The Father of Pseudoscience?

I found myself reading about Francis Galton today. Galton was cousin of Charles Darwin, and the founder of eugenics. He coined the term. But it seems that wasn’t the only thing he had a big hand in starting up. He was also the originator of psychometric mental testing. And he was also the originator of the ideas of statistical correlation, standard deviation, and regression. And he was also something of a meteorologist, coining the term ‘anti-cyclone’, and devising the first published newspaper weather map. And he introduced the use of questionnaires and surveys for collecting data on human communities.

Looking at this list of achievements, it suddenly occurred to me that they were all pseudosciences. Had Francis Galton been the founding father of pseudoscience?

Psychometric testing, which has come down to us mostly as IQ testing, has long seemed to me to be pseudoscientific. I’m not at all sure that a concept as diffuse and various as intelligence can ever be measured in a meaningful way. The idea that a single number can measure intelligence has always seemed rather crass. It’s always reminded me how, back in the 1950s and 60s, young women had their ‘vital statistics’ – bust, waist, and hips – measured. One would be told of some film starlet that their vital statistics were 36-24-36 or something, as if this was some sort useful information. Even in my hormonally-hyperactive teens, this struck me as complete nonsense. Body Mass Index – BMI – is another one of these nonsensical pseudomeasures. It’s the ratio of weight to height. And it means absolutely nothing.

Eugenics – which means ‘good breeding’ – was essentially the attempt to perfect the human race by selective breeding. The supposedly ideal type – invariably blonde and blue-eyed, somehow or other – would get every assistance in breeding. The less than ideal would be exterminated. (H/T to Rose)

The grand plan was to literally wipe away the reproductive capability of those deemed weak and inferior — the so-called unfit.

These eugenic ideas, mostly developed in California it seems, were of course enthusiastically taken up by Hitler, and applied to the ‘unfit’ of Europe – Jews, Gypsies, Homosexuals, etc – en masse.

After the war, eugenics was declared a crime against humanity. The eugenics movement, which was powerful in the USA and Britain and Europe, vanished. Or rather, it simply renamed itself as Human Genetics, and continued as before. The new “unfit” are of course smokers and drinkers and fat people. And so now they are marginalised and excluded and demonised. Once some eugenic programme has deemed some people to be “better” than other people in some way, such exclusion and demonisation follows inevitably and automatically.

And what about statistical correlation and standard deviation and regression? Well, that’s the statistics that’s used to bombard us daily with “statistically significant” correlations between lung cancer and smoking or drinking or eating more than 3 chocolate chip cookies. It is the weapon of choice for the modern practitioners of the eugenics movement – the lifestyle healthists -. I can’t think of any other branch of mathematics used with such routine regularity to exclude and demonise whole classes of people. It’s their preferred weapon. And I always have the suspicion that there’s something deeply wrong with it, and that’s all it is: a weapon. If nothing else, setting the magic figure for “statistical significance” at 1 in 20 is completely arbitrary. It stinks.

And meteorology? What could be wrong with that? It’s quite harmless, isn’t it? But, oh wait, meteorology was the precursor to climatology. And climatology is what has given us the AGW scare.

And questionnaires? Well, what an inherently inaccurate way of measuring something. Instead of just measuring the length of a hall carpet with a ruler, you ask 50 different people how long they thought it was when they walked over it 2 or 3 years ago, and use the mean figure as its ‘length’ instead. One of the serious problems with antismoking science (and all lifestyle science) is that nothing is accurately measured. All the numbers are guesses rather than measurements: numbers of cigarettes smoked, inhaled or not inhaled, tipped or untipped. Even the subsequent causes of death – lung cancer, heart disease, etc – are guesses as well. No way is that science. It doesn’t even come close.

And they all go back to just one man, it seems: Francis Galton. He seems to have been the author of all the plagues of the 20th century.

What makes them pseudosciences? I suppose one way of putting it is that they try to provide numbers for things which can’t be measured. Take that ‘vital statistics’ thing. It’s trying to measure beauty. And I don’t think that can be done. So also IQ and intelligence. That can’t be done either. And forecasting the weather is all but impossible more than two or three days ahead. A slight change in the initial conditions can produce a completely different result. And the ‘eu’ in eugenics is trying to define what is ‘good’ among different racial types, and different lifestyle habits.* In the end all it can ever do is to express prejudices. And statistics, at least as it is used by the eugenicists, is a way of getting (or contriving to get) a single accurate number out of a lot of inaccurate numbers.

