Closing arguments over Mrs. Einstein

Lisa, CA — Tue, 28 Nov 2006 10:14:57 GMT

It seems to me that there is a fundamental difference of opinion here which can never be resolved until someone invents a time machine, and goes back to find out. Each point of view is an opinion which cannot be verified by objective fact. The fragmentary evidence which exists does not support either side of the argument except when taken out of context, because the larger context no longer exists, both parties under examination having been dead for some time. One point of Esterson's with which I'd like to take exception is the relevance of the exam grade of 5 out of a possible 12: Exam grades are not necessarily representative of one's knowledge in a subject area. Some people simply do not test well, while others can take tests on subjects about which they have little knowledge, and pass with flying colors. How do I know? I used to teach Special Ed., and many kids who end up there are handicapped by their inability to perform well on tests.

Closing arguments over Mrs. Einstein

TheFallibleFiend, LORTON, VA — Tue, 28 Nov 2006 13:52:18 GMT

Troemel-Ploetz has an anti-imperialist axe to grind. What's disturbing is that her rantings have become "common knowledge." I've met dozens of people in the last few years who - in casual discussion - have insisted on this grossly exaggerated contribution by Einstein's first wife. The Internet makes it so simple for these urban legends to proliferate. I mean, like, you know, like, EVERYONE KNOWS that Einstein failed, like math, you know. You're doing the world a valuable service. You're even doing Maric a valuable service. But more importantly, you're doing the Truth a valuable service by critiquing this nonsense.

Closing arguments over Mrs. Einstein

ron janec clarendon hills illinois — Tue, 28 Nov 2006 16:47:24 GMT

alan a very interesting book on this subject is "einstein the incorrigible plagiarist" i really enjoyed your discussion on this thanks ron janec

Closing arguments over Mrs. Einstein

Ophelia Benson — Tue, 28 Nov 2006 19:31:05 GMT

It's not actually true that "each point of view is an opinion" or that the "fragmentary evidence which exists does not support either side of the argument"; Esterson offers extensive evidence and Troemel-Ploetz, embarrassingly, offers literally nothing but three affectionate remarks from Einstein to Maric and one very broad generalization that "What we do know is that again and again the work of creative women was appropriated by men in the arts and the sciences, and men who fairly give credit to their female collaborators are the exception. Einstein was a very normal man." I do hope it is clear to readers of this fine blog that an argument that goes "Many men appropriated the work of women; men who give credit to female collaborators are the exception; Einstein was a very normal man" does not warrant the conclusion "therefore Einstein appropriated the work of Mileva Maric" and also does not constitute valid evidence.

Closing arguments over Mrs. Einstein

TheFallibleFiend, LORTON, VA — Tue, 28 Nov 2006 19:56:21 GMT

There's a review of "Einstein the Incorrible Plagiarist" on physicsweb: http://physicsweb.org/articles/review/16/4/2/1 I wonder if we can use this kind of logic to show that Julius Caesar didn't actually write his commentaries - they were ghost written by Horace, or maybe it was Caesar's wife...or maybe Horace's wife! Women have traditionally gotten the shaft in most societies. Einstein is dead. Maric is dead. So what if we remove credit from him - all the potential generations of female scientists need Maric as a role model. The really weird thing is that Troemel-Ploetz and the people who uncritically accept and propagate her urban legend almost certainly really believe what they're saying. They actually *believe* they're being fair-minded and logical, which only demonstrates what I have long maintained - that many people are a lot better at talking about using logic than actually practicing it.

Closing arguments over Mrs. Einstein

Allen Esterson, London — Tue, 28 Nov 2006 20:51:22 GMT

Ron Janec: The author of *Albert Einstein: The Incorrigible Plagiarist*, Christopher Bjerknes, is an anti-semitic zealot who posts on a Holocaust denier website, where he has written of Einstein that he was the "chief racist" among political Zionists and that he "hated non-racist Jews". One of Bjerknes's more startling contentions is not only that Einstein plagiarised Mileva Maric, she in turn plagiarised other physicists! John Stachel has reviewed the book for Physics World at http://physicsweb.org/articles/review/16/4/2/1 Here is a sample of the review: "Apparently, it does not bother Bjerknes that the various opponents of the special and general theories that he cites attack relativity from mutually contradictory viewpoints. Nor does he seem to realize the incongruity of endorsing claims that Einstein's theories are wrong as well as claims that they were plagiarized from valid sources!"

Closing arguments over Mrs. Einstein

TheFallibleFiend, LORTON, VA — Thu, 30 Nov 2006 20:44:04 GMT

Many times it seems that some "scholar" makes a name for herself or himself by putting forth some thesis that most people recognize is BS, but few have the tenacity or expertise to refute.

I'm grateful to Allen E. for taking the time to carefully examine the evidence.

At the same time, though, I am saddened by the sobering realization that urban legends are very often unaffected by evidence or careful reasoning. Was it William James who said, "Most people believe what they prefer to be true"? The "Maric did Einstein's Math" claim should be put on Snopes along with fables like the Shroud of Turin as the burial cloth of Jesus Christ or the story that Darwin recanted evolution on his deathbed.

Call me Nostradamus, though: I predict 20, 50, even 100 years from now there will still be "scholars" doing CPR on this dead horse, shouting "LIVE, DARN YOU! LIVE!"

