Jul 04

James Madison, by Richard Brookhiser ★★★★

I had originally planned on reading Ralph Ketcham’s biography on James Madison, a lengthy and well written document, though written in a very dry fashion. Getting through a few pages of Ketcham’s book, I realized it was not a good “fit” for me, and purchased the biography by Brookhiser. Though Brookhiser shared in Ketcham’s love for dry writing, this was a shorter book and one that I was able to read within the course of a few weeks. Brookhiser offers a very brief summary of Madison’s childhood, how he got involved in politics, and how he developed a life-long friendship with Thomas Jefferson. The details of Madison’s life through the Revolutionary War, and his involvement in the writing of the constitution, as well as his friendship (and loss of friendship) with Alexander Hamilton are mentioned though not developed at any length. There is much discussion as to how James Madison brought the art of politics to the US government, including the development of the political parties and factionalism in government. Madison’s service in Jefferson’s government led to him being promoted to two terms as president of the United States, a presidency best marked by the foolish engagement in war with England, known as the war of 1812. The greatest lesson of the Madison presidency was how incompetent the government was at that time. The government had poor means of taxing citizens, no funds for war, yet voted to go to war with England when entirely unprepared to do so. How the USA survived that episode in its history is nothing short of a miracle. Madison, in the aftermath of his presidency, turns again to writing, while living in his estate at Monticello. He does not present himself as a wizened statesman like Washington or Jefferson, but manages to outlive all the other presidents including his successor, James Monroe. Issues with the supreme court are discussed, but oddly, in the chapter on his post-presidency years. More odd, the most important court decision of his time, Marbury v. Madison, is left unspoken of. The issue of slaves is discussed, this time Brookhiser suggested that Madison’s approach to this difficult issue was to simply ignore it as a problem; Madison did not free his slaves at death.

Brookhiser does not give me a reason to consider Madison as one of the “greats” of the founding fathers. There is nothing peculiar about him, save for his establishment among the elite classes of Virginia. The Madison presidency was a complete disaster, with Madison failing to make good decisions, and ending his life as a near pauper, having poor management of his household economics. What in particular makes James Madison stand above many of the other founding fathers of the USA? This book certainly does not answer that question. It is a brief but lackluster recount of the life of a perhaps great man. Maybe I should have labored through the much lengthier tome by Ketcham?

I will next be reading more on the Indian wars before tackling the life of James Monroe.

Tagged with:
1 Comment »
Mar 19

The First American: The Life and Times of Benjamin Franklin, by H.W. Brands ★★★★★

I started reading this book in November of last year and then was interrupted by 8 other books which needed to be read first. Those reviews are below. I now return to this text. First, I may comment on how I chose this text. There were not many biographies of Ben Franklin, and I was a bit leary of the author, who I was unfamiliar with, and hesitant after being disappointed with one other author that was well-acclaimed but failed to write what I consider to be a satisfactory account of the person in question. Though this book was long (at 716 pages and small print), it was a delightful narrative of this great man. 

Brands begins where one would expect, at Franklin’s birth in Massachusetts. Ben Franklin grew up in a Calvinist environment but rejected it. He learned the printing trade, and concomitantly mastered the art of writing. Franklin, while still young, escaped the Calvinist atmosphere of Boston, and settled in Philadelphia, first plying the trade of printer and publisher, and eventually moving on to bigger and better things. He quickly became politically involved, working on bettering Philadelphia, doing sundry things such as starting the first college in Pennsylvania (eventually becoming Penn State U), starting a fire department, and working on bettering the life and education of Philadelphians. Franklin had a deep curiosity regarding science, and did much to improve our understanding of electricity, including naming a positive and negative “side” to electricity. Franklin’s mind was free to explore all of the sciences, and throughout his life maintained a curious and investigative mind. Eventually, he became the Postmaster-General, a position that led him into further political prominence.  The development of issues between the 13 colonies and Great Britain led to Franklin being sent to London to act as an ambassador for American concerns. For most of his stay in London, he developed strong friendships and a few enemies. Franklin had no intention of promoting independence for the USA until matters in London forced him to think otherwise. Toward final events that led to war, Franklin found himself turned upon by his British friends and realized that the war need not happen; corruption that was rampant throughout the political structure of Great Britain led heavily to an inability to work out differences with the colonists. Franklin returned home but soon after sent off to France to serve as an ambassador and to appeal for funds to serve the war ends against England. Finally, long after the end of the war, Ben returns home to Philadelphia, though somewhat hesitantly, concerned over his poor health. Interestingly, Franklin seemed to greatly enjoy both London and Paris a little too much, and spent much of his life in those countries. Franklin served as an elderly advisor in the writing of the constitution and was a great advocate in getting it signed by all thirteen colonies. His final years were then few, and spent in pain from bladder stones and other aches and pains. Even then, Franklin’s inventive mind knew no rest, for example, coming up with a rolling printing press, or proposing that the earth’s magnetic axis would occasionally flip. 