Galton seemed to have set out to measure things that other scientists weren’t measuring (perhaps because they were not so foolish as he was). He set out to measure things that were vague and amorphous and nebulous. And perhaps he just set out to measure things which could not be measured. He tried to do something that simply couldn’t be done. And as a consequence, all the ‘measurements’ are wrong. Because they’re not measurements.

One hallmark of pseudoscience is that it doesn’t make any progress. Has there been much progress in meteorology in the last 50 years? None that I’ve noticed. The forecasts are just as vague as they ever were. And just as likely to be wrong. And once smoking was identified as the ’cause’ of lung cancer 60 or more years ago, the amount of progress in lung cancer research has been approximately zero. No cure. No prevention. Nothing but ever-mounting hysteria.

For myself, I tend to think of pseudoscience as anything that isn’t physics, or firmly based on physics. As far as I’m concerned, all psychology is pseudoscience. All sociology is pseudoscience. A great deal of medicine is pseudoscience. And economics too. Along with astrology and numerology and all the other usual suspects. Pseudoscience is what happens when things can’t be measured. Or nobody knows what to measure. Physicists work in a narrow arena where they can measure things like mass and length and time with great accuracy. And they don’t use questionnaires. Never. But there are all sorts of things that physicists don’t know how to measure. So mostly they do the decent thing, and don’t try. But the pseudoscientists declare that they can measure them. And so the empire of science is surrounded by a hinterland of rival pseudosciences, like a beautiful city surrounded by slums.

It’s all still around. Including full-blown eugenics. This evening I was listening to Professor David Marsland, arguing that the mentally and morally unfit should be sterilised (Yes. And on the BBC too. Although they tried to keep him at a safe distance with their bargepoles. ). He is professor of Sociology and Health Sciences at Brunel University. And sociology is bollocks, of course. And so are the ‘health sciences’. And what’s “morally unfit” anyway? I bet that means that they smoke or drink or eat chocolate chip cookies. But, hey, good to know we have home-grown Nazis like this around, eh? And lots of them too, 60 years after we thought we’d defeated the Third Reich.

And that’s another feature of pseudoscience. The solutions are invariably drastic. The unfit must be sterilised or exterminated. Smoking must be banned everywhere. All the cattle must be shot. All the potential swine flu victims must be inoculated. Carbon dioxide must be eliminated. And they’re always massively destructive and wasteful and murderous and immoral. If nothing else, this alone is a pretty firm indicator that they haven’t a clue what they’re doing. The Precautionary Principle they wheel out really means this: we don’t know what we’re doing, so we’re going to totally overdo it. We don’t know how to boil an egg, but 14 hours should do the trick.

The baleful influence of eugenics is everywhere. It falls particularly heavily on women. There’s a perfect size: 36-24-36. Anything more than that, and you’re “obese”. Anything less than that, and you’re “anorexic”. Women can’t win, trying to stay on the knife edge between obesity and anorexia. And the same is happening to men. The ideal man is now supposed to be loaded with muscle like Charles Atlas. Anything less, and he’s a weed, anything more and he’s a slob. And it’s entirely about appearances. Eugenics isn’t about health: it’s about what people look like. Mustn’t have a big nose like Jews. Mustn’t have a black skin. Mustn’t have pallid white skin either. Mustn’t be too fat. Or too thin. Must have plenty of head hair. But no underarm hair. Or nose hair. Mustn’t have a cigarette dangling out of your mouth. Must have perfect teeth, whiter than white. It’s utterly superficial. It’s really just fashion. Only failure to live up to its demands could mean extermination, or sterilisation. Which is why everybody tries so hard, I guess. Even to the point of serial cosmetic surgery. They don’t want to be exterminated because they’ve got a few wrinkles, or inappropriate leg hair.

Stop it.

* I just realised. The “eu” in eugenics is the same “eu” that’s in the European Union EU. And “eu” is Greek for “good”. Sorry. I’m slow this way.

And for chrissakes, there’s even an “eu” in pseudoscience.

About Frank Davis

smoker
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

26 Responses to The Father of Pseudoscience?

  1. Anonymous says:

    Marsland
    is a big time libertarian an long time contributor to the Libertarian Alliance.
    I myself have had more than one Eugenic thought. hsssss goes the Zyclon B.
    But then I thought – who decides? Who chooses? How do they know? Would I get the needle?

