The Majority is Always Wrong.


I think this was written in 1986. And I think this one is deserving of the old “Spaghetti-Western Review”:

The Good: The author, Lapon, highlights the long history of barbaric attrocities called “therapies” and many other sugar-coated euphemisms by mainstream psychiatry and the mainstream media that never questions anything. He does an excellent job of exposing psychiatric crimes that most people just accept as normal or standard operating procedure or even efficacious. He also underscores the work of other authors such as John Loftus in exposing many of the connections between Nazi scientists/psychiatrists and American scientists/psychiatrists, emphasizing the fact that many Nazis were ferreted out of Nazi Germany and into the U.S. and other nations after WWII in order that they would avoid prosecution as war criminals, and also that the U.S. and other countries would benefit from having them and their often heinous experimental knowledge in working with live human beings. Lapon also rightfully criticizes Loftus for the way Loftus always seeks to cunningly mitigate the involvement of the Vatican in helping to ferret out these Nazis to safety (though no doubt Lapon has little or no idea of the size of the iceberg he is scratching there). Lapon also includes the transcripts of several phone calls he made over the years to certain prominent American psychiatrists with second or third-hand Nazified connections, and he probes them for whatever they may know; the main thrust of these questions was the psychiatric mass murders of mental patients in Nazi Germany.
If someone wanted to do research into monstrous pseudo-science of psychiatry, this book would be a great place to start.

The Bad: The guy’s apparently a one-horse operation, rather a blue-collar type guy, so whenever the American shrinks with Nazified connections that he called up simply denied things or else pulled an Ollie North (“I have no recollection”), there was not a great deal he could do; one lone guy can’t know all the facts and details behind every facet of a huge history of crimes, and thus some of these transcripts of phone calls did not really lead to much. But he did try and they are interesting to read.

The Ugly: It is clear from several short passages throughout that this author is still, even in these misandric days and in this misandric culture, under the delusion that “women and minorities” are an oppressed class. Huge “White Knight Syndrome” sirens going off here. So you basically have a guy that sees through the bullsh#t of one line of propaganda, but can’t see through another. Bummer.

Rating: Δ Δ Δ Δ

ROMAN CATHOLICISM by Lorraine Boettner

A most excellent and comprehensive treatise exposing the false doctrine of Romanism. I have to give this my highest rating; although, be forewarned, the author is rather mild-mannered and his lukewarm tone probably reflects the century-and-a-half-plus of jesuitical infiltration of seminaries in the U.S. A book like this, written back in the 1800s, would contain protestant ire and righteous indignation. This author, writing in the early 1960s, remains staunchly even-keeled throughout, calm and deliberate, “objective.” For this reader, having read so many of those fiery (and prescient) protestant authors from the 1800s, the tone of this work comes off as namby-pamby.
But there are no mistakes in the author’s delineation of doctrine, and perhaps, given the pandemic of jesuitical ecumenism that has infected churches today in the U.S., a milder book like this might work better to help pull someone out of the cult of Romanism than those older, more ardent works.

Wait, I must mention this caveat: Nowhere does this author warn Christians of the dangers of churches in the U.S. all rushing, 99% tripping over themselves, to sign up for the ungodly State Incorporation and 501c3 civil contracts. It had been happening since the turn of the 20th century, but really began in earnest in 1954. He should have been wise to this danger. He was not.

But again, there are no mistakes in this author’s delineation of the doctrinal “mistakes” of Roman Catholicism. It’s just that, protestant authors/theologians of the 1800s, before Protestantism became historically moribund in the U.S., would not have called these “mistakes.” They would have, and did, call them much more damning things.

Rating: Δ Δ Δ Δ


This book, which was published about a decade ago, is about 90% boldly fantastic and about 10% “What-was-he-thinking?” It is indeed a rant, all right. A long series of rants. And it is about time some man wrote this way and asked these pointed questions and hurled these all-too warranted charges at the evil, Marxian ideology of feminism.