There are several chapters included that explores at length Benjamin Franklin’s thinking. Laced throughout the remainder of the book are many details as to the mind of Ben Franklin. Ben was a great moralist, and many quips that are common to us arose from his pen, first from his Poor Richard’s Almanac, and then from his many letters and writings. Franklin rejected basic Christianity in his early Boston years, and even when he came in contact with the great Evangelist George Whitefield, spurned the Christian faith, noting that he denied the deity of Christ, though he looked to the Jesus stories as a means of moral instruction. Even still, Franklin was active in proposing for prayer during the writing of the Constitution (which was turned down), and in relying on God for the composition of our Constitution. Indeed, he fits the bill as a Deist, which was true of so many of America’s first politicians. In the first chapters of this book, I felt that Brands was being sloppy in his account of Franklin’s life, creating fictional Michener-style prose, rather than real history. Thankfully, such was not the case, and Brands relied heavily on detailed autobiographical notes that Franklin wrote throughout his life. Brands’ writing style is particularly appealing, in that he is never insulting to the reader, but constantly providing minor historical facts to inform the reader of the greater context of the events that affected Franklin’s life. Concluding, this is a book that I can heartily recommend. You will enjoy reading it, and hopefully coming out much more enlightened on the real Ben Franklin. 

Tagged with:
1 Comment »
Feb 19

The Church in Babylon: Heeding the Call to Be a Light in the Darkness, by Erwin Lutzer ★★★★★

This book is the last of three books by Erwin Lutzer that I have been reading, all three having been written recently, and addressing contemporary events. Lutzer, in this book, offers a Christian approach to the many challenges against our faith that we now face as individuals and as a society. The challenges are many. The city has become God’s enemy. Our work environment is hostile to the Christian faith. The state is increasingly mandating laws in direct opposition to faithful Christian living. Technology creates a giant sucking sound on our souls. Confused sexuality is a lie that directly opposes God’s word and destroys individuals and families. Islam and immigration are presenting false gods into our communities, yet offer a mission field for us. The church is being torn apart by false gospels and false beliefs. To all of this, Lutzer offers the challenge of Christians being faithful in loving their God, sharing their faith, and living true to God’s word. Reform must happen both in individuals, as well as in the church itself. Persecution is guaranteed to be increasingly prevalent, and we must greet it as the price of being faithful Christians.

Lutzer is skilled at not only opening up the problems that we face as Christians but also at offering Scriptural solutions to these problems. Lutzer shines his best as a pastor in this book, probably one of his best at addressing contemporary issues that are destroying the church. His call to faithfulness should be both acknowledged and heeded.

Tagged with:
1 Comment »
Feb 09

I don’t like to get political on this blog site. Politics are of low interest to me, even though the politicians of all parties are constantly in your face. I find this to be truly annoying. I tend to vote conservatively, and thus lean Republican, even though I have many deep misgivings with the Republican Party. I received a recent request for funds from the Washington State Republican Party, and something just triggered me something fierce. I wrote the state Party a letter of complaint pointing out their hypocrisy, which I’m sure they’ll ignore, or promptly trash. Here it is…

RepublicanPartyLetter

Here is the letter to Ronna McDaniel of the National Republican Party, similar, but with some content adjustment…

RNCLetter09FEB21

Tagged with:
2 Comments »
Nov 28

Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals, by Saul D. Alinsky (★)

Saul Alinsky became well known as a “community organizer” in Chicago, Illinois. He was responsible for helping form the political ideology of both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. This book is still being quoted heavily, and instrumental in directing a new generation of “progressives” in government. To best understand the movement, it is of value to have read the book. It is difficult to offer it any sort of rating since it is written in a world to which I am alien, but to which many of our youth are living in without a sense of angst or discomfort.

