Physicists dead-set on securing their own political power were the creators of the atomic bomb. Political scientists corrupted nuclear power into a totalitarian order in the New World, wasting this Old World with weapons of environmental destruction -- they debased nuclear power into a global tyranny, impoverishing this Earth for wind-fall profits -- and we continue to honor those who implemented this nuclear terror. The unreality of modern physics has spread out of the laboratory and infiltrated society at large. But that paradoxical complementarity has collapsed into mere duplicity, into an all too ordinary and corruptible contradiction of lies. Science itself has been distorted, made crooked for the sake of power. How can an empire of false images endure? We see the consequences of tyrannical science in this soiled Earth, and learn the painful answer to our belated question: a civilization based upon deception is ultimately self-destructive. This is the apocalyptic price of ignorance and cowardice, the indirect consequence of inaction. The question we must ask now is this: how can a twisted science be made whole? How can we even recognize truth ..should it confront us? It is truth which intelligence aspires to, not out of high-minded morality or weak-minded piety, but out of instinct. It is the basic desire to know and not be deceived.

If you wish to understand this book, you should see it whole � and the place to start is the homepage: Heaven-Words � copyright 2005 WEBb1910473801 (All rights reserved by the author) You may view any or all chapters of this very long book simply by clicking on the links below.

Fox News Bill O�Reilly Sean Hannity Savage Double Talk Radio with Their Forked Tongue Tales of Islamofascism in Eurabia

Keys To Heaven-Words: The Art And Science Of Revolution

Gordon Press-ing realities in a surreal world

Cold War origins of totalitarianism in North America and Western Europe

Rise and fall of Roman Catholic Church: revisionist history

Salvador Dali portrays two-timing artists of today: from religious to ideological war with Jewish genius

Quantum theory made easy:  an introduction to the new physics

From String Theory To A Final Theory: Back To The Origins of Nuclear Weapons

Quantum brain theory: splitting classical-physical reality..from the inside-out

Breakdown of madness dawns on genius of collective consciousness

Chaos Theory: gravity bends of spiraling space-time

Emile Durkheim: sacred symbols conceal unholy conviction: believers-in-themselves are sacred..chosen people

Creators of the atomic bomb: debasing nuclear power into a totalitarian order in the new world

The Bourbaki group originated in France around the 1930s. Bourbaki was a pseudonym and membership was secret. Why would French mathematicians need to conceal their identities behind a collective pseudonym? Their mission was to reduce mathematics to its basic structures. For now, I would simply like to suggest a pattern. One of the leading lights in chaos theory is Benoit Mandelbrot. Mandelbrot was born in Warsaw in 1924 to a Lithuanian Jewish family. "Alert to geopolitical reality, the family moved to Paris in 1936, drawn in part by the presence of Mandelbrot's uncle, Szolem Mandelbrojt, a mathematician."¹ Benoit's uncle was a bourbakist.² The younger Mandelbrot rebelled against the formalism of the Bourbaki and created geometrical and intuitively oriented themes central to chaos theory. My objective here has been simple: to establish that at least one prominent Bourbakist was Jewish. I will not try to stretch this matter beyond saying it is suggestive of Jewish intrigue. What makes me uncomfortable with the Bourbaki is their eagerness to hide intuitive steps in mathematics so only insiders understand the origin of thinking and the path of development. I believe this practice serves a greater purpose than economy, and is akin to Weinberg's dream of a final theory. The powerful ideas of mathematics are concealed so unwanted outsiders do not stumble on something threatening to the existing power structure, as Einstein did when a Jewish friend introduced him to the ready made mathematics he needed for his general theory of relativity. A major objective of this book is to bring many of the most powerful scientific ideas of this past century out of concealment, and along with them their creators. If this smacks of conspiracy theory paranoia and seems to you to be wild I�d speculation, let me introduce you once again to "Johnny" and his all American bund from Manhattan.

Perhaps no other event within human history has so imperiled the survival of life on planet Earth as the introduction of nuclear weapons into our natural environment. Yet we have not only idealized the creators of these doomsday bombs as geniuses, but as paradoxical heroes of peace as well. Many scientists in many countries around the globe have sought this Holy Grail of modern physics, including Nazi Germany. Those who succeeded intended to use the bomb or nuclear contaminants against Germany, but the final decision was to win the war against Europe by conventional means. Japan was chosen as the killing field for this new "miracle" of science.

Anyone who seriously questions the assertion that the Jews have controlled America since World War II has a responsibility to do research on the creators of the atomic bomb. It is a devastating experience to discover the commanding control Jews had on the entire process. Look up the biographies of the key players, and ask yourself if it was mere coincidence that so many were Jews. Rhodes notes that seven of the most prominent scientists of the twentieth century arose from the pre-war Hungarian Jewish middle class. Among the seven named were: "Johnny" von Neumann, Leo Szilard, Eugene Wigner, and Edward Teller.³ You may not recognize these names, but they have shaped your world far more profoundly than the puppet presidents, politicians and Hollywood superstars you have idolized..... Not that these people and their brethren have not been idolized also: Edward Teller, the mastermind behind the hydrogen bomb, was awarded the Nobel prize, as were a number of other bomb-makers.

The Japanese were aware of nuclear research, but believed it would not produce results until after the war. The Japanese Imperial Navy did not speak in coded references to "Hungarian" scientists when they referred to advances in nuclear research. They were exploring the technical possibilities of nuclear propulsion for their ships. It was a major national objective. In comparing their own degree of success with American research efforts, they reported that the United States had "... recently obtained the services of a number of Jewish scientists, and considerable progress has been made. The objective is the creation of tremendous amounts of energy through nuclear fission.' "⁴

I am not arguing that all scientists involved with the bomb were Jews, only that the physicists who contributed most to the creation of the bomb were Jews. Enrico Fermi was a prominent intelligence in the advent of nuclear power. While he may not have been a Jew, his wife was.⁵ Robert Oppenheimer, director of Project Y -- the group of physicists who actually created the atom bomb at Los Alamos, N.M., was a wealthy American Jew. In describing Oppenheimer, Rhodes notes that he modeled himself after two mathematicians he greatly admired: Paul A.M. Dirac and Wolfgang Pauli. You should know that Dirac is one of the giants of modern physics. He created quantum field theory. As far as I know, Dirac was not involved in the patriotic campaign to create the bomb. One might take some consolation in realizing that Dirac was an Englishman from Cambridge, and certainly not a Jew. What Rhodes goes on to explain is that Dirac was Eugene Wigner's brother-in- law.⁶ So like Enrico Fermi, Dirac was in the "family". As for Pauli, he was family, and no mere in-law.

Lise Meitner was secretive about being an Austrian Jew, although she had been raised as a Protestant. She told her research partner, Otto Hahn, that she was Jewish.⁷ So Hahn, who was German, knew he was passing a most important discovery to the Jewish scientific community when he sent his experimental findings to Meitner ....who then forwarded this break-through in nuclear fission research to Bohr and the bomb-makers. Otto Fritsch, who was related to Meitner, was "chosen" to cheer the melancholy Dane with the details of Hahn's astonishing discovery. I had become very curious about Bohr earlier, so I took a look at the New Encyclopedia Britannica. This is what you will find if you check the facts: "His mother, Ellen Adler Bohr, came from a wealthy Jewish family prominent in Danish banking and parliamentary circles."⁸ "In 1943, under threat of immediate arrest because of his Jewish ancestry and anti-Nazi views he made no effort to conceal, Bohr, with his wife and some other family members, was transported to Sweden by fishing boat in the dead of night by the Danish resistance movement......Bohr and one of his sons, Aage...took part in the projects for making a nuclear fission bomb. They worked in England for several months and then moved to Los Alamos, N. M., U.S. , with a British research team."⁹ Rhodes confirms that Bohr "played a decisive part in the rescue of the Danish Jews."¹⁰ Felix Frankfurter was an Austrian Jew who was a close confidant of Franklin Roosevelt. He was also a supreme court justice. Frankfurter and Bohr became friends in 1933 during a campaign to rescue academic Jews from Europe.¹¹ The significance of this relationship will become evident as we proceed. Bohr was an important source of respectability and integrity, as well as inspiration for the bomb-makers. He was the most significant political voice for the physics community during the war, more so than Einstein because he was directly involved in the research which finally led to the physical creation of nuclear weapons.¹² In describing events at Los Alamos, Victor Weisskopf comments that the bomb makers found meaning and consolation in their grim project ".... because Bohr right away participated not only in the work, but in our discussions..... ' "¹³ Bohr down-played his own contributions to constructing the bomb itself, and emphasized that he was there for a different purpose. The revolutionary insight Bohr was revealing was the way in which his idea of complementarity applied to the bomb. "He meant now to communicate his revelation to the heads of state who might act on it: to Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill first of all."¹⁴ It seems to me that Bohr has been shielded from publicity by Einstein's popular image because Bohr discloses too much of the structure of Jewish power: he came from a wealthy Jewish banking family with political influence, he was directly involved in creating the atom bomb, "profoundly international in spirit", and suspected along with Oppenheimer of passing nuclear secrets to the Soviet Union. To top it all off, he was a leading light in the nuclear pacifist movement. I have no doubt that if one did a careful study of Bohr's family one would come to the remarkable discovery that these wealthy Danish Jews were Marxist "sympathizers" like the wealthy Oppenheimer, the not so wealthy Bohm and so many other Jewish intellectuals. It is not possible for physicists to face these facts honestly. All they can do is refuse to confront the facts by saying that such observations are not "relevant" to physics; but such a denial is about as persuasive as saying that government funding agencies are not relevant to physics, as though their source of money for research does not have an impact on the type of work which is done. Political power controls science, and money controls politicians. Bohr had it all. But this is precisely the focus of our interest: the totality. Totalitarianism.

Most people involved with the Manhattan Project were allowed a very restricted view of the context into which their work would fit. But there were exceptions. One of the youngest and brightest to make the Manhattan team was Richard Feynman. Feynman developed a practical and reliable technique that computed the probability that any premature reaction would occur in the nuclear fission bomb. Bethe was Feynman's supervisor on the bomb project. He was pleased by his quick intellect and bold ambition. "He was not satisfied to take away one problem and work on it; he wanted to work on everything at once. Bethe decided to make him a group leader, a position otherwise reserved for prominent physicists like Teller, Weisskopf, Serber, and the head of the British contingent at Los Alamos, Rudolf Peierls."¹⁵ In the event you have not guessed, Rudolf Peierls was a German Jew.¹⁶ Hans Bethe was Germanic in appearance, having blue eyes and brown hair; but he was half Jewish from his mother's side.¹⁷

Decades after the glory of the bomb had faded, Feynman distanced himself from the Manhattan Project. He portrayed himself as a hippie before his time, more as ".... a rebel than an ambitious and effective group leader. .... 'I worried about no big decisions. I was always flittering about underneath.' "¹⁸ He was an underling who did not really know what the grown-ups were doing. While Feynman opposed formal religion, in his private life he engaged in a variety of mystical activities at Esalen Institute with many of the counter culture heroes of the 1960's and 1970's. His curiosity drew him to the Jewish Richard Alpert, better known as the guru of LSD mysticism: Baba Ram Dass.¹⁹ It is remarkable how many of the Manhattan team found it so easy to free themselves of any guilt the creation of nuclear weapons may possibly have placed upon their shoulders, and how forgiving the gurus of peace and love have been of these men. Some even gained glory as anti-nuclear activists. My point is not how hypocritical these Pharisees are, but simply to highlight how utterly stupid we have been. This story of duplicity is nothing new; it had been going on before the advent of Christianity. The executioner dressed to kill as "The Saint" will take in the ladies every time.

It is the second rank scientists who are the technical robots without feeling. The most highly regarded scientists are imaginative and have invariably both technical and cultural sensitivity. They have a creative vision of wholeness. This must not be mistaken for piety. Theirs was the unthinkable, the unholy ambition to be Satan and God: masters of war loved and honored as Nobel laureates of peace.... merciless oppressors who present themselves as the sacrificial lambs of an unending Holocaust. This is the horrifying reality of wolves in sheep's clothing about which the good shepherds of Christianity have remained silent, as their flocks have been slaughtered. "But how can they be blamed for what they didn�t do?".... you piously protest in your State of spiritual corruption. The men most directly responsible for the bomb were disturbingly spiritual. In describing Oppenheimer during the guilt plagued days after the bomb was dropped on the Japanese people, Rhodes paid a kind of tribute to him stating: "The theoretical physicist who was also a poet, who found physics, as Bethe says, 'the best way to do philosophy,' had staked his claim on history."²⁰ Concerning Oppenheimer, his friend and experimental physicist I.I. Rabi considered him too deeply involved in non-scientific academic interests such as the Hindu religion. "Some may call it a lack of faith, but in my opinion it was more a turning away from the hard, crude methods of theoretical physics into a mystical realm of broad intuition."²¹ In a letter to his brother, Oppenheimer emphasizes the importance of discipline and actual hardship in motivating people to achievement. He demonstrates familiarity with a variety of mystical sources, including John of the Cross, Spinoza, the Bhagavad Gita, St. Thomas, and Ecclesiastes.²²

Bohr was not to be out cultured by his former student. Complementarity introduced a kind of mystical wholeness into Bohr's physics; it was a spiritual justification for the bomb-makers. For Bohr, it was a very short leap of faith from the Danish Kierkegaard's Either-Or to the paradoxical duality of quantum theory.²³ This is a theme we will see again: Jewish scientific thinkers turning to spirituality for inspiration. Bohr found this complementarity also in the mystical Yin and Yang of Taoism. The primary concept to identify here is this: wholeness and complementarity go together, and that complementarity can function as duplicity... as an illusory deception well suited for totalitarianism. Oppenheimer, Bohr and the rest needed to find spiritual consolation as they employed their genius to incinerate their adversaries. These were not men unaware of the evil at the core of what they were doing. This is the time honored tradition of the Pharisees, going back long before the days of the New Testament. Rhodes compares Bohr to Moses and Oppenheimer to Aaron.²⁴ Einstein approached the status of being a saint in the popular imagination. "Einstein was a man of seeming contradictions: ... a nonbeliever who spent much time thinking about God; a pacifist who stimulated the production of the most deadly weapon in history.... a scientist whose own standards as a theoretician were quintessentially aesthetic."²⁵ Gardner presents Einstein's duplicity as though it were some admirable, even mysterious, idealism. Einstein was in no way inconsistent. His pacifism meant he refused to serve in the German army, but given the chance would encourage war against Germany; this kind of "idealism" pre-dated Hitler and was shared by many of Einstein's persuasion in a multitude of nations where the Diaspora have roamed throughout history ...theirs and ours. Later in this chapter we will discover that no one was more aggressive in making nuclear weapons a reality, that no one was more determined to force humanity to witness their power than was one of Einstein's closest friends: Leo Szilard. However in 1945, just as it became inevitable that the bomb would be dropped, Leo Szilard underwent a miraculous religious conversion and became the leading voice in opposition to the use of the atom bomb, for both moral and political reasons. Teller responded to Szilard by saying that there was no way of lifting the burden of guilt from his conscience. "'The things we are working on are so terrible that no amount of protesting or fiddling with politics will save our souls...'"²⁶ He repeated Szilard's own earlier view, shared by Bohr, that the bomb must be demonstrated in a real war so as to make its dreadful power evident to all. Only then would the world understand the futility of any future war.²⁷ Rhodes quotes Szilard's friend, Rabinowitch, who describes the sleepless nights and anxiety Szilard suffered through as he thought about the consequences of using the atomic bomb. Szilard was determined to contact Roosevelt again, this time warning against the use of the bomb. Unfortunately, he and Einstein did not succeed in overturning the deadly plans of the military industrial complex. So Szilard-the-repentant failed to stop the use of the atom bomb.²⁸ You can't appreciate the humor in all this because we really have not yet learned to know the mysterious Szilard. But we will.

