The Majority is Always Wrong.

Category: Orwell Was Right


This keeps happening. I keep running into these books that make me feel like I am living in an old, black-and-white episode of The Twilight Zone. It has been happening for years now, the more I read I just cannot help myself, I seek out with no small amount of effort old, out-of-print texts that do not conform with mainstream, orthodox accounts of history. But then, that is what makes them out-of-print, right?–the fact that they do not and did not conform with orthodoxy, with a brainwashing, oligarchically controlled major media and oligarchically controlled major publishing houses.

This is another stunning “time-capsule” of a book; this one from the early 1950s–1953 to be exact. It is a compendium of nine essays from eight “revisionist” historians who make it clear that extraordinarily well-researched opinions like theirs were in the process of being blackballed by the major publishers, universities, and other such mainstream outlets of information. (And if they were blackballed back then, then their collective message is REALLY buried nowadays.) Hence, my enthusiasm over this rare find.

These bygone revisionist historians give the ominous, time-capsule-esque record that by the 1950s there were only two publishing houses which were willing to tell the truth about history; only two that had the courage to publish their unpleasant, non-conformist, and FACTUAL findings: Those two courageous publishing houses were Regnery, and Devin-Adair.

Today, in this era of ever-encroaching, returning-to-Papal-Dark-Age darkness, those two publishers are now extinct.

This book is over 700 pages. The respective essays of these standout, non-lying, non-mainstream 1950s historians are not short essays. They had much to say, much to document; much of it, most of it, ignored and covered up in their own time by most other “court historians” and other historian-lackeys of the system; these eight historians were quite as academically accomplished as their mainstream, propagandist counterparts, but the revisionists did not have ear-tickling stories of patriotism to tell. The revisionists only had the truth.

Some fundamental, factual revelations that were herein shown by these gutsy, dissenting, American profs of the Cold War Hysteria Era are:
1. The U.S. participation in WWI was unnecessary, and it was nationally as well as internationally deleterious; it forever altered official U.S. policy from a platform of “continentalism” to one of CFR-impelled “internationalism.”
2. That in the 1920s at least there were more viable and more numerous outlets for revisionist historians to get the message out and not be blackballed.
3. That after WWII the blackballing of revisionist historians and of raw, truthful accounts of U.S. history began in earnest.
4. That FDR and members of his Cabinet and Pentagon lied to the American people and did everything within their power, much of it in secret, to provoke the Japanese to attack the U.S., and that the Japanese actually showed great restraint in not attacking the U.S. sooner! (They actually document this more repeatedly and relentlessly than most of the other shocking facts that they prove.)
5. That FDR and members of his Cabinet and the Pentagon knew beforehand that the Japanese were going to attack, and these deliberately withheld this knowledge from the Hawaiian commanders. But hey, that bloody sacrifice was necessary to shock the U.S. citizenry into bloodthirsty WAR FEVER, so it’s all good. Or something.
6. That there were multitudinous official “investigations” into the Pearl Harbor attack and into what FDR and members of his Cabinet and the Pentagon knew or “didn’t know,” and to varying degrees every single one of these “investigations” was a whitewashing sham job.
7. That, linguistically speaking, the terms “isolationist” and “isolationism” are contrived, propagandistic smear words, deliberately deceptive insults concocted by “internationalists” who had succumbed to a reckless utopian plan of “globaloney.” The PROPER, non-derogatory, and more accurate term for an “isolationist” would be “continentalist,” and “continentalism” was in fact the official foreign policy of the U.S. for ALL of its history up until the disastrous 20th century when everything went haywire and the U.S. started policing the globe to its own detriment.
8. That U.S. involvement in WWII was perhaps the single greatest catastrophic failure in all of recorded history. These authors/historians document and demonstrate a tremendous amount of evidence, much of it embarrassingly obvious, to show that practically every single stated goal of the U.S. during WWII not only failed to be met, but in fact the post-WWII geopolitical situation presented a much, much, MUCH more dangerous world for the U.S. and its allies than at ANY time before or during WWII. For obvious example (one of a great many obvious and not-so-obvioius examples which the authors offer), “making the world safe” by removing Japan and Germany as threats only of course resulted in the much greater danger of the U.S.S.R. and Communist China. It should be obvious, right?

Ah, but it is not so obvious to today’s brainwashed “court historians,” the kind whose books one can easily find at a Barnes and Noble or Borders Books; while the much more factual work and wisdom of these revisionist historians gather dust in darkness.

All of these essays are extremely valuable and informative. However, there are two of these 1950s maverick profs that REALLY standout: The opening and closing essays by Harry Elmer Barnes, and Percy Greaves’s comprehensive survey of all of the bogus, whitewashing “investigations” into the Pearl Harbor attack are conspicuously stunning.

Of Percy Greaves, I do believe that that man may have known more about the whitewashing of the truth about December 7, 1941, than any man ever has, then or now. Wow!–What a revealing study he presents! Apparently, he studied something like tens of thousands of pages of official testimony that was (designed to be) too daunting for anyone else to sift through.