Closing arguments over Mrs. Einstein

Natalie, Chicago, IL — Thu, 30 Nov 2006 22:30:44 GMT

While I do not feel that Einstein's work was done for him by Maric, nor do I believe that Maric should be credited for it, I do think it is somewhat impossible to believe that, as scholars who studied and worked together at Zurich Polytechnic (as well as lovers and later, spouses), Maric's scientific work, studies, or thoughts did not influence Einstein in some way. Furthermore, I do not think that our lack of current knowledge of original work or ideas from Mileva Maric precludes her actually having had some during her time at university; she just did not individually generate any theories as earth-shattering as Einstein's. I have to agree with Lisa from CA, the original poster, that all current evidence is being examined completely out of context, and being so far removed from these people and this time period, it is therefore impossible to determine what is the absolute truth regarding the matter.

Additionally, regarding her academic abilities or promise, there are two important facets of Mileva Maric that, while not evidence of her possible contributions to Einstein's theories, should be noted. First, while she was at university, and having her unmarried liason with Einstein, she did conceive and give birth to a child who later was hidden from society and presumably died young. This pregnancy was a deep source of shame, only heightened by the fact that Einstein did not react in a desirable way to it (either by marrying her or at least responding to her when she tried to live near him and see him during the pregnancy). This pregnancy occurred after she failed her final diploma examination (the exam grade of 5), but most certainly at least partly contributed to her decision to leave the university for good and not retake the exam, even after staying on for a brief time despite the initial exam failure.

Secondarily, Mileva Maric suffered from clinical depression following her divorce from Einstein, which suggests that it is possible her unfullfilled promise in life or her studies was at least partly a result of a clinical, mental condition that says nothing about a person's actual mental ability or potential, and in fact can hinder it. (And in fact, several other arguments emerge defending her possible mental ability: (1) her admission to the Zurich school itself was notable, as she was one of the first women admitted to study physics, having received her highest school grades in physics and mathematics, and (2) her scientific prospects were, in fact, limited by her gender and the society in which she lived, as once she married Einstein, she was relegated to a traditional housewife role- granted, she chose to do so, but this was what was expected of her, not only by society but by Einstein as well, especially after giving birth to their second child, Hans Albert.)

In summary, while I do not think Einstein "stole" or published Mileva's own ideas, I do think that she is often overlooked as an influence in his life, and she is given far too little credit for the role she did play, as a smart collaborator, lover, supporter, and wife.

Closing arguments over Mrs. Einstein

Allen Esterson, London — Fri, 01 Dec 2006 06:57:22 GMT

Natalie: I appreciate your attempt to find a sensible path between the two positions, but one or two of your comments are not quite accurate. You write that once she married Einstein Maric was relegated to the traditional role housewife role, and that this is what Einstein expected (though you acknowledge she chose to do so). But this is not the case. Most important is that Einstein *wanted* (and encouraged) her to continue to involve herself in physics, as several of his letters show. He was especially keen for her to obtain a Ph.D. Another point of fact is that Zurich Polytechnic archives show that it was advanced for its time and many women (relatively for that time) were, like Einstein and Maric, studying math and science for teaching in secondary schools there during the latter years of the nineteenth century – over 40 in the period Mileva Maric studied there. (Stachel, 2002, p. 30). (And this leaves out the larger numbers studying medicine.) So a career for women was perfectly feasible in Switzerland, and in 1901 Maric was actually seeking a position as a teacher.

You write that it is "somewhat impossible" to believe that, as scholars who studied and worked together at Zurich Polytechnic, Maric’s scientific work, or thoughts, did not influence Einstein is some way. I'm not sure what you mean by Maric's scientific work, as there exists no documented evidence of *any* scientific work by her outside of her Polytechnic course, not even ideas suggested to Einstein when he was excitedly telling her about what extra-curricular ideas he was working on in his letters in that early period. But the main point here is that non-physicists are in a position where it is virtually impossible to conceive of the prodigious nature of Einstein's achievements even in the years up to 1905. These achievements would, within a decade, propel him to the upper echelons of theoretical physicists, and then on to pre-eminence amongst them, widely regarded by physicists as worthy to be ranked alongside Newton. People like Senta Troemel-Ploetz seem to think that because Maric spent four years on a course for teaching math and physics she "had the education" to enable her to make contributions to Einstein's thoughts. Believe me, his immersion in ideas at the contemporary borders of physics since he was sixteen (when he wrote an essay "on the state of the ether in a magnetic field") meant that, for instance in his celebrated 1905 papers, he was dealing with ideas taking him well beyond the capabilities of even people with a physics degree. I have a degree in physics, but reading in recent months the actual papers that he was writing in this period, and the numerous ideas in letters he was exchanging with first rank physicists in the period immediately after 1905, leaves me almost lost in admiration. I certainly can't follow most of these. So the notion that Maric must have contributed substantively to Einstein's ideas does not take into account the elevated level of physics he was working on.

The reasons you give for Maric's emotionally moving away from the intense interest in physics that she previously had, and giving up her hopes of a career pursuing physics, are cogent: depression at the loss of baby Lisserl (who either died or was adopted), and her two-fold failure to obtain a diploma.