The author traveled quite a bit, even globally. He entered into relationships with women around the globe. His anecdotes chronicle the destruction of female virtue and femininity in the modern Western Civilization females he encountered, due to misandric, Marxian feminism. In the way they talk, in the way they act, in the way they think, in the way they sabotage their own lives and happiness and then blame it on any male they can, Ellis dissects the dysfunctionality of modern Western females with equal parts wit and vehemence.

He was also in the interesting position of being employed at a tech firm in the Silicon Valley during the height of the tech boom there, and again, his ranting anecdotes chronicle a long Reign of Kafkaesque Gender-Biased Terror that took place in his workplace at the expense of innocent men and for the unfair benefit of entitled, manipulative females. Official company policy to deprive men of the means of providing for a family and to keep them abased, punished and passed over for promotions by vindictive bull dykes, bawdy “cougars,” and younger professional career whores sleeping their way upward. All of them officially endowed by their employers with greater workplace entitlements than the harrowed men who could be snitched on/falsely accused at a female whim’s notice for “sexual harrassment” and forced to attend “sensitivity training” or else just be summarily terminated outright, only to be replaced by another female, perhaps even the savvy snitch-female herself.

The author’s rants make a helluva lot of sense. He injects some interesting and iconoclastic facts along the way, too, such as when he cuts through the feminist propaganda about the actual accomplishments of feminist heros such as Amelia Earhart that the general public has never been told. He at times gets very factual and less anecdotal.

There are some flaws in this book, such as the author’s hedonistic pursuit of fornication for fornication’s sake, by his atheistic, automatic belief in Darwinism which comes up briefly a time or two; but perhaps the biggest flaw in this book is that too many of the author’s globe-trotting anecdotes, over the course of many years, tell of him too often returning and re-returning to several of the same exact crazy Western Civ individual women who had already screwed him over before (not that he was at all lacking in vaginal variety, however). He seems like a glutton for punishment, or at least he once was.

Bottom line: This guy’s totally unfiltered rants about what Western women have become, and how much the deck really is stacked against Western men nowadays, contain a great many profound observations. This is truly Red Pill stuff, an interesting view of the literal disintegration of a once cohesive society from the vantage point of a man with his boots on the ground when and where the action of disintegration was taking place.

Rating: Δ Δ Δ Δ


I was not very far along in my reading of this out-of-print book from the early 1870s before I recognized it as what it is: One of the most significant works ever written. Literally. This would definitely make it into my “Top 10 All Time” list, and perhaps even Top Five. The memory-holed history it recounts is that essential, and it is also well written, as if it even needed to be so.

This work is similar to Edmund Paris’s THE SECRET HISTORY OF THE JESUITS from a half century or so later. Like Paris, Greisinger devotes much of his book to recording the history of the Jesuit’s parasitization of each European nation, and how and when and why each of these nations furiously expelled the Jesuits at various points in time, and then how and when and why the Jesuits came slithering back and reparasitized each of these nations. Being an earlier book, Greisinger, on the whole, tends to focus much of his recounting of history on earlier times than does Paris. This modern reader found it a bit more interesting, though both Greisinger’s and Paris’s books are monumentally important in their own respective rights.

As Greisinger records it, everything that happened to each of these European countries—the identifiable pattern of covert conquest that the Jesuits follow—has already happened as of this date in the history of the United States, Inc. This makes this book quite ominous to read. Little wonder this work is long since out-of-print and memory-holed. We the American public are clearly NOT supposed to know about this history. And so almost no American does. The takeover is complete and beautifully perfect from the vantage point of the Vatican and the Society of Jesus which controls it. Yes, Greisinger provides the vivid and factual history to prove that claim as well.