Alinsky begins the book by delighting in the fact that he follows in a long line of rebels, the first of which was Satan himself. Yes, he actually proudly says that! A lengthy prologue sets the stage for his thinking. He is not promoting violent radicalism and disowns the Weathermen and like groups. Rather, he considers the best option for Radicals is to infiltrate the system. In discussing his purpose, he wishes to make clear that there are only three groups in society, the Haves, the Have-nots, and the Have-a-little;-want-mores. The Have-nots are obviously the poor, and the Have-a-littles are the middle few, which Alinsky notes there are relatively few of, yet even fewer of the Haves. Alinsky disclaims any dogmatic approach to revolution. He is correct in noting that the Christian “revolutionaries” have been inconsistent in their ideology, though Alinsky seems to be a poor judge of ideology and morality. Alinsky does not label himself a Marxist, yet his argument and desire to level the playing field between the Haves and Have-nots seems to be written straight out of the Marxist playbook. Perhaps Alinsky is slightly disoriented? Later, Alinsky shows how he plays semantic games, and when a word triggers bad connotations, a different word is used. The most used example is the label of “community organizer”, which actually means “communist revolutionary”. Read that into any time Alinsky (or Obama or Hillary Clinton) speaks and you will understand what they truly mean.

Alinsky spends a chapter on clarifying the purpose of his mission. Actually, he’s not sure as to his purpose, except to generate unrest and anger with the Have-nots. He then spends a chapter telling us the means of achieving his purpose, but spends most of the time justifying the ethics of his means. Most his justification comes from historical examples when prevailing ethical standards were violated for the so-called common good. For Alinsky, that justifies the ability to act without the sense of defined morality, as the ends always justify the means. His eleven rules of ethics summates in the tenth rule, which is to do whatever you want, and then engulf your actions in a moral cloak. (…really! That’s essentially what he said!). To help, the eleventh rule is to label your ethics with a general but appealing term such as “For the Common Good” or “for Liberty”. Yup. Sure.

Alinsky pauses for a chapter to define certain words such as power, self-interest, compromise, ego, and conflict. What he means to say is that you play the system to best accomplish your momentum of the moment—there is no accomplishing of an “end” since the revolutionary leader (community organizer) isn’t usually sure as to the end for the revolution. One needs to educate budding young educators, and Alinsky will spend a chapter discussing how to train a young rebel (without a clue). The virtues necessary for a revolutionary include curiosity, irreverence, imagination, humor, a very blurred vision of the perfect world, an organized mind, a strong ego, political schizophrenia that is not set on a single political ideology. Communication is the prime virtue according to Saul. Saul even gives an example from the Bible how Moses told God to “cool it”, and get control of himself, shaming God for always wanting to be #1. So Moses (according to Alinsky) won an argument with God through effective communication. Saul gives abundant examples of how he used communication to get his way with people. Among his clientele were a host of religious types, especially Catholic priests, who didn’t seem to realize exactly who they were speaking to.

The “community organizer” needs to start a movement when the organizer sees a perceived need. Often, the so-called oppressed person doesn’t see that need, and so agitation and anger must be generated. Oftentimes the solution is simple by just asking an authority to correct a problem, but that is not the best way to manage the situation according to Alinsky. A group needs to show outright anger with persistence before accepting resolution of the problem. Sometimes, criminality needs to be rationalized away, such as when Alinsky led multiple efforts at voting fraud in Chicago, justified since it accomplished its end (I’m surprised Alinsky even discussed this issue!). Often, Alinsky’s tactic includes displaying “power”, another euphemism for bullying a subject to the point of exhaustion. Starting a crisis by creating a problem is Saul’s first issue of necessity. After that, tactics to maintain an air of crisis and tension must occur.

The longest chapter is on tactics, the techniques that the Have-nots can use to take power from the Haves. Many of these techniques are quite obvious and need not be listed, such as appearing bigger or stronger than you really are, shaming your opponent by their own rules (especially if they are religious), use lots of ridicule, persist, divide your opponent whenever possible, and, know your opponent so that you can make their life as miserable as possible. Forcing your opponent to live by their personal moral code while you conduct yourself without a moral code is a standard tactic. Time in jail, if short, helps create a martyr syndrome. Then, mutter epithets such as “The right to a job transcends the right of private property” to further shame your opponent. Alinsky gives multiple examples of how he exercised the above tactics to win cases, and most of the time, others with more sense would consider those tactics as quite immoral, though perhaps not illegal. Though not said by Alinsky, many of these tactics could kick back and actually lead to worse consequences to the revolutionary.

Alinsky offers a short summary. Actually, Alinsky really doesn’t know what his goals are. Often, he describes material envy with the Have-nots, such as gaining possession of cars, tvs, and other convenience items of life. Never does he suggest legitimate means of acquiring “stuff”. Alinsky proposes stirring additional unrest in lower middle class people in order to agitate for revolution. Class envy, class discontent, status anger, are all necessary for Alinsky to get his ends.