I find it extraordinary that you should say that "that all current evidence is being examined out of context". On the contrary, since I became interested in this question last November I have examined every possible angle on the subject, with close examination of all the relevant literature and documents I could find. Likewise the Einstein scholar John Stachel has immersed himself in this issue. Of course the "absolute truth" can never be attained about anything, but one has to ask in regard to such an historical question, what is the *evidence* for the contentions being put forward. When one finds, as has Stachel and other distinguished academics like the historian of physics Gerald Holton (and me, though it goes without saying I don't begin to measure up to their stature), that over and over again the 'evidence' adduced for the contentions is erroneous, or otherwise deeply flawed, the conclusion must be that the overwhelming probability is that Maric played no substantive role in Einstein's work, and especially, did not contribute to the groundbreaking 1905 papers. On this issue of historical research I strongly recommend this article by Alberto Martinez:

http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/articleprint.php?num=183

Finally, while it is certainly the case that before about 1990 Maric's importance in Einstein's early adult life was unrecognised, that is no longer the case. Those who have rejected the contentions about alleged contributions to Einstein's physics always emphasise, as I wrote above, her importance in those very early years as an eager and valued listener to his ideas, a companion when reading physics books he had sought out, and an occasional assistant in this process when they were fellow students – and, very important, a much needed source of emotional support.

Closing arguments over Mrs. Einstein

Byron D. Henry, Pueblo, CO — Sun, 03 Dec 2006 21:09:54 GMT

So far as I know, both Einstein and Maric are dead and continued discussion of who contributed what to either's research would be pointless (unless you're dead set on using the work of long-dead scientists to promote your own injured sense of your gender's worth and equality.) Wouldn't a more relevant topic be whether or not Einstein's or Maric's conclusions were valid, or that their work was useful? Or is that just me?

Closing arguments over Mrs. Einstein

TheFallibleFiend, LORTON, VA — Mon, 04 Dec 2006 13:05:56 GMT

Byron,
There are probably a lot of people who would agree with you. Thirty years ago I might have been among that number. However, I think there's something to be said for truth. Some years ago I read an article by the historian Mary Lefkowitz in the paper entitled, "Greece for the Greeks: History is not Bunk." Very enlightening little essay that inspired me to continue on and read her book "Not out of Africa."

For a technical person like myself who always despised history, it took a very long time for me to understand exactly how important and relevant the subject is. The reasons are numerous and amount to a lot more than simply, "Because I'm telling you it's important."

Knowing truth - so far as we are capable of it - is a valuable thing in its own right. Moreover, understanding what we can correctly infer from a divers and contradictory collection of factoids is also important.

If Maric really did deserve a share in the Nobel that would be a good thing to know - for everyone. But the evidence for such a thing is extremely feeble, even where it exists. The grotesque exaggeration of her involvement is a disservice to the facts, to ourselves, and most especially to her.

There is a tendency now in some quarters to say, "B was a downtrodden class of individuals. They did not have the opportunities that DWMs (Dead White Males) had and their contributions were ignored or downplayed. In many cases they were actually punished. THEREFORE, as a matter of social justice, we must go back and give them retroactive credit for things they might have done had they not been oppressed."

The movement to elevate Maric's recognition is an extreme example of this. It's important to understand what the facts are because people are drawing inferences for current actions and policies based on what they believe to be true. Now, I acknowledge that sometimes good things can in some instances come from bad reasoning and erroneous data, but on average, I don't think that's a good thing to do.

Also, when it comes to teaching our kids - my OWN daughters, one of whom has decided to be a chemist - I want them to know the truth as far we are capable of discerning it. I want to inspire them to their level of brilliance and beyond - using the real accomplishments of those who have come before, and not the imaginary and inflated accomplishments that amount to patronizing inanity.

Closing arguments over Mrs. Einstein

TheFallibleFiend, Lorton, VA — Mon, 29 Jan 2007 20:32:04 GMT

I just went to the website for the PBS show on Maric at

http://www.pbs.org/opb/einsteinswife/

I saw the following notice there:

"Editor's Note - (December 19, 2006)
The contents of this site are currently under review by site producers in response to viewer concerns about the historical accuracy of the information presented here. You can read more about the dispute in the PBS Ombudsman's detailed article on the topic. Oregon Public Broadcasting, the producer of this companion web site, will be consulting with the broadcast program producer and outside experts to conduct a thorough review of the criticisms before determining what, if any, changes should to be made to the site content. Future notices on the progress of the content review will be posted here."

This isn't an admission of error, but it's a fair response. All I can say is that it impresses the heck out of me that they're willing to put a notice like that so conspicuously on their front page.

This is a "We might be wrong or me might not, but we're going to check into it." Sounds like a reasonable response to me.

Congratulations to Allen E.! (Really, congratulations to the beneficiaries of this information - us and our kids.)

Closing arguments over Mrs. Einstein

Christopher Jon Bjerknes, Chicago, Illinois — Mon, 09 Apr 2007 16:51:55 GMT

It appears that Allen Esterson opts to shoot the messenger with unproven defamations in order to avoid the truthful message I am telling. Note that Mr. Esterson does not provide links to my rebuttal of John Stachel's irresponsible and discredited "hit piece", which response can be found here:

http://home.comcast.net/~xtxinc/Response.htm

"The Author of Albert Einstein: The Incorrigible Plagiarist Responds to John Stachel's Personal Attack." Has John Stackel ever retracted the untruths he has written about my book? Far from being anti-Semitic, I am Jewish and oppose all forms of racism, including Zionist racism. John Stachel himself has written that Albert Einstein was a racist, (I am quoting a citation from my book http://www.jewishracism.com/SaintEinstein.htm "The Manufacture and Sale of Saint Einstein on page 11, which quotes J. Stachel, "Einstein's Jewish Identity", Einstein from 'B' to 'Z', Birkhauser, Boston, Basel, Berlin, (2002), pp. 57-83, at 68), "While he lived in Germany, however, Einstein seems to have accepted the then-prevalent racist mode of thought, often invoking such concepts as 'race' and 'instinct,' and the idea that the Jews form a race." Stachel errs in asserting that I endorse the theory of relativity, if indeed that is what Stachel claims. If that is not what Stachel claims, then his unproven and unsupported empty assertions are meaningless. Stachel does not argue against what I have actually said, rather Stachel raises strawmen of John Stachel's manufacture to knock down. In addition to my refutations, John Stachel has been also been discredited by A. A. Logunov, and others:

In Russian:
http://data.ufn.ru//ufn04/ufn04_6/Russian/r046e.pdf ...

In English:
http://www.turpion.org/php/paper.phtml?journal_id=pu&paper_id=1817

"How were the Hilbert – Einstein equations discovered?"

I have published a chapter on Mileva Einstein-Marity in my book http://www.jewishracism.com/SaintEinstein.htm "The Manufacture and Sale of Saint Einstein": http://www.jewishracism.com/SaintEinsteinChapter18a.pdf Chapter 18: Mileva Einstein-Marity. Another relevant chapter in my book is: http://www.jewishracism.com/SaintEinsteinChapter4a.pdf Chapter 4: Einstein the Racist Coward. On page 597 of the book (page 184 of the pdf), there are quotations which prove, to quote Kurt Blumenfeld, Albert Einstein's, "revulsion from assimilatory Jewry." If you attempt to censor my response, I will raise the issue elsewhere and note that I have been censored by you. I give you notice that you are publishing defamations against me and I demand that you immediately remove them.

Closing arguments over Mrs. Einstein

bookreader — Thu, 12 Apr 2007 01:36:47 GMT

"Apparently, it does not bother Bjerknes that the various opponents of the special and general theories that he cites attack relativity from mutually contradictory viewpoints. Nor does he seem to realize the incongruity of endorsing claims that Einstein's theories are wrong as well as claims that they were plagiarized from valid sources!"

What an interesting review. Is it worthwhile to retain Karl Marx as the true founder of Marxism while recognizing that it was entirely flawed? Would it be important if Marx was identified as a liar and a thief also? Einstein is as much the man as his work and the circumstances of his work's "discovery" are equally important. I think it is obvious that one with an agenda was mining for any criticism that could be mustered against the book.

Closing arguments over Mrs. Einstein

Christopher Jon Bjerknes — Fri, 13 Apr 2007 19:51:12 GMT

I have just posted an article on the Mileva Einstein-Marity dispute here:

http://jewishracism.blogspot.com/2007/
04/allen-esterson-and-mileva-einstein.html

Closing arguments over Mrs. Einstein

TheFallibleFiend@hotmail.com, LORTON, VA — Mon, 07 May 2007 23:04:33 GMT

Hilbert and Poincaré each lived past 1905. Do you have any indication that either of them raised a fuss about priority?

Closing arguments over Mrs. Einstein

TheFallibleFiend@hotmail.com, LORTON, VA — Tue, 08 May 2007 15:24:50 GMT

What do you know? I found an answer to my own question:

http://www.sciencemag.org/
cgi/content/full/278/5341/1270

Actual physicists believe - for apparently good reasons and not just a lack of reason to believe otherwise - that Einstein DID NOT plagiarize from Hilbert.

Let's see - the apparently objective opinion of a clearly articulated view from practicing physicists v. the opinion of an apparently very angry polemicist who seems to have an axe to grind. I'll have to think that one through and get back with you.

Closing arguments over Mrs. Einstein

Christopher Jon Bjerknes, Chicago, Illinois — Thu, 10 May 2007 21:21:22 GMT

We know that both Poincare and Hilbert objected to Albert Einstein's plagiarism. I refer you to pages 1883-1884, 2073-2074, and 2078-2080 of my book "The Manufacture and Sale of Saint Einstein", which you can download for free at the following website:

http://www.jewishracism.com/SaintEinstein.htm

You will discover that such contemporary authorities as Felix Klein and Stjepan Mohorovicic stated that Poincare snubbed Einstein by not mentioning him in the context of the Poincare-Lorentz Theory of Relativity. David Hilbert asserted his priority by publishing his paper in 1915, and again asserted it in 1924, as Prof. Mehra has noted. Tilman Sauer has noted that Hilbert objected to Weyl's inadequate recognition of Hilbert's priority. The relevant quotations and citations appear in my book at the pages referred to above.

Note the emotional personal attacks directed at me, merely because I point out the facts and support my contentions with verifiable sources. This used to be referred to as the "Einstein terror" and has largely stifled the debate and inhibited many from speaking out, who would otherwise publicly disclose the fact that Albert Einstein was a career plagiarist.

Closing arguments over Mrs. Einstein

TheFallibleFiend@hotmail.com, LORTON, VA — Mon, 14 May 2007 16:33:04 GMT

Your point would carry a lot more weight if your book did not seem like it was one long screed of emotional personal attacks against AE. It veers off into talking about the Protocols of the Order of Zion and refers to Einstein by a lot of nasty terms - long before any of those things have been established in the book.

Your book doesn't seem like a dispassionate source. The entire subject of Einstein in the book appears to be almost a sideline in some larger agenda.

