Bertrand Russell and Ludwig Wittgenstein


by Miles Mathis

First published May 19, 2020

 

They never tell you in school the interesting or important things about historical figures, but I will. Some of you may know I majored in philosophy and Latin. I sat in on a graduate-level course on Wittgenstein my senior year, though I found it very tiresome. I took it only because we had a Wittgenstein specialist in our department, and he was highly regarded—though I don't remember by whom. Not by me. We also covered Russell in another class, though briefly. I always had a sneaking feeling he was big phony, and of course it turns out I was right. However, at the time I would never have thought to connect either of these guys to the rising Modern art movements of their time, or to Modernism at all. That is because of the way they are taught—the way everything is taught in college. IN ISOLATION.

In fact, I wouldn't now say that Wittgenstein and Russell were taught in college; rather, they were promoted. We were supposed to believe they were important for some reason, though no one ever really got around to saying why. All the evidence was to the contrary, so everything had to be spun hard. I now suspect that those promoting them must have been related to them somehow, though I was in Texas. I can't figure out why else anyone would promote these guys, or find them fascinating enough to study.

To start with, both of them come from fantastic wealth. Wittgenstein is admitted to be Jewish—the family had previously been Meiers—and his father was one the wealthiest men in Europe. Karl Wittgenstein was an industrial tycoon who had a monopoly on Austria's steel cartel, and he was a friend of Andrew Carnegie. He owned 13 mansions in Vienna alone. But we are supposed to believe his son's fame had nothing to do with that. It also had nothing to do with being promoted by his professor Russell, a future Earl, who was also from one of the wealthiest families in Europe. Here is Pembroke Lodge, where Russell grew up:



And that picture makes it look smaller than it actually is. It was given by Queen Victoria to her prime minister Lord John Russell, who entertained the Queen there as well as Dickens, Thackeray, Longfellow, and Tennyson.

The Russells were dukes, earls, and everything else, descended from the Duke of Bedford who had been raised to the peerage by Henry VIII and given land and property in Tavistock stolen from the monasteries. In fact, that is one reason why that name Tavistock is important. They try to hide the roots of these Russells, scrubbing them before that, but it is not hard to find that they descend through the female line from the de la Tours, top nobles of France connected to the Royal lines back to the time of Charlemagne. See Hugh of Tours, whose two daughters married into the Carolingian and Capetian dynasties. His first daughter Ermengard married Lothair and become Empress of the Romans. His second daughter married Robert the Strong, making her the grandmother of Hugh Capet, King of the Franks. We also link to the Habsburgs, since Hugh of Tours was an Etichonid, that is a descendant of Adalrich, Duke of Alsace. Through his wife, we link to even earlier Merovingian kings of the Franks (including Clovis), as well as to the kings of Thuringia (Germany). We are taught these Frankish kings descended somehow from Roman generals, but there is no evidence of that. So we may assume the most likely thing, given what we already know: they were Phoenician navy.



I mean, just use your eyes! Does he look Jewish/Phoenician or not?

photo by Allan Warren

There is another recent Russell, Duke of Bedford. Any questions?

Also remember that Russell's mother was Lady Catherine Stanley, of the Barons of Alderley, Isle of Mann. They are also Owens, Lathoms, Cholmondeleys, Warburtons, Pitts, Leighs, Lennards, and Holroyds. Through his paternal grandmother, Russell was also a Murray, so his parents were cousins. The Murrays and Stanleys are closely related, and the Murrays actually took up the Stanley line. In this line he is also a Steuart, a Spencer, and a Hamilton.

But although the Jewish thing is an easy card to lead with, it isn't why I am here. I am here because I detest everything these guys stand for. Let's just go down Russell's Wiki page to see why I say that. We are supposed to believe that by his teens he had already come to the conclusion there was no free will and no life after death. We are told that Mill's Autobiography convinced him to be an atheist. So he was a sad case from the beginning, either ruined by his aristocratic upbringing or recruited to promote those ideas to the plebes.

He soon ended up at Trinity College, Cambridge, AKA spook college #1. It makes Skull and Bones at Yale look like a Tupperware party. This is where he became an Apostle. These are the spooks that fed the Bloomsbury Group, which was mostly gay and totally Jewish. They promoted “intrinsic value”, which was a misnomer since it had no value. It was an excuse for these rich people to do as they pleased with no regard for the consequences of their actions. Amazingly, even Wikipedia now admits that on the Bloomsbury page. We are told the group reacted against bourgeois habits. . . as if they knew anything about bourgeois habits. Basically they were a group of miserable super-upperclass bastards and cunts who hid behind fancy terms like philosophy, politics, and art, to justify doing just as they pleased—and that was always vulgar, shallow, and ignoble. Same thing the rich have always done and still do.

Bloomsbury is our first explicit link to Modern art, which I alluded to above. These people fancied themselves writers and painters, but none of them could write or paint—which is what makes them Modern. They linked themselves to the post-Impressionists, which was the beginning of the end for art. It bottomed out soon after that, in no small part due to these people and their pathetic ideas. For more on this, see my old paper on Clive Bell and formalism.

