Objectivity: None Dare...pp 41-

 New chapter title: The Money Manipulators

This is appropriate because the first thing we begin with is discussing history professors and their textbooks. Allen begins, "Many college history professors tell their charges that the books they will be using in the class are 'objective.' But stop to ask yourself: Is it possible to write a history book without a particular point of view?"

First off: bullshit. No one teaches a history class and says, this book is just plain facts. It simply doesn't happen. An objective history book would be a date, a time (if possible), and then the event that happened. The battle of Savo Island took place on August 8th, 1942, it involved these sides with this many on each side, and the Japanese Navy claimed victory. That's what an objective historical report looks like. That little window on the side of the wiki entry is the objective entry. Anything else and you begin to enter biases into it. Every historian going back to Herodotus (the first historian) knows this. So what gives?

I think Allen is setting us up for a future claim that history professors in college (higher education is always the enemy of people like Allen) will claim that their biased sources are unbiased and thus the truth. If Allen can find one history professor who claims he has an objective book that contains a flaw, Allen can paint the entire discipline as being full of lies. That's the game people like him play, it's intellectually dishonest but they don't care because what they do is more important than playing by other people's rules. Also, screw them since they won't even teach this book in college (though I cover it).

I've said in past posts that conspiracy theorists are forever emulating the halls of academia that they are shut out of (my claim is inspired by Johnson's 1983 book "Architects of Fear"). He doesn't get how academia works because he's got this idea that professors are passing off their books as objective. 

 Allen asks, "In order to build his case, a historian must select a minuscule number of facts from the limited number that are known. If he does not have a 'theory,' how does he separate important facts from unimportant ones?"

He is actually making a good point...against his point from earlier. No one claims objectivity, it's always the author's bias in the historical points they are reporting. The greater irony here is that Allen is going to claim that what he is saying is the objective truth because they have arranged these facts in such a way to show us "their true significance in history." 

Well, just admit you're biased Allen. In possibly the worst award for Best Documentary in 2003, the Oscar went to Bowling for Columbine. In the opening of that movie, Moore shows large pieces of rocket boosters for space launches being driven through the town of Littleton, Colorado. He then tries to make the point that these parts for ICBMs (they were actually rockets for satellites as various treaties stop us from building new ICBMs) and the Columbine shooters are somehow linked. To be fair he doesn't say this out loud, but his movie says it by placing the Columbine shooters and the rocket parts in subsequent scenes. Allen is going to argue that they've placed the right facts next to each other but it needs connecting thread, and my experience with conspiracy theories is that he's not going to have them. 

These opening pages read like Allen is going to set up a history lesson for us, the chapter title reads like he's going to be setting us up for something about banking. Now, it could be both, given that these people are the "the federal reserve is a Ponzi scheme" type people, but so far we've got nothing. Then I reach the bottom of page 44. 

The image being painted here is that the conspiracy is a hand and each finger is a different aspect of it. We have one finger labeled, "international banking," with the others labeled "Fabian Socialism," 
"Communism," "the anti-religion movement," and then just "foundations." The last one is weird because again, Allen hates any kind of foundation apparently. 

Our focus should be on "international banking" and "international bankers." Usually, this is a code for "Jewish Banker" to feed on the work already been done for a thousand years in Europe, but more specifically the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. I'm not going to claim that Allen is anti-Semitic...yet, I just want to bring it to your attention that this phrase has a specific connotation. It, perhaps, didn't have that connotation when Allen wrote this book in the 70s. 

This week's selection is going to end with Allen citing Quigley (who we should remember claimed that this book did not understand his writing) who he alleges claimed that international bankers control the world through finances. This was not the case, Quigley said that there were a few financial people that had an undue influence on some specific policies in the US and UK governments. Next week we are going to get more into the weeds about how deficit spending works and why Allen is very likely not going to understand how economics works at all.