Closing arguments over Mrs. Einstein

Allen Esterson, London — Mon, 21 May 2007 12:12:52 GMT

I'd like to take up a few points raised by Christopher Jon Bjerknes. He writes that John Stachel has written that Albert Einstein was a racist, quoting him as follows: "While he lived in Germany, however, Einstein seems to have accepted the then-prevalent racist mode..."

Unfortunately there are two possible readings of the word "racist" in this context, one that is purely descriptive, an attempt to classify different groups of human beings, the other that describes the advocating of discrimination against a particular "racial" group. Bjerknes fails to distinguish between. First let me say that I'm not sure that Stachel's description of "the then-prevalent racist mode of thought" is felicitous, as my impression is that it has now acquired de facto common use, e.g., in UK official questionnaires in which respondents are requested to provide their "ethnic origins", some of which are effectively the same as would in the past have been described as racial origins. Addressing Bjerknes' point, I observe that he omits to note from the same source from which he quotes Stachel the latter's quoting Einstein describing the fact that "Jews are almost everywhere treated as members of a group that is clearly characterized nationally" as "deplorable" for "Jews, like myself, who consider membership in a single human nationality as a possible ideal."

Bjerknes writes: "It appears that Allen Esterson opts to shoot the messenger with unproven defamations in order to avoid the truthful message I am telling." In fact the point I was actually making in the passage in question was that Geraldine Hilton (writer/producer of "Einstein's Wife") indiscriminately copies whole passages in a most unscholarly fashion from any source that accords with the message she is propagating (e.g., sections from Wikipedia and the writer Andrea Gabor). I pointed out that in the instance in question she was quoting a passage by Bjerknes, and that she would no doubt be horrified to find the source of the quotation was someone who posts on the "Holocaust Revisionism" website CODOH, founded by the Holocaust denier Bradley R. Smith, who attended the notorious 2006 Tehran Holocaust Conference at which he endorsed the following: "The alleged slaughter of millions of Jews by the Germans during World War II did not happen. The extermination allegation is properly termed a hoax, that is to say, a deliberately contrived falsehood."

http://www.codoh.com/newsite/index2.html

It is not the case that my citing (in the above noted context) of some of Bjerknes' intellectual credentials was a case of "shoot the messenger". On the contrary I immediately went on to say: "That does not, in itself, mean that Bjerknes’s contentions in that paragraph are false. Like any assertions, they must be examined on their merits..."

http://www.esterson.org/
Defending_Einsteins_Wife_Website.htm

Let me say here that I do not believe Holocaust denial, or indeed Holocaust revisionism in general, should be illegal. Such historical issues should be a matter of free debate, not legislation. And I note that Bjerknes would not count himself as a Holocaust denier. His position, rather, is that "The Holocaust was a deliberate product of Zionism." He argues that "Zionist Jews placed Adolf Hitler in power", and that Zionists were guilty of "creating, funding, directing and collaborating with the Nazis." He also contends that Zionist Jews have "plans to launch a nuclear Third World War against the human race, and destroy Islam and Russia, and mass murder hundreds of millions, if not billions, of people."

http://jewishracism.blogspot.com/2007/
04/zionists-license-to-commit-genocide-has.html

Bjerknes writes that he is not an anti-semite, but I can only say that his language is that embraced by anti-semites: "The Zionists in control of the governments of the Bush and Blair regimes. [...] The Government of Great Britain…is lowered to the status of an undignified Zionist puppet parroting the slovenly Judaist 'pundits' of the Jewish controlled media. English politics are being Judaized in the worst way, not in the higher scientific sense of rigor and discipline which symbolizes the best of Jewish culture, but in the thuggish, confrontational, aggressive, juvenile and ridiculous sense, the sense in which Zionist organized crime stemming from the brothels and dirty streets of Eastern Europe has 'distinguished' itself worldwide."

http://jewishracism.blogspot.com/2007/
04/zionist-savages-are-destroying-americas.html

"The Jewish genocide of Armenian Christians makes for a good case of classical and cultural Jewish racism and Jewish deception. It demonstrates the highly developed Jewish arts, war and public opinion to do evil while appearing to be the victim, scapegoating others for Jewish crimes, etc."

http://www.jewishracism.com/JewishGenocide.htm

Closing arguments over Mrs. Einstein

Allen Esterson, London — Mon, 21 May 2007 12:15:45 GMT

FallibleFiend writes of Bjerknes:

> Your point would carry a lot more weight if your book did not seem like it was one long screed of emotional personal attacks against AE... Your book doesn't seem like a dispassionate source. The entire subject of Einstein in the book appears to be almost a sideline in some larger agenda.<

Any discussion of Bjerknes' numerous contentions about Einstein would be interminable, but I would just like to point out that the animus against Einstein that "FallibleFiend" finds in *Albert Einstein: The Incorrigible Plagiarist* is evident in the mode of argument he uses elsewhere. For instance, in his article "Was Einstein an Incestuous Rapist?" Bjerknes writes: "Some suspect that Albert Einstein was a syphilitic and a whore monger."

http://jewishracism.blogspot.com/2007/
04/was-albert-einstein-incestuous-rapist.html