It is fascinating how the majority of the nations that (impermanently) drove out the Jesuits over the previous centuries were Roman Catholic nations. Sad to say, they knew the enemy even better than the Protestants did. Now, extrapolate that thought down to today, and see that NOBODY is more ill-informed, more dumbed-down, more asleep-at-the-switch about who and what is the Scriptural Antichrist, and what Satanic institution drives that OFFICE, than today’s stupefied, history-challenged ecumeniacal evangelicals.

It is they above all who need to read this long forgotten, out-of-print work. Not that they would be able to understand it; they are still blinded by these very same black-robed “fathers,” still looking out for and being hopelessly distracted by delusions of UFOs, the Nephilim, and (jesuitically authored!) tall tales of a future-coming,
secular Antichrist.

Fascinating it is too that this history leaves off with the early 1870s triumph in Germany of Prime Minister Otto Von Bismarck over the Society of Jesus. (Yes, yet more memory-holed history that most people never heard of. This book is rife with such hidden history, and just as rife with the proofs which confirm these unsettling histories.) However, the author knew his subject well, and he as much predicted, just before going to press, that Bismarck’s triumph would only be a temporary one, and the Jesuits would eventually come slithering right back into Germany. Which they of course did, as subsequent (suppressed) history shows all too severely.

Finally, Greisinger succeeds in underscoring how exquisitely important the year 1870 was to the Papacy. Greisinger was living and writing this out at the time, so it makes sense he would sense the acute import of that year. He reminds that the Jesuits scored three huge victories when they had their implement, Pope Pius IX, dogmatize three cherished jesuitical teachings, even in the face of much opposition from the most learned officials within the hierarchy of the Roman Church: the novel doctrines of Papal Infallibility and the Immaculate Conception of Mary, and the document known as the Syllabus of Errors.

Rating: Δ Δ Δ Δ Δ


This manuscript was published somewhere in the last decade. I have no idea why the exact date of publication is not listed herein, but it gets weirder than that: Nowhere does it record who wrote this, either. Nevertheless, it is available online in both electronic and paperback format. I stumbled onto it while doing some some peripheral searches pertaining to Avro Manhattan’s book VIETNAM, WHY DID WE GO? and indeed, this does share subject matter with the Manhattan book, and does much to further corroborate Manhattan’s claims—something which should not be undervalued, since, vital as Manhattan’s work was and is, it was always underfootnoted. This manuscript, on the other hand, is consummately sourced throughout. In fact, this may be the greatest asset of this work: It opens the doors to so very many other works which, taken as a whole, clearly validate Avro Manhattan’s spectacular claims about the real origins and causes of the U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War; as well as the earlier French involvement, for that matter.

It all goes back to the Vatican. The Vatican did it. Not that the author of this manuscripte understands the entireity of this history; and he(she?) certainly does not understand as much as Manhattan did; notwithstanding, this work is a superb companion piece to the Manhattan book.

Indeed, the indications that this author does not understand the situation completely are very evident. For example, he continually uses the phrase “the Catholic Church” as being in back of the Vietnam War, but what he really means is the geopolitical state called “the Vatican” which hides behind and drives the cult of Catholicism, even as it controls the world’s intelligence agencies, foments strife among the nations, and profits from all of the above.

The author also believes that presidents make important decisions and are merely “influenced” by the “Catholic Church” and certain of its powerful adherents, rather than the raw and unpopular reality: Presidents TAKE ORDERS and are CONTROLLED by these, and any president who goes against this protocal quickly gets assassinated or is given the Richard Nixon treatment.

Furthermore, and along the same lines, this author also is deceived by the ruse that John Foster Dulles, and his father, and his grandfather, were faithful “presbyterians” whose outlook on geopolitics just coincidentally happened to line up 100% with the Vatican, rather than the reality that these, or certainly at least J.F. Dulles himself, was in fact an agent of the Jesuits. This author has no knowledge or understanding of the history and machinations of the Society of Jesus.