After disclosing the sad story of how Szilard-the-repentant opposed not only using the bomb, but even testing it for fear of disclosing to the world that it existed, Rhodes then informs the reader that the government official to whom Szilard spoke gave him a lesson in politics by explaining to the na�ve "Hungarian" that a government cannot spend billions of dollars on a military research project, have nothing to show for it, and then expect future funding in nuclear energy research to be approved.²⁹ The bomb would be used, if for no other reasons than to justify the cost of making it, and protect the careers of the top brass officially responsible for the project. Rhodes seriously suggests that among the reasons Japan had to be bombed was to save General Groves and the Secretary of War from prison for wasting billions of tax payer dollars.³⁰ In short, the American people would take on the terrible burden of responsibility for dropping the bomb, and the "Hungarians" would be saved from the guilt tormenting their sensitive souls. I doubt that Szilard's new found pacifism had anything to do with the salvation of his soul; it is obvious that his aggressive role in the development of the bomb did not help the cause of the Jews in the post war period; he was an embarrassment to them, as you will see shortly. So a Bourbaki-like Godfather, such as Bohr or Einstein ordered him to cover his tracks and sing the praises of peace, as they would soon do also. We will digress from the events of the 1940s for several pages so that we might examine in a bit more detail a few of the trends and some of the players established during that critical period.

The bomb�s debut played to mixed reviews. Szilard was of course devastated that all his efforts to prevent the use of the bomb failed. Otto Hahn, a prisoner of war in England, was shocked, depressed and overcome by real feelings of guilt. At Los Alamos, the mood was exultant, as the bomb-makers booked restaurant reservations to celebrate the war victory won by their bomb.³¹ But they had been euphoric even before Japan�s day of judgement. "The jubilation, the shouting, the dancing, the triumph of that day have been duly recorded. On the road back, another physicist thought Feynman was going to float through the roof of the bus. The bomb makers rejoiced and got drunk. ... It was alchemy at last, an alchemy that changed metals rarer than gold into elements more baneful than lead."³² Oppenheimer felt "reasonably good" about the successful atomic bombing of Japan. Gleick describes Oppenheimer as self-torturing; perhaps because of his cultured mysticism, he was conscious of the guilt threatening to over-hang their legacy like the mushroom clouds now burned into the collective psyche of Japan. Oppenheimer would have to respond to other very real accusations of guilt coming from Senator Joseph McCarthy. Oppenheimer cleared himself in the eyes of the American government by freely discussing the political activities of his students. He branded David Bohm as possibly "dangerous" because of his communist sympathies.³³ Bohm was from a younger generation than the bomb-makers, but he was able to do his part. Oppenheimer assured that Bohm would complete his Ph.D. in 1943 even though his research results were classified secret and confiscated for use in the Manhattan Project.³⁴ Bohm clearly understood the United States was preparing to construct a nuclear weapon, and that the work from his laboratory was to be included in that effort. Peat argues that Bohm evidently felt no moral misgivings about helping in this urgent matter of war, that he demonstrated a perspective common to most physicists, engineers and chemists who contributed to the Manhattan project, who were deeply concentrating on the difficulty of their own technical problems: "The more exciting and challenging the problem, the more its wider implications are forgotten."³⁵ But the trademark of Bohm's thinking is wholeness. Peat�s claim that Bohm failed to notice the wider implications of his work is unpersuasive. Elsewhere in Peat�s book, it is clearly obvious Bohm never separated his politics and physics. "In his research on plasmas, as in all his work, Bohm's thinking was all of a piece. It was not that he was a physicist who happened to have a great interest in politics; rather, politics and physics were, for him, inseparable."³⁶ The atom bomb was truly a creation of Jewish physics, and it should not be impossible to understand that the Jewish creators of the bomb would share their great achievement with Jewish Bolsheviks who created communism in the Soviet Union. This will become obvious in time. Peat describes Bohm as being na�vely optimistic concerning the bomb because he thought that because it was so powerful it may bring an end to war and force the nations of the world to co-operate.³⁷ First of all, this was not Bohm's own na�ve thinking, it was Bohr's very own "complementarity of the bomb" dogma which was being parroted by guilty physicists and politicians worldwide until it was finally agreed that the guiltiest of them all, Joseph Stalin, could claim copyright to this brilliant justification for nuclear weapons.

Gleick tells how Feynman was "dogged" by an "apocalyptic fear" of the Soviet bomb in 1949, and even listened seriously to one of his many girl friends who suggested he would be safer moving to South America.³⁸ This is nonsense. Feynman knew that Bohm was miserable in his Brazilian exile. Bohm had proved to be a promising quantum theorist and it was proposed by Oppenheimer that Bohm's work be studied at the Princeton Institute. His ideas were rejected by university officials out of hand for political reasons: he was marked as a communist and a traitor during the height of the McCarthy era.³⁹ In the event you are missing the drift of all this, Bohm was a "victim" of McCarthyism and had to "flee" from the United States to a new promised land because his former mentor had fingered him to the Feds as a subversive so as to save his own hide. Peat goes on to say how surprising it must be to present day readers to hear that political beliefs could be used to attack ideas in physics at the most prestigious university in America. On the contrary, this is the order of the day at politically correct schools throughout neo-Stalinist-capitalist/socialist America, China and Europe.

We will focus on Bohm from time to time because he so conveniently represents the sensitive socialist academic Jewish intelligentsia we have all come to know and love. Peat mentions that Bohm believed that communism "might" be "the answer", but then came to accept that it denied people their right to freedom and was therefore worse than the corruption it was supposed to replace. After coming to this revelation, Bohm told friends he could never say this to American government officials because it would only be self-serving, even if he sincerely held this conviction.⁴⁰ In 1960, Bohm submitted an apologia to the American authorities disavowing his short lived infatuation with communism. He identified the brutality and torture practiced by communist governments as decisive factors in his rejecting communism. He concluded that the expansion of communism is wrong because it ultimately corrupts all that it touches.⁴¹ "His 1960 statement raises puzzling questions. Why did he place his rejection of Communism at the end of the Second World War when in fact his letters from Brazil are staunchly pro-Communist? And why, even into the 1970s, did he continue to tell his friends that, even if it were the only way to regain his American citizenship, he would never write the sort of statement they wanted?" ⁴² There can be no doubt that Bohm was deceptive and untrustworthy because he spoke and acted as though the Jewish dimension of communism was not central to his passionate commitment to that ideology. Bohm was utterly loyal to his fellow Jews and their common cause; he is held up by Peat and others as a light to all men, much along the lines of Paul, Marx, and so many other saviors magnanimously offered by the Jews to the "gentile" world. Beneath their superficial compassion for suffering humanity in general is the under-lying reality of predatory Jewish lordship.

Consider how casually the academic community has viewed the atrocities of the Stalinist period. "Joseph Stalin was such a left-hemispheric leader. He therefore rates at least passing mention in the present context.... If Hitler's victims were millions killed on the battlefield, in air raids or concentration camps, those who perished in Stalin's Gulag Archipelago are said to be multiples of Hitler's score."⁴³ Not much moral outrage here. Most academics have been exemplary in their readiness to forgive the Stalinists their crimes against humanity. Some three years after Stalin's death, it was widely understood how repressive and utterly miserable life in the Soviet Union had been. Bohm was unwilling to take such reports seriously. When unable to escape the facts, he justified the atrocities of Stalinism "... as the unfortunate but necessary breaking of a few eggs to make the Soviet omelet. While many of Saral's friends were politically to the left, even she was surprised that such an intelligent mind as Bohm's could accept Communism so uncritically."⁴⁴

There is an impersonal, scientific coldness which denies the reader access to the intimacy of human contact, or that sense of intimate involvement with the world of our common felt experience. Feynman and Weinberg demonstrate this master of fact attitude even better than Bohm. The impersonal disbelief they express is not entirely without merit, but they present man as an isolated individual -- alone beneath the over-shadowing expanse of a cold, uncaring cosmic canopy; even if sympathetic to socialism, they fail to acknowledge the emotional reality of man's collective nature, and the implications inherent to his growing awareness of this potentiality. On the occasion of his father's funeral, Feynman refused to participate in the prayers praising God. He knew very well that his father no more believed in God than he did. Given the sincere grief he felt, he could not take on the burden of hypocrisy which the rabbi was placing on his shoulders. "His disbelief had nothing of indifference in it. It was determined, coolly rational disbelief, a conviction that the myths of religion cheated knowledge."⁴⁵ What I want to emphasize is the rational and aggressive nature of Feynman's atheism. Weinberg finds it hard to imagine that physicists will have access to final principles which do not require further justification by more fundamental laws. But should such a final theory materialize, he doubts that it will give even the slightest hint of a God interested in the drama of human affairs.⁴⁶ Feynman believed that doubt was a far more honest position than that of religion which substituted faith and certainty for all that science did not yet know. He believed science and religion are adversaries, and unlike Einstein sought no middle ground between them. There could be no anthropomorphic God who cared about man and his morality. This point of view was common among scientists, but rarely expressed in the public media. Gleick reports of a local television station which censored an interview in 1959, during which Feynman marveled at the astonishing complexity of the universe and concluded that it is laughable to imagine that everything exists simply for the purpose of God witnessing a morality play in this tiny backwater of the universe. " 'The stage is too big for the drama.' "⁴⁷

Weinberg considers the holistic science of Bohm and the chaos theorists to be complex foolishness, as opposed to the simple-mindedness of mere church goers. "The reductionist worldview is chilling and impersonal. It has to be accepted as it is, not because we like it, but because that is the way the world works."⁴⁸ It seems that some M.I.T. scientists aren't great fans of the facts either, when they get hot. They too like their facts cold and impersonal. Pinker makes the disturbing observation that people who may be more knowledgeable about the details of social realities can use the statistical facts in a way that is unacceptable politically, even though scientifically accurate. I would give the example of statistics describing Jewish wealth, ownership of the media, political influence in government and so on. Pinker rather chooses the example of race to justify scientific censorship. "A good statistical category-maker could develop racial stereotypes and use them to make actuarially sound but morally repugnant decisions about individual cases. This behavior is racist not because it is irrational (in the sense of statistically inaccurate) but because it flouts the moral principle that it is wrong to judge an individual using the statistics of a racial or ethnic group. The argument against bigotry, then, does not come from the design specs for a rational statistical categorizer. It comes from a rule system, in this case a rule of ethics, that tells us when to turn our statistical categorizers off."⁴⁹ How convenient! Scientists can stop being "objective" when the facts are inconsistent with their "morality". Since when did bomb-makers and abortionists care about morality? Any hard nosed scientist who applies this reasoning deserves ridicule, and should be constantly reminded of his piety. Either he is tough minded or he is not. The reality of course is that scientists are either rulers themselves or servants to those who are, and their claims to authority are based on the brute force that defines their "ethics", not on any imagined integrity of the scientific method, or objective mathematics.

Once Weinberg's final theory is in place, Pinker won't need to put up with the embarrassment of suspending scientific observation for the sake of his very high minded ethics. You see, Pinker will simply be able to cite the final theory, which will almost certainly discredit all vicious ideas however superficially scientific they may appear to be. Weinberg informs us that the discovery of a final theory may have implications outside the boundaries of formal science. He complains about "irrational misconceptions", some of which are mere nonsense, and some that are downright vicious. He says that because nature's most basic principles are concealed, irrational people can still claim to call our attention to undeserving ideas. At least the final theory will put an end to their claims of respectability.⁵⁰

Weinberg speaks as an impartial scientist who must be taken seriously by any person of reason, but to all our amazement conceals a profound Jewish bias that discredits any claims to scientific objectivity. Weinberg says he is perhaps uncommon among modern day scientists in that he even cares about the religious feelings people may have. He confides in the reader that most physicists express mild surprise or even humor when the subject of religious belief is seriously presented to them. They may participate in formal religious rituals from time to time, but this is strictly a matter of social custom and has nothing to do with belief. They attend weddings and funerals for entirely human reasons, including an expression of ethnic or family solidarity. Some physicists may conceal real religious sentiments, but if they do, they are very good at it. From his own observations, Weinberg concludes that "... most physicists today are not sufficiently interested in religion even to qualify as practicing atheists."⁵¹ In my opinion, scientists don't simply refuse to think about reality altogether, they separate their work from their daily lives; they compartmentalize their thinking and apply the appropriate beliefs and disbeliefs where needed -- neither are they ardent advocates for Weinberg's "chilling and impersonal" atheism. Weinberg overlooks the curious collective quality of mysticism that pervades the new physics, and the human capacity for transpersonal feeling, for awareness of the collective dimensions of one's own human nature. The meaning and implications of this idea just expressed may not yet be transparent, but by the conclusion of this book it will be evident that human nature is not inherently isolated or meaningless; only through social indoctrination is man alienated from his collective nature and the world which lives through him.