Bjerknes' reference reveals that the 'evidence' for this irresponsible rumour-mongering is a passage in Michele Zackheim's *Einstein's Daughter* in which the author notes that among numerous passages underscored in a book possessed by Mileva Maric (*The Sexual Question*) is one concerning prostitution and venereal disease. Zackheim links this with the claim by Dr Janos Plesch, a physician who treated Einstein in the 1930s and who visited him when on his deathbed, that Einstein had syphilis. See Zackheim (pp. 232-233) for the vagueness of Plesch's diagnosis, and for such insights as that Einstein's strong sexuality was "clearly indicated by his full lips and well-formed but large nose". Jeremy Bernstein reports that in the 1930s the medical establishment in Berlin regarded Pesch as a "fashionable charlatan", and he describes some of his medical diagnoses as "truly bizarre" – including that of syphilis in Einstein's case. Evidently Bjerknes is prepared to use anything he can find to blacken Einstein's name.

http://www.harvardmagazine.com/
on-line/010450.html

Again, Bjerknes reports that "his son Hans Albert claimed that Albert Einstein beat him". An examination of the source, *Einstein: The Man and his Achievement*, ed. G. J. Whitrow, reveals that when Hans Albert was asked if his father took part in disciplining him, he replied: "Oh yes, when he felt it was necessary. And once in a while he felt it was. I think I was quite a rascal." To the follow-up question "What did he do?", Hans Albert replied: "Oh, he beat me up, just like anyone else would do."

In other words, as would have been commonplace at the time, Einstein on occasion used corporal punishment on his son. (I suspect that Hans Albert, whose native language was not English, meant to say the Einstein "beat me" rather than "beat me up".) At any rate, Hans Albert reported that when he was grown up his relationship with his father was "Very cordial and friendly." This is another example of Bjerknes' propensity to make tendentious use of any source that even remotely appears to support his contentions.

Closing arguments over Mrs. Einstein

TheFallibleFiend, Lorton, VA — Mon, 21 May 2007 22:41:31 GMT

"...Bjerknes' propensity to make tendentious use of any source that even remotely appears to support his contentions. "

I could only make it through a few dozen pages of his book, but yours is a better (and far more diplomatic) summary of my take-away than I could have written myself.

Thanks for the info.

Closing arguments over Mrs. Einstein

Allen Esterson, London — Tue, 22 May 2007 08:24:04 GMT

A few words got lost in my quotation from Bjerknes' book "The Jewish Genocide of Armenian Christians" above. The passage should have read as follows:

"The Jewish genocide of Armenian Christians makes for a good case study of classical and cultural Jewish racism and Jewish deception. It demonstrates the highly developed Jewish arts of genocide, war and control of public opinion to do evil while appearing to be the victim, scapegoating others for Jewish crimes, etc."

http://www.jewishracism.com/JewishGenocide.htm

Closing arguments over Mrs. Einstein

Christopher Jon Bjerknes, Chicago, Illinois — Tue, 22 May 2007 22:13:53 GMT

Note that Allen Esterson, in his desperation to shoot the messenger and avoid the message, has not once attempted to address my factually based arguments regarding Mileva Maric. Instead, he hopes and prays that the statements I have made on other issues, and supported with thousands of pages of documentation, will shock the uninformed reader. Esterson only cursorily addresses that evidence in some instances, while completely ignoring it in others. He opts to mine for points he believes he can show to be weak, but even there fails to refute my arguments, but instead offers up his groundless opinion that the facts just are not good enough for him, though they represent precisely what I have contended they represent, and Esterson has nowhere shown otherwise.

Why are the issues of Zionism, Jews, Judaists and Jewish and Zionist racism so fascinating for our Allen Esterson, and why does he race (no pun intended) to Einstein's defense instead of condemning Einstein for Einstein's virulent racism and segregationism? Why does Esterson ignore the many racist things Albert Einstein stated, for example Einstein's assertion, which is a commonly expressed racist Zionist myth, that anti-Semitism is good for the Jews, in that it keeps Jews segregated?

In search of answers to these questions, I found that Allen Esterson wrote the following Herzlian Zionist nonsense:

"Posted by: Allen Esterson at Aug 4, 2005 5:02:25 PM [***] Whether you prefer to think of anti-Semitism as a virus or a cancer, the reality is that almost two thousand years of bloody and bitter history has shown that it is utterly incurable, and thus, the only really effective method of combating anti-Semitism is not the JDL or the courts but aliya."

Esterson also stated:

"Posted by: Allen Esterson at Aug 4, 2005 5:50:11 PM [***] And I don't believe it's incorrect to describe Islamist theocratic aspirations as at least akin to fascism."

These quotations are found here:

http://dailyablution.blogs.com/
the_daily_ablution/2005/08/emigration_deba.html

In reference to his first point, I note that Esterson posts from London. America has never been a hotbed of anti-Semitism, in part because Zionist Jews have never made a concerted effort to sponsor anti-Semitism in America, as they did in Germany when they funded Adolf Hitler and praised his segregationist policies. One way to combat anti-Semitism is to abandon such Zionist myths as the lie that anti-Semitism is inevitable and necessitates Jewish segregation in a "world ghetto"--to use Herzl's phrase, which lie is a defamation against all of humanity. There is nothing inherent in the DNA of Jews which would make Jews the natural and inevitable targets of hatred, nor is segregation any kind of a solution to anti-Semitism.

Esterson fails to acknowledge the fact that Judaist theocratic aspirations inspired Islam, and call for the enslavement of non-Jews, and a world-wide government ruled by a Jewish King from Jerusalem, as proven below. Is Esterson ignorant of Jewish messianic beliefs?

