The Majority is Always Wrong.

Category: Mainstream History


In the waning days of WWII, vast multitudes of German people–soldiers and civilians alike–needed to flee west to escape the vengeful invading Soviet hordes. For these Germans, a land escape was by then impracticable. The only realistic chance of escape lay via the sea. And so the German navy, under Admiral Karl Doenitz (who for a brief period of time would become the interim leader of all of Germany after the death/disappearance of Hitler and the Nazi elite), gathered together a multitude of just about any ship that would float, naval, commercial, and anything else left over, to rescue the panic-stricken German multitudes. The author calls this episode of WWII history “Germany’s Dunkirk.” And in the numbers of Germans rescued, this operation more than justifies the name, and justifies Admiral Doenitz for declaring it an overall triumph. However, unlike Britain’s Dunkirk, there was also a tremendous loss of life when at least two large German liners were sunk by torpedoes from Russian submarines.

By far the greatest loss of life occurred when the former German liner, Wilhelm Gustloff, was sunk by a Russian sub. This is a straightforward account, nothing conspiratorial or anything like that. What is perhaps most intriguing about this account is that I had never heard of it before, and neither has most anybody else outside of Germany–even people who know a thing or two about WWII history. This is all the more fascinating and perplexing when it is taken into account that far, far more people died when the Wilhelm Gustloff went down than the next three or four much better-known ship disasters in history combined! The Titannic, the Lusitania, the Empress of Ireland, etc.–one could combine all the loss of life aboard all of those ships, and one would still not come close to how many people died aboard the Wilhelm Gustloff. And I had never ever heard of this history before. And I hereby ask the reader: Had YOU?

It is also ironical and tragic what befell the captain of the Soviet submarine after WWII. Instead of being commended as a national war hero, paranoid KGB types and others sent this former sub captain to Siberia. Apparently it did not pay to be conspicuous under Stalin’s regime no matter for what reason. But then, I already did know that at least.

This is a small paperback book published in 1980, competently written by more than one author, curiously, and it looks like a fictional book in its construction but it is anything but fiction.

Rating: Δ Δ Δ Δ




I confess to having a stridently ambivalent estimation of books like this anymore; books written by evangelical Christians whose overall moral message is meritorious, but when it comes to American history they are still stuck in idolatrous, patriotic, hero-worship mode. I too used to suffer from this delusional thinking, so I know fairly accurately from whence stuff like this comes. Indeed, this book, and this author, represent for me a sort of microcosm of nearly all my erstwhile “patriotic” evangelical friends–but that’s another story. Well, where do I start with a mixed bag like this?

Ok, it was written in 1995 by a pastor of a California church, and there can be little to no doubt that this man and his church have signed ungodly, unequally-yoked, worldly contracts with the Caesarian, secular government in the form of State Incorporation and 501c3 Tax Exempt Status papers. Since about 99% of churches in the U.S. have now swallowed this poison pill, it is rather safe to assume that this is the case here too, especially given how this man writes about history and where he gets his sources. But let us now cut to the chase: What, according to David T. Moore, are the “Five Lies of the Century”? These are, in the order listed in the book:

1. America Never Was a Christian Nation

2. The Traditional Family Is Irrelevant

3. Evolution Is an Established Fact

4. The Sexual Revolution Has Set Humanity Free

5. Entertainment Is Harmless

Now, this reader has very few problems whatsoever with Mr. Moore’s message for Lies numbers 2 through 5, with the exception that, in outlining Lie #2, though Moore rightfully emphasizes the importance and sanctity of the family unit–father, mother, children–like nearly all modern evangelicals, he does not sufficiently stress how comprehensively besieged and symbolically castrated are fathers and husbands in our culture, though he does try to do so. Predictably, this results in a message that places upon Christian men in our society all of the RESPONSIBILITY God gave to them in Scripture, but which nowhere decries the fact that our society has stripped men of nearly all legal AUTHORITY to carry out those responsibilities. This is a huge, shameful, misandric blindspot for nearly all evangelicals today, though they themselves would probably deny it up and down and be in total ignorance about it.