Alinsky is left with a dilemma. His entire thesis is based on pitting the Have-nots against the Haves. Social status (in Alinsky’s mind) necessarily must be fixed. The Have-nots cannot become the Haves. The lower middle-class cannot become the upper middle-class. If that were possible, it would leave Saul with a dilemma: as soon as his revolution sees success, the Have-nots become the Haves, and thus become the object for revolution. Alinsky doesn’t want that to happen. So many of Alinsky’s pupils are now filthy-rich, and yet must be defined as remaining Have-nots.

Alinsky is totally devoid of any social or personal ethic. Alinsky comments on this boldly and proudly. His is not the revolution of a Biblical sort, even though he frequently quotes (and always misquotes) Scripture. It is a revolution straight from the pit of hell. Which ultimately leads me to a most relevant and vital question to be asked. Many Christians are quite aware that Obama, H. Clinton, and others in politics are disciples of Alinsky. Alinsky offers them the rule book to play by. Hillary Clinton wrote a thesis on Alinsky, idolizing concepts that he expounds. Obama worked with Alinsky’s community, personally naming himself a community organizer. Their association and affection to Alinsky are NOT a secret. Yet, somehow many Christians (and many never-Trumpers like the Bush clan) are persuaded that these are people worth supporting or voting for. They argue the need to opt for the lesser of two evils, or that Alinsky (in some very strange way) really stands for “Biblical” social justice. The intentional naiveté of these “Christians” is most damning—I can only pray that God have mercy on them. If you don’t believe me, please read this book. With multiple examples more that I could have quoted, the book is far more damning than I made it out to be.

When Patton was asked early in WWII how he was able, as an immature tank commander, to overcome the superior tactics of Rommel, Patton’s reply was simply that he had read Rommel’s book on tank warfare. Alinsky provides us a look at the playbook of the left, including the progressives in congress (and possible president/vice-president), the deep state, the BLM and Antifa movement, and many other revolutionary groups. Know that they intentionally deceive, they intentionally seek to create unrest and strife. More importantly, know for certain that they secretly have no clue as to where they are going, and exactly how they wish to end up. Alinsky had no clue as to his ultimate destination and states that fact repeatedly. If they accomplish their “goals”, they have no idea what to do with their accomplishments. Ultimately their greatest desire would be to see the fall of the whole of society. Whereas now there is a small group of Have-nots, they will not be happy until everybody is a Have-not. Please realize that Have-nots actually have a lot, certainly vastly more than those that you would call poor in third-world countries. Alinsky’s vision would eventually lower the Have-not’s status to a third-world condition. To those with more sense than Alinsky, be aware, and don’t be afraid to challenge the revolutionaries. Truth will win in the end.

Tagged with:
2 Comments »
Oct 21

Hollywood Propaganda; How TV, Movies, and Music Shape Our Culture, by Mark Dice ★★★★★

Mark Dice has been making a series of books about modern culture, the most recent being The True Story of Fake News, Liberalism: Find a Cure and the Liberal Media Industrial Complex. The format of these books are all the same. I’ve written reviews on each of them already. In this book, Mark attacks the entertainment industry, showing how they have intentionally written script into their shows to persuade the public toward a particular end. Mark covers various things, such as making the public accepting of abortion, LGBTQ issues, Feminist issues, immigration issues, and political issues, such as painting a negative spin on Donald Trump. Hollywood is deeply influenced and affected by the state, including the military, FBI and CIA, and other government agencies. Hollywood has been very strong at promoting an anti-USA agenda, and stirring up race issues, creating a war against white people. There is no corner left unturned, and even sports have become political via Hollywood. Mark laments how late-night comedies have gone from equal opportunity attacks against both Republicans and Democrats with Johnny Carson to a full all-out attack on conservativism by recent talk show hosts. The book contains hundreds of examples of how Hollywood has intentionally scripted its shows with the intent to influence the beliefs and thinking of the general public. He doesn’t offer solutions, save for turning off your tv. That is what our family has done, beginning about 1995. We couldn’t have been better off.

This is a great book. It doesn’t have a plot. It doesn’t have progression in a storyline. But, it is a concerted attack against what the radio preacher Oliver Greene would call “the sewer pipe from Hollywood”. What was amazing to me was Mark Dice pointing out how deep this Cesspool of filth was in the Hollywood circuit, and how seriously it may be affecting how we think and what we believe. This is a good book to read, which I highly recommend. I’m sure my brother Dennis would stand with me on this one.