Esterson quotes a passage from one of my works, The Jewish Genocide of Armenian Christians, which states at pages 65-66:

"The Jewish genocide of Armenian Christians makes for a good case study of classical and cultural Jewish racism and Jewish deception. It demonstrates the highly developed Jewish arts of genocide, war and control of public opinion to do evil while appearing to be the victim, scapegoating others for Jewish crimes, etc."

http://www.jewishracism.com/JewishGenocide.pdf

Esterson omits to mention that I prove these facts in my books. I quote directly from Jewish texts which define the Jewish People as if a "chosen people" above all others (Deuteronomy 7:6), who must not intermarry or interbreed with allegedly inferior races (Exodus 34:16. Deuteronomy 7:2-3. Ezra 9. Nehemiah 9:2; 13:3, 23-30), which Jews are destined to rule the world (Exodus 19:5-6. Numbers 24:17-20; 33:50-56. Deuteronomy 7:6; 28:10. Psalm 2:1-12 (see also: Sukkah 52). Psalm 18:40-50; 72:8-11; 110:1-7. Isaiah 2:1-4; 9:6-7; 11:4, 9-10; 40:23; 42:1; 49:7, 23; 60:12; 61:6, 9; 65; 66. Jeremiah 3:17; 10:10. Ezekiel 39:17-18. Micah 4:2-3;17:16-17. Zechariah 8:20-23;14:9), and which Jews must exterminate the "Amalekites" (read Armenians) in an absolute murderous genocide (Exodus 17:14-16. Numbers 24:17-20. Deuteronomy 25:17-19. I Samuel 15:1-35. Malachi 1:1-14. Sanhedrin 20b), ultimately leaving only the "righteous" left alive, meaning obedient Jews and Goyim who slavishly submit to Jewish world rule and the Noahide Laws which forbid Christianity (Sanhedrin 56-60, 99. Zechariah 8:20-23. Shabbath 32b). I cite many examples of Jewish deception, including that of the crypto-Jew Esther, who committed genocide, and other crypto-Jews who committed genocide, most especially the "Young Turk" old Jews who perpetrated the Jewish genocide of Armenian Christians. I document Theodor Herzl's accounts that he would employ a corrupt "Jewish press" to control the fate of the Sultan of Turkey.

Esterson does not dispute the facts I present, nor does he question the logic of my conclusions. Does not Esterson find the Armenian Genocide an act of evil? Does he dispute the fact that it was perpetrated by crypto-Jews deceptively calling themselves "Young Turks"? Does he dispute the fact that today influential Jews and Jewish organizations are attempting to quiet talk of the Armenian Genocide, and have exercised undue influence in governments and media to do so? Why is Allen Esterson, who avers that Aliya is the only option for Jews to combat anti-Semitism, attempting to render my work taboo, when it has been so valuable to so many, including Alberto Martinez, upon whom Esterson relies?

Now onto Einstein's overt racism and his evil belief that anti-Semitism is good for Jews. I will pull a few of the many quotations by Einstein, and those who knew Einstein, found in my book The Manufacture and Sale of Saint Einstein, many of which passages appear in concentrated form here:

http://www.jewishracism.com/Albert_Einstein.pdf

and note that Esterson nowhere acknowledges the fact that I fully support my contentions regarding Einstein's virulent Zionist racism with verifiable facts:

"Anti-Semitism will be a psychological phenomenon as long as Jews come in contact with non-Jews—what harm can there be in that? Perhaps it is due to anti-Semitism that we survive as a race: at least that is what I believe."--A. Einstein, English translation by A. Engel, The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Volume 7, Document 37, Princeton University Press, (2002), p. 159.

"Antisemitism must be seen as a real thing, based on true hereditary qualities, even if for us Jews it is often unpleasant. I could well imagine that I myself would choose a Jew as my companion, given the choice. On the other hand I would consider it reasonable for the Jews themselves to collect the money to support Jewish research workers outside the universities and to provide them with teaching opportunities."--A. Einstein as quoted in M. Born, The Born-Einstein Letters, Walker and Company, New York, (1971), p. 16.

"[The Allied Powers] whose victory during the war I had felt would be by far the lesser evil are now proving to be only slightly the lesser evil. [***] I get most joy from the emergence of the Jewish state in Palestine. It does seem to me that our kinfolk really are more sympathetic (at least less brutal) than these horrid Europeans. Perhaps things can only improve if only the Chinese are left, who refer to all Europeans with the collective noun 'bandits.'"-- Letter from A. Einstein to Paul Ehrenfest of 22 March 1919, English translation by A. Hentschel, The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Volume 9, Document 10, Princeton Univsersity Press, (2004), pp. 9-10, at 10.

"With adults it is quite similar as with children. Due to race and temperament as well as traditions (which are only to a small extent of religious origin) they form a community more or less separate from non-Jews. [***] It is this basic community of race and tradition that I have in mind when I speak of 'Jewish nationality.' In my opinion, aversion to Jews is simply based upon the fact that Jews and non-Jews are different. [***] Where feelings are sufficiently vivid there is no shortage of reasons; and the feeling of aversion toward people of a foreign race with whom one has, more or less, to share daily life will emerge by necessity."--A. Einstein, English translation by A. Engel, The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Volume 7, Document 34, Princeton University Press, (2002), pp. 153-155, at 153-154.

