Manifesto to the Governments and Peoples of the Christian Nations

“Manifesto to the Governments and Peoples of the Christian Nations Threatened by Judaism” 1882

The predictions are…. alarming.

For other related materials

Funky music in this:

Einstein ripped off Henri Poincare, his own mathematician wife (whom he divorced), Olinto De Pretto for the equation, George Fitzgerald and Hendrik Lorentz.

Tesla also tried to come up with an e=m type equation for the Swami, explained at length in the press as uniting all things (yet who is known for trying that?) and spoke to Einstein later. Years later.

Swami Vivekananda, late in the year 1895 wrote in a letter to an English friend, “Mr. Tesla thinks he can demonstrate mathematically that force and matter are reducible to potential energy.

Einstein was fifteen or sixteen at the time.

Tesla, on Einstein later: “like a beggar clothed in purple, whom ignorant people take for a king.” 

The Origin of the Equation E = mc2

“Professor Bartocci traced a link between De Pretto and Einstein, through Einstein’s best friend, Michele Besso.”

Studies have generally found Ashkenazi Jews to have an average IQ in the range of 107 to 115, 

That is FULLY average.

The bulk of studies in the field have found they are average.

Hold my dreidel.

and Ashkenazi Jews as a group have had successes in intellectual fields far out of proportion to their numbers.


A 2005 scientific paper, “Natural History of Ashkenazi Intelligence”,[1] proposed that Jews as a group inherit significantly higher verbal and mathematical intelligence and somewhat lower spatial intelligence than other ethnic groups, on the basis of inherited diseases

One paper?

Verbal is education, being bilingual in a married household with books. They never control for this, nor “tutoring” classes giving the kids a maths advantage, mathematics can fully be taught. That is not testing adults.

Lower spatial is the real money, spatial is connected to creativity, innovation and genius.

There shouldn’t be a verbal section at all, (a bilinguistic confound presents) nor a math one in children (class confound).

Verbal is just a memory test, maths a precocious procedure taught. Nothing INNATE.


Consider the following:

~The proportion of Jews with IQ’s of 140 or more is estimated to be about six times the proportion of any other ethnic group.

Not average. Stop fiddling with figures.

~ Although Jews constitute only about two-tenths of one percent of the world’s population, Jews won 29 percent of the Nobel Prizes in literature, medicine, physics and chemistry in the second half of the 20th century. So far this century, the figure is 32 percent. And these Jews of whom we speak were almost exclusively male Jews primarily of western European ancestry (less than one-tenth of one percent of the world’s population), in spite of pervasive discrimination, numerous legal barriers, frequent persecution, and the Holocaust.

Nothing has ever been stolen in academia ever. Say, who invented the so-called Nobel? Who votes?

~From 1870 until 1950, Jewish leadership in such fields as literature, music, visual arts, biology, chemistry, physics, mathematics, and philosophy equaled somewhere from four to fourteen times the Jewish proportion of the population in Europe and North America.

~In 1954, 28 children in the New York City public school system were found to have IQ’s of 170 or higher – 24 of these were Jewish.

What was the religion of the person testing them? Were they all tested again as adults?

Oh, so it’s okay if they say they’re privileged?

At the same time, Christians were doing just the opposite: priests and monks of the dominant Roman Catholic Church – also usually among the best and brightest in their communities– were prohibited from marrying, thus “selecting out” through celibacy most of these intellectually superior men from the gene pool.

True. Catholicism hates intelligence. Look at the Irish.

Source: The DANK Meme Press

Einstein e=mc^2 fraud

I didn’t embellish before but it’s a clear-cut case of plagiarism.

Archive a few of these.

“Professor Bartocci traced a link between De Pretto and Einstein, through Einstein’s best friend, Michele Besso.”

He hated being famous because he feared being outed in his own time.

The guy practiced incest and people still praise him.

Incest has never been a controversial thing to oppose.

The Jewish IQ posterboy is a plagiarizing pedophile.

“like a beggar clothed in purple, whom ignorant people take for a king.” 

spot on! strong words from a mild-mannered foreigner

The crazy hair matched his sexuality, even to divorce in that time was a no-no. His first wife got the Nobel money because her work as a mathematician nabbed him the prize. Letters proved it, he had to run everything past her. It’s no coincidence the Nobel is a public fiction of rich Jews giving other Jews prizes for their mutually-agreed superior intellect, think of the optics.

Why are no other intellectual prizes recognized or allowed?

Curiously, his socialism is praised despite famously running away from …a socialist regime.

Like a typical sociopath, he was a creep, a hypocrite, a liar and a thief. That’s simply the proven fact.

He denied the science required to operate on his triple A and the hubris killed him.

Einstein noticed things

In them, he makes sweeping and negative generalisations, for example calling the Chinese “industrious, filthy, obtuse people”.

Einstein would later in life advocate for civil rights in the US, calling racism “a disease of white people”.

In other entries he calls China “a peculiar herd-like nation,” and “more like automatons than people”, before claiming there is “little difference” between Chinese men and women, and questioning how the men are “incapable of defending themselves” from female “fatal attraction”.

Was Einstein really a genius?