Tagged with:
2 Comments »
Jul 06

A. Lincoln, by Ronald C. White, Jr. ★★★★

This is a delightful 676 page biography of Abraham Lincoln, well studied and well written, describing Lincoln’s life from birth to death. The book reads quite easily, and inspires one to appreciate the greatness of the man who was to be our 16th president. I appreciated that the book was also heavily illustrated, and that the illustrations were not to be found in the center-of-the-book glossy pages, but abundantly mixed with the text.

I shall not detail and reiterate Lincoln’s life, being born in Kentucky, moving then with his family to Indiana, and then to central Illinois. White details how Lincoln was mostly self-educated, including studying law and passing the bar exam on his own. Lincoln dabbled in politics, winning a 2 year term in the House, mixing that with maintaining a highly successful law practice. Several failed attempts to achieve elected office ultimately led to his improbable but highly fortuitous win of the presidency.

Lincoln was considered an amateur in politics. He came under severe criticism for being inept and misguided. This continued on through the entirety of his presidency. Lincoln achieved an immortal status mostly after his death. Unfortunately for Abe, he entered the presidency during the onset of the rebellion with the South. Lincoln held preservation of the union as most important. Sadly, he was bedeviled by truly incompetent generals, the first (McLelland) was pompous and completely inadequate as a general, though he had the audacity to run against Lincoln for Lincoln’s second term in office.

It is odd that so much of the discussion regarding the civil war, that it was not over slavery, that it was a question of state’s rights, that the question of how to deal with the negro, the question of dealing with internal rebellion, suspension of habeas corpus, etc., remains questions that persist to today. Sadly, so many contemporary Confederate sympathizers of today present these issues as issues that were only critically analyzed and resolved by the South. I can appreciate the worn-out, hackneyed sympathies of the South but consider these assertions as mostly contentious rather than thoughtfully critical. Likewise, contemporary assertions that the South tended to be the most “Godly” against a heathen North, fail to recognize the deep religious convictions of Northern Generals and northern folk. Lincoln himself, though he grew up a Baptist and had no church affiliation for much of his life, attended a Presbyterian Church in Washington DC with Phineas Gurley as the pastor, a reverend who studied under none other than Charles Hodge. Many of Lincoln’s speeches bore witness to the heavy influence of Reformed thinking.

White excelled at providing analyses of Lincoln’s speeches, pointing out the literary techniques that made Lincoln uncannily exceptional as an orator. Indeed, White has written an entire book on the 2nd inaugural address, truly one of the greatest speeches of all mankind. Lesser minded folk will heap criticism on many of Lincoln’s greatest speeches, such as his Gettysburg Address; these very criticisms only attest to the absence of value if casting one’s pearls before swine.

Lincoln, toward the end of the war, was much concerned about the restoration of the south in acts of reconstruction. Sadly, he was assassinated before that could ever happen. We don’t know how things might have evolved differently had he been able to serve out a full second term as president, and speculation is unwise. What is tell-tale is how so much of the north, just like the south, really had no vested interest in the negro. True, many in the north detested slavery, and that, out of religious convictions. Both the north and the south refused to look on the negro as equal in value to any other human being. Whether they were most fit to be either slaves or second class citizens, there was little interest in helping the negro achieve a foot in society, only to have Woodrow Wilson’s segregationist policies extremely exacerbate the problem. Lincoln was correct in his 2nd inaugural address that blame is affixed to the entire nation, and not just the south, for the negro problem. Sadly, the problem hasn’t gone away.

I highly recommend this book. It is well written, though a touch tedious to read at times, and sometimes missing in details that I would have appreciated reading about. White paints Abe Lincoln as one of a few truly great Americans and Ole Abe deserves that distinction, regardless of those who would challenge otherwise.

Tagged with:
1 Comment »
May 17

The Origins of the Second World War, by A.J.P. Taylor ★★★★★

It is often said that history is written by the winners, and certainly such is the case with World Wars 1 and 2. At least for the second world war, there was a sense of public shame in Germany regarding Hitler and the events of his era, and memory of the Hitler era was understandably suppressed. Should Germans write a war history at this time, it would be meaningless and probably concur with everything written in the past by the “victors”. Yet, one cannot expect the English speaking world to write a fair and balanced history of the war. From the inception of the Great War (World War 1), the British masterminded propaganda regarding the Germans. Germans were painted as blood-thirsty savages that raped women and slaughtered babies, and who had absolutely no regard for human life, being brute beasts that lacked any form of dignity or humanity. The hypocrisy of the English was profound in painting the Germans as such, since their own lineage of Queens and Kings were of German origin, even resulting in them quietly changing their name from Saxe-Coburg and Gotha to that of Windsor. Their royalty was more proficient at speaking German than English. Oh well! This fact must be securely hidden and forgotten. Perfidious propaganda and defaming characterizations persisted well after both wars against the Germans. I was reading about the meeting of some British and German climbers high in the Himalayas in the 1970s, and a German noted to a Brit that the Brits were recently beaten by the Germans in their national sport of soccer, to which the Brit replied that they just beat the Germans twice in their national sport of war. This ignores the fact that the Brits had been in constant war for at least the past two centuries in their attempt to rule the world. Oh well again! This current book was written in the early 1960’s by a Brit that has gone against the standard line which started back then and persists. This book is not revisionist history since it was written soon after the end of WW2 and based entirely on documents made public and publicly available evidence.