I do also have a minor criticism of Moore’s delineation of Lie #3. Though he does do a fairly brilliant and succinct job of exposing the hoax of Darwinism, he does make the mistake of using the vague, slippery word “evolution.” He should not let his opponents dictate the language he uses. This is a rhetorical mistake.

In Lie #4, that the “sexual revolution” is in fact dangerous and destructive to the fabric of society, I can only agree with the author. He is correct on all points, from the true, scriptural view of sex, to the dangers of wantonness, to the holocaust of the modern abortion industry, to the myth that homosexuals are “born that way.” Again, though, Moore does make the mistake of letting his ideological opponents dictate his language to him, this time when he refers to homosexuals as “gay.” (Note: Anyone who thinks that this is nit-picking does not appreciate the crucial importance of language in relation to thought and needs to read much more of George Orwell’s writings!)

In Lie #5, Moore does a worthy job of demonstrating that cultural entertainment does not happen in a vacuum; that violent and licentious motion pictures and programs, etc., DO have a most deleterious affect on society. So I can only concur with the author here.

But now, let us get back to Moore’s “Lie #1.” He thinks the “Founding Fathers” were “Christian”; he thinks that “America was founded as a Christian nation.” This is the kind of stuff that makes me want to pull all of my hair out, or else hit myself on the head with a hammer, or both. I am ashamed that I used to believe this outrageous nonsense myself. But I did grow out of it. I stopped buying my history books from Barnes and Noble and other bookstore chains that only sell books from major, mainstream, big corporation-controlled book publishers; I stopped getting my news from TV at all times. I started seeking out old, out-of-print, suppressed history books, and the newer and fewer independently published history books. And while my belief in the God of the Scriptures came through unscathed, I had all of that baggage, that idolatrous hero-worship of the “Founding Fathers” and all that patriotic crap burned out of me. David T. Moore, like so many other well meaning modern American evangelicals, is herein still feeding out of the slop trough of the god of this world when it comes to understanding the real, factual history of the United States.

Moore provides many of the patriotic stock-and-trade quotations from the “Founding Fathers” which supposedly prove that they were “Christian.” One obvious problem here, though, is that nearly all of these quotations are conspicuously bereft of specific references to Jesus Christ, but instead refer more generally to a “Lord of the Universe” or some other such vagary. Question: Why can’t evangelicals like this author be wise-as-a-serpent enough to recognize that such vague references to a “Universal Deity” or a “Divine Providence” or a “Grand Architect,” etc., are the kind of references that FREEMASONS make, NOT CHRISTIANS?! Or does this author and others like him not appreciate the fact that Freemasonry is in fact a Satanic cult?

But even the scant references that this author can provide wherein some or other “Founding Father” supposedly made mention of the name Jesus Christ in some or other private correspondence prove almost nothing, for the Scriptures tell us to judge a man by his fruit, not by his words. And so what good does it do to quote a godly quotation from Andrew Jackson, as this author does, when Andrew Jackson committed atrocious genocide against the Native Americans (Source: Ward Churchill: A Little Matter of Genocide)? And what good does it do to quote a godly quotation from George Washington himself, when in Washington, once the idolatrous, patriot-propaganda is brushed away, we find a man who became the richest man in the country by way of lying, despotism, and insider secret deals (Source: Ibid Ward Churchill, and also Gustavus Myers: The History of the Supreme Court of the United States, and also Whiskey Rebellion by Wythe Holt)? Moore also quotes James Wilson for a nice, platitudinous, godly quotation. Wilson was nominated to the Supreme Court by Washington. Trouble is, Wilson was an elitist crook (Source: Ibid Gustavus Myers). Moore then quotes First Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Jay as having uttered another moral, godly platitude. Trouble is, Jay too was an elitist crook (Source: Ibid Gustavus Myers). And when the UNelected “Founding Fathers” MET IN SECRET at the “Constitutional Convention” and then LIED to the public about what they were doing behind closed doors, how then was that “Christian?” (Source: America is Still a British Colony by James Montgomery; Hologram of Liberty by Kenneth Royce)