This work is also written rather pedantically. The author constantly tells the reader of three things about which he will be informing the reader, then he informs the reader of these three things, and then he recaps the three things about which he just informed the reader. And then he moves on to three other things and he does the same thing. He does this throughout the manuscript. This is not so much bad writing as it is formulaic, predictable, basic writing.

As a companion piece to Avro Manhattan’s VIETNAM, WHY DID WE GO?, this manuscript is an invaluable resource. The author does not understand all that he is exposing, but that does not matter, not if the reader unites this manuscript with the Manhattan book and others. On its own, this manuscript is of a more limited value, unless one is going to track down and read the very many resources which this manuscript assiduously cites, and then connects the dots to see the big picture which this author did not even understand, but he is most certainly on the right investigatory trail.

Rating: Δ Δ Δ Δ


Interesting book of 384 pages. First published in 2000.

Fifty creationist scientists were asked to explain why they were creationists and not darwinists. These fifty then responded with a brief essay or letter, providing a rationale for their worldview. Most of the essay responsives are quite cogent and circumstantiated; some, however, are laconic enough to make the reader wonder whether these scientists got the message that their response was actually going to be published, suffering not so much from lack of scholarship as simply from an obvious lack of time and effort. Again, fortunately this is not the case with most. Don DeYoung’s response letter was probably the skimpiest of the minority of skimpy ones. I cannot say this surprised me as, on a personal note, I once tried to contact Mr. DeYoung and never got a response back from him, nor from a representative of his. That man wrote a great and scholarly book that I had read and which obviously entailed much time and effort for him to produce, but personal interaction with his readers apparently does not elicit much time and effort from him.

On another sort of personal tangent here, I was a little piqued to see that the only jesuitically educated scientist in the book, Jack Cuozzo, was listed as—you guessed it!—scientist #33. There is that number again. Yes, THAT number. Was this a mere coincidence, or do we have another little secret-societal, high-degree, wink-and-nod thing going on? I do not know, but I might be inclined to bet on it, assuming we could ever really find out.

A surprising number of these creationist scientists hail from Australia. I found that somewhat interesting.

Another point of interest: Some scientists tended toward the analytical in their explanations. These tended to throw many numbers around, of course. Some other scientists tended more toward the philosophical, frankly. Yet, it was indeed intriguing to read how forceful was either approach in exposing the vacuity of darwinism.

This is highly recommendable reading, and I would predict that it would be just about guaranteed to elicit some sort of emotional, gut reaction from passersby who would be of the “purely scientifically minded” darwinist, a.k.a. evolutionist camp.

Rating: Δ Δ Δ Δ


Subtitle: (An examination of) Raul Hilberg and his Standard Work on the “Holocaust”

Reading the Charles Weber booklet led me to this one. It is 118 pages though very well sourced, published in 2001, the author is a European professor, and thankfully, Graf never uses the word “Aryan” anywhere, unlike Weber. Graf investigates Raul Hilberg’s 1961 work THE DESTRUCTION OF THE EUROPEAN JEWS upon which, says Graf, lay the foundation upon the entire orthodox belief in a Nazi Holocaust of the Jews and the resulting number of 6 million deaths.

I had never before heard of this Raul Hilberg fellow and am not much of a student of this particular history; not yet anyway. But assuming I had heard of this Raul Hilberg fellow, I would certainly have assumed that the level of scholarship behind the book would be creditable. However, Graf shows that Hilberg’s research was far from creditable. I had no idea that the main book upon which the world now bases “the Holocaust” and the number of 6 million (assuming Graf is right about even this–like I said, this is my first foray into this history–this REVISIONIST history) was written with such lack of regard for concrete investigation.

