Acrimonious wrote:Some of his material seems to be conjecture, and other parts seem to be well-sourced.
Yes, this has also been my experience with all the writings of Eustace Mullins--he makes a lot of provocative statements, but rarely backs them up with consistent citations--and seems to rely on gossip and hearsay at times. I have made the effort to check some his citations and have not been able to locate them or confirm them. Also, his books are often poorly edited and proofread--for example, he repeated cites "Stephen King's" book on freemasonry,
The Brotherhood, which was actually written by Stephen
Knight. As a scholarly source, he's pretty poor.
I read quite a bit of Mullins' work in my pre-CI days, and I do credit him with confirming my conspiratorial view of history. He's also the first one I read that made a good case for the racial/biological nature of the jew. His book,
The Secrets Of The Federal Reserve, was a real eye opener, and the fact that his mentor was Ezra Pound gave him some credibility in my eyes.
As far as
The Curse of Canaan goes, I think it's pretty much useless for people already in CI--his understanding of Scripture is shaky at best. Yes, he hints at two-seedline without stating it explicitly, but he concentrates on the race of Shem but rarely, if ever, mentions Jacob-Israel--nor does he tied them together. And yes, he shows how some of the Lost Tribes migrated into Europe, but in doing so, muddies the water by injecting into his thesis many common--and persistent--historical errors, such as his assertion that the Phoenicians were Canaanites.
Also, he doesn't know enough about Scripture and ancient history to reliably quote the Talmud, which he uses repeatedly concerning the Genesis account of Adam and Cain. He merely cherry-picks what suits his thesis and doesn't bother offering second and third witnesses outside the Talmud to corroborate what he's asserting.
His understanding of ancient Egypt is nothing but confusing at times. He doesn't explain the Babylonian and Assyrian captivities very well--and the resultant dispersion--at least not enough for a newbie in CI to tie it all together. He's on much firmer ground when he discusses the connection betweem canaanite demonology and freemasonry, but there's little here that others haven't covered in more detail with better citations.
To give him some credit, he was a racially aware self-identified Christian who had no love for the jews, and I do credit him as an important step for me personally on the road to CI. However, now that I'm reasonably versed in CI after years of study, I can scan over a book like
The Curse Of Canaan and cringe, being grateful that it didn't become an intellectual stumbling block that completely mis-directed me away from the Truth. Nor would I recommend this book to any judeos, as I doubt it would persuade them in any way that the canaanite jews aren't still redeemable.
"No Rothschild is English. No Baruch, Morgenthau, Cohen, Lehman, Warburg, Kuhn, Kahn, Schiff, Sieff or Solomon was ever born Anglo-Saxon. And it is for this filth that you fight. It is for this filth that you murdered your Empire. It is this filth that elects, selects, your politicians." -- Ezra Pound