing the "Christian" Zionist plan to mass murder the Russian "Gog and Magog", and the long standing and successful Jewish campaign to genocide the Slavic Peoples. I again urge the Iranians to drive a wedge between the truly Moslem Turkish People (their Government is so infected with Zionist Jews, and crypto-Jews, as to be irretrievable at this time) and the Israelis, by exposing the ancient Zionist plan to pit Christian Europe against Islam, and the manifestation of this plan in the destruction of the Turkish Empire from within and without by Zionist Jews. Expose the fact that Jews were behind the "Young Turks'" genocide of Christian Armenians, and drive a wedge between Turkey together with Christendom, against World Jewry. Oppose Zionist deceit with the factual truth and the Zionists will continue to be consumed in the pits they dig and have dug for others.

It is no wonder when one obverses the present course of World Jewry, that the ancient Jews, knowing their own behavior, warned against it in the Jewish book of Proverbs, Chapter 26,

"4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him. 5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit. 6 He that sendeth a message by the hand of a fool cutteth off the feet, and drinketh damage. 7 The legs of the lame are not equal: so is a parable in the mouth of fools. 8 As he that bindeth a stone in a sling, so is he that giveth honour to a fool. 9 As a thorn goeth up into the hand of a drunkard, so is a parable in the mouths of fools. 10 The great God that formed all things both rewardeth the fool, and rewardeth transgressors. 11 As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly. 12 Seest thou a man wise in his own conceit? there is more hope of a fool than of him. [***] 17 He that passeth by, and meddleth with strife belonging not to him, is like one that taketh a dog by the ears. 18 As a mad man who casteth firebrands, arrows, and death, 19 So is the man that deceiveth his neighbour, and saith, Am not I in sport? 20 Where no wood is, there the fire goeth out: so where there is no talebearer, the strife ceaseth. 21 As coals are to burning coals, and wood to fire; so is a contentious man to kindle strife. 22 The words of a talebearer are as wounds, and they go down into the innermost parts of the belly. 23 Burning lips and a wicked heart are like a potsherd covered with silver dross. 24 He that hateth dissembleth with his lips, and layeth up deceit within him; 25 When he speaketh fair, believe him not: for there are seven abominations in his heart. 26 Whose hatred is covered by deceit, his wickedness shall be shewed before the whole congregation. 27 Whoso diggeth a pit shall fall therein: and he that rolleth a stone, it will return upon him. 28 A lying tongue hateth those that are afflicted by it; and a flattering mouth worketh ruin."

The British Zionists who work for World Jewry should take heed of this advice. The Israelis and their traitorous overseas agents are seemingly a lost cause, unredeemably buried in the pit of their racist hatred and genocidal ambitions.

Sunday, April 08, 2007

The Backlash Has Already Begun: The Brits Divide Themselves in Their Haste to Vilify Iranians

Christopher Jon Bjerknes

http://www.jewishracism.com

The British must be careful. One demonstrable lie, one mistake, one exaggeration, and the already strained credibility of the UK will go down the drain. And for what? The mature and responsible thing to do is take the opportunity of the humanitarian, good will gesture of the Iranians in freeing the famous fifteen to improve the lot of Britain and the World, not to escalate tensions and create provocations as the Zionist Blair regime is so eager to do.

The British are good natured, civilized and dignified people. What their government is doing under the Zionist Blair is beneath the British and the dignity of their military. The Iranians have yet to respond, but if they are forced to, their response is apt to further humiliate the British, who are already doing a fair job of humiliating themselves. The British public ought to join with Iranians and fight back against the slimy Israelis who are threatening the very existence of both Peoples.

In the News:

Storm in UK as freed sailors sell stories to media