First, Graf writes that Hilberg never did any actual concrete research of the historical places; in fact, Graf writes that Hilberg never did any research that did not come out of a book; Graf, citing another revisionist historian, calls Hilberg a purely “paper historian.” Furthermore; Graf writes that there is a standard procedure of serious historical investigation, with some forms of evidence being valued as more reliable by serious academics; and, writes Graf, serious academics hold that the lowest or least reliable form of historical evidence comes from eyewitnesses; yet apparently Hilberg flipped all this upright and placed eyewitness testimony as being the most important. Moreover, Graf writes that the eyewitness testimony Hilberg provides nearly all came from ex-Nazis who were being tortured by the Allies at the time and therefore might have confessed to anything. In addition, Graf writes that what these tortured eyewitnesses confessed to and claimed does not match up with the known concrete facts such as the aerial photography of the geographic terrain involved, and the mathematics of how many Jews were there to begin with in the several European nations involved versus how many Jews were left there after WWII or who had been known to have emigrated prior to that. Oh, and then there is the fact that a great many of the claims of these tortured, ex-Nazi “eyewitnesses of the Holocaust” also defy certain, and very basic, laws of physics.

Although Jurgen Graf has convinced this reader that the number of 6 million is probably a gross exaggeration (as, in truth, I suppose I had suspected all along), I do not know that I am ready to embrace Graf’s other claim, the one that necessarily goes further, the one that states that there was no general policy on the part of Hitler and the S.S. to extirminate Jewish people. Graf does once admit that a figure of almost–but certainly not more than–one million Jewish people may have been killed by the horrendous events of those places during that epoch, but he maintains that there never was any order of “final solution” which equated to extirmination. Like all of his other claims, he does offer documentary evidence to support this. However, for this reader, here Graf makes an even more compelling point just in his logic alone: Such as reminding the reader of how notoriously well-organized and assiduous the Nazis–and the German people as a culture–were and are; and then he reminds the reader how any government policy, or any huge group of people with rules and tasks before them, must needs have a very detailed plan of instructions if those tasks which the leaders want done are going to be carried out correctly by the vast numbers of distant underlings at multitudes of different levels. Instructions would have to be written out for each level in the pyramid of governmental power, top to bottom and everything in between. This is how governments operate. Yet, writes Graf, neither Hilberg nor any other orthodox Holocaust writer has ever been able to produce one single shred of a document showing that Hitler, or even subordinate S.S. commanders, had ordered the physical destruction of the Jews as is claimed by these orthodox Holocaust writers. Graf writes that there are a few lame attempts to ascribe this total lack of documentary evidence to the Nazis being really really good and fast at shredding and burning up incriminating documents in the nick of time towards the end of WWII, but Graf shows how this position is entirely untenable, and notes how, instead, the orthodox Holocaust writers more often just gloss over this glaring lack of evidence as though it is a mere trifle.

This is a compelling book. I am not sure what to do with it. And I still believe, as LH Lehman and other suppressed historians have shown, that Hitler was working for the Vatican and Hitler was at the very least instructed by the Vatican to make things really hot for the Jews in order that the Jews would opt to be sent to Israel so that, now in our own day and for however long it takes, the Vatican can manipulate this situation and ultimately wrest control for itself of all of Jerusalem (and note: in 1993, Shimon Peres ceded the majority of Jerusalem to the Vatican in the Oslo Accords, and that is a FACT, however little known it may be; see the work of Barry Chamish on that). Nobody plans for long term like the Vatican does. Nobody.

So no, I do not know what to do with this. I no longer believe the orthodox teaching of 6 million European Jews being murdered. Not 6 million. That much I do know. Unless Graf is lying about the whole thing. I should read Hilberg’s book first before making up my mind. Yes, I know. That would be the conscientious and painstaking thing to do; maybe some day I will. However, just knowing that the Hilberg book is accepted by the majority while researchers like Graf are scoffed at or silenced by the majority tells me that Graf is probably telling the truth and Hilberg’s level of scholarship was indeed a sham. As is the motto for this site (which was lifted from Henrik Ibsen): The Majority is Always Wrong! I only wish that was not a truism, but I have found it to be so. Have I ever indeed.