  2. Anonymous says:

    Marsland
    is a big time libertarian an long time contributor to the Libertarian Alliance.
    I myself have had more than one Eugenic thought. hsssss goes the Zyclon B.
    But then I thought – who decides? Who chooses? How do they know? Would I get the needle?

  3. Anonymous says:

    Marsland
    see for example http://www.libertarian.co.uk/lapubs/polin/polin191.htm
    DavidNcl
    Dont rush to judge

  4. Anonymous says:

    Marsland
    see for example http://www.libertarian.co.uk/lapubs/polin/polin191.htm
    DavidNcl
    Dont rush to judge

  5. Frank Davis says:

    Re: Marsland
    is a big time libertarian an long time contributor to the Libertarian Alliance.
    That doesn’t make sense to me. Unless he’s trying to cover his ass while he schemes to exterminate all Libertarians. Or he was foolin’ when he was talking on the radio.
    Go listen. See what you think.
    Frank

  6. Frank Davis says:

    Re: Marsland
    is a big time libertarian an long time contributor to the Libertarian Alliance.
    That doesn’t make sense to me. Unless he’s trying to cover his ass while he schemes to exterminate all Libertarians. Or he was foolin’ when he was talking on the radio.
    Go listen. See what you think.
    Frank

  7. Frank Davis says:

    Re: Marsland
    I took a look at the link. And I’m bewildered. I can’t relate this Libertarian to the guy I was listening to this evening. Are there 2 Adam Marslands? Or did they get the name wrong?
    The guy I was listening to tonight wasn’t a Libertarian. He was an extreme authoritarian. And the other guests were dancing round him like he was radioactive.
    Frank

  8. Frank Davis says:

    Re: Marsland
    I took a look at the link. And I’m bewildered. I can’t relate this Libertarian to the guy I was listening to this evening. Are there 2 Adam Marslands? Or did they get the name wrong?
    The guy I was listening to tonight wasn’t a Libertarian. He was an extreme authoritarian. And the other guests were dancing round him like he was radioactive.
    Frank

  9. Anonymous says:

    In reference to the rise of Hitler and the influence of eugenics as dreamt up out in California, I cannot remember where I read this interesting documented fact of history; perhaps it was in Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg; but William Randolph Hearst, the family who owned the San Francisco Chronicle and other newspapers on the western coast of the United States, the man after whom the movie Citizen Kane was modeled, did in fact, while Hitler was taking over all of Europe by military conquest, remain in direct close correspondence with Hitler. And Hitler mailed Hearst letters glorifying the European fascist movement, which Hearst printed in the San Francisco Chronicle to secure his progressive readers’ support for fascism, which Hearst wanted for the US and UK. I imagine back then it was just as common to read glory stories about Hitler in California as it is today to read glory stories about anti-smoking and other pseudo-sciences out there. It seems to be rooted in California culture going way back in time as the historical facts seem to indicate.

  10. Anonymous says:

    In reference to the rise of Hitler and the influence of eugenics as dreamt up out in California, I cannot remember where I read this interesting documented fact of history; perhaps it was in Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg; but William Randolph Hearst, the family who owned the San Francisco Chronicle and other newspapers on the western coast of the United States, the man after whom the movie Citizen Kane was modeled, did in fact, while Hitler was taking over all of Europe by military conquest, remain in direct close correspondence with Hitler. And Hitler mailed Hearst letters glorifying the European fascist movement, which Hearst printed in the San Francisco Chronicle to secure his progressive readers’ support for fascism, which Hearst wanted for the US and UK. I imagine back then it was just as common to read glory stories about Hitler in California as it is today to read glory stories about anti-smoking and other pseudo-sciences out there. It seems to be rooted in California culture going way back in time as the historical facts seem to indicate.

