Dobbs, Gregory. "Otto English on the myths of 'Fake Heroes' ". Good Reading . Retrieved 8 October 2023. Just like with Russia the great nationalised industries by Labour failed and weren’t able to compete any more, Marxism is against competition, so I think my reasoning in general is right, and what is more, we are a shadow of what we were in 1945, that was a lifetime ago and if we continue going in the same direction what is left of our greatness will not last even another lifetime, we are desperately trying to keep England in one piece (this is unacceptable), Corbyn was going to brainwash the kids against our greatness. So I do think that Labour will continue on its journey towards our destruction. It is not a solution, no matter what individually Labour leaders say, their ideology keeps doing the same thing every timne: India was split, the entire Empire was split, Uk was split, after creating a little Empires in England itself with incompatible immigration Labour is going to split England as well, that will be the end. BOOK REVIEW: Tearing down myths white men tell other white men". BusinessLIVE . Retrieved 27 December 2021.

Nem először tapasztalom azt az ambivalens érzést, hogy egy olvasmányom gondolatiságával mélységesen egyetértek, de a megírás módja egyenesen taszít. Hisz végtére is mit állít English? Elsősorban azt, hogy aki hülye, az többnyire annyira hülye, hogy nem is tudja, hogy hülye. Ez egy nagyon alapvető igazság. Aztán még azt is állítja, hogy vannak emberek, akik nem annyira hülyék, viszont morális hulladékok. Ők aztán elmennek politikusnak vagy politikai tanácsadónak, és megélnek a hülyékből. Azt mondják nekik, amit hallani akarnak - például hogy a hülyék igazából nem is hülyék, hiszen az angol (magyar, piréz, stb.) nemzethez tartoznak, és egy angol (magyar, piréz, stb.) szervileg nem lehet hülye, mert ha hülye lenne, akkor franciának vagy németnek születik. No most ami a morális hulladékokat illeti, hát igen, valóban kitapintható egy ilyen tendencia. Csak az van, hogy English ebből az egészből két következtetést von le: Eventually Labour will split and destroy England for ever, that is the final objective of Marxism and Labour, that is their “modus operandi”. From social media to political discourse, much about the digital era feels filtered, Photoshopped or otherwise manipulated. Yet, strip away the technology, and such strategic falsehood is as old as time. Don’t let facts spoil a good story When comedian Stephen Fry won a VIP edition of BBC quiz show Mastermind in 2004, he remarked how fitting it was for the trophy to be qualified by the word “Celebrity”.A quote from Cherry-Garrard is then cut down to make Scott appear hopeless and emotional, the full quote being "He [Scott] cried more easily than any man I have ever known. What pulled Scott through was character, sheer good grain which ran over and under and through his weaker self and clamped it all together." We only get the bit about him crying. The reason the Norwegians were (and still are) so good at polar travel is because it's where they live, they do it all the time, they learn to ski before they can walk. Nansen is a towering figure in Norway, and rightfully so (just don't Google his nudes). Amundsen will always be a polar hero, but he is not so highly regarded due to falling in with the likes of Mussolini and his big interest in The Fash during his later years. The author's problem with Andy Warhol is somewhat unclear. I mean, we know that many of Warhol's works weren't actually physically produced by Warhol himself, so this is not really new information. There was never any sense in which Andy Warhol tried to claim otherwise, as his entire artistic life was about blurring the boundaries between consumerism and art. Nevertheless, Otto English doesn't like Warhol at all, which is understandable in some ways, but not comprehensively explained.