But we couldn’t find one thing that man invented or came up with that made our lives better or that was not a fraud. NOT ONE THING! Even the equation E=mc^2 that is attributed to him is apparently from an Italian named Olinto De Pretto who published it in the scientific magazine Atte in 1903.

It was hype, he hated being the first celebrity scientist.

Too much scrutiny.

Did Einstein steal the Theory of Relativity?

Celebrity scientists are trash, repeat after me.

Especially theoretical physicists.

The discovery of the DNA structure would’ve been impossible without the imaging provided (and borrowed without asking) by a woman. Who got the Nobel Prize? The two dudes. Including the one who did the borrowing and showed it to the other guy.

That is established fact, FYI.

She died of cancer.

Prior to the Nobel nomination.

But of course, where’s the proof of sexism in STEM, internet bros?

These people are so dispassionate and pure, they’d never lie or steal.

“Of the four DNA researchers, only Rosalind Franklin had any degrees in chemistry.”

As for Einstein, he ripped a lot of a lot off.

However, Weinstein has analysed the letters in detail and says that two lines of evidence suggest that this was unlikely.

No motive there.

He used his first wife to do his mathematics, a thing he admitted in his letters.

There is one fly in the ointment. Maric and Einstein divorced in 1919, but as part of the divorce settlement, Einstein agreed to pay his ex-wife every krona of any future Nobel Prize he might be awarded.

Then he dumped her and married a cousin or something?

But where’s the evidence of sexism, guys?

Where would you even look for that?

I just don’t see it anywhere, there is nothing suspicious.

The guy has zippo, works in a place as the lowliest type of clerk where ideas are submitted (including scientific ones, at the time) and BOOM, full of ideas. Sheer, amazing, epic coincidence.

Einstein’s brain

Einstein didn’t want his brain or body to be studied; he didn’t want to be worshipped. “He had left behind specific instructions regarding his remains: cremate them, and scatter the ashes secretly in order to discourage idolaters,” writes Brian Burrell

Technically corpse rape

But Harvey took the brain anyway, without permission from Einstein or his family. 

Harvey would tell stories about the brain, about cutting off chunks to send to researchers around the world. Burroughs, in turn, would boast to visitors that he could have a piece of Einstein any time he wanted.

Pure, innocent nerds.

Because a human brain is like a steak and you can just slice a lil’ bit off to give out.

To fast forward a bit: Come 1985, Harvey and collaborators in California published the first study of Einstein’s brain, claiming that it had an abnormal proportion of two types of cells, neurons and glia. That study was followed by five others (the most recent published just this month), reporting additional differences in individual cells or in particular structures in Einstein’s brain. The researchers behind these studies say studying Einstein’s brain could help uncover the neurological underpinnings of intelligence.


And the study couldn’t have been published with a “no, he was totally normal guys!” result.

But that premise is nonsense and the studies are bunk, at least according to Terence Hines, a professor of psychology at Pace University.

A couple of weeks ago, Hines presented a poster at the Cognitive Neuroscience Society annual meeting outlining all of the ways in which each of the six studies is flawed. Some highlights:

That is the academic equivalent of a plate-spinning roast to end all roasts.

Perhaps most problematic, counting cells is a subjective business, and the researchers performing the cell counts were not blind to which tissue was Einstein’s and which was not.

Innocent little angels who dindu nuffin.

 There were no differences in the number of neurons or the size of neurons, the study found, but Einstein’s tissue was thinner than controls.

It was stored in a basement.
Have you stored meat in a basement?

More densely packed neurons, the authors speculated, means that cell-to-cell messages travel shorter differences, which might mean faster processing speed overall. That’s quite a stretch. As Hines calls out in his poster, the finding was based on just one square millimeter of Einstein’s brain.

What’s more, the authors admit to not reporting any of the ways in which Einstein’s brain was similar to controls.

“Yes we lied but you’re an Anti-Semite or something???”

It’s like just missing the beach house off your tax returns.

They forgot guys.

Totally innocent mistake, could’ve happened to anyone who stole lumps out a celebrity’s corpse.

(This is almost as bad as the Monroe necrophiliacs story).

–In 1999, Harvey and Canadian collaborators got Einstein’s brain into one of the world’s most prestigious medical journalsThe Lancet.

Appeal to authority.

Based on old photographs

Do I have to mock this one?

I’m skipping this one.

that had been taken of Einstein’s brain before it was cut up, the researchers claimed that Einstein had an abnormal folding pattern in part of his parietal lobe, a region that has been linked to mathematical ability.

It doesn’t work like that.

They also reported that his parietal lobes were 15 percent wider, and more symmetrical, than those of control brains. Once again, though, the researchers were not blinded to which photographs showed Einstein’s brain. And though the authors were quick to make links between these supposed differences and Einstein’s mathematical prowess, Hines points out that Einstein wasn’t, in fact, a great mathematician.

Even if the statistics were sound, you’d still have the problem of attributing skills and behaviors to anatomy.

phrenology has a sound basis
especially compared to this

There’s no way to know

just the way uhuh uhuh 
they like it
uhuh uhuh

This is neurobiology, remember. Science is easy to fake out.

if X thing in Einstein’s brain made Einstein smart/dyslexic/good at math/you name it, or was just an X thing in his brain.