Be advised that my sources are spectacularly more footnoted and citationed forms of reference than anything Moore provides or draws upon. My sources may be out-of-print, they may be suppressed, they may be unpopular, and Moore and his evangelical ilk may and must be completely ignorant of them, but that does not change their factual nature. Later on, Moore even–gulp–cites Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren for a godly quotation. Ugh. Really? He actually went there? For Heaven’s sake, are there still Americans left–evangelicals or otherwise–who do not realize that (33rd degree freemason) Earl Warren and his “investigatory commission” into the assassination of JFK brazenly LIED to the American public??!!

I am just getting going. The Christians have always been here,  Mr. Moore, but just like every other Satanic construct called a nation upon this Earth, they have had to hide in nooks and crannies and they are not who you think they are.

I would have some more pointed questions for this author. Namely:

1) Why does he habitually refer to Roman Catholics when trotting out more contemporary sources for moralizing quotations?–Pat Buchanan, William Bennett, Mother Theresa, Daniel Moynihan?–and why does Moore refer to Jesuit-controlled Fordham University as a moral authority?? Since when did the one institution on Earth which has mass-murdered more Bible-believing Christians than any other institution, or any of its minions, become authoritative “Christian” sources of morality??

2) When the Bible tells us that no man is good, that men’s hearts are endlessly wicked, that all man’s best works are but filthy rags unto the Lord, then why does Moore and so many evangelicals like him continue to revere the “Founding Fathers”? And, speaking of this, when the Bible warns to “call no man Father,” why then do patriotic evangelicals like this man still refer to the founding lawyers, freemasons, and land speculators and stealers of the U.S. as “Fathers”?

3) Oh, and exactly what is it, Mr. Moore, about the centuries-long, systematic, officially approved policy of genocide and grand theft committed against the Native Americans by the government of the United States that you consider as having been emblematic of a “Christian nation”?? Was it the American settlers who exterminated the Native Americans who had been in the process of being converted to Christ by the Moravian missionaries from Europe (Source: Ibid, Ward Churchill, and also A History of the Moravian Church by JE Hutton)? Was that Christian? Was it when the English colonists and later American settlers taught the Indians how to scalp heads (Source: Ibid Ward Churchill)? Was it when the U.S. Cavalry and American “God-fearing” vigilantes alike massacred scores upon scores of Indian women, children, and old men on numerous occasions? Was it when super-rich-and-respected American oligarchs like Gould and Vanderbilt and Astor plied the Indians with alcohol in order to steal from them and decimate them (Source: Gustavus Myers, The History of the Great American Fortunes)? Was it when the U.S. Army conducted the world’s first recorded incident of germ warfare, which was perpetrated against the Indians in the form of smallpox-infected blankets given as gifts? Was that “Christian,” Mr. Moore? Or was it when George Washington himself and others of his class knowingly committed falsehood and theft upon the Indians by knowingly offering treaty upon treaty to the Indians, even though Washington himself and others knew beforehand that these treaties were going to be violated, each and every one (Source: Ibid Ward Churchill)?

I could go on and on. That’s what happens when a person leaves off trusting and reading and listening to mainstream propaganda, and then encounters a book like this, written by an author like this, who still suffers from being under its influence, manifesting sins like patriotism and hero worship, which has led and always will lead inevitably to unchristian war mongering.

On another note, Mr. Moore, later on in the book, did you really have to refer to Janet Reno for a moralizing quotation? Do you not know that that woman was already corrupt even before her massacre of children at Waco? Yes, it happens to be true: When she was the attorney general of the State of Florida, she was corrupt even then (Source: James and Kenneth Collier, Votescam). And you use her??

