The Majority is Always Wrong.

Month: January, 2015


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