Dya wanna know the truth?

You’re on this site so I guess ya do.

Behaviours change the brain. This has been known forever. Read any good book and it’ll mention this. The Taxi Driver study is most famous:

There are others of the same concept

You can literally grow parts of your brain by being a little bit weird.

Let’s see which brain part they claimed was different, most frequently?

his parietal lobes were 15 percent wider,”

“When we scanned the brains of Tibetan Buddhist meditators, we found decreased activity in the parietal lobe during meditation”

It makes you toothless. It’s like an evolutionary roll back.

“MRI images showed more brain matter density in the compassion, learning and memory centers in the hippocampus compared to pre-meditation scans. Interestingly, gray matter in the amygdala, a stress and anxiety center, shrank.”

[obviously something like porn couldn’t change the brain ever…]

Meditation (and prayer) literally alters your brain (but meditation is a form of prayer whatever the hippies say and the neuroscience proves it).

The musical ability might’ve easily caused any brain structure differences.

“The findings also suggest that Einstein’s famed love of music was reflected in the anatomy of his brain.”

“Witelson’s team found that Einstein’s parietal lobes–which are implicated in mathematical, visual, and spatial cognition–were 15% wider than normal parietal lobes. The team also found other unusual features in the parietal region, although some of these were questioned by other researchers at the time.”

And music.

“One parameter that did not explain Einstein’s mental prowess, however, was the size of his brain: At 1230 grams, it fell at the low end of average for modern humans.”

And the parietal lobe is linked with music.


Activation in the Right Inferior Parietal Lobule Reflects the Representation of Musical Structure beyond Simple Pitch Discrimination

But that doesn’t affect size, you say?

Structural MRI-data revealed significant volumetric differences between the brains of keyboard players, who practiced intensively and controls in right sensorimotor areas and the corticospinal tract as well as in the entorhinal cortex and the left superior parietal lobule. Moreover, they showed also larger volumes in a comparable set of regions than the less intensively practicing musicians. The structural changes in the sensory and motor systems correspond well to the behavioral results, and can be interpreted in terms of plasticity as a result of intensive motor training.

Areas of the superior parietal lobule and the entorhinal cortex might be enlarged in musicians due to their special skills in sight-playing and memorizing of scores. In conclusion, intensive and specific musical training seems to have an impact on brain structure, not only during the sensitive period of childhood but throughout life.

I know my shit.

Neuroscience isn’t that hard. Well, apparently it’s hard for the people being paid to not notice this one thing that a non-neuroscientist can notice. You can see it too, right?

One more.

He imagined tons of stuff, right? See things, bit like a schizo?

Parietal Lobes in Schizophrenia: Do They Matter?

TLDR: what the fuck do you think.

“We want to propose that in a proportion of individuals with emerging schizophrenia structural and functional alterations may start in the PL

Too tenuous? O.K.

“In doing so, the parietal lobe assembles elementary building bricks from so-called “lower-order” brain regions to create concepts, said Daniela Dentico, a researcher at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and lead author on the report.”

Thinking a lot, daydreaming, would cause the parietal cells to thicken.

“A leading theory in image processing “posits that our visual mental images are not stored somewhere in the brain, but get actively reconstructed,”

“The researchers could not determine, however, whether imagination originates in the parietal lobe. It may instead flow through the parietal lobe

Imagination study.

“Purposeful behavior with objects and tools can be assessed in a variety of ways, including actual use, pantomimed use, and pure imagery of manipulation.”

Perhaps most damning of all, sex difference.

“We found that women had proportionately greater gray matter volume in the parietal lobe compared to men, and this morphologic difference was disadvantageous ” (for task)

He had a brain like a chick.

Compare Einstein’s brain to another elderly Jewish fantasy-prone musician and you might have a study.

A matched case study.

“In contrast, we found that men compared to women had proportionately greater parietal lobe surface area, and this morphologic difference was associated with a performance advantage for men on mental rotation.”

Does that mean flatter? But I’ve also seen reference to greater volume? Whatever.

Magical flip flop.

You can get that difference by playing a lot of Brain Training.

Back to the good article.

It makes me angry to think of all that was wasted in these investigations.

There was the monetary cost of the studies — money that could have been spent on work that was not doomed from the outset to fail. There was a personal cost, in that Einstein’s family was essentially strong-armed into agreeing to participate in research that Einstein explicitly did not want to participate in. And there was a public cost, too. In popular-press accounts of these studies over the years, the public was misled about the findings and their supposed scientific value.

Here’s how smart Einstein was — he understood all too well the public’s obsession with him, our obsession with celebrity and special-ness. He knew that if given the chance, scientists would pore over his brain’s neurons and glia, sulci and gyri, and make grand pronouncements about what makes a genius. And he knew it would be bullshit.

Maybe because he knew it would be average?

I do feel sorry for the guy, it’s a horror show to steal someone’s body parts and tamper with them post-mortem. He made it clear he didn’t want it, the family’s permission means nil.