The Majority is Always Wrong.

Month: June, 2013


This is a collection of essays written and transcripts of speeches given by John T. Gatto throughout the 1990s, all of which incisively critique and condemn the modern government (public) school system in the U.S. from the vantage point of an award-winning retired teacher of many years in the system. Every single criticism he makes is true and accurate and acutely thought-provoking. In as far as this criticism goes, this is a valuable work. However, having now read two books by Gatto and having listened to a number of audio recordings of him as well, I can say with certitude that if a person is looking for practical, concrete knowledge as to how Gatto himself survived within the system so long, thinking and acting as he does, what he did on a daily basis with his students, day in day out, and if one is after advice as to how a teacher already and still working within the system–a teacher in mental accord with Gatto–can go about maintaining his/her sanity on a daily basis, then Gatto will not be able to help with any of that. For Gatto tends to write abstractly to the point where he ignores the practical side almost altogether; and while Gatto’s mostly implied solution (note: we must say “implied” because he nearly exclusively criticizes and almost never directly speaks of concrete solutions) is that the modern government (public) school system needs to be razed and obliterated and rebuilt from the ground up, one would think that he could at least throw a bone of practical advice out there until the exquisitely unlikely razing and obliterating event actually occurs.

So I have to dock this book a little bit for its lack of practicality.

And then I also have to dock this book a lot of bit because, unlike the last Gatto book I had read, here Gatto writes early and often, albeit peripherally, about the supposedly unfounded fears of 19th century American Protestants regarding mass Roman Catholic immigration. Gatto even cryptically (and of course dismissively) writes of the “anti-Catholic writings” of American inventor Samuel Morse. Gatto’s position of ignorance or duplicity in this area therefore is painfully obvious to someone such as myself who is very familiar with Samuel Morse’s work, as well as dozens and dozens of other early and similar works which warned of the same papist threat and for damn good and rational and legal and historical reasons, and these many old works have, just like Morse’s, likewise been memory-holed and suppressed, and many of these early “anti-Catholic writings” also foresaw and forewarned that that memory-holing of their own work was going to happen as a result of the very thing they were trying to stop. Gee, what a coincidence. So here comes Gatto with his glib remarks about a history he doesn’t know was white-washed, or else perhaps he doesn’t want his readers to know. Mr. Gatto: Read the works of George Seldes from the early 20th century; he’ll tell you why Morse and the very many others like him in the 1800s were suppressed and blotted out of the very history books you are relying upon while you go about critiquing the school’s history textbooks which have of course also blotted them out. If I had to guess, I’d say that at some point in his formative years, Gatto himself was educated in a Jesuit school of some kind. When it comes to Romanism there is an indelible mark left on him that he, independent-minded as he is, never got over.

Rating: Δ Δ 6/2013


Wow. Where to start with this one? This book teaches a variant of “British Israelism,” the belief that the descendants of the so-called “Ten Lost Tribes” of ancient Israel eventually migrated to northern Europe and formed the modern nations we find there today. Well, as usual when I am this ambivalent and lukewarm about a book, I’ll go ahead and use my handy-dandy “spaghetti-western” book review format:

The good:
The author actually seems quite compelling and reasonable so long as he is seeking to connect the ancient Parthians and Scythians to Hebrew origins. Just about all of the connections he makes in the entire book are linguistic ones, and he has a bit of a tendency to jump to conclusions throughout, often playing fast and loose between conjecture and fact; notwithstanding, the connections he strings together here are actually rather intriguing. The dates he gives for historical events, the linguistic similarities–it’s one of those things that we’ll never know the answer to, not without having to speculate about a lot of it–nevertheless, it does seem at least credible that the Parthians and Scythians could have been of Hebraic origin, and then yes, they could very well have migrated and melded to become the various Germanic tribes which did in fact begin to sweep all over Europe, roughly speaking, right after the fall of the Parthian Empire.