I am as eager as Feynman and Weinberg to free ourselves from Judeo-Christianity, but I would go farther in freeing us from Judaism, in all its forms, as well. Our ancestors were aware of the mysterious quality of life around and within them, and they expressed these insights through their religion and culture. Mysticism remains even when the myths are erased, and is strengthened by the absence of these images. Weinberg, like Hawking, seeks to discredit not only the mythologies built around ancient mysticism, but the mystical experience itself. This is a denial not of belief, but of existential experience. I too am a disbeliever in Churches with their plaster gods, and in Hollywood with its silicon implant idols; but I will not be swindled out of the rapture I know is inherent to the transpersonal intelligence wired into this human Nature of ours. I must repeat that I share the disbelief of Feynman and Weinberg, but only more so -- I disbelieve in the superiority of the "chosen people", regardless of Who is doing the choosing.

Weinberg anticipates an impersonal scientific explanation of the final theory which will be accessible to all scientifically minded people. Either he lives a very impoverished life or he is dishonest. Such a final theory will only be grasped through an elevated state of mind accompanied by intense emotion -- something often called mysticism. Certainly scientists like Einstein, Bohr, Bohm, Feynman, Penrose and Weinberg himself are fully aware of the ecstatic nature of authentic insight into any truly great idea, scientific or otherwise. I believe what is happening is that we are not simply solving equations, but creating formulas that engage one's attention, much as is the case when concentrating on a stereogram. It is engaging the mind itself that makes the solution to our problems possible, not merely the formulas. Working the equations is like evoking self hypnosis by writing poetry or music. There are many ways to open the mind, perhaps including floating in the See. This has been so since the Eureka days of the naked Archimedes, and long before. This is the mystery of genius which the Jews so highly value among themselves, and struggle so aggressively to conceal from others. The Jews are visionaries; non-Jews must content themselves with laws, with being technicians who "know" intellectually, but cannot sense intuitively how everything fits together.

It may be of interest for some to notice that the preceding paragraph is very deeply influenced by the song God Is Alive, Magic Is Afoot, written by Leonard Cohen and sung authentically on the 1970�s LP recording by Buffy Sainte Marie (not on her 1990�s CD revision). You cannot effectively resist the Jews without understanding them, and this necessitates having some feeling for them. I get extremely angry about what the Jews have done and continue to do, but I don't hate them, although I realize there is more than enough reason to. In understanding the Jews, you should know one thing: they want it all, whatever it is. The Jews are concerned with totalitarian laws, in Weinberg's case the laws of physics. Perhaps there will be ten laws making up this final theory. Our concern should be with the "incarnation", the manifestation of One's own nature as a powerful Presence that gives direct access to Nature, transcending the intermediating Jewish laws. This is basically what Jesus was saying about the primacy of the Spirit over the letter of the Jewish Law. Many centuries later, Martin Luther would appeal directly to God without the intercession of the Catholic Church with all its laws, ritualistic indulgences, icons and saints. It has been the objective of formal authority to substitute laws for direct experience because rulers understand how dangerous inspired thought is to the established order. Today, it is people like Weinberg who represent dogmatic authority. Because science decays without creativity, it is essential that real people be able to think, or we aren't going to get some very serious problems solved. Dogma will not save us, whether it comes from the Church or from Science. As has always been the case, the most impossible problems invariably necessitate that we turn ourselves inside out in trying to solve them.... that we change ourselves in the process, not merely our beliefs, or formula ideas.

Many people associate God with creative inspiration, with revelation. Paul Tillich found it curious to observe that among all the scientists and social scientists only physicists were unashamed to speak of God in their work.⁵² It is revealing to compare the sense of the religious as described by Hawking and Einstein. Weinberg and Hawking are seeking to remove genius from science, in the name of God if necessary.... much as the Spirit of wisdom has long since been extracted from philosophy. Hawking considers the significance of a unified theory, and wonders how it should have come to be -- if there was a creator. Returning to his thoughts on a final theory, he believes that "..... it should in time be understandable in broad principle by everyone, not just a few scientists. Then we shall all, philosophers, scientists, and just ordinary people, be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason -- for then we would know the mind of God."⁵³ Even without the tactics of the Bourbaki, great ideas cannot be reduced to the level of the common-place as Hawking suggests because insight is an emotional as well as an intellectual ordeal. Rather, common-folk can be elevated collectively to the level of great insight by means of a symphony of passionately felt ideas. Einstein was not so legalistic and formal in his outlook on everything as Weinberg, Feynman, and Hawking. He referred to rapturous feelings and an awareness of an extraordinary intelligence in nature much beyond the mechanics of logical reasoning.⁵⁴ This kind of observation has been poorly used by philosophers to prove the existence of a Christian God, and has generally been unpersuasive. It is this "feeling" and "intelligence" which are of consequence. Feynman and Weinberg would discard the label "God" so carelessly tacked onto this experience, and lead you to believe that the religious experience behind the label has been discredited as well.... that Nature is cold and impersonal. She is not, and will eternally return to haunt reductionists in forms yet to be imagined. As Einstein observed, the phenomenon of order, of intelligence, somehow does exist naturally in the universe, and human Being is sometimes privileged to become aware of this. It is precisely this stark reality of our own natural intelligence which is the foundation of scientific curiosity, and the reason researchers seek "laws" of Physics, Biology etc. . For nearly a century, physicists have sought to discover, not simply invent, a "final theory". They want to know how everything in the universe is put together. They believe there is an underlying order to existence, even though it may have a superficial appearance of chaos. That is why they look for patterns within the chaotic events so characteristic of the natural world. What I wish to draw from all this is something far less exalted than a watch-maker God: I simply wish to conclude that human social order is not more complex than the whole universe, and that it is possible to detect an artificial orderliness embedded in our day to day apparently chaotic existence in society that is a mere imitation of the real chaos we observe in the world around us. By this I mean, the criminal coloration and corruption of Western society has not occurred by chance, but rather by design....and that we can see into this design like a depth dimensional stereogram if we but have the courage to challenge the forbidden ideas restricting our vision.

One might fairly ask: on what authority do i speak? Am i a recognized expert on anything? i am nothing. i am a nobody from nowhere, and this is not an under-statement. Yet, i believe the ideas contained in this book are sufficient to transform the world of our common experience simply because they are true, and they also happen to be the most desperately needed thoughts of our time -- regardless of who has presented them to our media-washed society. The forbidden ideas disclosed here are like the burning ashes of Dresden ...the cloud of unknowing out of which our common Soul arises. It is only from these volatile embers, the remnants of burned out memories, that the courage can be found to open minds paralyzed by fear, or held tightly shut by greed. We cannot devoutly cling to traditional ways of thinking; we lost the twentieth century because we failed to change our minds in time. Let us not sacrifice the new millennium for the same reason. The aim is to undo the programming of society with its political and religious institutions, and their accompanying multi-racial mythologies --- appealing then to one's own human-Nature ...a transpersonal reality that may not particularly care about "my" survival, but does have waves of emotion ...entangled with the well-Being of the stereogram-group-vision into-and-out-of which each One of Us arises and falls.

The horrendous problems of nuclear contamination and totalitarianism that plague this world are the product of Jewish genius and can be traced back to the Manhattan Project of the 1940s. It was Einstein who signed a letter, drafted by Leo Szilard, to Roosevelt encouraging the development of the bomb. If you face the facts, you must conclude that, like Bohm, Einstein was not above deceiving the enemies of his people..... namely, US. Consider the following quote from Einstein's essay Why Do They Hate The Jews. "Their significance as a political factor is negligible. They are scattered over almost the entire earth and are in no way organized as a whole -- which means that they are incapable of concerted action of any kind."⁵⁵ This statement made by Einstein describing the helplessness of the Jews was made in 1938. Barely two years later, Jews throughout the Diaspora would begin concentrating their common effort in America to create the nuclear weapons that would guarantee their hold on world power. In his book Creating Minds, the "family-man" Howard Gardner reveals very informative information concerning Einstein's involvement in the creation of nuclear weapons. Gardner tells of the hateful German scientists who ridiculed Einstein and "Jewish physics". But courageously, this lifelong pacifist abandoned the virtues of draft evasion and took up the cause of total war against Germany. "In one of the most well-publicized and pivotal actions ever under-taken by a scientist, Einstein signed a letter to President Roosevelt in 1939..... Within six years, the most powerful weapon known to this planet would be devised and detonated, based on Einstein's formulations about the relationship between mass and energy. Already a part of scientific history, Einstein made a move to being part of world political history as well. Whatever fame Einstein had achieved as a scientist was now magnified by his catalytic role in creating the weapon that won the war and that was to structure the ensuing cold war."⁵⁶ The atom bomb was actually very short lived; it was merely the beginning of our nightmare. Bohr would not settle for some low yield bomb. He wanted something so big that it would make resistance to this new Zionist world order unthinkable.⁵⁷

Teller had been working on the Hydrogen Bomb before the attack on Pearl Harbor. He had been encouraged by his colleagues on the Manhattan Project, including Oppenheimer, Fermi, and others. After the war, in 1946, Oppenheimer and company signed a document warning that such a bomb had potentially genocidal applications. These veterans of the Manhattan Project had become very prominent in America and had felt the need to exercise their consciences by suggesting that Teller's work may have been immoral. Rhodes hints that it was simply a matter of professional jealousy because Teller's hydrogen bomb was hundreds of times more powerful than their Little Bad Boy.⁵⁸ This is the same nonsense all over again. The bomb-makers bailed out with a lavish display of moral conscience that would have made even the Pharisees proud of them. But Bohr was more than a physicist, and had to stay focused on the political implications of nuclear weapons, while diplomatically championing peace at the same time of course. Bohr predicted that the atom bomb would end the political structure of the world, which was based on nation-states, because it would make every nation defenseless. Only political co-operation among the peoples of the world could protect them all from the threat of nuclear war. As the strength of individual nations declined, the forces of international co-operation would increase, but this would be a world order that was not identifiable by a centralized world government.⁵⁹ Such were the humble dreams of a helpless and disorganized people scattered over almost the entire earth.

Everyone was starting to sound like Neils Bohr. Complementarity was making a powerful impact on those involved with the bomb. A recurring theme expressed by Jewish physicists was succinctly stated by Teller: " ' We (scientists) have two clear-cut duties: to work on atomic energy and to work for world government which alone can give us freedom and peace.' "⁶⁰ Szilard also saw two possibilities offered by the bomb. The first was world government, which could only come about if people surrendered regional loyalties to one global authority. Should this fail, then the only alternative would be deterrence, meaning an armed peace characterized by an arms race between the United States and Russia.⁶¹ So now you understand why it has been argued earlier that the cold war was seen by its creators as a necessary illusion. Oppenheimer was rather surprised when he talked to high government officials and noticed they were sounding like Neils Bohr too when they spoke of the bomb. The idea of complementarity was sinking in.⁶² Oppenheimer knew that he played a central role in creating a terrible instrument of destruction, that could possibly lead to a nuclear calamity beyond the capacity of the human mind to imagine. "He cherished the complementary compensation of knowing that the hard riddle that the bomb would pose had two answers, two outcomes, one of them transcendent."⁶³

Years earlier, Bohr had not been pleased with Heisenberg's understanding of the atomic world. Bohr developed his own version of the uncertainty principle based on his "understanding of doubleness and ambiguity...".⁶⁴ Note that quantum physics is not supposed to be applied at the classical level according to the Copenhagen standard interpretation. What this complementarity of the bomb story proves is that everybody who was anybody was thinking like Neils Bohr: they were thinking in terms of the new physics as they restructured the world politically -- as in the complementarity of the cold war. You should now begin to realize the enormous influence Bohr had on the people around him, and why Rhodes could forget Einstein entirely and compare Bohr to Moses ...and how Heisenberg would feel compelled to meet with him even when Germany was at war with the Jews. Much of my own thinking, and the way i often times write, has its origins in this complementarity principle. It is a very powerful idea, and not many thinkers seem able to shake it once they fall under its spell. One thing that can be done is to make it common knowledge so that at least people will know how the game is played. When you have a lot of smart people in positions of power thinking this way, such an idea takes on a life of its own -- it becomes reality, even though the majority of people don't know the half of what is happening in the world around them. Bohr's thinking shaped the post war world, and if you look at the history of the past half century from this perspective, everything should make sense. But Bohr's complementarity will not be sufficient to preserve the Pax Judaica. Once an idea like this comes out into the open, leaders of nations are forced to co-ordinate a new game-plan, but it won't be easy to top Bohr's complementarity, and the alternative unfolding in these pages is definitely not preferred by the chosen �although the language developed here will inevitably be mimicked by magicians who take on the appearance of their adversaries � their aim being to portray �conservatives� as genuine patriots. What i have introduced, and will develop, is the revolutionary perspective of quantum-relativistic-stereogram-vision, or collective consciousness if you prefer. This matter is organic, and has the potential of effectively assimilating Bohr's paradigm of complementarity.