  11. Frank Davis says:

    I’ve read that too. And I believe that Henry Ford was also an ardent admirer of Hitler, as well as being an ardent antismoker. He wrote a book called the “Little White Slaver,” I think.
    There were plenty of Nazi admirers in the UK too. King Edward VIII, not least.
    Frank

  12. Frank Davis says:

    I’ve read that too. And I believe that Henry Ford was also an ardent admirer of Hitler, as well as being an ardent antismoker. He wrote a book called the “Little White Slaver,” I think.
    There were plenty of Nazi admirers in the UK too. King Edward VIII, not least.
    Frank

  13. Anonymous says:

    Re: Marsland
    Or maybe he’s just given up smoking. I know that sounds facetious, but it isn’t meant to be. In my experience, people who give up smoking undergo a pretty radical personality change, and not usually in a positive way. I’ve seen people swing from one side of a spectrum to another in all number of ways – they go from being happy, positive, fun-loving, laid-back people into depressive, resentful worriers; from being equality-minded, liberal, easy-going and tolerant into being nagging, superior and self-righteous; from being capable, busy, productive people into time-wasting, gossiping, inefficient, idle moaners; from being interesting, politically-aware, wide-visioned thinkers into small-minded, petty people whose only concern is themselves, their kids and their new car, and a squabble they’re having with their brother-in-law. I’ve even seen them swing from being dyed-in-the-wool Tories to being hard-and-fast Socialists and vice-versa. The change is astounding. So to me it would be no surprise at all to find that he’s swung from the Libertarian end of the scale to the Authoritarian one just through that one, single, act of packing up smoking.
    Even in the article linked from the comments here, although he isn’t a supporter of bans (or at least he wasn’t then), there are signs of a general acceptance that alcohol/drugs/lack of exercise etc etc are “bad things.” The difference between his opinion and those of the Nannies, is that he thinks that, generally speaking, people, given the choice, will tend to make the “right” health decisions rather than the “wrong” ones. The Nannies clearly hold the opposite view. So, even as a Libertarian he seems to have been duped by the hype and to have already accepted the dictats about what is “healthy” and what isn’t; what is “good” behaviour and what is “bad.”
    So, if he was a smoker when he wrote this article, but nevertheless held those views, he was prime material to move over to the “dark side” once he’d given up. And, once an anti-smoker – as seems, eventually, to be inevitable once one has given up smoking, no matter how long one puts it off – it is truly only a short step to becoming an authoritarian and, yes, a eugenicist.

  14. Anonymous says:

    Re: Marsland
    Or maybe he’s just given up smoking. I know that sounds facetious, but it isn’t meant to be. In my experience, people who give up smoking undergo a pretty radical personality change, and not usually in a positive way. I’ve seen people swing from one side of a spectrum to another in all number of ways – they go from being happy, positive, fun-loving, laid-back people into depressive, resentful worriers; from being equality-minded, liberal, easy-going and tolerant into being nagging, superior and self-righteous; from being capable, busy, productive people into time-wasting, gossiping, inefficient, idle moaners; from being interesting, politically-aware, wide-visioned thinkers into small-minded, petty people whose only concern is themselves, their kids and their new car, and a squabble they’re having with their brother-in-law. I’ve even seen them swing from being dyed-in-the-wool Tories to being hard-and-fast Socialists and vice-versa. The change is astounding. So to me it would be no surprise at all to find that he’s swung from the Libertarian end of the scale to the Authoritarian one just through that one, single, act of packing up smoking.
    Even in the article linked from the comments here, although he isn’t a supporter of bans (or at least he wasn’t then), there are signs of a general acceptance that alcohol/drugs/lack of exercise etc etc are “bad things.” The difference between his opinion and those of the Nannies, is that he thinks that, generally speaking, people, given the choice, will tend to make the “right” health decisions rather than the “wrong” ones. The Nannies clearly hold the opposite view. So, even as a Libertarian he seems to have been duped by the hype and to have already accepted the dictats about what is “healthy” and what isn’t; what is “good” behaviour and what is “bad.”
    So, if he was a smoker when he wrote this article, but nevertheless held those views, he was prime material to move over to the “dark side” once he’d given up. And, once an anti-smoker – as seems, eventually, to be inevitable once one has given up smoking, no matter how long one puts it off – it is truly only a short step to becoming an authoritarian and, yes, a eugenicist.

  15. Frank Davis says:

    Re: Marsland
    I simply listened to his (rather nervous) opening statement. Quite a lot of it of was justified by reference to “the chiiildren”. Which was nauseating. He clearly thought he had his back to the wall. It’s on Listen Again until Wednesday
    Sorry, but someone who wants to sterilise people who are “morally unfit” is a Nazi in my book.
    Frank

  16. Frank Davis says:

    Re: Marsland
    I simply listened to his (rather nervous) opening statement. Quite a lot of it of was justified by reference to “the chiiildren”. Which was nauseating. He clearly thought he had his back to the wall. It’s on Listen Again until Wednesday
    Sorry, but someone who wants to sterilise people who are “morally unfit” is a Nazi in my book.
    Frank

  17. Anonymous says:

    I did’t realise Gruppenfuhrer Heydrich suvived the war ,uncanny likeness.