The bad:
In the second half or so of the book when the author tries to make a connection between (you guessed it) the British and Americans with the ancient Ephraimites and Manassehites, respectively, the connections are laughably forced, with the author having to resort to an egregiously pollyanna-like interpretation of the histories of Britain and the United States. What he writes about Britain and the United States in order to shoe-horn them into the identities of Ephraim and Manasseh is shamelessly puerile and selective. I’ll give but one example which sets the tone: He writes that, in the original dispensation of land to the original Hebrew tribes, God gave Ephraim only a small portion of the land, and Manasseh a greater portion, and so, over time, Ephraim developed a yen for sending out pioneers and establishing Ephraimite colonies around the Mediterranean, whereas Manasseh became a more insular, isolationist people, satisfied as long as they had a lot of “elbow room” in their own homeland; the author then fancifully writes how Britain has always been a small country, but they sent explorers around and built up colonies around the world, whereas the United States, with its vaster homeland, was more isolationist and did not seek to build up a colonial empire like Britain had. This is what I mean by “pollyanna” and “puerile” when I describe this author’s selective interpretation of modern history: Funny how he conveniently forgets that the U.S. has more military bases in more countries around the world than any nation ever before in history, and that the U.S. DID and DOES attack other nations and make basically economic colonies if not outright states out of them: Ever hear of the Phillipines? Puerto Rico? Hawaii? Haiti? Nicaragua? Panama? Iraq? Afghanistan?

And as with so many other authors trying to chronicle historical events, the crucial, suppressed history this author is missing is that the U.S. is still a British colony anyway. So whatever the U.S. does is necessarily and ultimately for the greater gain of the Crown of Britain.

Also bad is the fact that this author believes in the bogus official version of the 9/11 “terrorist” attacks. He alludes to it a time or two in praise of those “American Manassehites” who are just making the world safer by “fighting terrorism” and whose mega-corporate plutocratic chieftains don’t really have any vested interest in arms and munition sales, Big Oil profits, and opium smuggling. No, no, no, of course not.

As the writer is of course a caucasian American, this is vain, self-serving, “cowboys-and-indians” history. Another sad result of this view is that author must of necessity teach and believe that the royal line of Britain is God’s gift to humanity or something. Nevermind the fact that various members of that maniacally eugenical royal family are on record as pining for 95% of us regular folk to be killed off the face of the Earth via some great plague or famine.

The author proceeds to guesstimate at the identify of the other northern European nations, trying to guess which ancient Hebrew Tribe founded which modern European nation, and these segments are almost as campy as the Britain/America = Ephraim/Manasseh bit.

Here in this second half or so of the book the author starts to mix in sweeping, childlike generalities about the peoples of the various European nations of today, some of them beyond fanciful and approaching farcical (as when he writes about the “scriptural” origin and nature of those tempting, tawdry “Swedish blonde” women–oh, brother–quick! somebody hose this guy down) and he tries to fasten these national stereotypes onto what very little the Scriptures tell us of the personalities of the various sons of Jacob in the Book of Genesis–as though a particular personality quirk of one ancient ancestral man is of course going to permeate and dominate the personalities of most if not all of his multitudes and multitudes of offspring down through the millenia, right? I mean, that’s just a given, right? An established scientific empirical fact? Sure, I thought everybody knew that one!

I should add that I am genuinely confused when this author claims that descendants of Israel’s King Zedekiah survived and have reigned in other, more northwesterly lands down through the ages–did not God place an irrevocable blood curse of NON-rulership on that family line in Jeremiah 22??

The ugly:
It would seem that some people just have a natural proclivity towards racism, benign (like I think this author evinces) or otherwise. At one point in his narrative, after attributing scores upon scores of self-serving blessings from God upon the northern European races, and going on and on about all the advantages therefore that being northern European can get you, then, in one or two perfunctory sentences midway through the book he throws out a token bone to all the other “non-Hebrew” races of mankind, stating desultorily that there is no one race of people that is any better than any other in the eyes of our Creator. Then he resumes his eisegetical glorification of all things northern European. And again, oh by the way, his ancestors just happened to be northern Europeans, lucky him.

1 Timothy 1:4 tells us not to get too distracted with endless geneologies, not to get too carried away with exactly this sort of study, fanciful or otherwise. As this book is just one part of a five-part series, I’d say this author has let himself get carried away

Rating: Δ Δ


This book is surprisingly short, and yet it is one of the most monumental works I have ever read. Published during World War II so that there is infused a palpable, first-hand immediacy to the now historical events being described, it concisely unmasks the true origins of Fascism and Nazism and reveals the real string-pulling source for which both Mussolini and Hitler, and all the other fascistic dictator-puppets of the twentieth century, owe their respective ascendancies to power, and hence their ultimate allegiance. Dots are connected in this book that shockingly clarify the origin of both world wars; for the first time many of Hitler’s and Mussolini’s more enigmatic or inexplicable actions are no longer a mystery whatsoever. It all makes harrowing, inescapable sense the way Lehman, an ex-priest converted to scriptural faith in Jesus Christ, breaks it down.