But let's get back to the history of our initial defeat by the "Hungarians". Szilard, Teller and Wigner were called the "Hungarian conspiracy".⁶⁵ Von Neumann was just called "Johnny". Their objective was not to give one nation, America, sole possession of nuclear power. They intended it to be an international weapon so terrible that it would lead to the establishment of an irresistible world government that could effectively suppress all future warfare.....Totalitarian rule! Szilard began to follow Bohr's position on openness about the bomb. Szilard announced to government officials that the physicists who were responsible for creating the bomb, which included himself, should be allowed to meet with government policy makers and discuss how the bomb would be used. The aggressive attitude of this "Hungarian" did not go over well with the Americans.⁶⁶ General Groves described Szilard as a troublemaker any supervisor would be obligated to fire. As soon as he joined the Manhattan project, Groves judged Szilard to be a "menace", not realizing that he (Groves) was the newcomer.... the outsider, and that it was Szilard, the pushy Jew, who had brought the dream of the bomb into reality. Szilard would not accept army rules which compartmentalized access to information. He demanded that he be fully engaged in the bomb making process.⁶⁷ Whether or not Bohr effected Churchill in the same way is unclear to me, although Rhodes maintains Bohr was not trusted by the Allied leadership. Rhodes tells of how Churchill turned a cold shoulder to Bohr because of his entanglements with the Soviets. Bohr had been encouraged by his Soviet colleagues to move there; he was assured the Soviet Union had all that would be required to accomplish his work. It may be that Churchill was not especially eager to follow Bohr's instructions, but I have no doubt that he did.⁶⁸ I think it is obvious that Robert Maxwell, Armand Hammer, George Soros, and many other Jewish "philanthropists" followed the same complementary pattern of high level partnership between capitalist/communist bosses of complementarity established by Neils Bohr. Consider that Bohr was trusted by the authorities of Stalin's government enough to promise extensive funding for his bomb research. You can be certain there would have been plenty of "Russian" Jews to assist in the bomb making process itself. Bohr was not thinking of a single nation, such as America or Russia, governing the world on the basis of nuclear superiority. He was advocating an open world with a common culture: the "new world order" we struggle with today.⁶⁹ Rhodes mentions that the idea was for the U.S. and Britain to give nuclear secrets to the Soviet Union so there might be international control over nuclear weapons, thus averting an arms race between competing nations.⁷⁰ There was some discussion among high government officials in the U. S. and Britain concerning Bohr's readiness to disclose highly secret information about the atom bomb to various friends. Roosevelt was upset to discover that Bohr had told Supreme Court Justice Frankfurter all about the bomb. More troubling still were these contacts Bohr had with scientific friends in the Soviet Union.⁷¹ It was obvious that he was not keeping silent about high level military secrets ..... that Bohr was one of the primary creators of these "secrets", and beyond the jurisdiction of American or British authority....but never-the-less had a powerful influence over the bomb-makers in Los Alamos. Rhodes forgets to mention that Roosevelt had no problems with all the "Hungarian" refugees being at the core of wartime America's most closely guarded military project.

Einstein's involvement with the bomb was primarily through his prot�g� Leo Szilard. At times it is unclear who originated the idea of the "armed peace" of the cold war: Bohr or Szilard. This "dreamer" was an extremely influential physicist and worked closely with those involved with the development of the atom bomb. His name is not in lights like so many other Jewish geniuses because he proved to be embarrassingly "foreign" to be working at the center of a national security project that was so secret that it was concealed from the United States Congress, but shared freely with the Soviet Union. The reason this could happen is that the men who dreamed up the bomb were not Americans, and had absolutely no loyalty to the government or unwitting taxpayers who funded their research. If you would like to get a better sense for the mind of a character like Szilard, you would learn much from the film The Usual Suspects. Rhodes argues that Szilard came to the idea of the atom bomb while reading H.G. Wells science fiction stories. Rhodes also refers to the H.G. Wells idea of an "open conspiracy", and notes that Szilard adapted the idea to his own thinking -- which he called Der Bund, which meant "the order" or "the band". "The Bund, Szilard writes, would be 'a closely knit group of people whose inner bond is pervaded by a religious and scientific spirit'..."⁷² This band would identify and train the "best" individuals, who would be capable of independent creative work and spiritual leadership among scientifically talented people. Their aim would not be wealth or fame. Their devotion to this cause would be demonstrated by the degree of responsibility they took upon themselves and their efficiency in executing these duties. Szilard was particularly eager to have these groups become involved in social and political organizations "....next to government and parliament, or in the place of government and parliament' " .... This "Order" was not to be a mere political party, "...but rather it was supposed to represent the state.' "⁷³ In addition, Rhodes notes that this bund would be composed of cells, containing anywhere from thirty to forty members. Rhodes refers to the nazis as a competing bund. What is most essential to notice about the bund is the way in which a collective intelligence is spiritually unified around a scientific idea. "Yet Szilard in the years ahead would lead a drive to assemble a Bund of sorts; submerged from view, working to more urgent and more immediate ends than utopia, that 'closely knit group of people' would finally influence world events more enormously even than Nazism."⁷⁴ This closely knit group was composed almost entirely of Jews, or their spouses. In the event you are a slow learner, what Szilard planned and implemented with his bomb "bund" is called subversion! And as you will learn from that statistical categorizer expert from M.I.T., Steven Pinker: "Good science is pedantic, expensive, and subversive."⁷⁵ Therefore, the pedantic work of the Bourbaki, the expensive nuclear weapons of the cold war, and the subversive nature of the "Hungarian conspiracy" were all science at its best.

It is self evident to physicists like Weinberg that science too has participated in the shameful horrors of history, but only as an instrument of irrational men, and not the tool of rational scientists. "Where the authority of science has been invoked to justify horrors, it really has been in terms of perversions of science, like Nazi racism and 'eugenics'."⁷⁶ Evidently, the abortion campaigns in Europe and America would of course not qualify as a perversion of medical science. Weinberg invokes the aid of the philosopher Karl Popper, who assures us that he does "...' not know of any war waged for a 'scientific' aim, and inspired by scientists'."⁷⁷ It appears that Karl never made the acquaintance of one Leo Szilard, or even David Bohm. "If Yevick's political views did not swing as much to the left as Bohm's .... at least they could dream together of creating a 'scientist party' that would rule the world."⁷⁸ Don't you love all these dreamers? It kind of makes you want to be a dreamer too, like that idealist and martyr John Lennon, and his patron saint -- Vladimir.

Rhodes spends considerable time discussing anti-Semitism in Europe, particularly in Nazi Germany. He goes into surprising detail examining Mein Kampf, Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, and conspiracy theories. He focuses on the more exaggerated statements by Hitler, and much less on substantial reasons for opposition to the Jews.⁷⁹ In his own way he assures readers that of course it was all just paranoia and hate. Like Pinker, he knows when to turn scientific objectivity off. The heroes of the "Hungarian conspiracy" left their beloved homeland for good reason. The ignorant rabble back in Hungary had become anti-Semitic for some wildly irrational reasons. It had to do with blaming the Jews for communism, which the Hungarians were not even cultured enough to appreciate. The Hungarian communists did not frighten Edward Teller's middle class family, even as reports of "sadistic excesses" were spreading throughout the nation. They were worried about the reaction to this brutality which Teller's mother knew was coming. She talked of shivering at "what my people are doing".⁸⁰ What she was referring to were the "excesses" of the Hungarian communists, whose leader was Bela Kun, a Jew. Teller's father prophesied that anti-Semitism was on the way. Why? Because the officials and grass roots leaders of these "Hungarian" communist war criminals were Jews. As Rhodes so shyly points out, this was necessarily so "... since the only intelligentsia Hungary had evolved up to that time was Jewish."⁸¹ Isn't it remarkable that the only intelligentsia worth a damn that America has evolved in this politically correct age is also Jewish? If this isn't so, why would a president like Clinton surround himself almost entirely with Jewish advisers and under-studies?

Back in the 1940's, people outside the loop, like General Groves, felt uneasy when Jews like Szilard strolled through the corridors of real power as though they were in charge. "Groves had prepared drastic action indeed. On the stationery of the Office of the Chief of Engineers, over a signature block reserved for the Secretary of War, he had drafted a letter to the U. S. Attorney General calling Leo Szilard an 'enemy alien' and proposing that he 'be interned for the duration of the war.' Compton's telegram forestalled an ugly arrest and the letter was never signed or sent. But the incident raised the issue of Szilard's loyalty and prejudiced Groves implacably against him. ...Groves learned how deep were Szilard's roots in the evolution of atomic energy research and perhaps also that men he considered vital to the project -- Fermi, Teller, Wigner -- were Szilard colleagues of long standing and would have to be taken into account."⁸² It is remarkable that Groves had so little concern about Oppenheimer and Bohr, considering how much controversy surrounded both of them.

This nonsense of spies passing secrets to the "enemy" entertained the American public for decades. Gleick takes his readers for brain dead when he carries on a discussion of how Klaus Fuchs suggested that Feynman, a Jew born in America, must be a spy for the nazis;⁸³ Gleick then reveals that to everyone's shock, it was Fuchs who was discovered to have been a Soviet spy in their midst.⁸⁴ It is so charming to find innocence, na�vet�, and good humor in a man of such literary and scientific learning. Gleick proceeds to amuse by telling that Feynman had a reputation at Los Alamos of being a safe cracker. He read books on the subject and imagined writing about the safes he cracked containing the secret of the atom bomb in its entirety.⁸⁵ This story of Feynman, the lovable misfit who cultivated his legend as a safe cracker and possible spy for the nazis, is ridiculous in the light of Rhode's discussion about Szilard and General Groves. These people who worked on the bomb were tight; they knew exactly what they were doing, and the only odd man out was Oppenheimer's strongest supporter -- General Groves, the security officer who betrayed his sworn duty to represent the American people amidst this "Hungarian conspiracy".

In 1944, before his miraculous Saint-Paul-like-about-face, Szilard expressed concern with something more enduring than immediate victory over Germany. He emphasized that it was of the utmost urgency that the bomb be used to demonstrate its power to the world. He believed that the bomb could be held by multiple powers who were bound together by an indissoluble alliance. Bohr and others argued that this alliance must be a world government, and only when that international power holds unchallenged control of nuclear weapons would there finally be an end to war. But unfortunately, unless the harsh reality of the bomb should fully sink into the minds of ordinary people throughout the world, they would not submit to world government and the peace it could guarantee. Therefore a demonstration in a real war had to be made in order to force unwilling peoples to accept the authority held by those who controlled nuclear weapons.⁸⁶ But this was not the only criminal idea to arise from America's newest and best minds. Enrico Fermi, inspired by his colleagues involved in the Manhattan Project, is rumored to have suggested to Robert Oppenheimer, in 1943, "that radioactive fission products bred in a chain-reacting pile might be used to poison the German food supply."⁸⁷ Concerns of this type had arisen during 1941 when it was understood that Germany had the capability of using such a deadly weapon. Rhodes repeatedly emphasizes that this was Fermi's idea. However, it is painfully obvious that Oppenheimer and Teller were exceedingly supportive of this approach to warfare against Germany. General Groves approved of their "promising" "application". Teller recommended using strontium 90 because of its deadly effect, and the ease with which it can be separated from other products of the nuclear pile. Such a plan was a bigger secret, evidently, than the atom bomb itself. Oppenheimer wrote: "In this connection I think we should not attempt a plan unless we can poison food sufficient to kill a half a million men...."⁸⁸ He was concerned that the process of distributing the strontium 90 would not be entirely efficient, and that considerably fewer than half a million people would actually be exposed to a fatal dosage of nuclear contamination. But it seems to me that Oppenheimer should not have been so down-hearted about Fermi's plan because while the dosage may not have been sufficient to knock-off as many men as hoped, it most likely would still have had enough kick to pop more than enough German chicks and kids to satisfy Johnny Von Neumann's calculations.⁸⁹ Rhodes seems almost embarrassed by Oppenheimer's murderous attitude toward the Germans, but Weinberg and Popper evidently did not consider the creation and use of nuclear weapons a distortion of science. Rhodes comments on how refined Oppenheimer was, and his professed devotion to the Hindu spirit of non-violence. Rhodes seems sincerely disturbed to think that one of the most brilliant and cultured men of his time "could write with enthusiasm of preparations for the mass poisoning of as many as five hundred thousand human beings."⁹⁰ The Japanese and German people can thank Otto Hahn for having had the sensitivity to share what turned out to be the secret of nuclear fission with his friend Lise Meitner.

Approximately 100,000 people perished, within a six hour period, during the fire bombing of Tokyo, and 41,000 were seriously injured. More, however, died in the fire bombing of Dresden. Obviously, civilians were the intended casualties in these "de-housing" campaigns. After the Tokyo bombing, LeMay's pilots were congratulated for being ruthless enough to do anything.⁹¹ Anyone who has ever been near the military knows the bravado of these war heroes. I suspect the pilots returning from burning German women and children enjoyed limitless praise ....far exceeding that showered upon the aces of more recent and less glorious gambles over the skies of Baghdad and Belgrade. Rhodes admonishes those who would be too quick to judge the bomb-makers and bomb-droppers as criminals to consider the 100 million people who perished in the first and second world wars. He is suggesting that the Germans were the cause of those wars and the lives lost, and the half century of peace that followed was the positive aspect of the bomb.⁹² Who stopped the communists in the Soviet Union from murdering tens of millions of Europe's Christian farmers, intellectuals, tradesmen, and just plain ordinary people? Certainly not Otto Hahn, nor Neils Bohr, who made great efforts on behalf of Jews in peril. Would a war have been morally justifiable to save these Christian victims of communism? How about if the souls on ice were Jewish? I am sure we already have the answer to that paradox ...but Americans certainly do not understand it -- and will be "taken" again and again into double-cross-wars against Christian nationalists in both Europe and North America for the sake of "The People" ...unwitting defenders of the multi-cultural global empire of those media masters and profiteers of fratricidal wars -- campaigns of attrition in the name of State-sponsored-mercy ...holy missions flying on the wings of death angels.

