Update:
This post should be understood in the context of my other writings in and around this subject.
Clearly, Bertrand Russell was a Christian in upbringing, as were his ancestors for generations.
Clearly, there is nothing in Torah-based Judaism per se which supports the kinds of positions he took in his life. Russell’s liberal/libertine and atheistic views have nothing in common with either Christian or Jewish orthodoxy. However, central tenets of modernist ideology (by modern, I mean the schools of thought arising out of Darwinian Evolution theory, Freudian psychology and the psycho-social theories associated with the Frankfurt school) were formulated by people whose descent was ethnic Jewish (in the sense in which that term is employed today).
In doing so in no way am I suggesting a biological/genetic component to this ideology of modernism.
I am suggesting instead that biology explains the phenomenon of the converso, who retains ancestral traditions and beliefs, regardless of the conversion.
I am suggesting that a tradition of hostility to the establishment and explicit espousal of revolutionary socio-economic schemes and libertine theories, colors the converso’s new-found faith and renders it only a variant of his old faith, which he, perhaps unconsciously, continues to propagate.
Put more bluntly, Russell could well have been a Sabbatean Frankist (a kabbalist) in everything but name.
Please read the original post by scrolling down below the two updates.
The substance of this post is that the celebrated mathematician Bertrand Russell, who wrote perhaps the most popular denunciation of Christianity, was a cold, cruel and deeply immoral individual in his personal life.
A recent book has also shown that he came from a family-line with a high degree of insanity and psychopathy.
That same line funded the Tavistock Institute and was notable for the propagation of sexual libertinism and population control, twin pillars of the New World Order.
Update 2:
In “Black Terror, White Soldiers,” David Livingstone has the following:
“MK-Ultra, the CIA’s infamous “mind control” program, was an extension of the behavior control research conducted by the Tavistock Institute. Formed at Oxford University, London, in 1920 by the Royal Institute for International Affairs (RIIA), a sister organization to the Council of Foreign Relations (CFR) created by the Round Table, the Tavistock Clinic became the Psychiatric Division of the British Army during World War II.[1] The clinic took its name from its benefactor Herbrand Russell, Marquees of Tavistock, 11th Duke of Bedford.
The Dukes of Bedford was the title inherited by the influential Russell family, one of the most prominent aristocratic families in Britain who came to power and the peerage with the rise of the Tudor dynasty.
Herbrand Russell and arch-conspirator Bertrand Russell shared the same great grandfather, John Russell, 6th Duke of Bedford. Bertrand Russell was descended from John Russell’s third son, Bertrand’s grandfather, John Russell, 1st Earl Russell, who served twice as Prime Minister of the England in the 1840s and 1860s.
Herbrand Russell’s son, Hastings Russell, Lord Tavistock, the 12th Duke of Bedford, went on to become patron of the British Peoples Party, a far-right political party founded in 1939 and led by ex-members of Oswald Mosley’s British Union of Fascists. It was he whom Rudolf Hess flew to England to contact about ending World War II.
The basis of the project of the Tavistock Institute was explained by Round Tabler, Lord Bertrand Russell, who is considered one of the founders of analytic philosophy along with his predecessor Gottlob Frege and his protégé Ludwig Wittgenstein, and is widely held to be one of the twentieth century’s premier logicians.
Russell offered a revealing glimpse into Frankfurt School’s mass social engineering efforts, in his 1951 book, The Impact of Science on Society:
I think the subject which will be of most importance politically is mass psychology… Its importance has been enormously increased by the growth of modern methods of propaganda. Of these the most influential is what is called “education.” Religion plays a part, though a diminishing one; the press, the cinema, and the radio play an increasing part…. It may be hoped that in time anybody will be able to persuade anybody of anything if he can catch the patient young and is provided by the State with money and equipment.
…Although this science will be diligently studied, it will be rigidly confined to the governing class. The populace will not be allowed to know how its convictions were generated. When the technique has been perfected, every government that has been in charge of education for a generation will be able to control its subjects securely without the need of armies or policemen.[2]
Update:
The author of numberless anti-Christian statements, toward the end of his life, Bertrand Russell attempted to blunt the force of his singular attack on Christianity by including Hinduism, Confucianism, and other religions, in his criticism.
Notably, he did not include Judaism.
There are two explanations for this: either Russell was aware of the ruling class whose interests he served and feared reprisal, or he actually supported the goals of the ruling class.
The second seems more likely, when one researches Russell’s history.
He came from an aristocratic family line – the Dukes of Bedford – with a long history of subversive activity and “progressive” ideals (women’s liberation, birth-control, free love etc.).