And did you really have to rely on Lee Iacocca for a moralizing quotation?? Mr. Moore, do you not know that Lee Iacocca was the high-degree Freemason who was in charge of seeing to it that the bullet-ridden limousine that carried JFK through Dallas was quickly whisked away and refurbished to remove all incriminating evidence of the grand conspiracy to assassinate the president before any potential investigation (Source: Eric Phelps, Vatican Assassins; also many others)? Why do you also not know this, Mr. Moore? Is it because you are getting your news from FoxNews? Is it because you trust the mainstream sources of information that the “god of the air(waves)” provides for you?

I had better stop. It is too maddening. What I think I am identifying here is nothing less than a believer in Jesus Christ who, at least in his “Lie #1,” is calling evil good, and good evil (Isaiah 5:20).

And needless to say, Mr. Moore is also evidently ignorant of the Antiochan vs. Alexandrian Bible manuscript controversy, for the few times he quotes from “the Bible” he does indeed quote from one of the modern paraphrase “Bible versions.”

Rating: Δ Δ



Romeo Dallaire was the Canadian United Nations general who had on-site command over the U.N. humanitarian relief operation in Rwanda shortly before and then during the approximately 100 days of concentrated genocide in that nation in the Spring of 1994. If I am not mistaken, the character that actor Nick Nolte portrayed in the motion picture HOTEL RWANDA was loosely based on Dallaire. This was published in 2003, apparently as Dallaire was recovering from a quite understandable psychological/emotional tailspin in life.

This book is extremely engrossing: Once a reader gets to about the third chapter, beyond a bit of necessary background, autobiographical information, the reader will not want to put down this book until they have finished all 500 or so pages.

Dallaire reveals himself to be still full of shame from everything he saw and some of what he did or didn’t do, but it is transparently clear (and clearly unappreciated by Dallaire himself) that he of all people should hold no shame over himself. The specific details he records about the Rwandan holocaust, the colossal suffering, the acute barbarity, is ghastly, gruesome, horrific. Dallaire documents how his U.N. paper-shuffling superiors, and the governments of several first-world nations–most notably the U.S., the U.K., and France–severely hampered his own personal exhaustive (and this reader would say “herculean”) efforts to assuage the Rwandan belligerents and avert, and later, to at least mitigate, the massive slaughters happening all over that countryside. Here is a man who obviously risked his own life many times and was very conscientious about risking the lives of the men under his command, and who apparently was plagued as almost no other military commander in history has ever been plagued by weak-willed, self-centered, morally ambivalent bureaucratic bosses. So Dallaire shows himself to have been heroic, and to be humble. And yes, I understand he was writing about himself; but no, I don’t think he could have made any of this up, by the way. The whole account sounds far too authentic for that.

Dallaire also reveals himself to have been naïve, and in a very real sense, still naïve. He admits to having been, in 1994, strictly a military man who was naïve about geopolitics. He certainly emerged from his Rwandan trial by fire as a man thoroughly trained in regional political machinations; but in matters of global geopolitics, at least in 2003, he revealed himself to be still naïve indeed: On the last couple pages of the conclusion, Dallaire refers to the 911 “terrorist” attacks, and he makes it clear that he, like most of the propagandized masses, believes in the impossible official government version of events of that day. Again, this was written in 2003; I’d like to think he has seen the light about the Machiavellian/Orwellian reality of False Flag Attacks by now.

Rating: Δ Δ Δ Δ Δ

DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA by Alexis DeTocqueville

What happened was, a French nobleman went on a tour of the United States in 1831 with the stated purpose of studying its prison system. Instead, Alexis DeTocqueville ended up writing a voluminous treatise describing virtually all aspects of life in the young nation.