Rhodes clearly idealizes Bohr, and particularly advocates his politics of an open world without nations. Rhodes' concluding words are "Bohr's open world"⁹³ The idea is that science is a model of the future transnational community toward which a world without borders is moving. This means that America should relax border controls and celebrate the end of the nation-state, the end of America. The new multi-racial world order you have been living in for decades has its origins in Bohr's dream, not in those of any King, Kennedy or Lennon. This breakdown of boarders and racial identity has all been intentional -- and you have had no say in all of this, although the facade of democracy has remained in place. The price of "Bohr's open world" has not simply been your freedom, but your intelligence as well. You did not realize the "cold war" was a fixed fight, that you have been lied to on every side since day one. You see, you are the fool who has believed the political leaders, the media, the Churches, the teachers, the scientists, the sports heroes and most of all the entertainers. You may even believe that a border-less multi-racial world is the way to go. If so, I strongly encourage you to bring your idealistic message of hope to Israel because apparently they just don't get it yet. Maybe you can persuade the Israelites to get in step with the whole world, to take their neighbors into their hearts and their common homeland -- to become one people. Those who mock you may point to Israel's tightly manned borders and paranoid security procedures; they might ask you why, for decades, you have put up with endless stories of the Holocaust while accepting utter silence regarding communist atrocities many times greater which have decimated your own race. All your enthusiasm for sports cannot conceal your cowardice. You are indeed an over-educated fool like Otto Hahn. We will become the homeless of the earth, like the Palestinians, Kurds, and displaced Albanians if we do not have the courage to become interlopers into the holy land of Jewish genius. That forbidding territory, which stands out before us like some desolate no-man�s land is a stereoscopic vision of totality, concealed by many names: relativity, quantum theory, chaos theory, string theory, and a theory of everything. Unless we learn how the difficult lessons of twentieth century nuclear physics lie beneath the surface of this totalitarian wasteland of duplicity, we will become the slaves of the new millennium, and we won't need to understand anything. Our only hope is in losing faith, for this slave mentality in which we have believed is not worth saving, and those who cling to it will eventually discover that the creators of their State-of-mind hold the same view toward them.... that they are as expendable as the birds of the air and lilies of the field.

Bohr was simply playing the same con-game as St. Paul, Marx and a host of other "apostles to the gentiles". Bohr's complementarity was nothing new; it was old fashioned Jewish duplicity dressed up in the language of quantum theory to impress the newly hardened leaders of this age of nuclear weaponry. For those who like riddles, consider this: why was it that just as the Jewish bomb-makers were advocating Bohr's border-less world without nation states, Zionism was reaching fever pitch? Palestinians were being driven from their land, with the blessing of the United Nations, and Jews from Eastern and Western Europe were joyously celebrating a new Exodus ...a historic return from exile to their promised land -- Israel. And who was the leading write-in patriotic candidate for president of this re-born nation-state? None other than that world famous internationalist Albert Einstein. He declined the honor because he said he was too na�ve to be a political leader. He dwelled in the holy world of abstractions, where the equations of eternity, like E=mc², preoccupied his gentle mind. Einstein exclaimed that he never actually encountered real Jewish people until he met Russian, Polish, and East European Jews in America. "These men and women still retain a healthy national feeling; it has not yet been destroyed by the process of atomization and dispersion.' "⁹⁴ He is not talking about their brief time in America. I am sure Einstein was not praising these people for being Russian, Polish, or Hungarian nationalists, since Einstein was a great fan of internationalism. Because he was a fierce supporter of Zionism, it seems obvious that the nationalism he praised was Jewish nationalism. He was admiring the fact that after many centuries these East European Jews were still Jews -- that they had not lost their identity while in the Diaspora.

The problem, as the Jews see it, is the homogeneous society, the collective identity of a people which is capable of identifying hostile subversives living in their midst.... attacking from within. Thus, the problem with the Germans is that they are German. They are dangerous because they are too ethnically pure. Anyone visiting pacifist socialist Sweden, which did not fight in World War II or co-operate in the execution of Jews -- but rather saved Jews like Bohr, would be amazed by the increasingly non-white complexion of Stockholm. Thus, all White societies must become mixed. There can be no back-waters, no back-sliders tolerating racial purity anywhere in Europe or North America. All Whites, including the very moral Swedes, must share in the collective guilt and punishment of the Germans. Publicly, modern day Pharisees like Pinker emphasize law, individual responsibility, and the importance of avoiding prejudice by judging an individual on the basis of one's perception of his ethnic or racial group; yet these same Jews insist that post-war generations of Germans are "born guilty" and must continue paying reparations for nazi war crimes. Arabs in the middle east are punished as a group, by Israeli soldiers, for the actions of one person. The Jews wish to extend the "collective guilt" of "racism" and "The Holocaust" to the White race as a whole. Racism is a collective perspective, a collective "original sin" for which all Whites, and only Whites, are condemned. However, Stalin alone was responsible for the mass murders of communism, and his guilt certainly did not spread to the Jewish Bolsheviks central to communism from its beginning and triumphant in the Gulags of vengeance only hinted at in John Sack�s endnote titled An Eye for An Eye: The Untold story of Jewish Revenge Against Germans in 1945.

Einstein is so often portrayed as the lovable, eccentric little Swiss watch-maker, but we are not often reminded of his political activism. The following lines give some sense of one man instrumental in the creation of nuclear weapons, a man idealized by so many as a pacifist. Recall Einstein's statement in 1938, quoted earlier, saying Jews lack cohesion. What I would like you to notice here is the glorification of ethnic cohesion he enthusiastically expressed only a few years later. This is the kind of feeling and expression called racism when manifested by White separatists. What I am doing in this book is to mirror the thoughts and feelings of the Jews, but hopefully with a bit less brutality. Is the "racist" tone of my writing any "worse" than that expressed here by Einstein in his tribute: To the Heroes of the Battle of the Warsaw Ghetto. ? "They fought and died as members of the Jewish nation, in the struggle against organized bands of German murderers. To us these sacrifices are a strengthening of the bond between us, the Jews of all the countries." Einstein refers to their prophets who have guided them, and affirms solidarity with the suffering of all Jews. "The Germans as an entire people are responsible for these mass murders and must be punished as a people if there is justice in the world and if the consciousness of collective responsibility in the nations is not to perish from the earth entirely...."⁹⁵ Collective identity is a reality, and the Jews know it; but the question is: Do you? Einstein then reflects on how the Jews must not allow their sense of humanity to lead them to pity the Germans once they are defeated; he speaks of their inhumanity as they carried out "... their last and most grievous crime against humanity."⁹⁶ Can a similar judgment be passed today concerning Jewish guilt for the atrocities they have committed against the peoples of this battered world?

Were the Germans evil incarnate for trying to prevent the Jews from establishing a world-wide totalitarian system? In what forum is one even allowed to raise such a question? And are we criminals for defending ourselves from a new "final solution", one that encompasses us within the jurisdiction of Jewish vengeance for this "last and most grievous crime against humanity". Our nations, our racial composition -- all are to be sacrificed for our collective guilt. Subtler means are needed even than the passive methods of mass exterminations used by the communists. A method would be required to make the Germans, and the rest of us, more like the less pure, less disciplined Italians. Something as effective as genocide, but what? Like the bomb, the multi-racial society is characterized by a paradoxical complementarity: it fragments a homogeneous community while imposing a "chilling and impersonal", even fearful structure upon the new socialist union. The feeling that exists within a cohesive group of people is just as real a force as nuclear bonds which hold atoms together. It can be worthwhile to think in these scientific terms so that we can see our situation more as our adversaries do. The Jews view the breaking of racial bonds of attraction in much the same way they approach the splitting of the atom. They realize there are natural forces holding people together, but these are seen as breakable. We can expect to find a similar pattern of thought in social engineering to that which exists in physics and other sciences, for there is only one reality and the most powerful method of thought will be employed where-ever that totalitarian game-plan sets its sights. Consider the "idealism" of this Jewish publication New Republic. The editor-in-chief and chairman of The New Republic is Mattin Peretz. He writes a two column commentary on race in this issue with the heading A Class Thing. He quotes part of a Yiddish poem by I.L. Peretz. The brief lines itemize the colors of the different races: "Mix the colors up together. All the people are brothers"⁹⁷ The lines conclude that all people come from one original mother and father. Peretz compares the Jewish drawing together of exiles into Israel with the mixing of various racial and ethnic groups, and concludes that the Jews are already very well mixed. In referring to racial integration in other societies, he observes that "This mixing was not nearly so inclusive as it has been in Israel. But its signs are everywhere apparent around us. Almost no one is pure anything, and the process continues. When, finally, we are all mixed up together we will be a wiser, warmer, more witty, more lyrical, more beautiful people."⁹⁸ The article was about I.Q. and he concludes by saying that I.Q. will finally tell only about individuals when all the races are mixed together.

This commentary in The New Republic states clearly what the Jewish dream is for humanity. If you combine this multi-racial image with the earlier decadent society image so idealized by Griffin in his description of war-time Italy, you will get a pretty accurate picture of most American, and increasingly more European, cities today. This will inevitably lead to a one-world society in which inter-racial marriage is the moral imperative, except for the Jews, who are already so thoroughly mixed that they don't require any instruction on this matter. After the "Holocaust", their numbers were reduced substantially, and a significant number of them have married educated, talented, and most of all beautiful, non-Jewish women. Jewish women have found the going more difficult and have attracted White men largely through their money. Jews have not married non-whites on any large scale, and we are not going to be seeing any high pressure "cultural" campaigns pressing rich Jews to marry poor African-Americans, any more than Israeli Jews are going to really mix en mass with the black Ethiopian "Jews". The Jews only marry "quality". Ambitious whites with a "view to the future" knew to marry a Jew while at the university. This was certainly the way to get ahead in the communist party during the good old days of the Soviet Union. You might want to research the wives of powerful non-Jews in the Soviet communist leadership before and after World War II. However, it is invariably the non-Jew who adapts to the dominant member and family in the relationship. The children are brought up to be Jews. The objective is to preserve and strengthen the Jewish ethnic group, not to allow it to disintegrate. The German assault did force the Jews to change millennial old in-breeding customs. This does weaken Jewish cohesion to some degree. They claim that inter-racial tolerance is inherent to the Jewish culture, and perhaps even the inspiration for the entire multi-cultural world society; I suspect that Israel's neighbors in the Middle East would beg to differ with them on the veracity of their claims to tolerance. The Jews exist today as a unique people precisely because they have succeeded, for thousands of years, in marrying wisely, both within their own group and, to a lesser degree, with quality outsiders. They don't mix with ordinary folk. When they marry non-Jews, they target those who are creative and physically attractive, but not necessarily wealthy. It is usually Jewish wealth which entices their prey into partnership. Ehrenwald explains that for thousands of years, scholarship has been greatly appreciated by the Jews. He feels obligated to suggest that these literary skills may not be transmitted genetically, but never-the-less the parents of Jewish daughters arranged for them to marry rabbinical students with little promise of affluence rather than less studious but more wealthy merchant suitors. "The result was predictable: it brought about a selective breeding advantage, or 'fitness,' both for the group and for individuals brought up according to Linksz' specification. They were a breed fluent in bilingual reading and writing skills coupled with a facility for shifting readily from left to right or right to left hemispheric orientation, spurred by intellectual curiosity, a thirst for knowledge and a flair for Rothenberg's Janusian thinking.... It was one of the fringe benefits of the mating game studied by the geneticist and social scientist. It will be noted that such a reproductive advantage of the literate versus the illiterate Jewish male is in stark contrast to the rule of celibacy imposed on the Catholic monk."⁹⁹ Ehrenwald adds that medieval Europe sacrificed its intellectual patrimony to the virtue of priestly celibacy.

Gregor Mendel was a monk. Nicholas Copernicus -- 1514 was a Polish priest¹⁰⁰, as were many others that would astound you. The structure of Catholic society, in the centuries before the reformation, placed intellectuals in the Church. Celibacy resulted in the loss of many remarkably creative genes. This is the evil that good men do, and is not the kind of suicidal virtue Jews are prone to. We have spent much time discussing Jewish subversion of Western societies, but some corruption we have managed to produce even without their assistance. If nature is frustrated, perversion is the consequence. There is an element of sickness found at the heart of Catholicism, an aspect of the Church which the media is more than happy to expose. The sin of the Church hierarchy was not merely "eating" the forbidden "fruit", but failing to eat from the tree of life. People are very simplistic in opposing homosexuality simply on the grounds of morality. Many people see the more serious matter of disease, such as aids; but few see the long term consequences of reducing the number of gifted people from the gene pool. It is celibacy, not just homosexuality, that is the sterile legacy of Catholic spirituality. Hand in hand with the multi-racial society, you will find homosexuality. It certainly meets the criteria of fostering corruption, which is aggressively advanced by the Jews, but it also serves a deeper and more enduring function. Homosexuality is the new secular celibacy for the creative middle class perishing under post-Christian Zionist Rule. Years ago, while spending several months with the Benedictines, I was astonished to discover undertones of homosexuality in the community, and unbelieving when an attractive mother of a large family, and wealthy patron of the monastery, did her best to encourage me to select a particular monk as a friend ...to see him through her eyes -- the eyes of a woman. I began to wonder if there were non-spiritual reasons monks were once required to follow a rule of silence! This, and endless other streaks of miss-guided kindness demonstrated by educated and well intentioned Catholics, has turned me against the Church more than all the media stories of predators among the clergy.