We are supposed to believe that the Bloomsbury Group, the Apostles, and people like Russell were liberal, but that is just a joke. They weren't liberal, they were Marxist, that is, crypto-fascist. Yes, they believed in sexual freedom, but that isn't liberal, it is licentious. Liberal implies they were for fairness, but how could they be when their lives depended on privilege? In a fair world, people who could actually write, paint, and do math would have become famous writers, painters, and mathematicians, instead of them. Do you think they really wanted that?

If you don't think Russell was a spook, you may want to read more on the Apostles, especially the later Cambridge Five (note how the Rothschilds are involved there). You will say that was after the time of Russell's heyday, but he was still around. He was alive until the 1970s, and the Cambridge spies were admitted to be there from the 30s to the 50s. That was just one of the rare cases it became public. The Apostles were always spooks, back to the very beginning. They were founded in 1820 by George Tomlinson, later Bishop of Gibraltar, who, during his time at Cambridge, was a protégé of Sir Robert Peel. We are told Peel hired Tomlinson as a tutor. . . wink, wink, nudge, nudge. You remember Peel, right? The guy who is on the cover of Sgt. Pepper's? The guy, Baronet Peel, who was from a family of wealthy textile manufacturers? The guy who was Home Secretary and twice Prime Minister of England? The guy who founded the Metropolitan Police force and Scotland Yard? The guy who basically founded MI5 eighty years before you are told it was founded?

Another thing to know is that Tomlinson's father-in-law was General Sir Patrick Stuart, Governor of Malta. He was not only of the Lords of Blantyre, he was a Hamilton, a Lyon (Earls of Strathmore), a Stanhope (Earls of Chesterfield), and a Lindsay. So he was connected to the royal houses of England and Scotland in many lines. Tomlinson's second wife was also a cousin, and his second father-in-law was Colonel Charles Mackenzie-Fraser, 10th of Inverallochy. This connected him to the Mackenzies (Earls of Seaforth), Forbes, Hays (Earls of Erroll), Erskines (Earls of Mars), Douglases (Earls of Buchan and Earls of Morton), Keiths (Earls Marischal), and Stuarts (Dukes of Lennox).

Anyway, back to Russell. By age 24 he was teaching German social democracy at the London School of Economics, proving once again his spookhood. There is no such thing as German social democracy: that is just another term for Marxism, and we know what to think of that. Russell then joined the Webbs in the Fabian Society, which was more of the same. The current Queen is a Webb. The Fabians are the ones that proudly announce in their coat of arms that they are wolves in sheep's clothing.



Their job, like that of Marx, Debs, and thousands of others, was to infiltrate labor and utterly destroy it. Which they have done and continue to do. So you can see why I scoffed at Russell's claim to be liberal. No one connected to the Fabians and the London School of Economics is liberal.

In 1903 Russell published The Principles of Mathematics, which was rightly called 500 pages of garbage at the time. Peirce, who they apparently forgot to pay off, said it was completely unoriginal and “hardly literature”. Even G. H. Hardy, who was paid to promote it, admitted that Russell's dismissal of Relativity was a mistake. Russell ended up agreeing, since in later works he jumped on the Relativity bandwagon, promoting Einstein far beyond his merits while overlooking the obvious mathematical mistakes of the early Relativity papers. You should ask yourself, if Russell was such a great mathematician, why didn't he spot these basic algebraic errors in Einstein's published papers? Did he even read the original documents, or did he just read reports of them?

Strangely, Hardy also admits:

The philosopher who attempts to read the book will be especially puzzled by the constant presupposition of a whole philosophical system utterly unlike any of those usually accepted.

Like Hardy, I also used to be puzzled by this, but no longer am. I now know that Russell was on assignment, and like the rest of the Moderns he was instructed to “presuppose” idiotic ideas in order to create chaos. It wasn't an accident.

You may wish to read Jules Vuillemin's 1968 review of this book a little more closely:

The Principles inaugurated contemporary philosophy. Other works have won and lost the title. Such is not the case with this one. It is serious, and its wealth perseveres. Furthermore, in relation to it, in a deliberate fashion or not, it locates itself again today in the eyes of all those that believe that contemporary science has modifed our representation of the universe and through this representation, our relation to ourselves and to others.

Yes, and that is precisely the problem. Contemporary science has certainly modified our view of the universe and so on, but not in a good way. The analogy is contemporary art, which has also modified our view of things. . . by destroying art. Also curious to find it admitted that “contemporary science” goes back to 1902 and earlier. That was before Relativity and before Quantum Mechanics, so we are not talking about those things here. Russell and others had already redefined science before those things came along. The destruction of math and science has its roots in the 19th century, going all the way back to Gauss and Lobachevsky in the 1820s—about the same time Socialism rose its ugly, fake head.

Wikipedia also tacks on a tacit admission that Russell purposely blackwashed Leibniz in this book, see Katz and Sherry, 2012, at ArXiv. [This ties into my recent paper on Newton.] They accuse Russell of a string of non-sequiturs, which is generous. The book is really just 500 pages of sludge, and doesn't bear reading much less rereading or serious study.