"I am neither a German citizen, nor is there in me anything that can be described as 'Jewish faith.' But I am happy to belong to the Jewish people, even though I don't regard them as the Chosen People. Why don't we just let the Goy keep his anti-Semitism, while we preserve our love for the likes of us?"--A. Einstein quoted in A. Foelsing, English translation by E. Osers, Albert Einstein, a Biography, Viking, New York, (1997), p. 494.

"JUST WHAT IS A JEW? The formation of groups has an invigorating effect in all spheres of human striving, perhaps mostly due to the struggle between the convictions and aims represented by the different groups. The Jews, too, form such a group with a definite character of its own, and anti-Semitism is nothing but the antagonistic attitude produced in the non-Jews by the Jewish group. This is a normal social reaction. But for the political abuse resulting from it, it might never have been designated by a special name. What are the characteristics of the Jewish group? What, in the first place, is a Jew? There are no quick answers to this question. The most obvious answer would be the following: A Jew is a person professing the Jewish faith. The superficial character of this answer is easily recognized by means of a simple parallel. Let us ask the question: What is a snail? An answer similar in kind to the one given above might be: A snail is an animal inhabiting a snail shell. This answer is not altogether incorrect; nor, to be sure, is it exhaustive; for the snail shell happens to be but one of the material products of the snail. Similarly, the Jewish faith is but one of the characteristic products of the Jewish community. It is, furthermore, known that a snail can shed its shell without thereby ceasing to be a snail. The Jew who abandons his faith (in the formal sense of the word) is in a similar position. He remains a Jew. [***] WHERE OPPRESSION IS A STIMULUS [***] Perhaps even more than on its own tradition, the Jewish group has thrived on oppression and on the antagonism it has forever met in the world. Here undoubtedly lies one of the main reasons for its continued existence through so many thousands of years."--A. Einstein, "Why do They Hate the Jews?", Collier's, Volume 102, (26 November 1938); reprinted in Ideas and Opinions, Crown, New York, (1954), pp. 191-198, at 194, 196.

"To deny the Jew's nationality in the Diaspora is, indeed, deplorable. If one adopts the point of view of confining Jewish ethnical nationalism to Palestine, then one, to all intents and purposes, denies the existence of a Jewish people. In that case one should have the courage to carry through, in the quickest and most complete manner, entire assimilation. We live in a time of intense and perhaps exaggerated nationalism. But my Zionism does not exclude in me cosmopolitan views. I believe in the actuality of Jewish nationality, and I believe that every Jew has duties towards his coreligionists. [***] [T]he principal point is that Zionism must tend to strengthen the dignity and self-respect of the Jews in the Diaspora. I have always been annoyed by the undignified assimilationist cravings and strivings which I have observed in so many of my friends."--A. Einstein, "Jewish Nationalism and Anti-Semitism", The Jewish Chronicle, (17 June 1921), p. 16.

Closing arguments over Mrs. Einstein

Allen Esterson — Wed, 23 May 2007 22:22:31 GMT

Due to a family emergency I am not able make an immediate response to Bjerknes' comments above, other than to point out that I did not write the "Herzlian Zionist nonsense" that Bjerknes ascribes to me. A more careful examination of the website in question reveals that the quotations in question were written by another individual (the names of the posters *follow* the comments, they do not proceed them). I would just say here I am not a Zionist, and do not even know the meaning of the word "aliya"! It can also be seen on this same webpage that I actually make critical comments in response to a posting by the person who wrote the words Bjerknes erroneously ascribes to me:

http://dailyablution.blogs.com/the_daily_ablution/
2005/08/emigration_deba.html

I shall give my response to Bjerknes, specifically in relation to his comments regarding Mileva Maric, when I am in a position to do so.

Closing arguments over Mrs. Einstein

Christopher Jon Bjerknes, Chicago, Illinois — Thu, 24 May 2007 23:01:16 GMT

It appears that I have, for the second time, been censored on this forum. I have submitted two articles to "Cosmic Log", which have not appeared on "Cosmic Log", but which I have posted here:

http://jewishracism.blogspot.com/2007/
05/on-allen-estersons-defamations.html

and here,

http://jewishracism.blogspot.com/2007/04/
allen-estersons-fallacies-and-fictions.html

I will continue to discredit Allen Esterson on my blog, though I will not continue to endure censorship on "Cosmic Log":

http://jewishracism.blogspot.com

Note the ironic fact that I have been repeatedly defamed for standing up for free speech, and that my defense to those personal attacks has been censored. Note further that what you are observing on "Cosmic Log" is absolutely typical of the way Einstein and his advocates have stifled debate with smear tactics and censorship for 100 years. I present many examples of it from the past in my book "The Manufacture and Sale of Saint Einstein":

http://www.jewishracism.com/SaintEinstein.htm

You have witnessed it before your very eyes.

I will gladly debate Allen Esterson, though I will not submit to a forum in which I am censored while others defame me without my having the ability to respond directly. Now let us see if Allen Esterson will condemn the censorship of my words and join me in a fair forum.

Closing arguments over Mrs. Einstein

Alan Boyle — Fri, 25 May 2007 00:53:26 GMT

I do believe this thread has pretty much exhausted the original subject matter... and has turned into a string of comments that are not directly related to the blog, are close to the line on appropriate language and are attacking the comments of others. I've held off on approving one of Bjerknes' comments that goes into great depth on Esterson's comments, but I am letting Bjerknes refer folks who want to continue this sort of discussion to his blog ... and if Esterson wants to refer people similarly to another forum, that's fine, too.