Consider the radio therapist Roy Masters. He appeals to the righteous anger of loyal Americans, and points his sharpest criticism in the direction of a corrupt and threatening media State. He laments being blocked at every turn for simply speaking the truth over the past forty years he has struggled to remain on the air. Masters draws upon the integrity of Judeo-Christian spirituality as the inspiration for his own meditative resolution to the stressful conflicts of family life in the modern world. His daily call-in programs usually focus on what he describes in one of his many books as "the Adam and Eve syndrome". He explains the whole of this troubled world in terms of the battle between the sexes. Each man re-enacts the fall of Adam by submitting to both his mother and the women who will dominate his life. According to the Biblical tradition to which Masters appeals, the serpent seduced man by first promising Eve that she would become as God by eating the fruit of forbidden knowledge. The sin of fallen man is that he worships woman as his god; whether as the mother Madonna, Madonna the strumpet, or the dutiful wife -- every woman entices man to do her bidding ...to be a slave of lust or love. It is the passive-aggressiveness of woman that characterizes the repressive State. Stripped of his own self-respect, the emasculated man lashes out violently against the female principle demanding his submission. Roman Polanski�s dangerously fascinating film The Ninth Gate examines the seductive power of forbidden knowledge presented to man by Satan in the guise of an irresistibly exciting woman. While the film is more subtle and disturbing than we have time to analyze here, it does underscore the persuasiveness of Roy Masters� argument. The course of action Masters advocates is neither submission nor rebellion, but rather for man to re-establish the divine order that existed in the Garden before man fell under the spell of Eve�s enchantment. He does this by being faithful to God�s will rather than continuing to submit to the passive-aggressive order on which he has come to depend. Man finds God through reflective meditation, and is ennobled by the authentic love he discovers dwelling within him; as a source of strength for others, he is finally able to establish healthy relationships with women. Once this fundamental rift that has separated man from God, and woman from man has been healed, the rebuilding of society on a solid foundation is once again possible.

The Jews are masters of this passive-aggressive tyranny: the eternal victims, and champions of peace. Roy Masters is representative of conservatives in politics and the media, especially talk radio, who are so skillful in two-timing the White middle class. When asked by callers why people have so hated Jews, Masters fails to honestly deal with this most essential of questions. For instance, he might say that some people, even other Jews, hate him because he is so relentless in telling the truth. This is the same "good Jew - bad Jew" ploy used by Saint Paul and other "lights to the gentiles" in earlier generations. For a more revealing answer to this question, tune in to The Savage Nation, hosted by Michael Savage. He has advocated using nuclear weapons in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Our calling is to learn the art of listening for the unsaid. As a professional hypnotist, Masters knows of the link between hypnosis and spirituality. The focus and outcome of his meditation is predictable, and not either the madness or the ecstasy of mystical genius. The creative soul must discover the unpredictable ...by utilizing a self-styled hypnosis through which his artistry becomes the common melody opening to others the beauty of collective awareness. As we become more conscious, intimacy intensifies. Many don't know how to deal with emotional sensitivity. We need a culture aware of complex changes, that can guide members of the community through difficult transformations and protect them from decadence. This is one reason I strongly believe in the need to "worship" White sexual goddesses of beauty and intelligence, as the Greeks did -- to strengthen love of one's race, and to encourage natural reproduction. This is an ideal most White men can appreciate, and who knows --- perhaps even fight for. On the way to genius, we must assuredly go through difficult and confusing experiences. Homosexuality may be one of the dragons encountered by some on their inward journey of transformation, but homosexuality cannot be allowed in our community any more than drug addiction can. However, our intent must be to change corrupt behavior, not hunt confused adolescents and witches in feminist guise. We must not engage in another campaign of killing our own people. We are intelligent enough to find a less final solution to this problem of the ages.

Those who would attack a society from within seek out natural vulnerability, such as homosexuality, and prey upon it; they find allies among the disaffected. Jews do not operate without local collaborators. One such hired gun is the unlikely figure of the crippled Steven Hawking. I don't care to quote all the inspirational stories he has to tell about Einstein's valiant support for Zionism. Suffice it to say that glorifying the politics of Einstein and the heroic struggle of the Jews seems strangely situated in an astronomy book about the history of the universe and one of its components -- time. I am sure upright physicists like Weinberg would roundly criticize Hawking for mixing astronomy and religion....Unless, of course, that the long standing claim that a nice young Jewish God-man created the universe can be finally proven. Where are the courageous scientists of our time who are willing to risk their lives by challenging the prevailing tyranny, as Galileo did three hundred years ago? All we have is the parody of a hero in the twisted form of Steven Hawking, as he imagines himself engaging in mortal combat with the Catholic Church. Hawking recalls a conference on cosmology which was organized by the Vatican. He recalled his interest in black holes in the 1970s and that in 1981 his attention focused on the question of whether or not the universe had a beginning. He reminds us of the "bad mistake" made by the Catholic Church centuries ago regarding another astronomer by the name of Galileo, who got into very big trouble for announcing that the Bible was wrong in portraying the sun as a moving body when in fact it is the earth which moves around the sun. Now, countless generations later, the Church was giving astronomers another chance. At this historic meeting, astronomers once again met with the Pope, who reassured the scientists it was permissible to study the development of the universe after the big bang, but they shouldn't investigate that phenomenon itself, since that was the sacred moment God created everything. Hawking then bares his soul to the readers disclosing that: "I was glad then that he did not know the subject of the talk I had just given at the conference -- the possibility that space-time was finite but had no boundary, which means that it had no beginning, no moment of Creation. I had no desire to share the fate of Galileo, with whom I feel a strong sense of identity, partly because of the coincidence of having been born exactly 300 years after his death!"¹⁰¹ There is no possibility that Hawking would be hurled wheels first into a Vatican dungeon. This is not half as funny as you may think. The Jews try to portray the Catholic Church as the hidden power ruling the world from the shadows. If this sounds ridiculous to you, take a look at some of the comics circulated by zealous Protestants. Particularly: Chick Publications of Alberto Rivera Crusaders. Try to find the issue about The Godfathers. Also, recall our discussion about the early Church; even a century ago such a story would have had real credibility, but it is the little league stuff of comic books today. Hawking is reminiscent of the Irish writer James Joyce, who was anti-Catholic and pro-Jewish. The right politics -- that's the key to success! Joyce, like Hawking and generations of others, have known this short-cut to celebrity.

When will "tough minded" scientists have the intellectual integrity to speak openly against Zionist rules which define the borders of scientific thought? Until they do, they merit no more respect than the politicians who control funding for their research. While attacking Christianity has been in vogue for some time now, tough minded scientists don't even blink an eye to put in a plug for Judaism. Most of these books on the new physics that I have read manage to fit something in. For example, in Gleick's Chaos, there is a strange discussion and picture of a "Star of David snowflake" used in explaining fractals.¹⁰² This sort of nonsense is everywhere, and evidently at every level of society. Not many people would dare mock this necessary tribute to the Chosen. Penrose also engages in the questionable science of religious politics, but his is a more dangerous game --- the target of his wit is Judaism. Penrose gives the meaning of quantum weirdness a new twist. In the section titled "Solution of the Elizur-Vaidman bomb-testing problem", there are the following comments and footnote: "Ultimately, we obtain just one-third .... of the active bombs that we started with, but now all are guaranteed. (I am not sure what the bombs will now be used for, but perhaps it would be prudent not to ask !)"¹⁰³ Inspired by the two above mentioned bomb testing colleagues, Elizur and Vaidman from Israel, he and Artur Ekert designed a "Shabbos switch" with amazing quantum properties. It is "... a device for assisting those who adhere strictly to the Jewish faith, and who therefore are prevented from switching electrical appliances on or off during their Sabbath. Instead of patenting our device, and thereby making our fortunes, we have generously decided to make our important idea public so that it may be available for the good of the Jewish community at large."¹⁰⁴ This example is far more revealing if you are aware of the centrality of the Jews in the creation of nuclear weapons. It is clear that Penrose is ridiculing Jews who are so ruthless in their military practices and then so "helpless" come the Sabbath. He is mocking their hypocrisy, particularly by "sacrificing" the possible fortune he could make selling this "quantum trinket" to the Jews, the same people who are notorious for their greed. I am sure Penrose has paid a steep price for this high class touch of humor --- namely, that the media ignores his book, and more importantly, his Jewish colleagues in theoretical physics do not choose to discuss his work. And you thought scientists were objective!

The aim of all this is simply to bring science down to Earth, to force you to realize that science is governed by the same principles as everything else. While attending a conference on Artificial Intelligence, Eccles discovered reality. "What I find particularly disturbing is the claim of the AI operators that they are on the verge of super computers that will experience consciousness. Many years ago at a Yale University conference I asked Minsky of M.I.T., the most eloquent of the hard-AI advocates, why they made claims to have super computers that would be conscious. His revealing reply was: 'Because I get larger grant support ! ' "¹⁰⁵ Science is business, just as medicine, politics, and religion are. Money is the bottom line. Thomas Kuhn made the very real world observation that the measure of a scientific theory's power is its effectiveness in producing employment for professional scientists.¹⁰⁶ But scientists do so like to maintain this image of integrity. They don't like being confused with politicians or used car salesmen. "The good scientist is seen as an unprejudiced man with an open mind who is ready to embrace any new idea supported by the facts. The history of science shows, however, that its practitioners do not appear to act according to that popular view."¹⁰⁷ The reality is that there is always an official position which scientists adhere to. There is general consensus that evidence conflicting with this established view is most probably defective, and can be safely ignored without testing the scientific principle it challenges.

It is this unacknowledged political agenda which discredits science in the minds of many people. Science is expensive and must always operate within the limits established by the money of the ruling patrons. William Shockley proposed an investigation into a possible relationship between race and intelligence. His methods may have been scientific, but as Pinker might say, his errors were ethical. However, things aren't that easy. What happens to morality when reality breaks down? Baudrillard announced that the media has ushered in a new age of unreality. "At the centre of his disgust lies the discovery that reality no longer exists -- that, quite the reverse, it has become a fiction. The concept of an independent, objective reality was an assumption of the modern age that could not be sustained in the face of the technological and economic developments of the late twentieth century."¹⁰⁸ This is the nausea many of us feel today, that everything is distorted. That there is no morality! All the leaders are corrupt. We no longer believe in the reality of "the system". We find that in their efforts to imitate Bohr, many scientists are ready to see the complementarity of whatever they are working on -- meaning they are ready to twist things to whatever shape fits the artificial and transient reality under construction. The paradox of complementarity collapses into classical duplicity converting a remarkably fragile truth into base deception, making a politician-scientist into a two-faced liar, instead of an Old Testament statesman like Neils Bohr, who was able to sustain his concentration, his insight into the paradoxical dimensions of complementarity. Its the old story of the magician's apprentice unleashing forces he neither understands, nor can control. This is important to recognize because it discloses the vulnerability of the high and the mighty. Instead of being in awe of their brilliance, we find ourselves being amused by the futility of their efforts at damage control. Faced with a popular backlash against nuclear weapons? No problem. Get a spin doctor, an apprentice from M.I.T. to massage history a bit to serve present PR needs --- twist fading memories to conform with the current model of reality. Pinker discusses the movie Dr. Strangelove, which is a satire about the madness of the nuclear arms race and the cold war. Everyone now agrees that the environmentally devastating nuclear weapons were a tragic miscalculation by the "rocket scientists" who created them. Not only that, these nuclear scientists are seen as sinister Dr. Strangelove-type-characters. But that highly moral scientist, Steven Pinker, has doctored the history of nuclear weapons ever so subtly. "The German-accented, leather-gloved, wheelchair-bound Dr. Strangelove, with his disconcerting tic of giving the Nazi salute, is one of cinema's all-time eeriest characters. He was meant to symbolize a kind of intellectual who until recently was prominent in the public's imagination: the nuclear strategist, paid to think the unthinkable. These men, who included Henry Kissinger (on whom Sellers based his portrayal), Herman Kahn, John von Neumann, and Edward Teller, were stereotyped as amoral nerds who cheerfully filled blackboards with equations about megadeaths and mutual assured destruction. Perhaps the scariest thing about them was their paradoxical conclusions -- for example, that safety in the nuclear age comes from exposing one's cities and protecting one's missiles."¹⁰⁹ You may recall that the master-minds behind the bomb and its paradoxical complementarity were Neils Bohr, the "Hungarian conspiracy", and Robert Oppenheimer -- all of whom were dedicated to killing nazis not saluting them. As you will notice, Pinker is not so foolish as to say that Henry Kissinger (Nixon�s Jewish Secretary of State during the Vietnam War who was noted for his German accent), Edward Teller and his colleagues were nazis; he only suggests it, leaving his trusting readers to conclude that they were somehow evil Germans. Confronted with the facts, Pinker would no doubt put on a dazzling display of logical alacrity and humor to prove his intellectual integrity and moral innocence. He might even tell you jokes about the good old days when he taught "temple Sunday School"..... And you would once again buy his song and dance because he is such a charming fellow. After all, we slaves do so love to be entertained, and face it -- the Jews are the best in the business.

While recalling the atrocities of "nazi science", Weinberg and Pinker forget to mention the crime of destroying the ecological environment upon which all our lives depend. Was not the "military industrial complex" of both the U.S. and the USSR a major source of prime jobs for university scientists who created not only nuclear weapons, but chemical and biological "applications" as well? What was the need to create massive stockpiles of these wonders of scientific creativity? Perhaps we might ask chilling and impersonal physicists like Weinberg: who gave the orders for the creation and disposal of these hazardous materials? Who will take responsibility for this contamination of the Earth? The nazis? Or will it be the average man on the street, like Homer Simson, thoughtlessly littering the environment with nuclear waste? This crime was committed by scientists with very "real world" power and money, who today -- like Szilard and the Bourbaki, are desperately trying to erase their trail so that na�ve outsiders cannot recognize scientific involvement with corrupt industry. The destructive nature of modern science makes it self-evident that there is something wrong with the way in which science has been practiced, and that life on this planet has been decisively damaged as a consequence. Scientific "detachment" and "objectivity" are about as authentic as the physicist who creates nuclear weapons and then claims he is not involved in politics or social issues such as environmentalism --- that like Szilard, Einstein, Bohr, and Sakarov... he is a leader of the pacifist movement. Yes, and as effective as Szilard-the-repentant was in preventing the use of the atom bomb. Ah yes, the complementarity of playing the loser ...your own adversary. You can't lose that game, can you?

