What do you think?
Against The Grain
Revilo Pendleton OliverLiberty Bell Publications02/22/2004268Binding Paperback0.77lbs8.52h x 5.52w x 0.69d9781593640026This title is not returnable
268 pages, Paperback
First published February 28, 2004
About the author
Revilo P. Oliver
21 books42 followersAmerican professor of Classical philology, Spanish, and Italian at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, who wrote and polemicized extensively for White Nationalist causes and was a fervent Holocaust denier.
He blamed Pearl Harbor on "diseased and part Jewish monster called Roosevelt" (who wasn't Jewish at all).
Oliver also briefly received national notoriety in the 1960s when he claimed that Lee Harvey Oswald and the JFK assasination was a part of a Communist conspiracy against the USA.
A pseudonym used by Revilo was Ralph Perier for The Jews Love Christianity and Religion and Race.
He blamed Pearl Harbor on "diseased and part Jewish monster called Roosevelt" (who wasn't Jewish at all).
Oliver also briefly received national notoriety in the 1960s when he claimed that Lee Harvey Oswald and the JFK assasination was a part of a Communist conspiracy against the USA.
A pseudonym used by Revilo was Ralph Perier for The Jews Love Christianity and Religion and Race.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 1 of 1 review
February 10, 2018
***1/4
A very mixed bag. The first essay is by far the best; later ones have some redeeming value but tend to degenerate in to hateful anti- Christian rants which are reminiscent of those in the Talmud (which are cited as authorities, on occasion). Sloppy research for a professor of the classics, full of oversimplifications and outright false canards about church history and the development of the canon. The Trinity is also very misunderstood, but you can't expect much more from a nontheologian or nonphilosopher; however, one should prescind from professionally writing about which one does not understand enough to know one does not understand.
A very mixed bag. The first essay is by far the best; later ones have some redeeming value but tend to degenerate in to hateful anti- Christian rants which are reminiscent of those in the Talmud (which are cited as authorities, on occasion). Sloppy research for a professor of the classics, full of oversimplifications and outright false canards about church history and the development of the canon. The Trinity is also very misunderstood, but you can't expect much more from a nontheologian or nonphilosopher; however, one should prescind from professionally writing about which one does not understand enough to know one does not understand.
Displaying 1 - 1 of 1 review