And Harry Elmer Barnes, now THAT man–I was so rewarded in happening upon this work of his. Here was a man who confirms everything I had ever intuited about George Orwell’s true intent behind the writing of the novel 1984, and here this Barnes fellow “got it” back in 1953, so very chronologically close in following the original publishing date of Orwell’s ultimate novel. Barnes too believed, and demonstrates convincingly, how it was and is that most Americans and Britishers grossly misunderstood Orwell’s message of warning. Barnes “got it” back in the early 1950s! Barnes understood the true, all-encompassing, all-ideologies nature of Orwell’s warning. Discovering Barnes was actually a source of vindication for this reader and this Orwell afficiado. Barnes shows vividly and eerily how much, even at that early stage, the former WWII allied nations were themselves becoming societies dangerously akin to the ones warned about by Orwell. It was not just the Soviet Union that Orwell was warning about in 1984, folks. Revisionist historian Harry Elmer Barnes knew this, and he knew it back in ’53.

Rating: Δ Δ Δ Δ Δ


1984: THE LARGER EVILS by W.J. West

REVIEW: Crucial Scraps of Evidence that Escaped the Flames of the Memory Hole

If you want to know who Orwell had the hots for or what he liked eating for dinner, try some other book, some major book publishing house bio on Orwell. This book is a little different, you see. This book is for people who want to confirm whether those way-out-there rumours are true or not–that George Orwell, i.e. the writer Eric Blair, may have had some intimate and powerful ties to British intelligence. It is a marvel how every single major book publisher’s biography of Orwell omits this information completely–even the fact that such rumours exist at all about the man. Nix. Nothing. Zilch. Guess that’s why Orwell called it the Memory Hole.

At any rate, author W.J. West offers more insight into the real Orwell than any of those thicker, tawdrier bios. He’s stuck offering up mere circumstantial evidence over the question of whether or not George Orwell was MI5, as goes one rumour. But be advised, the amount of circumstantial evidence West cites is, at the very least, guaranteed to raise the eyebrows more than a little bit. And whether or not Orwell was MI5 or MI-anything, it needs to be admitted that, quite often, should a person really have such ties to the intelligence field, if the powers-that-be don’t want the concrete facts to get out into the light, they’re just not going to get out. So we’re relegated to sifting through the circumstantial stuff. But read it yourself and see if West does not make a very compelling case. I’ll tease you with but one example of the kind of stuff West points to: Folks, did you know that after Orwell’s death, one thing found among his personal belongings was a British secret service-issue revolver? Again, how come I never read that in the major book publishing house biographies of the man?!

But it’s not just limited to Orwell, as West shows. Turns out, BOTH of Orwell’s wives either had ties to British intelligence, or again there were many suspicious indicators of such ties being responsible for their places of work and the nature thereof. Orwell’s first wife, for example, worked in a position which required a secured clearance at the British censorship bureau during the war–yes, the British and the Americans censor their news media quite heavily. Welcome to Kansas, Dorothy. And these wives of Orwell, the timing with which they kept landing these politically sensitive and prestigious jobs–whenever Orwell was in most dire need of the monetary help that would enable him to keep on with his writing–man, this kind of fortuitousness is quite conspicuous. Clearly, intelligence ties or some other kind of ties, Orwell had some high connections somewhere.

All things considered, for the serious Orwell fan, this was an extremely tantalizing read. Go for it.

Rating: Δ Δ Δ Δ Δ


A well-researched effort which seeks to explain the motivations of one of the 20th century’s most enigmatic figures: author George Orwell; real name: Eric Blair. Sinclair obviously did his homework on Orwell’s writings, for Sinclair’s own writing is copiously studded with Orwell’s own words as well; that is to say, whenever Sinclair is making a claim about Orwell and what must have motivated him at any given time, he typically backs it up with a relevant quote from Orwell himself.

And Orwell’s motivations did evolve over time, as Sinclair shows. Unlike a lot of writers and thinkers of profound thoughts, Orwell didn’t try to hide his faults. He was a man full of contradictions, and when an ideal or a goal was shown to Orwell to have been misguided or otherwise in error, Orwell was man enough to ‘fess up to it. But he always had the improvement of his fellow humanity in mind. Sinclair shows all this.

This book is not really a biography; indeed, Sinclair admits as much at the beginning. But in some ways Sinclair does fulfill the objectives of a typical biography writer; and for stretches in this book, Sinclair does a better job of providing a biography of Orwell than other, more customary biography writers have done. However, the focus of Sinclair’s study does only explore the years that spanned Orwell’s writing career.

Sinclair is typically penetrating in his understanding of Orwell, but near the end, in seeking to understand the state of mind Orwell must have been in while he was writing 1984, Sinclair uncharacteristically adopts a rather shallow approach to explain why that novel was so legendarily dark: Sinclair doesn’t take into account the fluctuating phases that everybody goes through in life, and thus Sinclair may have underestimated the significance of Orwell’s “loss of faith” in socialism simply because that loss of faith may have been a temporary phase; moreover, Sinclair also ignores the personal tragedies that were occurring in Orwell’s life at the time, and chalks up 1984’s extremely dark tone to something like whim or artistic license. For example: Sinclair does not note at all that Orwell’s sister had just died, and Sinclair relegates the death of Orwell’s wife to just two measly sentences. This obtuse oversight was quite odd to come across at the end of a book which offers nothing but keen insights up to that point.

All in all, though, this book is quite recommendable to Orwell novitiates.

Rating: Δ Δ Δ Δ