An authentic perception of complementarity allows one to see everything in depth. Those failing to enjoy such holistic vision see things as fragmented, as a multitude of un-associated events. Consequently, those who "see things" whole have an enormous advantage over those who don't. Those who structure society intentionally present knowledge as a mass of fragmented facts. Philosophy is broken down into logic and grammar. Philosophy, like poetry, loses its vitality, its passion, when it is analyzed piece-wise in a mechanistic way. But that of course was the point: shatter the vision of wholeness and leave a lifeless grammar of fragmented rules to perplex those pursuing insight into the "big picture". To no one's amazement, overlords like Weinberg and Hawking conclude that philosophy is dead. Weinberg complains that philosophy is useless, or even counter-productive in the search for a final theory.¹¹⁰ From what I have seen of post-modern philosophy, along with positivism and linguistic analysis, I would agree that philosophy has been made sterile and impotent. Hawking notes that modern science has become too technical and mathematically complex for philosophers and nearly everyone else to understand. "Philosophers reduced the scope of their inquiries so much that Wittgenstein, the most famous philosopher of this century, said, 'The sole remaining task for philosophy is the analysis of language.' What a comedown from the great tradition of philosophy from Aristotle to Kant!"¹¹¹ Could there possibly be a connection between philosophy being made into a logical linguistic analysis and its' decline? You bet! We would be more accurate in speaking of the suppression of philosophy by "inside traders", like Wittgenstein, rather than its' "decline".

Theoretical physics is actually far more fascinating than these sterilized philosophies. Consequently, it has been necessary to make theoretical physics incomprehensible, inexpressible in words. Only mathematics, thank you ...and the more complex the better. Hawking wonders if the end is in sight for theoretical physics. Only the artificial intelligence of computers remains. "At present, computers are a useful aid in research, but they have to be directed by human minds. If one extrapolates their recent rapid role of development, however, it would seem quite possible that they will take over altogether in theoretical physics. So maybe the end is in sight for theoretical physicists, if not for theoretical physics."¹¹² An indication of movement in this direction has been the increasing emphasis on decoherence. It is presented as the solution to the long-standing problem of the quantum observer. Those emphasizing decoherence describe the reduction of the quantum state in entirely mechanical terms. As our roundabout ramble proceeds, we will seek to reconcile the apparently impossible differences dividing the missing consciousness of reality from unreality. Like the promoters of decoherence, we will cease supporting the centrality of the conscious observer. This will be done by means of a multi-dimensional language reminiscent of Everett�s many universes theory, which is also a reality based model not requiring the conscious observer. Unlike Everett, however, the mechanics of our reality will be based on spoken as well as written language, rather than mathematics -- a perspective that should be acceptable to the post-modern crowd. As a consequence of theoretical physics becoming a branch of mathematics, most physicists pride themselves on not thinking about the meaning of the science they apply. It is all technique implemented by computerized robots. The established "disorder" clearly prefers that physicists not be "aware" of the "meaning" of their work ....that they themselves become like Hawking: robots.

Gleick makes a truly remarkable observation which describes the peculiar atmosphere in the world of physics today. He notices that as the stature of being a nuclear weapons rocket scientist declines, it has been necessary to re-inflate the failed ideas of Einstein's final theory so as to keep professional physics afloat in a world losing its faith in Bohr's revelation of the complementarity of the bomb.¹¹³ However, this unified theory must be stripped down, Bourbaki style, so that it can only be understood mechanistically as a set of laws -- while being intuitively impenetrable to the uninitiated. Those manipulating public opinion have a very definite interest in imposing a fragmented view of "everything" not only upon the unwashed masses, but especially on the educated class as well. The elite seek to keep their educated "inferiors" in ignorance so that the power of the aristocracy cannot be effectively challenged. Only "specialized" knowledge is allowed outsiders. So everyone needs to be an "expert" in one small area of interest, but "unqualified" to speak on other matters outside the field of one�s own expertise. Only the permanent, unseen, masters -- such as the billionaire owners of the media --- hold a clear vision of the "big picture", and are thus qualified to edit "all the news that's fit to print." The movie stars and popular politicians distract public attention away from them, concealing the privilege and power of the mighty in soap operas of conspicuous wealth and scandal. But genius always yearns for the total vision, and is never satisfied with the narrow and unnecessarily complex portrayals of official reality. Weinberg and company are uneasy about these upstarts from outside the system who would see the whole. They are worried about the holistic philosophical orientation quantum theory has taken; so like Hawking, Weinberg thinks theory must cease to be. Physics will be only mathematical computation. But here Weinberg runs into trouble because mathematicians also are seeking beauty, aesthetic intuition -- just as Dirac and Einstein did during their creative years of contribution to quantum theory. One modern-day trouble-maker is Roger Penrose, the chairman of the mathematics department at Oxford University, who strays too far outside his own designated specialty into brain research, philosophy, physics, and God knows what else. What Weinberg wants is to make physicists technicians, but this is not working because intelligent people require the right to engage in the exciting process of thinking. The point which must be noticed is that excitement, emotion, is a key element in creative thought. This excitement is energy and is important in the scientific process, just as it is in any of the creative arts. Physics must allow this creativity, but to continue movement in this direction pushes physics increasingly into the direction of human-based mathematics and philosophy. The way out, as Weinberg's reductionists see it is to calculate a final theory which will allow computers to plug in the essential algorithms and do all the needed "thinking" in a chilling and impersonal way --- just like the universe does. Right? Wrong! Nature is intensely passionate -- creative. If, like Weinberg, you look at the individual pieces of our world you cannot escape concluding that nature is cold and impersonal. But it is a mistake to confuse nature's willingness to sacrifice individuals as a lack of caring for the group. Nature sees the biological world whole just as it does the inanimate One, and to understand Nature we must see ourselves in the context of wholeness as well. Weinberg is struggling to maintain, even extend, an alienating totalitarian system of mechanistic controls which is inconsistent with the collective nature of all things in this quantum physical universe. In order to avoid drawing attention to this representation of a disconnected nature it is necessary for him to write in terms of a final theory rather than a more authentically descriptive theory of everything.

Scientists cannot afford to discard, as irrelevant, evidence that a totalitarian Order determines what ideas are and are not acceptable for inquiry. If science must conform to an unacknowledged dogma, then its credibility and effectiveness are undermined. It can only function in a distorted manner. The Jews made a fatal error in repressing the unifying vision of mysticism. People were prevented from recognizing how everything fits together; this served the security needs of the world Zionist power structure, but led to the corruption of science, and the consequent devastation of our natural world. But it is not only our environment that is destroyed, but also the biological integrity of the races of this Earth. Fragmenting knowledge may be an abstraction, but doing the same thing to racial groups is very physical. Eventually, it will dawn on the reader that the way this Zionist system works is to break everything into bits, like political sound bites -- to make existence superficial, mechanistic and totally controllable... to make people into "equal" interchangeable and disposable cogs in the machine of world business. To be equal means to be without identity, to be a defenseless individual at the service of a chilling and impersonal State -- it means servitude. The objective of this book is to put our minds together into an organic living whole --- into a race capable of rebelling against enslavement, and to re-establish the infinite value of the human being by disclosing our potential for genius.

The problems of race, faced everywhere, stem from the reality that we human beings share consciousness with our community. We are far closer together than we understand. In order to endure the intimacy our technologically driven opening minds expose us to, we must have a caring community, one in which intellectual and creative capabilities are truly compatible -- not equal by the force of law only. Science will not function properly unless we can integrate our lives and work tightly together. A scientifically based society without such cohesion will be exploitative all around, as can be so vividly witnessed in the shambles of one great Jewish failure: the former Soviet Union. A forced multi-racial system can make intelligent people slaves, or even murder them by the tens of millions, but it impoverishes itself in the process. Only a compatible, non-predatory society can maintain its internal cohesion. If science is to endure, it must confront the fact that its integrity has been breached. If researchers are forbidden to think essential ideas, how can they discover a unified theory? Is Hawking, famed admirer of Zionism and adversary of Catholicism, going to heroically think anything unacceptable to his patrons? Not likely! Such scientists have an impossible task. Only by exposing what is hidden will it be possible to make significant advances in thought. So, the ultimate price thinkers pay for selling their minds is failure to discover solutions to problems that threaten our survival. By compromising their intellectual integrity they become impotent, and eventually useless, just as Weinberg and Hawking have so correctly noted of modern philosophy. The breakdown of scientific intuition will not persist. Some theory will be disclosed which establishes a truly persuasive reality. The predicament of science is reflected in society at large. We are without the reality of morality. Because of the silence surrounding the extermination of so many millions of Europeans by the communists, everything is a lie -- there is no truth in this world. Some accept that this is just the way things are, but as in science, we must eventually face the facts in order to make sense of ourselves-in-the-world, so that society, like science, might function properly.

There is a fine shade of difference between illusion and deception: awareness of wholeness vs. self-conscious control. Nature is ambiguous, illusory..... because of its inclusiveness. A totalitarian system utilizes illusion to enforce a tunnel vision of a deceptive society in which reality is twisted beyond recognition. As with so much in mathematics and chemistry, many operations are reversible. Only by consciously seeing through deception can we integrate ourselves back into the fabric of our natural wholeness, back into our collective identity. Because deception was the mechanism of differentiation, an awareness of illusion must be the mechanism of integration back into the stereoscopic depths of collective consciousness. Through the course of this ordeal we are changed; we do not return to the unconscious wholeness of our distant past, but discover that wholeness through the felt insight we share with others. Nature has direction and intelligence far beyond our meager understanding, but that direction comes from within and without -- so much so, that we can no longer tell the difference because we feel ourselves to be within the whole, and no longer as alienated outsiders.

Serious thinkers must grow-up and realize that this book is not merely racist and anti-Semitic propaganda. There is something vitally important being said here which can change the way in which we think about everything. It is the honored men and women of science who have led the way in destroying the environment of this fragile planet..... chief among them, Jewish scientists such as Bohr, Szilard, Teller, Einstein and Oppenheimer --- who created and politically implemented not only the nuclear weapons nightmare, but the corrupt world-order built upon it. They deserve our scorn rather than the adulation we give them. The problem facing the political leadership throughout the world today is that few people believe the hype anymore. They doubt that major powers will use nuclear weapons; but they, along with government leaders, fear that apocalyptic religious fanatics will. To re-establish the credibility of Bohr's complementarity of the bomb, there would need to be another demonstration of nuclear power, but today this would have unpredictable consequences of unimaginable proportions. Only desperate fanatics are willing to take such a risk. So governments must carry out "stealth warfare" because their threat of the bomb no longer strikes fear into the hearts of Super-State taxpayers who know that Big Brother cannot use nuclear weapons within his own cities, or within the power centers of the Super-State�s allies. Only "rogue" independent nations need fear nuclear annihilation. The favorite targets of totalitarian states are their own diverse populations, but not even tactical nuclear weapons are of use here. Much more cunning means are called for. Not long after the arrival of the first generation of post war boomers, White babies became public enemy number one in America and most of Europe, East and West. But abortion is just an opening salvo for this new world order. Our main worry should be genetic engineering. We are justly concerned about the readiness of society to disclose the genetic flaws people have and to begin fixing all abnormalities. This is a fearful step for us to take. We cannot trust the current scientific and medical establishment to do something so permanent as to alter our gene pool; only a society that truly represents us can be empowered to change the nature of our potentiality. We cannot forget the way in which medicine has pursued an abortion campaign against White women, resulting in immense losses. This "Holocaust" begins to approach the tens of millions of our people murdered in the communist Gulags. Genetic engineering in the hands of the current rulers of our societies has the potential of destroying our race. Politically motivated scientists today are just as capable of doing for our gene pool what they have done with their nuclear weapons industry, what they have done for our drinking water, the earth, the air in our cities, the oceans ..... and like them, we make suicidal choices because we cannot see the harmony whereby "the observer is incorporated into the space-time template" of nature ...because we cannot see the relationship of the order of the stereogram to the chaos in which it is embedded. Why? There is order and direction to the events occurring in society, just as in nature, but we are prevented from seeing the blueprints to "Bohr's open world" for "national security reasons". We are intentionally kept in ignorance, forced to see confusion around us rather than the meaningful action of Szilard's and Pinker's scientific subversion: the "failure" in Vietnam, the "failure" of the "drug war", the "failure" to control our borders, the feminist abortion campaign, media violence, the outlawing of guns in Britain, medicide, etc. etc. are all orchestrated -- funded by the taxpayers they are designed to bury. We are digging our own graves.... making way for the Party of politically correct stock market winners.

For those who believe they are shrewd enough to make the necessary compromises to succeed in this multi-racial new world order, consider this bit of advice: Belonging to the Party requires more than just checking a box on some admissions form, you must pay your dues, and renew them every time you want to advance. Those dues involve active support for the cause, such as committing yourself to the "advancement of colored people". Perhaps you might want to consider a politically correct marriage, or adopt one of the world�s abandoned children of color. Such action will guarantee the blessings of both Church and State. However, for those lacking in multi-cultural virtue, there is a way to avoid these nasty d�class� duties: consider cutting out the middle-man ...reach for the brass ring if you have the brass balls to do it: try to find a Jew willing to marry you. Become a Jew yourself! How many Israelis do you think are marrying Africans or adopting abandoned babies from America�s ghettos? They are praised in the media for helping Jews from Eastern Europe "flee" to America, Western Europe, or Israel. Do good unto those who can repay you. As anyone who has enjoyed the Jewish prophets of the roaring 90�s stock-market must know, saving is for suckers. So remember: "Jesus saves, Moses invests". If you can�t beat�em, join�em. Good luck party-boy.