I mean, this is a guy who thought Wittgenstein was a genius. If you are disposed to consider that possibility, based on prior promotion, you might wish to either read the Tractatus, which is short, or— if you actually have a life—study this list of his seven main propositions:

1. The world is everything that is the case.

2. What is the case (a fact) is the existence of states of affairs.
3. A logical picture of facts is a thought.
4. A thought is a proposition with a sense.
5. A proposition is a truth-function of elementary propositions. (An elementary proposition is a truth-function of itself.)
6. The general form of a proposition is the general form of a truth function.
7. Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent. Given that, we wonder why Wittgenstein didn't remain silent.
In fact, he admitted in later writings (Philosophical Investigations) this was all bombast, but those writings were suppressed until after his death.

Here is another example of Wittgenstein's brilliance. In his “picture theory”, we are told:

According to the theory, propositions can "picture" the world as being a certain way, and thus accurately represent it either truly or falsely.[13] If someone thinks the proposition, "There is a tree in the yard," then that proposition accurately pictures the world if and only if there is a tree in the yard[13]:p53.

Yes, someone actually found that statement worth footnoting. Good to know that kids are now paying
$60,000 a year to go to college and learn such things (online).

In 1913 Russell and Whitehead renamed Principles of Mathematics as Principia Mathematica, padding it out with a further 1,500 pages of schist, which probably no one in history has ever read, or should read. This work is most famous for solving Russell's own fake paradox of 1901, which I suppose he knocked together just so he could be famous for later solving it. I have previously stated my opinion that this was all a tempest in a teapot, and that any truly intelligent person would have solved the paradox in about fifteen minutes. No, even that is saying too much. An intelligent person would have never recognized a paradox to start with, since the original “paradox” was just the manufacturing of a problem where there wasn't one. These rich, talentless babies have to justify the air they breathe somehow, at least to themselves, and this is the way they do it.

If you don't believe me, Wikipedia is good enough to admit it:

Somewhat infamously, several hundred pages of PM precede the proof of the validity of the proposition 1+1=2.

Russell had three aims in writing this 2000-page work, the second one being:

to precisely express mathematical propositions in symbolic logic using the most convenient notation that precise expression allows.

Part of that precise expression was the several hundred pages we just heard about, which include this highly useful proof of 1+1=2:




If that's what you want to do with your life, have at it. I have better things to do. Such as real math and real physics.

Now let's switch over to Wittgenstein for a bit. His cousin on his mother's side was Nobel Laureate Friedrich Hayek. Think actress Salma Hayek, who played her cousin Frida Kahlo. We are told Salma's father is Lebanese, but he is Jewish. Salma is married to billionaire Francois-Henri Pinault, who is also a Perrine and a Gautier. Meaning, he is also Jewish, related to the Perons, Penns, Pereiras, etc. He owns Gucci, Puma, Yves Saint Laurent, and many other brands.

Kahlo was also a Calderon, and she allegedly slept with Trotsky, remember, although these people are normally gay and just beards for one another. It is known Kahlo was gay, since she famously wore men's clothing and slept with Georgia O'Keeffe and Josephine Baker—although this is not mentioned on her Wiki page.

Baker of course was a spy. Both her parents are hidden, though her father was obviously white. Her mother was half-white as well. Baker had a long Jewish face and nose, so we may assume her “German” father was Jewish, especially given her fame. Only Jewish people get famous, you know, especially in the arts. Here's some numerology from her bio to salt that in:

At 13 Baker worked as a waitress at the Old Chauffeur's Club at 3133 Pine Street.



Just study her face: she looks 3 parts Jewish and 1 part black. She supposedly married first at age 13.

Later she married French industrialist Jean Lion (Lyon/Lyons, the current Queen of England is a Lyons). His mother was a Levy.

Kahlo's husband was artist Diego Rivera, real name Diego Maria de la Concepcion Juan Nepomuceno Estanislao de la Rivera Barrientos Acosta y Rodriquez. So we can tell he was not only nobility, but which nobility. Nepomuk Stanislaus—which links him to the Nepomuks of Bohemia, especially Prince Klemens Nepomuk Metternich, Chancellor of the Austrian Empire 1821-48. One of the premier fascists and tyrants of all time. This tells me Rivera's famous run-in with Nelson Rockefeller over the mural in New York was probably manufactured. Rockefeller would have no problem with a painting of Lenin, since people like him put Lenin in power to start with. Given the people involved, the mural flap was probably an argument over money. Being an aristocrat himself, Rivera probably expected to actually be paid for his work. The Rockefellers weren't used to paying artists fairly for their time, you know. Plus, we know the story about removing the mural with jackhammers is false. Why would you remove a mural with jackhammers when you could just paint over it? If you want to be sure it is never restored, just wash it with turpentine or some other solvent.