AJP Taylor provides a slightly different type of history of the events leading up to WW2, in that it is history almost entirely spent in recounting the work of ambassadors and statesmen from England, France, Germany, the Soviet Union, and other involved European countries. In this book, you are told what was said, and just as importantly what was not said in trying to negotiate a lasting peace. What is clear (but often vehemently denied) was that the second world war reallystarted in 1918/19 at the signing of the treaty of Versailles and was just a continuation of what we call the first world war. The British and French both eventually developed a sense that the treaty of Versailles was pathologically flawed, yet flailed at resolving how to undo this treaty as well as other treaties that were made in the interim before the world war resumed in 1939.

Taylor notes that we have abundant documents from Germany since they were left in the rubble after the war and used in the Nürnberg trials. He also notes that we don’t have that luxury of obtaining essential documents from the Soviet Union since they have kept to this day most of their records as secret. The British and French have been selective in what records they have allowed to be seen. Thus, there will remain an intrinsic bias to any account as to the cause of world war 2. Regardless, the unearthed German documents tell a much different story than the current party line as to why there was a continuation of the war into what we call world war 2.

It would be weary for me to recount on a chapter by chapter basis the reiteration of what was said so eloquently by AJP Taylor. But a summary of the main thesis is simple. It is clear that Versailles demanded another war. It is clear that there was massive ineptness on the part of ambassadors and their states in trying to resolve the slow unraveling of the Versailles treaty, which by this time was looked on dimly by all parties. Hindsight is a wretched curse on all of us, yet we can now see that the war could have been prevented or made far more limited would the British and French had not wished to maintain their illusion of their being the prevailing super-power in Europe and honestly sought for reconciliation of the bad decisions at Versailles. The Germans were accused of frequently lying to the Brits and French, though Taylor has been able to show that both sides maintained an equal wealth of lies in their statesmanship. Most importantly, it can be shown quite clearly that the Germans (and especially Hitler) did not have a plan to conquer Europe or the world, and for that matter, had no interest in going to war with either Great Britain or France. Most certainly, the records from Germany demonstrate quite adequately that much of what happened in the events of 1936-1939 was unplanned and happened off the cuff; they were not the demonstration of a well thought out over-arching plan to stepwise conquer Europe. That the teaching still exists that Hitler was some evil mastermind going by a well-crafted script is testimony of how people wish to retain their own narratives regardless of the factual content of those narratives.

I’ve been told that the above recounting of the origin of WW2 is only one man’s opinion, and the debate continues and will never be resolved. It seems strange that those who say that simply wish to deny the evidence out there, their thinking being cemented in place by the fictional narratives that have created both world wars. Other authors have supported the thesis of Taylor by writing of the grave errors in the statesmanship of the Germans, British and French, specifically referring to Patrick Buchanan (Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War) which I had previously reviewed. Unfortunately, because we refuse to see the past clearly, we most certainly will persist in our errors in the future. More world wars can be expected, and blame will be fixated on the vanquished, regardless of the actual facts.