  18. Anonymous says:

    I did’t realise Gruppenfuhrer Heydrich suvived the war ,uncanny likeness.

  19. Anonymous says:

    Sorry to slip of main line but while we are on about
    fighting for freedom and so forth.
    …………………………………………………
    Next Saturday (4th Sep) some of us will gather to pay tribute to a landlord and
    landlady who have stood up .steadfast and valiant in the fight for freedom..
    They stuck their necks out,they stood up to be counted,they put their investment
    on the line. . They stood square with their words,they gave it their best shot.
    Had 100 others done what they did ,we would’nt be here still rambling on about the ban.. Forget who you belong to,forget who you have fallen out with,forget with
    whom you differ,put aside past animosities,lay down for one day the varying
    road maps.
    Just for once ,show the zealots ,we have one aim,one target,one hope.
    See you there at 2pm
    BTW This is not aligned to any one organisation..ALL ARE WELCOME
    PAINTERS ARMS
    BRADFORD ROAD
    DRIGHLINGTON
    WEST YORKSHIRE
    Northgoth
    Cheers

  20. Anonymous says:

    Sorry to slip of main line but while we are on about
    fighting for freedom and so forth.
    …………………………………………………
    Next Saturday (4th Sep) some of us will gather to pay tribute to a landlord and
    landlady who have stood up .steadfast and valiant in the fight for freedom..
    They stuck their necks out,they stood up to be counted,they put their investment
    on the line. . They stood square with their words,they gave it their best shot.
    Had 100 others done what they did ,we would’nt be here still rambling on about the ban.. Forget who you belong to,forget who you have fallen out with,forget with
    whom you differ,put aside past animosities,lay down for one day the varying
    road maps.
    Just for once ,show the zealots ,we have one aim,one target,one hope.
    See you there at 2pm
    BTW This is not aligned to any one organisation..ALL ARE WELCOME
    PAINTERS ARMS
    BRADFORD ROAD
    DRIGHLINGTON
    WEST YORKSHIRE
    Northgoth
    Cheers

  21. Anonymous says:

    Eugenics in America
    “Leaders in government and business observed that the working class was not only uniting against them, through increasing vocal and powerful labor unions, but was outreproducing them as well, evidenced by higher birth rates among less-wealthy sectors of the populace.[7] These revelations dovetailed with an emerging conviction among governmental and academic leaders that the immediate application of new discoveries in the social, medical, and physical sciences would provide solutions to such pressing social problems as crime, crowding, and disease.”
    “Galton’s writings on eugenics were readily adopted and disseminated by a number of Americans in the late 1800s, but the movement would truly begin to gather steam with the founding of the Station for Experimental Evolution in 1904 and the Eugenic Record Office (ERO) in 1910.[8] Both of these entities were directed by Harvard-trained zoologist and ardent eugenicist Charles Davenport and generously funded by the Carnegie steel and Harriman railroad fortunes. The nascent movement for racial hygiene in America now had a platform and a deep pocketbook from which to roll out its grand plan for the cleansing of humanity.
    Work began in earnest to identify those lurking among the citizenry who were genetically “unfit” — those who suffered from, who appeared predisposed to, or whose family histories revealed such undesirable (and purportedly hereditary) traits as “feeble-mindedness” (whose definition was never standardized), “pauperism,” prostitution, low intelligence, epilepsy, mental illness, “criminality,” and even blindness.[9]
    The methods used by the ERO staff in their fact-finding missions were hardly scientific or consistent.
    Often they relied on cursory interviews, visual examinations, quizzes based largely on the knowledge of popular culture (the “IQ test” was a eugenic innovation), and hearsay from relatives, law enforcement officials, and employees of institutions where the feeble-minded or mentally suspect were confined.
    Those unlucky enough to be so incarcerated were often surgically sterilized to prevent the transmission of their “defective germ-plasm.”
    From 1914 through the mid-1970s, 33 states legalized such sterilizations, and more than 60,000 U.S. citizens were sterilized, often involuntarily or surreptitiously, under the false pretense that some other legitimate surgical intervention was being performed.[10]
    Thousands more were institutionalized (many eugenicists promoted the incarceration of unfit women until menopause).”
    It should not escape our notice that the body of eugenics knowledge, however corrupt in its conclusions and methodology, was regarded by leading academics and policymakers as legitimate and state-of-the-art science, and it was promulgated as such by what were then, and are now, prominent scientific and medical journals and educational institutions.
    The journals of the American Medical Association and the American Public Health Association ran numerous features relaying, without quotation marks to infer editorial distance, the latest eugenics research papers and conference proceedings.[15,16]
    Eugenics courses were part and parcel of university curricula during the first three decades of the 20th century.”
    http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/505755_3
    Rose