Rivera was later head of Ancient Mystical Order Rosae Crucis in Mexico, which had been founded in the US in 1915 by Harvey Spencer Lewis, who of course was age 33 at the time. Lewis was also a Rittenhouse and a Hoffman. In 1905, at age 20, Lewis had also founded the New York Institute for Psychical Research, proving that was also a spook front. It was a spin-off of ASPR, founded 20 years earlier by another set of spooks, including William James, Granville Stanley Hall, George Stuart Fullerton, and many others. They were all precursors of people like James Randi, who is cut from the same cloth.

Reading about the lives of Baker, Kahlo, and these people may make you wistful. You may think these people led such interesting lives. But most of that glamor is only on paper. In real life they were awful people who soon burned themselves out. Kahlo painted the same painting over and over for two decades, while being a drunk and a floozy. Her husband was a fat ugly Jew twenty years her senior, whom nobody could have wished to sleep with.



That picture is almost as painful to look at as the pictures of Salma Hayek with her gnarly old husband.

Kahlo had syphilis and a variety of other diseases, which killed her by age 47.

Friedrich Hayek was also a big fake of course, as all famous economists are. He is famous for The Road to Serfdom, and no, I don't think that title is meant as a handbook to serfdom, although it might as well be. We are told:

Hayek was concerned about the general view in Britain's academia that fascism was a capitalist reaction to socialism and The Road to Serfdom arose from those concerns.

Yeah, I'll bet. Are we really supposed to believe any thinking person thought fascism was a capitalist reaction to socialism? Talk about turning the screw! Fascism isn't a reaction against anything, since it is the fundamental, default, and hidden position behind both socialism and capitalism. All the governors and governments are fascist and always have been, though they later became capitalist as well. That simply means that those with huge amounts of capital own everything, and everyone else owns nothing of importance. Socialism is just a curtain the fascists hide behind. So there was nothing for Hayek to be concerned about one way or the other. Except that he was hired to provide the second path of misdirection here.

Of course Hayek also came out of the London School of Fascism, I mean Economics. Amazingly, they try to sell Hayek's ideas as Classical Liberalism. You have to laugh. These spooks like Russell, Rivera, and Hayek are always liberal. We are told that Hayek “warns of the dangers of tyranny that inevitably result from government control of decision making through central planning”. Warns? As if that is something that might happen in the future? Is Hayek implying he knows of some government that isn't tyrannical by that definition? Can he tell us when or where that existed? Hayek tutored David Rockefeller, which tells you just how liberal he really was.

Guess who promoted The Road to Serfdom in the US right after the war in 1945? Max Eastman, who we looked at in my paper on Eugene Debs. Eastman was Jewish, Communist, protégé of Dewey, died in Barbados, mother was a Ford, pretended to be Protestant, married a Bolshevik, brother-in-law of Soviet Commissar of Justice Krylenko. Eastman early pretended to be a radical, but of course ended up at the National Review. Enough said. The standard career arc of these people.

The Road to Serfdom was just the usual feint, written to make its readers think the US hadn't always been a fascist state run by a small minority. It was the standard flag-waving misdirection, meant to fool its Readers Digest-level audience into believing their governors had their best interests in mind by embracing capitalism and privatization. Also remember that Thatcher was a big fan of Hayek, which tells you again just how liberal he was. Thatcher, like the rest, wanted you to believe it was all a question of Socialism versus Capitalism, when it wasn't. Both Capitalism and Socialism were fronts for the same Tory fascists who had always been running the world, but they had to keep your eyes off that by any means.

Wittgenstein grew up at the center of Viennese culture at the turn of the century. His father collected Rodin, Klimt painted his sister, and Brahms and Mahler played concerts in the house.




Wittgenstein and his siblings were tutored at home by the best teachers in Europe. Despite this privilege, three of his four brothers later killed themselves, and Wittgenstein was always suicidal. We are supposed to believe he was raised Catholic, but they admit that, like Russell, he was an atheist by 15. At the same time, Wittgenstein became a devotee of Otto Weininger (1880–1903):

Weininger, who was also Jewish, argued that the concepts male and female exist only as Platonic forms, and that Jews tend to embody the platonic femininity. Whereas men are basically rational, women operate only at the level of their emotions and sexual organs. Jews, Weininger argued, are similar, saturated with femininity, with no sense of right and wrong, and no soul.

Really? Well, I guess that explains a few things. As you see from his dates, Weininger also died young, by suicide. No wonder. We are told Weininger influenced August Stringberg, James Joyce, and the Nazis. That also fits like a glove, doesn't it? A few months before his suicide, Weininger converted to Protestantism. Wittgenstein attended his funeral at age 14, which tells us a lot.

Wittgenstein and Hitler went to school together, proving once again Hitler was from wealth, but this is papered over with all sorts of absurdities like this:

Laurence Goldstein argues it is "overwhelmingly probable" the boys met each other: that Hitler would have disliked Wittgenstein, a "stammering, precocious, precious, aristocratic upstart ..."[85][86] Other commentators have dismissed as irresponsible and uninformed any suggestion that Wittgenstein's wealth and unusual personality may have fed Hitler's antisemitism, in part because there is no indication that Hitler would have seen Wittgenstein as Jewish.[87][88]

Except that they are forgetting several important facts: Hitler was also Jewish, gay, precious, aristocratic, and an actor. But note who is promoting this confusion: a Goldstein. So what do you expect. He has no soul.