Tagged with:
2 Comments »
Dec 23

How Britain Initiated Both World Wars, by Nick Kollerstrom ★★★★

First, I’d like to discuss why I chose to read this book and to mention why it received 4 and not 3 or 5 stars from me. The topic of responsibility for the two world wars in Europe is to most Europeans and Americans quite obvious—it was the Germans. Sadly, this commonly known “fact” is almost certainly not true. It takes much gall to go against the prevailing opinions of the elite, as Nick Kollerstrom discovered in writing this book. My interest in war responsibility started after reading Pat Buchanan’s book, Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War. In this text, Buchanan bucks the notion that Hitler was an evil maniac desiring the conquest of the world. Odd that the person who most promoted the notion of the Hitler image, Winston Churchill, was an evil maniac that controlled an empire ruling 1/4 of the surface of world. The British had discovered the usefulness of war propaganda long before Himmler ever used it to his advantage. Churchill had to paint the Germans as desperate immoral mongrels raping women, slaughtering children, and kicking innocent dogs. This is strange, since Churchill’s beloved Queen (Victoria) was the grandmother to Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany who was currently head of state of Germany. It is no surprise that the embarrassed British had to quietly change the name of their King from a German-sounding name of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha to Windsor. People have written many volumes detailing the deception, crimes and ineptitude of the “ruling elite” in government: even my own brother Dennis has produced a book of this sort many moons ago, titled “What is Going On?” (or something like that). I would not have drawn the same conclusions as Dennis, yet agree that there is a “deep state” that gives democracy an illusion of populace control of the state, when actually the ideology, thoughts, and decisions of the public are expertly manipulated by very few people, and decisions made and kept secret from the population. Have we not seen that in our recent impeachment hearings and the uncovering of deep moral vacuousness in the FBI and other state institutions? I’m not surprised. Dennis lacks by being too kind to the depth of depravity transpiring in the unseen world of world politics. A number of recent books have come out, and there are now YouTube videos that have taken Buchanan’s book and run with it. See the Horus YouTube site, for instance. I’ll be reading yet 1-2 more books after this also on the causation of the two world wars. This book was good in offering detailed accounts of the subterfuge and deception of Churchill and Grey exercised in desperately trying to get a war with Germany (in 1914) while the British parliament was deeply opposed to the idea. The basic idea was that Britain was never honest in its diplomacy with Germany which led to misunderstandings that resulted in the tragedy of WWI.

The book is an assemblage of four papers that Kollerstrom wrote that form the four chapters. The typesetting and book organization is horrid. The call-outs are just lengthy repetitions of the text and serve no useful purpose. Statements are multiply repeated both within chapters and between chapters. Kollerstrom fails to sufficiently develop the England-causality idea sufficient to be completely credible. Other than that, the book offers some intriguing insights, some of which I will discuss.

Chapter 1, How Britain initiated both world wars, is the lengthiest and takes up over 1/2 of the book. Starting with WWI, the author brings up multiple statements and news clippings from the pre-war years showing how Kaiser Wilhelm (II) was a man of peace. Germany had not been at war for 50 years, while Britain remained in a constant state of war over those years, and France engaged in other wars. Diplomacy failures and horrible treaties all resulted in the ensuing carnage of the Great War. The treaty of Germany with Austria, and France with Russia forced very unwilling hands to act. Secretive but later uncovered defense treaties between France and England escalated what could have been a limited conflict, when everybody would have realized the illogical nature of the battle. Fueling the turn of the war from a few defensive skirmishes and attempts to assure a position of safety, Churchill and Grey were most masterful at creating a war that the politicians (of both England and Germany) did not want, and that the people of England were soon to regret. Untruthful propaganda by Britain’s war department still prevails in western thinking even when it has been shown to be nothing but malignant lies about the German people.

World war II is really a continuation of WWI, since the treaty of Versailles was patently unfair in both the assumptions (war responsibility 100% Germany’s) and the “punishment” to Germany. It is no wonder that Germany behaved like a wounded lion, ready to settle the account. Yet, history doesn’t show that at all. The Versailles’ decision to divide Germany up into many pieces and allot those pieces to Poland, Czechoslovakia (a horrible mistake), resulted in lands that were almost entirely of ethnic German peoples now serving under other nationalities. It is not that these nationalities, especially Poland, were benevolent and impartial governors. Tabled from view were the atrocities that German people received from their new Polish rulers, which explains the mass migration westward of Germans that occurred in the 1920’s. The west noted that this simply was a lie that Hitler created to justify his actions. There is no doubt that Hitler created lies, but this was not one of them. Above all, Hitler made it abundantly clear that he did not wish for a war with Britain or France. They forced his hand. Multiple quotes from many of Hitler’s writings (even Mein Kampf) and speeches noted Hitler’s desire to remain peaceful with Great Britain. Churchill would have none of that. Churchill wanted war. And, Churchill got war. It is surprising that the west has the naïveté to regard Churchill as a great statesman and hero of the west.