It is of course a vaunted document now, historically speaking, and justifiably so. It is literally a time capsule, a stirling portraiture of specific details on the society of the U.S. in its infancy. And needless to say, DeTocqueville himself, as a nobleman, was exquisitely educated. However, there were evidently a few select gaping holes in DeTocqueville’s education.

Specifically, he showed himself to be startlingly ignorant about anything related to the Vatican and the nature of Roman Catholicism. In several paragraphs he seems genuinely ignorant of the fact that it was the proliferation of the many Protestant sects in America that gave rise to “democracy,” and that “democracy” is actually irrevocably anathema to the Roman hierarchical model of society. Then, in another part of the book, DeTocqueville actually expresses earnest mystification over the relative timidity of Roman Catholic priests and laymen in the U.S. as compared to their European counterparts. He fails to connect the dots, so to speak, and see that the only reason that the Romanists were timid in the U.S. at that time was because they were in the numerical minority–and then DeTocqueville also notes in another section how that huge numbers of Romanist immigrants were being funneled into the U.S. at that time (and as still continues today). But, historically and experientially speaking, once the priests and Rome have achieved a majority in the U.S., as with everywhere else they have achieved a majority, they would and were no longer be timid in and about the U.S. and its affairs because, as with all the other other nations wherein Rome predominates, Rome soon literally controls the temporal affairs of that nation. It’s a historical fact that the dumbed-down American masses don’t know about today–and that’s because Rome, once in charge, has rewritten the history books–but for DeTocqueville, an extraordinarily well educated man, a nobleman, this ignorance is truly shocking to behold.

Also, it is clear that DeTocqueville naively idolized “democracy” in the same way that many early 20th-century muckrakers would go on to naively idolize socialism, likewise believing it to be a veritable panacea for the 5000 or so years of recorded history of mankind being unable to justly govern itself. We all know better than that now–uh, right?

So, as a purely historical document of anecdotal antiquity, this is a singular work worthy of the highest accolades. But whenever DeTocqueville waxes philosophical about systems of government, which is at least as dominant a feature of this book as the keen, hands-on, historical-societal observations, then DeTocqueville’s idolatry of “democracy” is quaint but little more than that; and whenever DeTocqueville broaches any topic pertaining to Rome, there is in fact an embarrassing dearth of knowledge here.

Rating: Δ Δ Δ

THE JESUS WARS by Philip Jenkins

An entire book written under the willfully ignorant (and all-too common these days) bogus supposition that “institutional Christianity” = “Christianity.” That is to say, this man is operating under the assumption that there is no such thing as a “scriptural Christianity.”

Been there, done that, I survived my communist public education thus far, I’m still recovering from it, and I have no intention of going back, no thanks.

Rating: Don’t Bother


This rather huge book, published in 1972, provides a comprehensive history of Japan during the final days of World War II, and in the aftermath under the American occupation. In attaining an exhaustive amount of detail, it probably makes for some rather tedious reading to all but the most ardent Japanophile, as it covers many esoteric day-to-day activities and thought processes of Japan’s leading political and military figures of the day. Midway through the book, Bergamini backtracks and outlines a great deal of Japan’s medieval history, tracing down and back to World War II.

For somebody doing research for the first time into the history of Japan, this is the book for you. Bergamini’s very thorough, rather unaffected writing style doesn’t make for very stimulating reading, but as a reference tool on Japan it would be quite useful. Just don’t expect too many surprises: This is mainstream, conventional history fodder, however useful it is.

Rating: Δ Δ Δ Δ

ALBION’S SEED by David Hackett Fischer

A very novel and most compelling historical treatise that traces four very different and recognizable “folkways” of British settlement in the New World from roughly the years 1600 to 1800. The author’s premise, once he outlines it, is beyond convincing, and it is fascinating that seemingly no other historians have picked up on the set of cultural patterns which Fischer renders obvious. These patterns, these “folkways,” according to Fischer, are as follows:

1) British Congregationalists (Puritans) and Separatists (Pilgrims), originating largely from southeastern Britain, settled in New England mostly in the early to mid-1600′s because of Royalist oppression occurring against them in their homeland at that time, and they carried their distinctive southeast-British, puritanical culture with them and transmitted it to their posterity to this day.