Rating: Δ Δ Δ

SELLOUT by David Schippers

This author and this book are redolent of the exquisitely significant mid-1950s book FOUNDATIONS: THEIR POWER AND INFLUENCE by Rene Wurmser: Both Wurmser and this man Schippers were chief legal counsels hired by two separate congressional investigating committees about a half-century apart; both congressional investigating committees were of enormous import; the respective import of both congressional investigating committees was whitewashed in the mainstream media; both Wurmser and Schippers crossed political party lines in order to follow the truth and the facts; both Wurmser and Schippers saw their painstaking investigative work ignored, and the processes of both of the congressional investigation committees to which they had labored stonewalled, undermined, and finally sabotaged; in addition, both Wurmser and Schippers were taken aback by the fact that congressmen of the same political party as themselves were the ones most guilty of wilfull ignorance of the facts and of obvious and unaccounted-for sabotage! What is obvious to the reader is that, in both respective cases–Wurmser and Schippers–what these two men in fact ran smack into was a “fix” that was already “in.”

The mainstream media deceived the American public into believing that Wurmer’s 1954 Reece Committee had not discovered anything damning at all about the oligarchs’ tax-exempt Foundations and their illegal and communistic takeover of the American public education system; however, when one reads the actual congressional transcripts of the Reece Committee, and when one reads Wurmser’s book, an extraordinarily different picture is elucidated.

The mainstream media deceived the American public into believing that David Schippers’ investigations in the 1998 Impeachment of Bill Clinton had also not discovered anything damning and that the whole affair was about Clinton’s serial adultery (not that the disgraceful mainstream media even had the linguistic and moral clarity to use the unfashionable word ADULTERY); however, David Schippers herein factually documents that the real issue was obstruction of justice, witness tampering, serial perjury and subornation of perjury, and other high crimes and misdemeanors. Schippers, like Wurmser before him, then goes on to document how career-politician members of BOTH political parties eventually, at a critical point in the proceedings, colluded to sabotage yet another congressional investigating committee when it appeared that that committee was getting too close to actually uncovering some really shocking high crimes. In the Reece Committee of 1954, one need only examine the cartoonishly contumelious antics of “Representative” Wayne Hayes of Ohio at that time to preposterously derail the routine questioning of the witnesses; in the case of Schippers’ investigation, what he documents is that he had an ENTIRE ROOM FULL OF DAMNING EVIDENCE AGAINST BILL CLINTON OF A MUCH MORE SERIOUS NATURE THAN THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA REPORTED, AND YET NONE OF THE DEMOCRATIC CONGRESSMEN AND ONLY 65 REPUBLICAN CONGRESSMAN WOULD EVEN LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE! The Republicans, ever eager to get along and play ball with the oligarchs who own both political parties, even went so far as to forbid the calling of live witnesses! Clearly, the fix was in, and it was in with both sides. Seldom has there ever been more obvious evidence that both political parties in the U.S. are bought and controlled by a higher power and work for and at the behest of that higher unelected power.

This book is the definitive source for understanding what the 1998 Impeachment Proceedings of Bill Clinton really entailed, as opposed to what the lying news broadcasts on all the mainstream channels duplicitously reported.

Published in 2000.

Rating: Δ Δ Δ Δ Δ


Published in 1923; considered a classic. Bernays was considered a “pioneer in the field of public relations and propaganda” and was referred to in his obituary as the “father of public relations.” He was an Austrian-American and was the nephew of Sigmund Freud.

About a decade or so ago I had read Bernays other treatise along the same lines, that one entitled, appropriately enough, PROPAGANDA.