His observations and the conclusions he draws from them are monstrously staggering in their implications. I may have to find some way to wedge this into my “Top 10 Most Important Books of All Time” list. It’s that significant. The ancient adage “All Roads Lead to Rome” has perhaps never been more truly revealed.

Seriously, it’s surreal to try to ponder what this means. It means everything on the Hitlery (History) Channel, everything in any mainstream, big-publishing-house historical book that claims to offer a rendition of the causes of events in the twentieth century is all bunkum; it’s all a red herring, a distraction from the real truth. It’s all baloney. All of it.

It’s not about Hitler or Mussolini or whatever they did or whatever they wanted; it’s not about the Nazis or Fascism; it’s about the Vatican, stupid. That geo-political entity hiding for millenia behind a religion, and yes, BEHIND THE DICTATORS!

And those rising tides of dumb-headed, brown-shirted, Jew-hating American “paytriots” today can stop serving their Roman master now–if they would just stop their moronic mouth-foaming for a moment and actually read these and other irrefutable historical facts with an open mind. Yeah, right, like that’s ever going to happen.

At any rate, Lehman destroys the mythology behind the vaunted “Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion” for them, demonstrating their authorship to be jesuitical, not zionistical. To be sure, Lehman isn’t the only author who’s demonstrated this; but he is definitely one of the more compelling at having done so.

Lehman compares the malignant presence and unperceiving acceptance of Romanism in the United States to a gigantic, metaphorical Trojan Horse, the most fantastically menacing Trojan Horse that could have ever been brought into any republic/democracy.

He was right. And like so many shrieking, siren-sounding Cassandras from decades and decades ago in America and in Europe that you also never heard about, Lehman’s stuff is likewise out-of-print, suppressed, ignored, and all but completely forgotten now.

When it happens here, and it seems pretty damn close now, one thing is certain: We will have got what’s coming to us.

Rating: Δ Δ Δ Δ Δ


In all seriousness, this obscure and no doubt suppressed book from 1940 may be the most quoteworthy book I have ever encountered. I cannot now remember where I had initially come across the name “Lawrence Dennis”–no doubt it was some intriguing and of course cryptic reference in one of my other readings–and even after I FINALLY got around to tracking down a copy, I let that old, used copy I had procured sit up on the shelf a long while before finally giving it a go. This man Dennis, his life and work, have been all but covered up and forgotten now, but apparently in his younger years, before the powers-that-be drained his resources and quelled his voice, this man Dennis had attained a respectable level of notoriety–certainly enough for the U.S. government to assail him in a witchhunt show which is now labeled “The Great Sedition Trial” by those extremely few who are not completely ignorant of this man and this history.

Lawrence Dennnis apparently lived a life very much rife with fantastic ironies: he was born a poor mulatto but somehow, inexplicably, managed to get himself superbly and prestigiously educated; in his early youth he had been a traveling child evangelist, of all things; as an adult he somehow managed to be placed into an official diplomatic post representing the U.S. government which, had anything at all of his political beliefs ever been revealed, he should never have received such a position; despite being a staunch isolationist and an acute critic of the folly of warfare and the stupidity of the masses for being so easily and so chronically gulled into war time and time again by unscrupulous leaders, nevertheless when the U.S. entered World War I Dennis enlisted and served, and later, when the U.S. entered World War II he tried to enlist again, only to be turned away for health reasons. Was this inconsistent? His writing is no less maddeningly so. Welcome to Lawrence Dennis. Inconsistent, obviously brilliant, and even more blazingly iconoclastic.

The message in the The Dynamics of War and Revolution, is this: In order for what we call “capitalism” to work it has to be able to expand; by 1940 capitalism in the U.S. and the U.K. had no way of expanding anymore: the U.K. was backtracking and losing its colonies, and the U.S. had no more frontiers to pioneer, and so capitalism by 1940 was not only doomed, said Dennis, it was indeed already dead. He relentlessly points to the epidemic of mass unemployment in Western Civilization nations, and rails against the fact that, from then on, the only method for continuing on with “capitalism” would be to continually engage in world wars every generation or so. However, Dennis being Dennis, he then goes on to predict that that won’t happen because, after the inevitable World War II that he uncannily anticipates about a year before the attack on Pearl Harbor, the U.S. itself will have become an American version of a national socialist nation. Ironically (there’s that word again), Dennis saw U.S. involvement in WWII to stop fascism in Europe as a great facilitator for a coming fascism in the U.S. This iconoclastic view, more than most of his other iconoclastic views, probably was what got him into hot water with the U.S. government in this great and noble land of “freedom of speech” that we have here. Or something.