The name Russell/Russel is said to derive from the word “rous.”
Rous was originally a nick-name for a person with red hair and derived from an Old French word for red.
The nick-name might have arisen from the supposed red hair of the Norman conquerors of England.
[Coincidentally, note the following:
1. The “Red Jews” were part of a legendary Jewish nation that can be found in vernacular literature in Germany upto the 1600’s. They were said to be an existential threat to Christendom and were associated with Gog and Magog who are released in the end-times in the Bible.
2. The name Rothschild is derived from the German for Red Shield.]
A description of the origin of the Russell/Russel clan in Scotland can be found at Wikipedia, which identifies Bertrand Russell as the descendant of one Rufus (which is an alternative name for Russell).
Rufus is a popular Jewish name.
Bertrand Russell was thus apparently of Jewish/crypto-Jewish descent (using the word Jew here in the modern sense to refer to the people known as Ashkenazim).
That might explain how his advocacy of the goals of the NWO became so popular.
It might also explain his anti-Christian animus.
ORIGINAL POST
Bertrand Russell, the mathematician, philosopher and activist, has had a great deal of popularity among atheists and among anti-Christian Hindus in India, because of a book he wrote attacking Christianity, “Why I Am Not a Christian.”
Russell’s stature as a “peace activist” is such that he is accorded a pass on what it is he actually advocated.
I urge Hindus and atheists who take Russell’s critiques at face-value to delve into the motivations of the man who wrote it.
A closer look shows a deceptive and unsavory supporter of the key goals of the New World Order.
- Russell was a Fabian Socialist from his college days at Cambridge onward. He is thus associated with the pernicious system of thought responsible for the “stealth communism” that has destroyed most of India’s social and economic fiber.
- Even though he was aligned with pacifists in theory, in practice he was in favor of violence, if it was in the cause of overthrowing what he considered unjust governments. Thus, he supported the communist revolution in Russia, but, after its conclusion, distanced himself from it.
- He claimed to have held refined views on human relations, but the facts of his own life are at odds with his claims: he betrayed his first wife for a succession of wives and paramours, although his wife continued to be devoted to him to her death; he seduced the bride of the great Christian poet, T.S. Eliot, before her wedding, contributing to the destruction of the marriage. A bi-sexual and an outspoken advocate of “free love” his “consensual cuckolding,” enabled by wife, Dora, created an unstable home for his children that exacerbated the latent insanity in the family leading to more than one case of insanity and suicide.
Russell’s political positions were far from purely humanitarian and seem to have been articulated ultimately for the benefit of the New Order coming into being.
In “Bertrand Russell, Prophet Of The New World Order,” David Peterson writes:
Bertrand lost both father and mother at a very early age. In his sixth year he was placed in the home of his elderly grandmother. In his autobiography Russell complains bitterly about the stifling tyranny and repression he endured while living in her home. Unlike his older brother who rebelled and left home, little Bertie remained her pet, never openly defying his granny. He said he developed an overwhelming rage which, to keep the peace at home, he completely suppressed during his childhood. Whether his grandmother did him any harm is hard to say; however, there is no doubt he developed some serious psychological problems. In his autobiography he speaks about his plan to commit suicide as an adolescent, a plan, which was abandoned when he realized it would mean never learning any more mathematics. Despite his great intellect he displayed the personality of an iconoclast and a misanthrope all his life. The primary motivation of Russell’s intellectual effort was the removal of cultural repression, which he attributed to traditional religion. He set his mind to the task of eliminating the influence of Christianity on Western culture.
Here is a passage from a letter Russell sent to his friend Gilbert Murray, which gives some insight into his tumultuous state of mind as a young man: “I have been merely oppressed by the weariness, tedium and vanity of things lately, nothing seems worth doing or having done. The only thing that I strongly feel worthwhile would be to murder as many people as possible so as to diminish the amount of consciousness in the world.”
Sexual obsession and lust were a dominant force throughout Russell’s life and underpinned his public advocacy of population reduction and birth control. Lady Ottoline Morrell, Bertrand’s longtime lover and confidante, was the wife of Phillip Morrell. Russell was a notorious libertine whose multiple marriages never prevented him from satisfying his momentary lusts with whomever was at hand and willing. Russell carried out a long series of such affairs after he walked out on his first wife, Alys. With characteristic bluntness, he explained that he left his despondent young wife because he was “bored and disgusted with her.” We could say that, all in all, Bertrand Russell devoted his life to eradicating what is known as the moral order. Nietzsche had pronounced in his writings that “God is dead” and firmly held that the ethical norms taught by Jesus Christ had emasculated the human race. It was Russell who took Nietzsche’s call for the “transvaluation of all values” (reversing the Judeo-Christian moral order) and lent to that project his respectable credentials as a modern scientific thinker.”