2) British Royalists, or Cavaliers, originating largely from southwestern Britain, settled in tidewater Virginia in the late 1600′s due to Congregational oppression occurring against them in their homeland at that time, and they carried their distinctive southwestern elitist British culture with them and transmitted it to their posterity to this day.

3) British Quakers, originating from the northern middle of Britain, settled in Delaware and Pennsylvania in the first half of the 1700′s because of the oppression from all sides that was occurring against them in Britain at the time, and they carried their distinctive north-midland, Quaker culture with them and transmitted it to their posterity to this day.

4) Northern “borderland” Britons and Scotch-Irish, originating on either side of the British border with Scotland, and in Northern Ireland, because of the constant ravages of war and poverty in that portion of Britain, settled in a steady stream throughout the 1700′s into the Appalachians and America’s “Backcountry,” and they carried their distinctive British “Borderer” culture with them and transmitted it to their posterity to this day.

The author shows how these distinctive cultures affected the development of America throughout its history, and how these same four regional cultures can still be easily discerned today. Many esoteric and engrossing little American historical questions are answered by this author: such as, why it was inevitable that Virginia would have its northern portion splinter off into West Virginia; why New England today has such strict “gun control” measures and why Texas does not; why the backcountry settlers typically failed to make peace with the North American Indians but preferred unrelenting warfare and genocide, etc.

Another interesting thing that can be discerned is that each of the four “folkways” got different parts of the Gospel message right, but none of them got the whole thing right.

This is a massive tome of about 500 pages, brilliantly researched and written. Its central thesis is quite singular. This book is extremely recommendable and cannot fail to stimulate any and all American or British history buffs.

Rating: Δ Δ Δ Δ Δ


Written in the 1860s, this is little known history, at least for contemporary Americans. It is also interesting history, and typically tragic, and Americans should know more about it. As the title indicates, it records the efforts of France to settle the North American continent. A lot of Americans today might be aware that France at that time was in a competition with Britain and Spain to colonize and especially profit from the “New World” that had just been “discovered,” but that’s about all the average American would know. This book fills in a lot of the rest.

In it one learns why France mostly lost out to Britain and Spain in the New World: France had a string of unfortunately inept, weak kings, and France had the terrible misfortune of being under the iron hand of the Vatican, and especially the Jesuits. On the one hand, the weak French kings lacked the foresight to see why France should have been emphasizing the colonization of North America, instead of the plundering of it. On the other hand, France was a nation paralyzed by burgeoning religious dissension. Parkman records all this quite well, but he nowhere demonstrates that he knew the real cause of this religious dissension. He assumes the mainstream moronic line that the rise of the Hugeonots caused it. But this wasn’t what caused it, obviously. The Hugeonots were quite willing to allow for religious freedom; the Jesuits were not. Parkman records the historic events, even and perhaps especially the massacres, but again he doesn’t seem to understand the true underlying causes for them.

The most significant thing the average American can learn from this book happens in the first chapter, wherein is recorded the tragic attempt by the Hugeonots to settle in what is now the state of Florida. In a precursor of what would happen to the Hugeonots in France a few years later, and consistent with the guileless behavior the Hugeonots would later show in the days leading up to the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre, these colonizing Hugeonots were also too trusting of Romanist intentions, and they too were barbarically annihilated. Parkman records that it was the Spanish from the competing outpost at St. Augustine that did it, but again Parkman doesn’t show that he understood who and what was really driving the Spanish; neither did Parkman possess enough depth of understanding in his explanation of why France only ever offered tepid support to the French Hugeonot settement project. However, this is still valuable documentation that Parkman provided, for again, most Americans are completely ignorant of this history of protestant French presence in Florida.

