Picked it up again last night (1.28.2010) and was surprised at the clarity it brought me. I have seen many of the inconsistencies that this book talks about and knew that there was deliberate efforts to destroy the family, the nation and our individual freedoms, but WOW. I only put it down because sleep overcame me. To learn more about the money arm of the 300 check out The Money Masters DVD documentary.Simon Powell
At best, the bitter ramblings of an old fart who doesn't like modern pop music like the Beatles ("the motley crew from Liverpool and the 12-atonal system of “music” "). At worst, genuinely hate filled nonsense ("it reminds me of how wrongly the word “lover” is used when referring to the filthy interaction between two homosexuals writhing in pigswill"). As a shaggy dog story, it's up there with the Illuminatus trilogy, but the continual barrage of sweeping unsubstantiated statements, random CAPITALISATIONS and a hysterically, pinch faced puritan tone that would do Oliver Cromwell proud makes the whole thing difficult to take seriously.Xonrad
the literary style to this book has an undertone of genuine manic anxiety. It's a mix of plausible conspiracies and some truly extreme conspiracies that are hilarious on the one hand, and a very sad, and sick display of modern paranoia on the other.If you're quick to believe every conspiracy you hear that is 'extreme', this will 'inspire' you.. or would have when the 'remarkable' year 2000 theories were still yet to be proven so wrong.If you find the human zoo a remarkable study, this is definitely going to peek your interest in the machinations of paranoia filtered academia. Of course there are elements of truth in this, as all conspiracies are based upon, but.. I can't stress this enough... this really takes the paranoia to extreme fantasy/sci-fi levels that are even admirable in their creativity.And I assure you, I am resisting the urge to give away some spoiler gems.Oxy
This was an interesting albeit very speculative piece of writing.When Coleman makes a claim, for example that this or that person is a member of the committee of 300, unless he is making it up, that information has to come from somewhere, if he does not show where he got that information how are we to know if its true or not?Now you can have circumstantial evidence to support a claim but then you have to make that clear and list the circumstantial evidence explaining why it support your claim and show references to the circumstantial evidence. You can of course speculate and in so doing make a coherent argument for something but then it should not contain unsubstantiated absolute statements in order to have any validity.This book is largely built on the premise we should all take Colemans word for it.To illustrate why this is so dangerous with a few very simple examples is for instance how Coleman spelled Aurelio Pecceis name wrong and refers to Zbigniew Brzezinskis book: Between Two Ages: America's Role in the Technetronic Era, as "THE TECHNOTRONIC ERA". If his attention to detail isn’t better than that on such simple things why should we believe the things that cannot be verified as easily to be accurate?“All information that I provide in this book comes from years of research backed up by impeccable intelligence sources. Nothing is exaggerated. It is factual and precise” p-66 How are we to know that when there are no real references as to where the information comes from? “Historic records made available to me in the British Museum in London and from India Office and other sources—former colleagues in well-placed positions, proves this completely.” P-125 This is not a real reference, its just Coleman making a claim that has the appearance of a reference. It is still just an unverifiable absolute claim.You should never just accept tings at face value just because someone who seems credible says something are a certain way, at the same time demanding sources to every bit of information is also unreasonable and puts too much hindrance on creative thinking. The important thing is that the writing is transparent and honest about its claims, not trying to appear to be what its not. With that said, even if this book is deeply flawed it still has some value if one keeps this in mind while reading.Mohsen Key
maybe this book is new plan because you afraid after read this bookLindsay
This book is interesting, but I wouldn't recommend it based on the fact that it doesn't site any sources other than: "a high level so-and-so" told him, or "in my work with the British Museum" he learned, etc." Much of it matches up with things that can be verified, but other than that it's just out of curiosity that I read it :-)Cwn_annwn_13
The best stuff in Conspirators Hierarchy is Coleman exposing the world elites hand in the drug trade going all the way back to preceding the Chinese opium wars up until the present day and pointing out how The Beatles were intentionally used as social engineers by the elites promoting everything from drug use to teenage rebellion which served to further tear down and divide families. One problem I have with this book is Coleman likes to state authoritivly many of his claims without documenting them. Its like you just have to take his word for it on some of what he says. I have no problem with theories or speculation, as long as its stated to be that and not fact. Its just that a few of Colemans claims are pretty out there but he has nothing to back them up. A perfect example is he claims that a man named Theo Adorno wrote all of the Beatles music and cultivated their image. I do believe that there was way more than meets the eye with the Beatles on multiple levels. I have heard the claims about Adorno before and they very well could be true but I have yet to see anything other than speculation without anything to back it up that it was Adorno and not Lennon/McCartney that created the Beatles music. Coleman doesn't even give a vague explanation or show even circumstantial evidence pertaining to the Adorno/Beatles connection. He just states it as fact and leaves it as that. The biggest problem I have though is that he doesn't think of Jewish banking families, in particular the Rothschilds, as being anything other than just another name on the list of this mysterious so called comittee of 300 that he claims rules the world under the direction of the British monarchy. I think the House of Windsor may very well be on equal footing as the House of Rothschild but to just write the Rothschilds off as just another name on the list is a huge mistake, if not intentional disinformation. Especially when the main thing you are supposed to be doing with this book is exposing the shadow government. The British royalty are at least known to the general public whereas 99.999% of the masses have no clue as to who the Rothschilds and the other banking families are. I do believe he is at least in the right neighborhood with most of whats in this book but on many things he's close but just not quite getting it right so I have to give this book four instead of five stars. Worth reading if your researching the globalist conspiracy but just not on the level of people like Gary Allen or Eustace Mullins work in my opinion.Tifnie
I wrote this long winded review and It didn't save after I hit "save". It was probably a good thing too.I gave this 1 star because I was completely turned off by the far right winged conservative bullshit! The author, who is probably a committee member himself wrote: "...Look around and see how we have been demoralized. Drugs, pornography, rock and roll music, free sex, the family unit all but totally undermined, lesbianism, homosexuality, and finally the ghastly murder of millions of innocent babies by their own mothers. Has there ever been a crime so vile as mass abortion?"WTH?!Did you know that The Beatles were a plot to bring destruction to our youth with the acceptance of drugs? Yeah, exactly. When so many people have been killed because they threatened to uncover the Committee of 300, why is our author still alive?Pass....