They admit Wittgenstein only attended college for three semesters, but for some reason was given a diploma anyway, when he had just turned 19. You will remind me that I almost graduated at 19, but I spent more than three semesters at university. If I had graduated at 19, I would have been in school two full years, plus three summer schools, plus testing out of 30 hours. We have no indication Wittgenstein did anything like that. That same spring, he allegedly began working on a doctorate in aeronautics at Victoria University of Manchester, though they admit he was hopeless at that and soon quit. Suddenly he took an interest in logic in 1911 and immediately showed his first work to Frege at the University of Jena. You know, as you do. You dabble in something for a few weeks and then introduce yourself to the world's foremost authority on the subject. For some reason, Frege sent him to Russell at Cambridge—probably as some sort of cruel joke upon Russell. They admit Russell's lectures were very poorly attended, and that Wittgenstein became his fourth (unofficial) student. Wittgenstein was not accepted to Cambridge at that time, so he was just sitting in. Then we get this, which is quite easy to see through:

Three months after Wittgenstein's arrival Russell told Morrell: "I love him & feel he will solve the problems I am too old to solve ... He is the young man one hopes for."[114] Wittgenstein later told David Pinsent that Russell's encouragement had proven his salvation, and had ended nine years of loneliness and suffering, during which he had continually thought of suicide. In encouraging him to pursue philosophy and in justifying his inclination to abandon engineering, Russell had, quite literally, saved Wittgenstein's life.

So, the usual Greek thing. Wittgenstein remained a big baby his whole life, needing the protection of older men, as we see from his later run-in with Karl Popper in 1946. Wittgenstein was 56 by then, so he should have been capable of debate, but he wasn't. Popper was guest speaker at the Cambridge Moral Sciences Club, with Wittgenstein in attendance. Popper correctly pointed out that philosophy was the study of real problems, or should be, not just the listing of linguistic puzzles, when Wittgenstein started waving a poker at him and demanding he give an example of any moral rule. Popper offered the rule that guest speakers should not be threatened with pokers, but Russell had to intervene. Wittgenstein ended up storming out of the room. I guess he went to crawl under the bed and reread his Weininger.

Wittgenstein also became an Apostle, although he didn't like the meetings because he wasn't the only beloved one there.

Russell had been worried that Wittgenstein would not appreciate the group's raucous style of intellectual debate, its precious sense of humour, and the fact that the members were often in love with one another.[16][McGuinness, 1988]

Hmmm. Interesting to see someone admit it. Actually, Wittgenstein's homosexuality is well documented, which should bring into question Russell's sexuality. But strangely it never does. Russell is protected by his four wives. However, it is worth pointing out in this regard that Russell was always a leader in homosexual law reform, later taking credit when homosexuality was partially legalized in 1967. Not saying that is conclusive, but it is a clue.

In 1913, Wittgenstein's father died, making him one of the wealthiest men in Europe at age 23. Why don't they ever teach that in school? I never knew it until today. Wittgenstein earned no degree from Cambridge at the time, just being allowed to hang out there because he was a rich guy, I guess. In his bio, I find no evidence he was even accepted there. At any rate, after coming into his inheritance, he took off for Norway, to write the misnamed Logik. While in his cabin, he insisted Cambridge don G.

E. Moore visit him to help him with his manuscript. Again, as you do. You have trouble finishing a paper in your cabin in Norway, so you helicopter in the don of Cambridge.

By the way, Moore's grandfather was the famous British Israelite Dr. George Moore. Not beside the point, as you now understand. Moore's grandparents were cousins. As Sturges, they were peerage, related to the Marshalls, Sargents, Clothiers, Clarkes, Newmans, Cadburys, and Russells. Geni fudges this as Rustell, but they aren't fooling me. They were Quakers. Moore's wife was an Ely, also peerage, related to the Stuarts.

Even with Moore's help, Wittgenstein made little progress. He demanded that he should be able to spot a tautology on sight, but never really figured out how to do that. So he gave it up and simply asserted that tautologies announced themselves.

The next year, 1914, we are supposed to believe one of the richest gay men in Europe volunteered for the Austrian army. Yeah, I bet he did. We are told almost nothing of his first two years as a soldier, but then we are told that in 1916 he was on the Russian front, where he allegedly fought against British troops, and was awarded many medals. He was finally promoted to lieutenant in 1918, so we are supposed believe he was a private from 1914 to 1918? Oivay. We are then supposed to believe he took military leave in summer of 1918, retiring to his summer house in Vienna to complete the Tractatus. Yeah, that makes sense. You get promoted to lieutenant near the end of the war, during the heaviest fighting, and they immediately send you home to work on your famous book? And you have no problem concentrating on that book after almost four years of being in the army, in the worst war of all time?

After giving his book to the publisher, in October Wittgenstein was sent back to the front and was allegedly captured by the Allies in Trentino. We are supposed to believe the richest man in Austria then spent nine months in an Italian concentration camp. I guess his bunkmate was Andrew Carnegie.