Eradicated in Florida, and denied in the New World by Spain and England from settling anywhere more southerly, the Hugeonots next attempted to settle in Canada, as a lot of people might know. The rest of this book, then, concerns itself with this history. Again we find lukewarm support for the French Hugeonots from their mother country; again we find the leadership of France too obtuse and dissipated to appreciate the pressing longterm need for colonization rather than profiteering; and here we also find the Jesuits playing a more obvious role in undermining and eradicating the Hugeonots in Canada, with even French Jesuits taking part this time. Of course, Parkman didn’t appreciate what he was writing about, tending instead to parrot the party line about the efforts of the Jesuits to convert the Indians. But the events which he documents frankly quite often seem to give the lie to this.

Finally, the life’s effort of Samuel DeChamplain, which mostly came to nought like all the rest of French effort in settlling North America, is what Parkman mostly concerns himself with for the bulk of the last 2/3 of the book.

This is a worthy read all in all, and some little known and quite interesting history here, even if the author was stuck in the “vanilla-mainstream” interpretation of events.

Rating: Δ Δ Δ Δ


Around eight or nine years ago I first read this book. At the time, I thought it a quite informative, albeit somewhat brief, recording of the history of Croatia.

I didn’t know then what I know now.

The book begins its history of Croatia in the Middle Ages, and the narrative then continues to the present day. Most informative were the chapters which examined the political turmoil in and around Croatia at the close of the 19th and the turn of the 20th century, the turmoil that ultimately led to the creation of the 20th century hodgepodge nation of Yugoslavia. Also of notable interest was the history of the Yugoslavian politician Stjepan Radic, who seemed, by this account anyway, to be an unusually honest man for a politician and therefore was, naturally, another victim of modern political assassination.

But the trouble with this historical account, this older, wiser reader now realizes, is what it DOESN’T contain:  It doesn’t at all investigate the behind-the-scenes conspirators who really killed this Radic fellow, and it doesn’t focus enough–not even REMOTELY enough–on the truly nefarious intrigues of the Vatican over Croatia, and the horrendous history of what happened in Croatia during World War II, the events which Avro Manhattan called the “Vatican’s Holocaust.” Any book  which purports to give a history of Croatia, but leaves out such horribly egregious historical stains, is a book which has been whitewashed. It is a book laced with deception, a book in which gigantic facts have been omitted simply because they are found to be offensive to the Powers-That-Be.

And it is little wonder why so much historical truth is missing here: the book is published by Barnes & Noble. There’s your answer, right there.

Rating: Δ Δ

HANNIBAL by Jacob Abbott / HANNIBAL by Ernle Bradford

Nothing “hidden” about this history, but reading these two books together makes for an excellent study in so-called “objectivity” in historical writing, and no doubt in journalism as well. There is no objectivity. Never has been, never will be. Forget what every major media information trough claims as part of its advertising campaign: No human being is capable of pure, unadulterated, unbiased objectivity.

Both of these historical works detail the 2nd Punic War, especially of course delving into the life and feats of the famous Carthaginian general. Both books also give a brief account of the 1st and 3rd Punic Wars, and both books elucidate on Hannibal’s life and exploits after the defeat at Zama. Thus, there is much similarity in the format of the books, though Jacob Abbott’s book was published in the late 1800s, while Ernle Bradford’s was published in the late 1900s. Both give stirring, fascinating, well written accounts of Hannibal’s life.

However, here is a most intriguing difference between the two: Whereas Abbott writes with much sympathy towards the Roman perspective, Bradford writes with much sympathy towards Hannibal’s perspective. Thus, these two books would make for a valuable reference for anyone writing a doctoral thesis or whatever on so-called “objectivity” in the major (or any other) media in any country, and among historians of any age, in any culture.

Rating: Δ Δ Δ Δ