Throughout, Bernays uses this to sell the reader on the worthiness of the new high-place figure in society that he and apparently a few privileged others had concocted for the 20th century technological era and its news services: the “public relations counsel.” The public relations counsel, explains Bernays, is a kind of intercessor between the public, which Bernays candidly calls “the herd,” and mega-corporations; as well the public relations counselor is an intercessor between the public/the herd and the news media. Bernays was of course writing this very soon after the formation of the Rockefellers’ Council on Foreign Relations, so the timing and the message are together recognizable. To be sure, many of Bernays arguments to laud the coming of the public relations counsel as an essential figure in society are conventionally convincing. He even likens the public relations counsel with the position of legal counsel that most anyone seeks when they are brought into court, right? So he likened the role of public relations counsels with the intermediary role of attorneys.

Okay, well, that may have been a good thing in his mind, but not to this reader. (And definitely not to the Pilgrims who first came to this continent. But who cares about them anymore, right?)

Bernays explained that the “herd” (the public) needed someone to, kind of, “streamline” the news for them. Ominously, Bernays even BOASTS several times that in effect what this called upon public relations counsels to do was to CREATE news. Yes, he actually writes this glowingly several times. But to Bernays, this was because the public relations counsel would somehow be immaculately guided into knowing what was best for the public to know and not to know. Bernays was obviously an elitist. He wrote like an elitist. He had an incredible gift for assuming that people put into elitist positions like “public relations counsel” would just act for the betterment of the public and not just for themselves and other super-rich people. Yeah, right.

Bernays also claimed that corporations needed someone to help manage their public relations in case of reckless rumors being spread about something that corporation was trying to sell. Yes, I suppose that is more to the point of what Bernays was really interested in: Serving the corporations, where the big money is.

Look, this is not a very scintillating read or anything like that, but it is a valuable timepiece-book to understand the mentality of certain public relations-related elites immediately after the formation of the globalist Council on Foreign Relations, and it is not very lengthy, either. It gives the reader a rather succinct insight into what certain elites with high connections to large corporations and the major media were thinking in the 1920s, with what automatic disdain they considered the provincial priorities, not to mention the practical intelligence, of the aggregate “herd” of the American public, and how patronizing they were about their own elitist abilities to dictate supposedly more pressing knowledge and morality to average American people. Oh, sure, Bernays was all about moral instruction as well, albeit peripherally.

Bottom line: This guy must have been a real elitist jerk, but boy was he ever influential.

Rating: N/A


Well, it was inevitable that I would have to do this. I want to be open to everything and anything, if it is factual and reasonable. I have encountered so many areas of study where the world is upside down, factual truth has been suppressed, real history memory-holed, that I had to get into this area sooner or later: the claims of the so-called “Holocaust Deniers.” I am open to the idea that the leading Sabbatean Zionists perhaps inflated the numbers that were genocided by the Nazis: Sabbatean Zionists are not nice people. By the way, see the work of Barry Chamish for a clarification on what a Sabbatean Zionist is. I am not referring to Jewry in general; I would not tend to be open to the idea that there was no such thing as a general genocide against European Jewry. Forget that: for one thing, I can’t help but notice that the ranks of the “Holocaust Deniers” usually speak and act like they are modern ideological minions of Adolf Hitler.

And sure enough, Charles E. Weber here uses the Nazi Theosophical religious word “Aryan” throughout, whenever he is referring to white European folk. Ugh. Here are some other faults I find with this book:
1) Weber early on refers to this booklet of 57 pages as a “book.” It is not a book. I know what a book looks like. This is a booklet.
2) On page 16, Weber takes a pejorative swipe at the research of Antony Sutton, cryptically dismissing as “pusillanimous” Sutton’s conclusions in the book WALL STREET AND THE BOLSHEVIK REVOLUTION. I know Sutton. I’ve read plenty of Sutton. I don’t know of any other author who dotted his i’s and crossed his t’s as assiduously as Sutton, and I would take Sutton’s word over this author 100 times out of 100 opportunities.
3) Weber, like I suppose all who vaguely blame “the Jews” or “the Zionists” for everything ill on the planet, demonstrates several times that he has zero understanding of the true roll of the Vatican in world affairs, in history (i.e., real, memory-holed history), and in eschatology.