When he was released, he decided to become an elementary school teacher and give up his fortune. We are supposed to believe he gave it all to his siblings, and despite the fact they thought he was shellshocked from the war, they accepted. Witty didn't do this because he admired the common man and wished to live more simply. On the contrary, we are told he despised the riffraff around him. We are supposed to believe he beat his students, even the females, scoffed at the priests, and shouted insults at the headmaster.

None of this is believable in the least, and it is hard to believe anyone takes the time writing it down.

The only book he published in his lifetime, the Tractatus, came out in 1921, when he was 31. It was only 75 pages, but it was still at least as unreadable as Russell. It was published only with the help of Russell, who wrote the introduction. Wittgenstein couldn't even come up with a title: it was Moore who did that, referencing Spinoza—who must have turned over in his grave. On the authority of Russell, the book became a minor sensation. All the cool people had to pretend to read it, pretend to understand it, and pretend to admire it—sort of like with Derrida later, or Stephen Hawking even later.

Wittgenstein then moved to an even smaller town, where he thought even less of the people.

These people are not human at all but loathsome worms," he wrote to a friend—and he left after a month. In November he began work at another primary school, this time in Puchberg in the Schneeberg mountains. There, he told Russell, the villagers were "one-quarter animal

and three-quarters human."

Charming.

In 1926, Wittgenstein was teaching 11-year-olds, and beat one boy until he collapsed. This reminds us that Witty was not only gay, but also imbalanced and possibly insane. He should not have been teaching young boys at all. He had previously beaten a young girl from the same class until her ears bled. The police were called but Wittgenstein fled. A judge ordered a psychiatric evaluation, but Witty was gone. And now for the punch line. The boy soon died, but we are assured it was from hemophilia. Sure it was. The case was covered up by family money, but it looks to me like Wittgenstein was a child murderer. I don't remember being taught that in my class in college.

Somehow Wittgenstein got famous, probably by just buying fame outright. Early on, it was claimed the Vienna Circle had formed just to discuss the Tractatus, but the historians have changed their tune on that one. Those involved probably spent their money and decided they didn't want that on their records, so they changed the story. It was then Mach, Frege, and Russell who influenced them. It doesn't really matter who influenced them, since it was just a Circle Jerk of homunculi. Popper destroyed the whole lot of them with one hand, and even Popper was no genius. He was sober and disciplined, and wasn't a Modern, and that was all that was required.

This will give you an idea of the sort of fawning that went on over Wittgenstein:

His point of view and his attitude toward people and problems, even theoretical problems, were much more similar to those of a creative artist than to those of a scientist; one might almost say, similar to those of a religious prophet or a seer... When fnally, sometimes after a prolonged arduous effort, his answers came forth, his statement stood before us like a newly created piece of art or a divine revelation ... the impression he made on us was as if insight came to him as through divine inspiration, so that we could not help feeling that any sober rational comment or analysis of it would be a profanation.

That is from Rudolf Carnap, one of the logical positivists. Remind yourself that Wittgenstein was a billionaire, lunatic, and child beater, and then re-evaluate that statement. Carnap just sounds like a toady, doesn't he?

In 1929 Wittgenstein returned to Cambridge. Since he was 40 and had no degree, he “initially” couldn't join the PhD program. So he entered as an undergraduate. But he (or Russell) soon paid off the right people, and within a few months they gave him a PhD, appointed him as a lecturer, and made him a fellow of Trinity College. As you might expect, Wittgenstein didn't take this very seriously either, and buggered off to Norway, France, or Ireland whenever he felt like it.

The Wittgensteins were granted mischling status by Hitler, though it is admitted they had three Jewish grandparents (and they actually had four). Only 12 people were granted this status in 1939, and six of them were Wittgensteins. But I'm sure the fact they were billionaires had nothing to do with it. In fact, we now know that this whole mischling thing was misch-direction, since Hitler and all his top people were Jewish, including Eichmann, Himmler, Goebbels, and all the rest. Most of Germany's generals and field marshals were Jewish. But Wittgenstein getting a bye on the Jewish question is still informative, since not all the richest Jews did, according to the mainstream stories. Many were allegedly sent to camps, although these stories are false. So why not make up one of these stories for the Wittgensteins? I guess because they had already told enough tall tales about Ludwig during the

First War, and didn't feel like doing it again.

In 1939 Wittgenstein was given English citizenship and became head of the philosophy department at Cambridge. As head, he came up with some more striking and brilliant ideas, such as denying that there were any mathematical facts to be discovered. He had previously denied that you could talk sensibly about religion, aesthetics, ethics, and mysticism, and he was now adding math and logic to that. He should have said that he could not talk sense about any of those things, which was undeniably true. He never once did.

In these years, around age 50, Wittgenstein should have been at the peak of his powers, but he wrote and published nothing and lectured very little—and when he did it was unintelligible. Mostly he watched movies and read detective novels.