But really, when one considers the following fatal infections that the U.S. contracted from its exposure to the Nazis, one has to wonder: Was Dennis really wrong?
1) Nazi doctors being smuggled into the U.S. after WWII, with the subsequent increasing medical experimentation on live, unwitting Americans as disclosed in Eileen Welsome’s The Plutonium Files, etc.
2) MKUltra mind control programs, again carried out on unwitting, hapless, non-volunteer Americans.
3) The American rocketry program and the sudden, propagandistic rehabilitation of the status of genocidal Nazi collaborator Werner von Braun, and the NASA Apollo Moon Landing Hoax.
4) black ops UFO technology, etc., etc.

No, Lawrence Dennis wasn’t wrong, at least not in his central thesis here. Which is why you have never before heard of him.

Dennis was clearly no Nazi, nor is there any trace of racism anywhere in this book. But Dennis did believe that the only solution to the failures of “capitalism,” to mass unemployment especially, was some form of more benevolent national socialism. He was right that it was inevitable; he was a bit too optimistic in thinking it could ever be benevolent, at least for long. Indeed, typical for Dennis, he even hints at this toward the end of the book. Dennis apparently hated being predictable or settling on any one side of any fence for too long. Or something. This is a hard man to know, and a hard book to review. Is that obvious enough yet?

When he could be nailed to a position in his analysis and predictions history shows that he usually, though not always, got it right. Something he didn’t get right, however, was his estimation of who sits atop the power structure, who is ultimately to blame for all this predatory, plutocratic, and now failed “capitalism” that he is decrying. Dennis blames Mother Britain, ultimately; he points to some kind of abstract or collective national author for the foisting of mercantilism upon humanity, which in turn later became “capitalism”; again, maddeningly, Dennis acknowledges that there are powerful international financiers behind the scenes, and in at least one paragraph he surely seems to be saying that these powerful international financiers like to hide behind the scenes and that it is they who actually control the governments of the world–but then Dennis, typically for him, inconsistently writes elsewhere that it is impossible to identify any particular individuals among these international financiers, that the whole thing is a fault of an abstract system or some such vague thing, and so he vacillates: he then goes back to blaming abstract and collective “Britain” instead of identifying these ruling plutocrats as other researchers later did, researchers such as Antony C. Sutton, Gary Allen, and Ferdinand Lundberg, et al.

Likewise, Dennis misses the boat when he writes that a despot with a powerful army will always trump a despot with a powerful money supply behind him. Dennis didn’t understand what David Astle in The Babylonian Woe understood: that a despot with power over money always defeats a despot with power over a mere army, because if the latter ever gets out of line, the former can always finance, arm, and hire a bigger, stronger, more militaristic strongman to take out the latter. Historically speaking, it works every time.

Contrastly, Dennis is brilliant and at his most quoteworthy as he is poking holes in the mythology we were all told about the “Founding Fathers” and the vaunted principles of “democracy.” Dennis notes how, just as the U.S. “Founding Fathers” were in fact hypocritical slavers, so were the leading Hellenic lights of ancient, “democratic” Athens also hypocritical slavers, and yet, today we are sold a bill of goods about how much the “principles of liberty,” etc., had played such an important role in those societies.

Finally, there are times in this work when Dennis appears to be so prescient that he seems to be subconsciously writing at another level of understanding, the importance and accuracy of which even he doesn’t fully grasp: Knowing what we now know, that the U.S. is still a British Colony and the Treaty of Paris which followed the American Revolution was a rigged deal dictated by the “losing” King George III (see the works of James Montgomery or “The Informer”), it is most fascinating to read quips by Dennis in which he tongue-in-cheekly refers to George Washington as the “founder of the modern British Empire,” and also laments how pitifully easy it is for Mother Britain to sway duped Americans into fighting Britain’s battles for her. It’s almost as if the Americans didn’t really win that revolution, he seems to marvel. (He’s getting warmer, getting warmer!)

Lawrence Dennis didn’t focus on history, per se; his bailiwick throughout is economics. He always focuses on, and writes like, an economist. But this isn’t like any economist you’ve ever been exposed to before.

And there’s a reason for that.

Rating: Δ Δ Δ Δ