This is not to say that Weber does not raise some very good and intriguing points. He does. Most assuredly he does. Some of those very good and intriguing points are as follows:
1) The Nuremberg Trials after WWII were a sham for a variety of reasons, and no less a personage than Ohio Senator Robert Taft declared this to be so at the time, as did Senator Joseph McCarthy.
2) So few Americans today even know about the U.S. craven complicity in the massacres of anti-Soviet throngs of refugees–i.e., Operation Keelhaul.
3) So few historicans today ever focus on the massacres of the multitudes of Polish officers at Katyn forest by the Soviets.
4) So many Americans have been brainwashed today into assuming that the genocide of the Jews by the Nazis is the only holocaust in history.
5) The unmitigated genocide of the protestant civilians of Dresden, Germany, carried out by Allied Bomber Command in WWII is little known by most Americans, and little appreciated for what it was even by most historians.
6) The Allied insistance on unconditional surrender of Germany, and the draconian “Morgenthau Plan,” greatly increased the length of WWII and greatly intensified all of its sundry, requisite, general slaughters.
7) The U.S. was, cites Weber, much quicker in rounding up Japanese-Americans than Nazi Germany was in rounding up Jewish people, and, claims Weber, if the U.S. was actually in as great a real danger from these Japanese-Americans as Nazi Germany was of certain Jewish communist-terrorists, and had the U.S. been as besieged on all sides and as supply-deficient as Germany was at that time, then the conditions in the U.S. “Japanese relocation camps” would certainly have much more resembled the conditions of the German concentration camps.
8) Germany made reparations payments to a great many Jewish people quite promptly after WWII, cites Weber, but the U.S. has been extremely dilatory in doing likewise to the innocent Japanese-Americans who lost all of their property assets during WWII. And most Americans are completely in the dark about this contrasting situation.

Now, about what must be the most controversial claims made by Weber: The claims he makes about the true nature and layout and purpose of the Nazi concentration camps themselves: There are several citations given by Weber from a number of different sources which claim, either from circumstantial evidence or from direct eyewitness testimony at the time or very soon afterward, that contradict many critical news items the public is told in the mainstream media about this. Honestly, I do not know what to make of this. I would have to read more about it, and I would have to consult a much more thorough book than this mere booklet.

So I am not sure what all to make of this right now, but I do know that this Weber fellow, and those like him, would do themselves a big public-relations favor if they stopped using Nazi-Theosophical religious words like “Aryan,” and stop vaguely blaming “the Jews” for everything: Here’s a tip: Define “Jew,” will you? Can somebody define what a “Jew” is? This is base racial bigotry to vaguely rail and rage against “the Jews.” Insensate pawn-tools like this need to first be more specific than that. That would help. It might even help themselves wake up. To wit: What are the orders of geo-political hierarchy among these “Jews”? Who is their figurehead leader? Who is their real, effectual leader? How do they elect their hierarchy members? How actually does their global surveillance network operate? I can supply all that regarding the Vatican. Some others can as well, and they can do so better than me. But I have yet to see one of these “the-Jews-did-it!” modern-day, American-brownshirt types get ANY kind of specific like that. No, instead it is just this base, beast-like hatred that comes out of them, ill-defined. They do not even get as specific as Barry Chamish, and at least they ought to do that. But they do not. If these people were charging bulls, they would go rampaging after the waving red cape (“the Jews!”) every single time, and they would be completely oblivious to the cape-controlling, cape-waving matador (the Vatican) each and every single time, to their own ultimate destruction.

Bottom line: Mr. Weber, I have to admit, you undermined nearly all credibility with me the first time you used the word “Aryan.”

I was open to what this man had to say, but not when he uses the Nazi’s own language. That’s too big a red flag. Although I am open to reading more about this topic.

This was published in 1983.

Rating: Δ