There was only one good thing about Wittgenstein: he knew he was a fraud and kept returning to manual labor. He hated being department head at Cambridge and took a job at a nearby hospital running errands. He delivered drugs from pharmacies to patients, then advised them not to take them. You have to like that. He should have been a janitor or a ditch digger. At 50 he still couldn't speak English well, which doesn't say much for his intelligence. He admitted throughout his life that he was miserable everywhere he went, and constantly thinking of suicide. More indication he was out of place in academia.

So why did Russell and these other people promote him? Was it all just a cruel joke? Was it all just for money? Did he give millions to the college with the understanding they would sell him as a philosopher? Or was it all just one more script of Project Chaos: sell this nitwit as the greatest sage since Spinoza, to confuse the Gentiles? That is the only way I can make sense of it. In that way, he was part of the Modern Art project. The grand 20th-century plan of purposeful dissolution of everything, the destruction of society for further profit and control. Wittgenstein should have been sold as part of Dada, except that would have been to admit it was all a purposeful absurdity. That wouldn't do because they wanted you to take all this philosophy, math, and science seriously. If you did your ability to think would be permanently short-circuited, and you would believe anything and agree to anything. It was a form of brainwashing via a faux-education.



And of course that is the right answer, since that project has continued to expand and accelerate every decade since then. All of modern life has been subsumed in that project, which we might call “confound the Gentiles”. The analogy is the Native Americans hunting pronghorns with magic wands, hypnotizing them with chanting and weird motions, except here the Jews are the hunters and we are the pronghorns. We are the ones that pile up in a running wreck, where we are slaughtered for our fur and horns.

But let's finish off Wittgenstein before returning to Russell. They admit Wittgenstein was sleeping with his students at Cambridge, including some young men who were only teenagers. He just gets more endearing the more we know, doesn't he? At least he didn't kill any of these kids, as far as we know. Or maybe he did. One of them was Francis Skinner, who became his lover in 1930 at age 18. Witty was 41. But Skinner didn't make it 30, dying in October 11, 1941, allegedly of polio. Given Wittgenstein's known past, that should look suspicious, and to me it does. Although Skinner took a degree in mathematics and was awarded a postgraduate fellowship, we are told he dropped out of school and became a mechanic—with Wittgenstein's encouragement. So, either Skinner faked his death and joined MI5, or something more sinister happened there.




Anyway, Wittgenstein then hooked up with Skinner's bodyshop pal Keith Kirk, who was even younger. This was 1939, so Wittgenstein was now 50. That didn't last long, since Kirk allegedly got married (or went into MI6, or ended up in the Thames). So Wittgenstein then hooked up with Basil Reeve, a young doctor he had met at the hospital where he worked. So now I guess we know why he wanted to work in the hospital. Not enough first-rate tail at Cambridge. That lasted a couple of years, but then Wittgenstein moved on to Ben Richards (above), who remained with him until his death about five years later. Wittgenstein had looked very young his whole life, but suddenly at age 60 he hit the wall, we are told due to prostate cancer. He died two years later, but given he had been sleeping with so many young men, my guess is he died of some kind of venereal disease. Who knows. Who cares?

You will say I seem to have lost my usual cheery demeanor, along with my usual levels of pity and sympathy, which is true. These people will do it to you. I think you see why I am disgusted by Wittgenstein. It isn't his Jewishness or homosexuality. It is that he is such an obvious fraud, promoted

only because of his money and background. It is that his bio is such a pathetic lie. It is that he beat up children and called country people worms and animals. It is that he used his positions to prey on young men. It is that he continues to be promoted by his cousins, although they must know all this. It makes me wish the corona hoax will bankrupt all the universities, and that students will refuse to return to them in the fall, to pay exorbitant amounts to be lectured to online by a series of charlatans, liars, and monsters.

Perhaps the most amazing thing is that all that I have shown you above is freely available at mainstream sites. I have not done any original research here. Most of it is posted at Wikipedia, so it isn't like people don't know any better. Academics and other professionals know exactly what is going on, and they continue to promote it.

OK, so let's finish off Russell so that I can go take a series of showers, washing this misery from me. I now think that Russell's Socialism, pacificism, and other political stances were misdirection, Russell being an agent of the Eugene Debs sort. Debs fooled me for years, until I finally looked closely at him. At that point, everything flipped 180 degrees. Debs was clearly an agent whose job was to infiltrate the unions and detooth them. Russell was simply his British counterpart, both of them controlling the opposition. What clued me into this was the claim that Russell spent six months in Brixton prison in 1918 for his vocal opposition to WWI. Exactly like Debs did in the US. But there is no possibility Russell ever spent a minute in prison. Remember, he was a 46-year-old Earl by that time, and world famous. His prison term was faked to scare others from opposing the war. What better way to squelch dissent?

Like others we have looked at, Russell couldn't maintain the pose for long, and he later was in favor of preventative nuclear war, nuking Japan, world government, and other clearly fascist enterprises. He also supported the war against Hitler, so he was just reading from whatever cue-cards his cousins were feeding him. If they wanted him to pretend to be against WWI, he was. If they wanted him to be for WWII, he was. If they had told him to go on all fours and bark like a little terrier, he would have done that, too.

