Mr LaFond,

One more question, if you do not mind. From listening to your various media (haven't read a book yet, one is coming in the mail) it sounds like your preferred source for historical research are first hand accounts, personal journals and such. What brought you to doing that means of research (if I am correct)? As I studied junior/senior level history there was a pervasive attitude of not thinking everyone was a liar in first hand accounts, while at the same time eschewing second hand accounts if they were too old.

WF

Well, sir, I have no schooling and never learned how to investigate a subject and had to work it out myself.

Interestingly, the newer a second hand account is the less likely it is to have real merit. I only consider the oldest second hand accounts. The prejudice you mention is possibly a result of old second hand accounts not matching up with new second hand accounts, due to the ever-increasing omission of primary source material and the ever-growing divergence between what happened and what historians tell us happened.

I started with self-defense, something that I had roughly 24 times more experience with then the experts. After relating my experience, I found that I had not nearly enough experience in self-defense situations to be able to draw definitive conclusions. So I conducted a 1675 account survey of violent encounters. This was completed from 1996-2000 and I discovered that the experts were wrong about everything. So, my trust in experts, meaning second-hand accounts and second-hand to third-hand deductions, was wrecked.

Than from 1998-2001 I conducted a survey of ancient boxing evidence and discovered that no academic treatment of the subject was anywhere near the truth. In this survey, I discovered that in the three attempts to study this subject in its totality—by academics—that they were flawed in two ways: the men had not boxed and the study was not conducted chronologically, with ancient boxing treated as a monolithic whole that was unchanged over thousands of years.

Interestingly, when investigating Plantation America, I was informed by academic sources that the dean—I can't remember this egg head's name—who essentially founded the second-hand study of the American slave experience, had decreed that any study of servile labor prior to 1861 must exclude all forced labor in America before 1830 and after 1864. Thus we are lied to largely by omission. I have discovered that primary sources from before 1830 tend to be scrupulously honest to the point of comedy, with such authors as wrote before the age of propaganda clearly separating their notions of right and wrong and their justifications from actual facts which are left dangling like knives to demolish their contentions.

I do use secondary sources for their primary sources and translations, and in the case of military actions, deductions. However, in the fields of myth, religion, race, class and daily life, I have found the following to be generally true of secondary sources:

-Prior to 1831: authors as a rule, related facts and conclusions and justifications separately and included as much information as space allowed.

-Post 1865: all American history is heavily slanted, revisionist propaganda and most other subjects are slanted by gross omission of pertinent facts and disagree starkly with primary sources from the period they cover.

-Post 1900: current morals and norms are so all-encompassing of the academic mind that a crippling inability to take the ancients at their word and a mania for revision of past facts based on current fantasies becomes the norm.

-Post 1945: historians are more dedicated to social control agendas than to any pursuit of inquiry into the past, with every look into the ancient world merely a distant mirror on ours.

My eyes have been failing rapidly since 2018. With hundreds of primary sources open to me in this brief window of time before google and other archives close off our access to primary sources, I cannot imagine why I would waste my remaining vision on parsing half-truths, delving into distortions, mining misconceptions for their gossamer roots, and deconstructing academic filters, only to be sent on a quest to find the many sources omitted by the charlatans of academia in order to maintain their sacred fictions as facts.

Why should we satisfy ourselves with National Geographic's interpretation of Chief Massiot of 1622 New England as looking like a Sioux War Chief of 1870s North Dakota, when we can read thousands of pages of letters from Jesuits of the 1600s back to their headquarters in France, such as the description by one Father Lajeun of Eastern Woodlands Indians looking like French Peasants when not wearing war paint and of Gotleab Mitterberger in 1745 describing Delaware Indians as “white,” at birth?

I doubt if I will be able to read a hundred more books. Why would I want these books to be packed with lies and haunted by omissions?

Speaking of secondary sources, in using the only English translation available of Bernal Diaz's The Conquest of New Spain, the English translator admitted to having omitted all of the details of the military preparation! Such are the obfuscating minds of the gate keepers to our past, such as a twit who decides that a history of the world's most stupendous military expedition—by which fewer men did more to change the world than any other military men of similar number in human history—should rightly omit all of the base-line military details!

Imagine studying D-Day, without conducting an inventory of the Allied invasion force!

For this reason, the only secondary sources I entertain are those with linguistic and archaeological resources I have no access to and those by military historians conducting operational inquiries into the conduct of battle.

The rest is trash, which can easily be inferred based on the sloe-eyed mewing idiots that currently people Modernity—academic history has become a bell that tolls loudly lies so that whispered truths might be drowned in the cacophony of their deceit.