  22. Anonymous says:

    Eugenics in America
    “Leaders in government and business observed that the working class was not only uniting against them, through increasing vocal and powerful labor unions, but was outreproducing them as well, evidenced by higher birth rates among less-wealthy sectors of the populace.[7] These revelations dovetailed with an emerging conviction among governmental and academic leaders that the immediate application of new discoveries in the social, medical, and physical sciences would provide solutions to such pressing social problems as crime, crowding, and disease.”
    “Galton’s writings on eugenics were readily adopted and disseminated by a number of Americans in the late 1800s, but the movement would truly begin to gather steam with the founding of the Station for Experimental Evolution in 1904 and the Eugenic Record Office (ERO) in 1910.[8] Both of these entities were directed by Harvard-trained zoologist and ardent eugenicist Charles Davenport and generously funded by the Carnegie steel and Harriman railroad fortunes. The nascent movement for racial hygiene in America now had a platform and a deep pocketbook from which to roll out its grand plan for the cleansing of humanity.
    Work began in earnest to identify those lurking among the citizenry who were genetically “unfit” — those who suffered from, who appeared predisposed to, or whose family histories revealed such undesirable (and purportedly hereditary) traits as “feeble-mindedness” (whose definition was never standardized), “pauperism,” prostitution, low intelligence, epilepsy, mental illness, “criminality,” and even blindness.[9]
    The methods used by the ERO staff in their fact-finding missions were hardly scientific or consistent.
    Often they relied on cursory interviews, visual examinations, quizzes based largely on the knowledge of popular culture (the “IQ test” was a eugenic innovation), and hearsay from relatives, law enforcement officials, and employees of institutions where the feeble-minded or mentally suspect were confined.
    Those unlucky enough to be so incarcerated were often surgically sterilized to prevent the transmission of their “defective germ-plasm.”
    From 1914 through the mid-1970s, 33 states legalized such sterilizations, and more than 60,000 U.S. citizens were sterilized, often involuntarily or surreptitiously, under the false pretense that some other legitimate surgical intervention was being performed.[10]
    Thousands more were institutionalized (many eugenicists promoted the incarceration of unfit women until menopause).”
    It should not escape our notice that the body of eugenics knowledge, however corrupt in its conclusions and methodology, was regarded by leading academics and policymakers as legitimate and state-of-the-art science, and it was promulgated as such by what were then, and are now, prominent scientific and medical journals and educational institutions.
    The journals of the American Medical Association and the American Public Health Association ran numerous features relaying, without quotation marks to infer editorial distance, the latest eugenics research papers and conference proceedings.[15,16]
    Eugenics courses were part and parcel of university curricula during the first three decades of the 20th century.”
    http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/505755_3
    Rose

  23. Anonymous says:

    Henry Ford appears to be the originator of all the international Jewish conspiracy theories with his publication of four pamphlets The International Jew: the World’s Foremost Problem in the 1920s, so his fondness for Hitler would seem inevitable. Both he and Hearst regarded themselves as ubermensch, special individuals entitled to rule over the masses.
    PT Barnum

  24. Anonymous says:

    Henry Ford appears to be the originator of all the international Jewish conspiracy theories with his publication of four pamphlets The International Jew: the World’s Foremost Problem in the 1920s, so his fondness for Hitler would seem inevitable. Both he and Hearst regarded themselves as ubermensch, special individuals entitled to rule over the masses.
    PT Barnum

  25. Frank Davis says:

    It’s too far for me to go from here in Devon. But I hope lots of other people show up.
    Frank

  26. Frank Davis says:

    It’s too far for me to go from here in Devon. But I hope lots of other people show up.
    Frank

No need to log in

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.