At one time or other, Russell became a highly effective public advocate of the pillars of the New World Order – sexual libertinism (the destruction of the family unit, social control through psychology and addiction to drugs, a one-world government, and population control.
Russell’s population-control, like Sanger’s, was an outgrowth of his own eugenecist and racist ideas.
David Peterson:
He was alarmed about the higher fertility of nonwhite women and he demanded that the Asian and black birthrate be drastically curtailed. Otherwise, he felt his own breed (whites) would be overwhelmed, resulting in chaos and disaster. His view on population was made clear in his Prospects for Industrial Civilization: “Population [must be] stationary or nearly so…. The White population of the world will soon cease to increase. The Asiatic races will be longer, and the Negroes still longer, before their birth rate falls sufficiently to make their numbers stable without the help of war and pestilence…. Until that happens…the less prolific races will have to defend themselves against the more prolific….”
Advocating what is now know as Zero Population Growth, Russell wrote:
If a Black Death could be spread throughout the world once in every generation, survivors would be free to procreate freely without making the world too full.” Russell went on, “this state of affairs may be somewhat unpleasant, but what of it? Really high minded people are indifferent to happiness, especially other people’s.”
As for Russell’s pacifism, David Peterson has the following:
During World War I, Russell described himself as a pacifist and was jailed in England for his antiwar speeches. Later his reputation as “peace maker of his generation” suffered severe damage when, in the early years of the Cold War, Russell signed on as an avid backer of the so-called Baruch Plan. The proposal was billed as a peace offer to the Russians but it might be better described as a bomb hidden in a CARE package. Under the plan, Stalin would be given an ultimatum: the Soviets could join an international peace agency and forgo developing an H-bomb; but if they refused, Moscow and the other major Russian population centers would be instantly obliterated by a nuclear bombardment.
In his defense, Russell told a BBC interviewer, “I thought the Russians would give way but you can’t threaten unless you’re prepared to have your bluff called.” Certainly this English aristocrat and intellectual was not the only voice that could be heard recommending a pre-emptive nuclear attack against the Soviets, but he was by far the most prominent “pacifist” to do so. Some years later when he was faced with the publication in a New York newspaper of the charge that he had “decided that it would be good morals and good politics to start dropping bombs on Moscow,” Russell contracted a convenient case of amnesia and vehemently denied that he had ever countenanced any such thing.
By the opening of the inaugural meeting of the Pugwash Conference in 1957, Cold War Realpolitik had changed considerably and the Baruch Plan was buried. Russian scientists had developed a Soviet version of the ultimate weapon of mass destruction and just as suddenly Russell experienced a change of heart. Miraculously, his former mortal enemies, the Soviets, were now his partners in world peace! Anti-Communism had dissolved in favor of Russell’s new crusade for world peace and nuclear disarmament. Pugwash proposals were imbued with the ideology of the British Fabian Society, calling for a world government (made up of the world’s elites) to enforce a global peace. The plan called for NATO and the Warsaw Pact to be partners in halting the spread of nuclear weapons. The Pugwash Plan, however, went far beyond megatonnage and delivery systems. All nuclear energy and technology were to be centralized in the hands of the existing nuclear states–America, Britain, and Russia.
The antinuclear weapons campaign allowed Russell and his circle to accomplish two of their most important cultural objectives. The first was establishing a command and control center for one-world government. The second was creating a radical ecological movement that was hostile to technology and industrial progress. Pugwash propaganda skillfully equated “nuclear warfare” with “industrialism and technology.” The three terms were linked together and branded as the characteristic “evils of modern capitalism,” three evils which would soon annihilate us, either by nuclear war, by uncontrolled pollution, or by the depletion of our “fixed” resources. Only the Pugwash planners — with the “peace-loving” Soviets as their partners — had the solution. World leaders had to come to their senses and submit to a world government or all humanity was doomed!
Many of the Pugwash initiatives became the bedrock beliefs of Zero Population Growth and the radical ecology movements. The same ideology was disseminated in Western media channels and financed by the donations of hundreds of wealthy corporations, think tanks, and foundations. Much of this philanthropy is subsidized by having tax-free status — which means in effect it is paid in part by U.S. taxpayers.”