Also a clue is that Russell was promoted in rank. His father was only a Viscount, but Bertrand was promoted to Earl. So the monarch couldn't have been too upset by his pacifism, eh? In 1949 Russell was awarded the Order of Merit by George VI. George pretended to be embarrassed at giving the award to someone jailed by the Crown for a conviction under Defense of the Realm Act (passed on August 8, 1914, by the way, aces and eights, Chai), saying "You have sometimes behaved in a manner that would not do if generally adopted". But this was all more theater, of course, since if Russell had really caused the Crown any trouble, they would not have given him awards. Same thing we saw in earlier papers with the Rolling Stones, who were knighted despite supposedly attacking the monarchy on many occasions.

We have more evidence of this when, immediately after the War, he was reinstated at Cambridge. This after being dismissed in 1916 for his pacifist writings and statements. Why would they reinstate him right after he got out of jail? I am telling you why: because he was never in jail. It was all a stageplay, and after the war the stageplay was over. Time to get on to the next project.

That project was another spook project, since as soon as he had he rejoined Cambridge he travelled to Russia to “investigate the effects” of the Revolution. Right. He and his delegation weren't there to investigate effects, they were there to manage their actors. As cover, Russell later wrote he wasn't a fan of Bolshevism, but that didn't stop him from dumping his wife for Dora Black, who was

simultaneously selling the Revolution as the greatest thing since. . . since the previous fake revolution. Dora's father was Order of the Bath, but her mother is scrubbed at both Wikipedia and thepeerage.com. Geni gives her as Davisson, then scrubs her. Geneanet has several pages on Russell, but all of them also scrub Dora Black. However, the Blacks were baronets at the time, related to the la Touches, and through them to the Pagets of Anglesey. Also related to the Leesons, which linked them to the Leighs. Russell was also a Leigh, so Dora was a cousin. Of course. This tends to support the idea that she was mainly a new beard. The Blacks were also related to the Jocelyn Earls, and through them to the Hamiltons. Linking Dora and Bertrand a second time.

Dora was six months pregnant when Russell finally asked Alys for a divorce. He married Dora six days after the divorce was finalized. So, a lovely man. He had started the relationship with Dora when he was 47 and she was 25. Their relationship lasted only about ten years, since at that time she had two children with an American journalist. Russell then married Marjorie Spence, an undergraduate at Oxford who had been his children's governess. She was 21 when they met. They married on January 18, 1936, aces and eights, Chai. She was known as Peter and smoked a pipe. A previous lover female lover of Russell called herself Barry. Strange. Spence is scrubbed in the peerage, but the Spences are there, since it is just a variant of Spencer. Strangely, there is a second Marjorie Spence in the peerage with almost the same dates, though she was from Buffalo. The Spences of the peerage are extremely well scrubbed, with many listings that don't go anywhere or link to any peers. But we do find they are related to the Leighs, Flemings, and Dukes of Hamilton, indicating Marjorie was another cousin of Russell. This marriage also lasted about a decade, and was equally unhappy.

In 1950 Russell joined the Congress for Cultural Freedom, later admitted to be a CIA-funded anti- Communist organization. So we at last have absolute proof Russell was a spook. He kept up the antics until he was almost 90, and we are supposed to believe he spent a week back in Brixton prison in 1961, this time for an anti-nuclear demonstration. Daniel Ellsberg has taken his script from Russell in many ways, continuing to infiltrate and control the opposition decades after his premier projects ended.

In 1957 Russell won the Kalinga Prize via UNESCO, a known CIA/MI6 front. It was front-funded by Biju Patnaik, an Indian spook and buddy of Nehru working for the Brits. Biju had several palaces in India, including this one:



He was one of the richest men in India, and you don't get there by being honest. Patnaik was the Union minister for steel and mines, in which field he had made much of his money. He was also a shipping magnate, linking him to the Phoenician navy. That is why we see him here. He built the port at Paradeep, supposedly with his own money, though of course the government reimbursed him. One of his most famous quotes is “To be born poor is not a crime but to remain so is indeed a crime”. So, another lovely man.

At age 90 Russell had a role in the fake Cuban Missile Crisis, sending Kennedy a fake telegram pretending to take the event seriously. He did the same thing after the fake assassination of Kennedy, selling it as real in the Who Killed Kennedy Commission. In this Russell was, as usual, the controlled opposition, questioning the Warren Commission but never questioning the event as a whole. As late as 1970, at age 97, Russell was pretending to be the opposition to Israel, condemning their aggression in the Middle East. In this, he was showing the way to Noam Chomsky, who would take over his role as controlled opposition in this and many other questions. It was all another pose, since Russell admitted he was a Zionist in his writings and speeches. The Jews knew exactly who he was, since he was awarded the first Jerusalem Prize in 1963. Do you think they award that to their opposition?


On the way out, I am afraid I have more bad news. I tripped across this photo while searching for those of Wittgenstein:

The hidden hand

That's Nietzsche, telling us who he was at that age. Did he turn against his own people, or was he also controlling the opposition? Grist for a future paper.