Chapter 2, On the avoidability of WWI, mostly reiterates what is found in chapter 1. Chapter 3, Britain as pioneer of city bombing, demonstrates yet another propaganda lie that Churchill has shoved on the British people. We are taught that the British bombed to smithereens every Germany city because the Germans started it all by bombing London. Actually, the opposite is true. Germany had no interest in going to war with Britain, and had no long-range bombers to accomplish that. Meanwhile Britain was building a huge long-range bomber force with anticipation that they would someday bomb Germany. History clearly records Britain bombing civilian centers in Hamburg and Duisberg and Berlin months before the first aerial bombing of London by the Germans. Precisely, Hamberg was bombed on May 11, the day after Churchill became chancellor, and the first German bombing was on September 6 of 1940. This was in spite of clearly stated British declarations of war morality noting that civilian bombing was completely off-limits. Hohum. I presume that one’s moral statements and one’s actions don’t need to coincide. Worse yet, in spite of having declared the immorality of civilian bombing, the Brits were bombing civilian populations in India and Asia years before, in the early 1930’s. Oh wait, I forgot, Indians and Asians and Germans are not human, so guess it doesn’t matter.

Chapter 4, will of the warmongers, provides additional historical material regarding events leading up to WWII that destroys the notion that Hitler was an insane maniac desirous of ruling the world. Victors write the history books, but fortunately, enough history is still existent that we are able to question the forced narrative of the past to ask what really happened to start WWI and II. Truth be told, we all stand guilty. My only regret is that history still offers Churchill a “saint” status. He was a chain-smoking besotted drunk womanizer thirsty for war and willing to destroy nations to accomplish his blood-thirsty lust for power.

People often attribute my stance on Churchill and German as representing me as a Hitler lover or pro-German-regardless-of-the-truth subscriber. Neither is true. I might be of German heritage, but I am American. I do care about the truth, and when facts are given that are inconsistent, then I question the facts. The prevailing narratives of WWI & II are such situations. Therefore, whether or not you tend to accept the prevailing explanation as to why the great world wars occurred, I suggest that you challenge those thoughts momentarily and ask as to the veracity of those explanations. I believe that you may not like what you find. I offered only the briefest details of what was spoken of. You might have many questions as to the veracity of this book since it’s not what you were taught in school, yet the documentation comes mostly from easily available sources as so remain credible. I don’t recommend this book as a starting book on the topic. Watch some the Horus YouTube videos on Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War, or better yet, read Pat Buchanan’s book for yourself and discover a replacement narrative that is truer than the one you’ve been taught.

Tagged with:
3 Comments »
Dec 20

The liberal Media Industrial Complex by Mark Dice ★★★★

OK, it’s another review of a book by Mark Dice. I’ve followed Mark since he was doing Bohemian Grove exposés and Illuminati discussions. Mark has been accused of being a conspiracy theorist, though some get off the hook regarding conspiracy “delusions” when they speak of vast right-wing conspiracies (eg, Hilarious Clinton). Certainly, the “conspiracies” that Mark discusses are true, though I doubt that they are run by a cabal of hyper-wealthy evil masterminds that sit in James Bond-style high tech caves plotting the destruction of the world as we know it. The “conspiracies better fit the Three Stooges antics or Peter Sellers out on a new detective mission.

In a way, one could identify the Media Industrial Complex (MIC) as yet another conspiracy, but that would further misuse the word “conspiracy”. It perhaps is better to say that the media is a mirror on the nature of all humankind, being evil to the core, desirous of control of fellow citizens, not compelled to exercise integrity when half-truths could better serve their purpose, and examining the world through deeply tinted rose-colored glasses.

Mark is quite successful and heavily referenced in showing the MIC as unduly biased and most sly in their intent to conceal their biases. The chapters of this book are short, detailing how the MIC controls our thinking through censorship of news and information that doesn’t fit the desired narratives, and that has distinctive agendas (anti-gun, anti-God, pro-abortion, pro-LGBTQ, enviro-apocalyptic) that through manipulation lead audiences into thinking that their viewpoints are the only existing viewpoints without contest. Mark spends several chapters discussing (not in these words) Trump-derangement syndrome, and the assault on God and family of the media. Finally, Mark does a superb job of detailing the assault on truth and the manipulation of the news and public square for information that social media is inflicting on a purposely uninformed public. Wikipedia, Google, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube all fall prey to the discerning knife of Dice’s exposé. Most scary is the final chapter (The Future…) where the possibility of news being created by AI programs that now already exist, which can reconstruct anybody’s voice to say what it will, or incorporate a person in video that never ever happened. This technology is not Dick Tracy-esque, but already exists.

So, why do I give this book only 4 stars since it is an excellent and well-researched text? One thing missing from the book is a better in-depth analysis of what is being seen with our eyes wide shut. Mark Dice needs to be not only a provocateur but also a pundit and sage. Perhaps time and maturity will accomplish that feat. Do I recommend this book? Absolutely and whole-heartedly. Stop right now and order your book. It’s worth a read.

Tagged with:
No Comments »
preload preload preload