DON’T USE THE ‘C’ WORD

A Review of Vernon Coleman’s ‘Endgame: The Hidden Agenda 21’

 

Vernon Coleman does not want to be labelled as a conspiracy theorist. I know this because he repeatedly tells us so in his book. Nonetheless, he has a theory that involves many conspirators ranging from the United Nations to the British royal family, Tony Blair, and most of the governments of the world, to name just a few. He is also of the opinion that if he uses certain words in his writing, such as COVID 19, his book will be censored and be unpublishable even on self-publishing platforms.

This results in his attempts to talk about issues surrounding the pandemic, and other topics that he considers he may be censored for, very amusing, although I very much doubt that this was his intention. He refers to the COVID pandemic as a hoax, and global warming doesn’t exist either naturally, or as a result of human activity.

Even if Vernon Coleman isn’t a conspiracy theorist, he is clearly paranoid and has an unhealthy persecution complex.

It would, however, be a mistake to disregard everything that he has to say. Like most people of his ilk, many of his theories and arguments are based upon sound, solid facts: it is his use of these facts and the conclusions that he draws from them that are faulty, and any criticisms of them are taken by him very personally. He is not alone in this.

Many people in managerial positions have a habit of accusing any staff that disagree with them of doing the very thing that they themselves are accused of so as to deflect criticism. Coleman points out early in his book that the British government will repeat things endlessly until their target, the electorate, accept the proposition as true regardless of its validity. There is nothing wrong with this observation, the government do employ this method and it is insulting to all. Witness the daily briefs with three-word slogans that were continuously regurgitated on the front of their podiums, their constant misrepresentation and manipulation of statistics, and when proven to be lying, their inability to accept the truth and apologise.

The problem arises when you come to realise very quickly that Coleman is going to employ the same tactics and repeat every one of his more dubious conclusions in the hope that his reader will eventually agree with him. The structure of the book enables him to do this far more often than makes for good reading.

The central, and main part, of the book is presented in an alphabetised list with an explanation for each heading underneath. This means that he is able to repeat every conclusion under different headings, not just once or twice, but several times. By the time that he reaches the W’s and Wikipedia, you already know exactly what is coming.

There are many times when he descends into rants against anyone and everyone who either disagrees with him, or with whom he disagrees. The Wikipedia rant is particularly illuminating, so much so that I looked up his page. Although Coleman is right to question the general accuracy of Wikipedia due to it being largely written by amateur contributors and editors, the page describing him seems to be a reasonably accurate account of Coleman’s personal history and his beliefs. At no point does it venture into character assassination, although the cardinal sin (in Coleman’s view) of calling him a conspiracy theorist is committed right at the beginning just before referring to him as an anti-vaccinator.

This seems to be enough for Coleman to launch into a six-page attack, possibly best illustrated by the following extract: -

 

‘…others are just cowardly, little weasels who hide behind silly pen names[i] and use the site to promote their political prejudices and pet theories. Many, I fear, are probably underachievers, full of opinions but never able to persuade the real world to take notice of them.’

 

It could be argued that Coleman does far more damage to himself with this tirade than he is ever going to do to Wikipedia. It is rare to find in print such a glaring example of somebody throwing their toys out of the pram. And it should be said that the amateur aspect of Wikipedia is a major part of its attraction, and anyone who uses it knows and understands that it is not always one-hundred percent accurate.

Agenda 21 is a United Nations plan to implement sustainable development at a local, national, and global level. It is non-binding and came into being at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. It is, as you would expect from a global governmental consortium, large and complicated, so much so that there is neither the room nor any reason to elaborate further upon it here. Suffice to say that Coleman is not a fan.

This is the basis for Coleman’s anger and vitriol regarding anyone and anything within the UN, and any country, organisation or person from outside the UN whom he suspects of supporting their aims as he interprets them, a list ranging from the previously mentioned Tony Blair[ii] and Prince Charles, to Greta Thunberg. The object of this apparent large, unwieldy, and secret cabal, is to control and rule us all so as to better enrich those that hold power, money and influence.

It is not unreasonable to describe some of the people he targets as power-crazed, selfish and greedy: most politicians, corporate bosses and global leaders are, but Bond Villains intent upon world domination they are not. When push comes to shove, we are, almost without exception, all intent upon that which we perceive as benefitting ourselves most. It is a question of degree: we are mostly generous friendly people until a line has been crossed. That this line is drawn differently for each us goes without saying.

Coleman is unquestionably controversial and is a bitter and angry man. His conclusions are also questionable, but then on the opposite end of the scale, so are those that most governments in the world hold to be true. He promotes social disorder, civil disobedience, and at times comes close to suggesting open rebellion.

So, should his book be banned? Unquestionably not.

His views are extreme, but to ban them is to give them legitimacy that they largely do not deserve. The views of the governments that he attacks are often the polar opposite of those that Coleman, and the many people that agree with him, hold. This makes all on both sides’ extremists: it is often a case of which extreme is more palatable. This is not to say that everything said by governments, the UN, and even Vernon Coleman is wrong: it is not, and is after all based upon the same data and statistics, just interpreted differently to suit differing agendas. If you wish to criticise or censor Coleman, then you should be prepared to do the same to the government as well. To silence him is to remove your right to question the government that you may have voted into power.

So, should you read his book? Without hesitation, I would say yes.

I should first mention some of the drawbacks to this book that are not concerned with the content and Coleman’s opinions.

It is not very well written. Coleman clearly thinks that despite the book being available for all to read (often for free on some platforms: I would not recommend parting with money to read it!), he is already being censored. He does not take the time to consider that a traditional publishing house would not want go near this book due to poor construct (the alphabetised structure does not work), and the non-existent editing as epitomised by the constant repetition. I am in no position to be part of the grammar police: my own mistakes are obvious, but Coleman’s unedited offering is often enough to make you wince. He might believe that people distance themselves from his writing, but the lack of any outside help of any sort is painfully obvious and a big mistake.

It is for these reasons that traditional publishing is not interested in his book. Controversy is not such a big problem for them: it sells.

So why do I think that you should read this book? For accuracy and content this book earns no stars whatsoever, but for entertainment value, even taking into account the above criticism, it is worth 5 stars. It is its brevity of quality that makes it so attractive. It is also at times very funny for all the wrong reasons. His attacks on Greta Thunberg are particularly amusing (she is, of course, an extremist of a different type herself), but although he mostly has a point, he comes across as aloof and condescending.

But the overriding reason for reading it is that it makes available to you the ideas and misconceptions of somebody who is recognised as extreme, and it is important to understand his reasoning if you wish to be in a position to criticise others. It is easy to disbelieve Coleman, and you should treat the government and others with the same scepticism until you have enough evidence to believe otherwise. Their word is not enough. It may not be the one that Coleman would have you believe, but they do have their own agenda.

At the end of his book Coleman invites people who have enjoyed it to submit a review. I enjoyed his book immensely, and as requested I have written a review. It may not be what Coleman had in mind, but here it is anyway.

 

Jonesy

January 2022

[i] Anyone who knows me will be aware that I mostly use a pen name when writing. It is not a big secret. In honour of Coleman’s criticism, it should be noted that I have further contracted my pen name into ‘Jonesy’ for the purpose of this review.

[ii] Whilst writing this review, it was revealed that Tony Blair was to be honoured with a knighthood in the new year’s honours list. I can only imagine what Coleman would have made of this, but I am sure that his reaction must have been priceless.