May 16, 2021, 10:01 AM (17 days ago)

Contrare monfrere (pardon my French...), I stayed up until 4:30 AM reading this book, and I bought the paperback on Amazon. This book is fantastic, and it's the key to understanding a lot of your writings.

Everybody's got a "system" of thought, and you can read pieces by a guy and appreciate them, but you won't get them unless you understand their "system." I learned that studying Postmodernism in college. I didn't get a lot of their stuff I read until I read two books where they laid out their "system" of Postmodern thought. I recommend those books to everybody who asks now.

This book is the key to your "system".

I read "Lead Time Under the Gloomshine" Lead Time Under The Gloomshine and it's good to hear what's going on. I know talking on our podcast killed your eye so I haven't called lately to let it heal up. Ditto for long emails. I won't be responsible for killing your eyes!

Expect more content soon!

Sincerely,

Richard Barrett

Richard, thanks for the approval.

Although I successfully tackled the Magna Carta, which has been entirely misrepresented to us by the academic priesthood for hundreds of years, I think that the Lies That Bind Us failed to live up to the concept. Charles Steiner's review on amazon hit the point. I had no editor and the book was marred by typos and I did not properly sub-section the minor aspects of it.

Additionally, I did a better job of examining the foundational documents of the American Lie in Plantation America books written since then.

I suppose the Lies That Bind Us does reveal my crux method, which I would say falls short of a system. This method is to avoid modern interpretations, go directly to the primary source, and examine what the person of the time under question said for themselves. In this, two things have helped me:

-1. I am uneducated, entirely, having failed to pass 9th grade. So, I did not have the falsification filter installed in my brain because my duct work was a mess and not up to specifications.

-2. I have read as many books written before World War II as since, with that war seeming to mark a demarcation in word remastering, lie making, truth-twisting and POZ fisting. DL, the editor for five of my books around 2016, commented that she thought I was a complete moron until she checked my language usage and found that I was using English language norms in spelling, punctuation and hyphenation common between 18-40 and 1935. She concluded that since I did not know how the English language worked, that aping the style of Dickens, Melville, London and Howard and the like had rendered my style anachronistic.

-3. Based on the two points above I decided to use word origin and period usage information and historical context, as a means of placing foundational documents and journals and other primary sources in the context of their day. For instance, I recently listened to a Portland, Oregon public school social studies teacher educating my young friends in the history of “white privilege.” Not a single whole sentence from the actual laws or documents were used. Rather, only modern interpretations of imagined conditions were used to falsify the un-cited documents. I have inspected all of the founding documents of this nation in detail, other than the Federalist papers, and found only one mention of race, that being the type of person who would fight and die for the Republic, with all voting and ownership rights free of racial references. It is only our belief that only non-whites were unfree that colors our racial view of these purely a-racial documents. These have been extensively cited in The Greatest Lie Ever Sold, Cracker-Boy and the unpublished Advent America.

Briefly, access to political power was limited to free men of adult age, with no racial bias attached. Some states had their own laws, such as Virginia which took the right of voting and bearing arms away from negroes in the 1720s when it was still a Province of Great Britain. Furthermore, men who owned other men, no matter the race of the man or the race of those he owned, had additional voting rights based on his responsibility for the lives of men judged to be politically unqualified for the sharing of power, due to their economic and criminal condition, not their race.

My system is pretty simple and was based on my combat research:

-A. Consider the words and actions of the participant in the events under study,

-B. Discard hearsay and third-person commentary,

-C. Consider the words and actions of the participant according to the context these were spoken and lived, according to the meaning attributed to these words and actions at the time of the event,

-D. Discard the lies and slanders of academic and narrative-crafters who were not party to said events.

I realize that I am breaking every rule in the book. But, I was too retarded to read the rule book and pass the relevant tests for membership in the Hallowed Fraternity of The Greatest Lie Ever Sold.