If someone does not want a multi-racial America based on the casino, what authentic political leader represents his opinion? What kind of choices does he have? There are none ...only Patsies! Such a person is branded a racist and faces punishment for "hate-crimes" if he dares express his convictions. While astonished by the courage of David Duke and like-minded compatriots, how many Whites dare stand with them against The State? Damn few in 2002. There is order in society, not disorder --- but that order is hostile to the White middle class, just as the order of Stalinism was destructive to those who resisted communist slavery. "Reality" does in fact exist within society ...just as "God" does, but it is too fearful for us to acknowledge: totalitarianism. A free community is one which would allow ordinary people to see the order which exists in their day to day lives --- to understand the actions of their government, and have a voice in decisions effecting their children -- not merely be manipulated by political info-tainment, and forced into submitting to the "dreams" of Bohr, King, and Lennon. We can know whether or not we are free by learning to understand what totalitarianism is. Large multi-racial societies are inherently totalitarian, and only privileged classes, such as the Communist/Capitalist Party, the Jews, etc. ever enjoy any degree of wealth and freedom. Like money, a fool and his freedom are soon parted, but freedom is far harder to regain than a lost stock market fortune. The struggle is inescapably dangerous, necessitating a heroic confrontation with the chaos within as well as the intimidating forces pressing upon us from without. Those who survive this ordeal long enough to create significant work are geniuses; those who are overwhelmed by the brainstorms which are the measure of their lives are simply insane. Most of us would never risk such a traumatic encounter with complementarity in the wild: madness and genius; but these "last days" in which we live are forcing millions of middle class Whites into the crucible, where their metal will be tested and all judgments will be final. This kind of perspective might be seen as apocalyptic, and is assuredly the point of view felt to be most threatening to any established order. This type of religious zeal is judged to be far more dangerous to the public welfare than the perversions and crimes which proliferate as "culture" throughout society today. The antidote to such fanaticism is self worship, much as we saw with Salvador Dali. The consequence of the Jews winning World War II was the devastation of European and American values. We live in a media world which idealizes evil and accepts corruption as wisdom; but this state of affairs did not come about by mere accident. Depravity is a means of subverting a society and is recommended today by cultured intellectual authorities. In foreshadowing our study of Durkheim, let us note Field's observation: "If Durkheim's analysis is right, it suggests that this century's monstrosities in collective life arise not from aberrations in human reason but from what is fundamental to it. That analysis also leads to a disturbing suggestion: that the ordinary human agents who serve as raw material for extraordinary abusers of human dignity are, in vast majority, the normal and the socially responsible -- not deviants, sociopaths, or the crazy."¹¹⁴ We have seen this argument before from Griffin, who also appreciated the degenerates and the criminals as the salvation of civilization. This obviously does not apply to the Jewish Bolsheviks and Marxist proletariat who were intensely hostile to the tidy, industrious Christian bourgeois and aristocracy whom they murdered in such vast numbers that ....they stopped counting. Haven't we heard somewhere that Stalin was a psychopath who strangled people with his "bear" hands? Obviously, only the crimes of the Germans merit the attention of a scholar who has her eye on getting published and promoted. The lesson we are supposed to have learned from the disaster of Nazi Germany is that the greatest threat to humanity is the self-righteous, law abiding Christian, and that corruption alone can inoculate us from the pre-fascist mentality of religious integrity. While the sentimental mush of liberal religion may offend Weinberg's intelligence, it is the dogma of conservative religion which he thinks is truly dangerous. It may be that religion has contributed much to art, culture and morality over the centuries; but religion has done far greater harm than good. It is the religions of every kind that have inspired holy wars, inquisitions, and pogroms. And this is not a result of the failure or distortion of true religion.... To assume that is a fatal error guaranteeing the perpetuation of deep rooted hatreds in the guise of harmless civility.¹¹⁵ Field concludes: "It suggests, finally, that the human nature on which we depend, our social nature, is our uplift and our downfall. The only exit from this dilemma appears to be individualism. But the incompatibility of individualist assumptions with human nature as it can be observed in the real world was chief among Durkheim's discoveries in Formes and throughout his work. What we see, through his theoretical lens of conscience collective, is present in a social world of the real that cannot be arrived at with notions of individual conscience, alone."¹¹⁶

The central method used to weaken "self-transcendent" potential within a people, to shatter Durkheim's "conscience collective" -- is to build up individuality ...the self. The Jews prevent the resurgence of nazism by identifying its core as fanatical spirituality, and offer corruption as the "antidote" to disarm this potent fighting spirit. Dali is an illustration of a fascist who was successfully converted to this ideology of decadence. The origin of Dali's baseness and the core of his madness was an over-blown sense of self importance. We too face similar consequences by building up a world on the false premise that "I" am the focal point about which all events turn. His name Salvador meant savior. Dali literally adored himself. Cowardice, cruelty or any egocentric fantasy he could imagine, were all justified to assure the ultimate good: saving Dali from harm and assuring his pleasure. I think that he was being truthful in declaring that he had no intention of sacrificing himself for some romantic cause.¹¹⁷ The self disintegrates into cowardice, but genius transcends the concerns of one's own well being, taking Nature's perspective -- caring more for the race than personal survival. The following lines attributed to Dali are not the words of any genius, but those of a defeated man: "Moreover, nothing is more important to Me than Me, otherwise I cease to be and it is by listening to my life that I best serve and nurture my genius."¹¹⁸ Dali, the man of illusions, became the fraudulent god of his own reflection. The way to overcome this madness is to disclose that self-centeredness is not merely an illusion, but a distortion of perspective which effects our outlook on everything. We will face squarely this inescapable reality, and use science as our "unfailing guide".

Woolley discusses the crisis of faith that challenges not only religion, but Marxism, Freudianism, and even our sense of subjectivity. "Whence the well-known quip: 'God is dead, Marxism is undergoing crisis, and I don't feel so hot myself.' "¹¹⁹ The unreality of modern physics has spread out of the laboratory and infiltrated society at large. But that paradoxical complementarity has collapsed into mere subversion, into an all too ordinary and corruptible contradiction of lies. Science itself has been distorted, made crooked for the sake of power. How can an empire of false images endure? We see the consequences of this "good science" of subversion in our contaminated environment, and learn the painful answer to our belated question: a society based upon deception is ultimately self-destructive. This is the apocalyptic price of ignorance and cowardice, the indirect consequence of inaction. The question we must ask now is this: how can a twisted system of lies be itself subverted? One must prescribe the most corrosive agent known to man and his institutions: truth. It is truth which intelligence aspires to, not out of high minded morality or weak minded piety, but out of instinct. It is the basic desire to know and not be deceived. It is this passion for truth which most threatens Jewish subversion, and ultimately it is truth with which the Jews are struggling. This means that their hold on power is insecure. You must understand how essential it is to pursue the truth where ever it leads you, even if that should be out of your mind.

Quantum brain theory: splitting classical-physical reality..from the inside-out

                              END NOTES

1.Gleick, James, Chaos: Making a New Science �1987 William Heinemann Ltd. London ,  p87

2.Woolley, Benjamin, Virtual Worlds: A Journey in Hype and Hyperreality � 1992 Blackwell Publishers, Oxford, p.89

3.Rhodes, Richard, The Making of the Atomic Bomb � 1988 Simon & Schuster, New York, p.106

4.Rhodes, p.457

5.Microsoft (R) Encarta 1994 Encyclopedia CD Copyright (c) 1993 Microsoft Corporation. Copyright (c) 1993 Funk & Wagnall's Corporation

6.Rhodes, p.149

7.Rhodes, p.191

8.New Encyclopedia Britannica Macropaedia (15th edition 1994) Vol.15, p.155

9.New Encyclopedia Britannica Macropaedia (15th edition 1994) Vol.15, p.156

10.Rhodes, p.484

11.Rhodes, p.525

12.Rhodes, p.524

13.Rhodes, p.525

14.Rhodes, p.525

15.Gleick, James, Genius: Richard Feynman and Modern Physics � 1992 Little, Brown and Company (UK) Limited, London, p.169

16.Rhodes, p.565

17.Rhodes, p.188

18.Gleick, Genius , p.406

19.Gleick, Genius , p.406

20.Rhodes, p.676

21.Rhodes, p.149

22.Rhodes, p.150

23.Rhodes, pp.60-61

24.Rhodes, p.645

25.Gardner, Howard, Creating Minds:An Anatomy of Creativity Seen Through the Lives of Freud, Einstein, Picasso,Stravinsky,Eliot, Graham, and Gandhi � 1993 Basic Books (Harper Collins Publishers) New York, p.130

26.Rhodes, p.697

27.Rhodes, p.697

28.Rhodes, p.635-6

29.Rhodes, p.638

30.Rhodes, p.697

31.Rhodes, p.735

32.Gleick, Genius , p.155

33.Peat, F. David, Infinite Potential: The Life and Times of David Bohm � 1997 Addison-Wesley, New York, pp.60-61

34.Peat, Infinite Potential , p.64

35.Peat, Infinite Potential , p.66

36.Peat, Infinite Potential , p.68

37.Peat, Infinite Potential , p.70

38.Gleick, Genius , p.278

39.Peat, Infinite Potential , p.133

40.Peat, Infinite Potential , p.254

41.Peat, Infinite Potential , pp.254-255

42.Peat, Infinite Potential , p.255

43.Ehrenwald, Jan, foreword by Jules H. Masserman, Anatomy of Genius � 1984 Human Sciences Press, Inc., New York, p.198

44.Peat, Infinite Potential , pp.174-175

45.Gleick, Genius , p.221

46.Weinberg, Steven, Dreams of a Final Theory: The Search for the Fundamental Laws of Nature ,Vintage � 1993, London, p.196

47.Gleick, Genius , pp.371-2

48.Weinberg, Dreams Of A Final Theory , p.41

49.Pinker, How the Mind Works , p.313

50.Weinberg pp. 191-192

51.Weinberg p.205

52.Weinberg p.194

53.Hawking, Stephen W., Introduction by Carl Sagan, Illustrations by Ron Miller, A Brief History of Time: From the Big Bang to Black Holes � 1988, Bantam Press, Great Britain, pp.184-85

54.Einstein, Albert, Ideas and Opinions, Based on Mein Weltbild, edited by Carl Seelig, and other sources. New translations and revisions by Sonja Bargmann. � MCMLIV by Crown Publishers, Inc. New York.(First Laurel printing 1973). pp.49-50

55.Einstein, Ideas and Opinions , p.194

56.Gardner, Creating Minds, pp. 121-122

57.Rhodes, p.778

58.Rhodes, p.769

59.Rhodes, p.783

60.Rhodes, p.766

61.Rhodes, p.753

62.Rhodes, p.643

63.Rhodes, p.572

64.Rhodes, p.131

65.Rhodes, p.308

66.Rhodes, p.637

67.Rhodes, p.502

68.Rhodes, pp.528-529

69.Rhodes, p.535

70.Rhodes, p. 562

71.Rhodes, p.538

72.Rhodes, p.21

73.Rhodes, p.22

74.Rhodes, p.23

75.Pinker, Steven, How the Mind Works � 1997 W.W. Norton, New York, p.306

76.Weinberg p.207

77.Weinberg p.207

78.Peat, Infinite Potential , p.78

79.Rhodes, pp.174-175

80.Rhodes, p.111

81.Rhodes, p.111

82.Rhodes, p.503

83.Gleick, Genius , p.185

84.Gleick, Genius , p.191

85.Gleick, Genius , p.189

86.Rhodes, pp.508-509

87.Rhodes, p.510

88.Rhodes, p.511

89.Rhodes, p.628

90.Rhodes, p.511

91.Rhodes, p.599

92.Rhodes, p.784.

93.Rhodes, p.788

94.Rhodes, p.174

95.Einstein, Ideas and Opinions , (From Bulletin of Society of Polish Jews, New York,1944), pp.209-210

96.Einstein, Ideas and Opinions , (From Bulletin of Society of Polish Jews, New York,1944), pp.209-210

97.Murray, Charles and Herrnstein, Richard J, Race & I.Q.: An Apologia and A Response. The New Republic, Vol. 211, Number 18, Issue 4,163, October 31,1994, pp. 9-37. Washington, D.C., pp.11-12

98.Murray and Herrnstein, Race & I.Q.: An Apologia and A Response. The New Republic, pp.11-12

99.Ehrenwald, Jan, foreword by Jules H. Masserman, Anatomy of Genius � 1984 Human Sciences Press, Inc., New York, pp.253-54

100.Microsoft (R) Encarta 1994 Encyclopedia CD , also Hawking, A Brief History of Time , p.4

101.Hawking, A Brief History of Time , pp.122

102.Gleick, Chaos p.313

103.Penrose, Roger, Shadows of the Mind: A Search for the Missing Science of Consciousness � 1994 Oxford University Press, Oxford, p.269

104.Penrose, Shadows of the Mind , p.269

105.Eccles, Sir John C., How the Self Controls Its Brain � 1994 Springer-Verlag, Berlin, p.177

106.Peat, F. David, Superstrings and the Search for the Theory of Everything � 1988, Contemporary Books, Chicago, p.133

107.Gingerich, Owen (Introduction), Readings from Scientific American: Scientific Genius and Creativity � 1987 W.H. Freeman and Company, New York, p.vii; Chapter 12: Prematurity and Uniqueness in Scientific Discovery by Gunther S. Stent (1972) p.98

108.Woolley, Virtual Worlds , p.197

109.Pinker, p.409

110.Weinberg, Steven, Dreams of a Final Theory: The Search for the Fundamental Laws of Nature ,Vintage � 1993, London, p. 134

111.Hawking, A Brief History of Time , pp. 184-85

112.Hawking, Stephen, Blackholes and Baby Universes and Other Essays � 1993 Bantam, London, p.69

113.Gleick, Genius , p.431

114.Durkheim, Emile and Karen E. Fields (Translator with Introduction) The Elementary Forms of Religious Life � 1995 The Free Press, New York, p.li

115.Weinberg, p. 206

116.Durkheim, Emile and Karen E. Fields (Translator with Introduction) The Elementary Forms of Religious Life � 1995 The Free Press, New York, p.li

117.Dali, Salvador, The Secret Life of Salvador Dali � 1986 English edition, DASA Edicions, S.A. (original Spanish edition 1942) Spain. Dali Secret p.89

118.Parinaud, Andre (Translated from the French by Harold J. Salemson), The Unspeakable Confessions of Salvador Dali (as told by Andre Parinaud) � 1973,1976, 1981 Quill, New York, p.149

        119.Woolley, Virtual Worlds , p.4