While those best examples, just named, were well equipped to survive the 1945 Marxist landslide to Westminster and its catastrophic consequences were specially bad for others which were not yet ready.Amusingly, even when English is trying to be evenhanded, he gets his facts wrong. For example, he credits Churchill for cancelling the dispatch of troops to Tonypandy, ignoring the fact that Churchill reversed his position within a day because of widespread rioting in the town. The soldiers didn’t kill anyone but their presence brought the rioting a close immediately. History evolving though is what I thought was the point that the author could have expanded on more. Fake History can be exclusionary but learning history can be inclusive, hopeful and frankly very cool. Yes, the truth being uncovered will undoubtedly shatter many epic stories which were long embellished about people who have become famous. But the great missing link is getting people connected to the history that is most linked and is relatable to them. Not how the ruling classes lived and made the country, but how the rest of us have. Statues are not harmless artifacts. They deliberately contrive to shore up narratives that attribute all of history and its deeds to a carefully selected group of mostly male individuals.

The Crisis in British Journalism Byline Times investigates media monopolies, their proximity to politicians, and how the punditocracy doesn’t hold power to account English characterizes Churchill as a consistent supporter of wanton imperial violence. He can only sustain this claim by ignoring anything that contradicts it. Thus, English mentions that Churchill was involved in the one-sided British victory at Omdurman, but neglects to mention that Churchill criticized the British treatment of enemy wounded. He mentions that Churchill said that the colonization of Australia and America was not in itself a “wrong” but ignores that Churchill opposed imperial atrocities such as the brutal suppression of the Bambatha Rebellion, or punitive expeditions in Nigeria, or the Amritsar massacre. Incidentally Churchill wasn’t “defending the suppression of Aborigines” when he made that infamous remark – he was refuting an argument against Jewish emigration to Palestine. Had Churchill been listened to, more Jewish people would have survived the Holocaust. It is also fanciful to suggest that a majority of white Americans or Australians in the 1930s would have disagreed with Churchill’s view. The structure, veering madly from subject to subject, makes no sense. There’s a chapter on Churchill, then a chapter about whether ancient people thought the earth was flat, then a chapter about Dunkirk, then a chapter about the House of Windsor, then a chapter about curry, then a chapter about the Aztecs. But even inside each chapter there’s no sense of analysis or argument, just a series of self-satisfied observations and weird generalisations. In the chapter on curry, for example, English sets out to debunk the supposed lie that “curry comes from India”, but immediately tells us that in post-war Britain “most people ate shit… Most British people stewed the living taste out of everything.” Thoroughy enjoyable way to find out how so much of life's preconceptions are mistaken and how cognitive dissonance and the Dunning-Kruger affect lead us astray.Russian Interference Byline Times leads the way in exposing the anti-democratic influence of the Kremlin over the affairs of other nations Over the four days of fighting from June 15th to 19th, the Prussians fought two battles alone and lost both. They lost the first with superior numbers on ground they had chosen.

Szerintem nem érdemes azzal az előfeltételezéssel olvasni, hogy ez történelemtudomány. A történelemtudománynak (és minden tudománynak) ugyanis valahol feltétele, hogy az ember összegyűjti az adatokat, aztán levon belőlük valamilyen következtetést. Ha van is előzetes hipotézise, azért csak az adat az úr. Englishnek viszont van egy karcolhatatlan elképzelése arról, hogy a nacionalizmus hülyeség, a nemzetek története merő hazugsággyár, a Brit Birodalom pedig szégyellje össze magát. Amivel egy csomó ponton egyet is értek. Ebből kiindulva a szerző összegereblyézik mindenféle kis színest, elegyíti őket némi jópofáskodással*, egy kis csúsztatással, aztán az egész masszát áradó lendülettel az arcunkba tolja. Történelmi evidenciákat úgy ad elő, mintha azok egy általa felfedezett földrész partvidékei lennének, és úgy megy neki a nemzeti panteon legendáinak, mintha személyes sérelmeket akarna megtorolni rajtuk. Ez amúgy nem feltétlenül rossz - lehet ebből szórakoztató, sőt: intelligens kötetet építeni. Csak hát ez nem tudomány - sokkal inkább rokon a propagandával. De végtére is az is egy műfaj. Fake History: Ten Great Lies and How They Shaped the World [9781787396395]". A Great Read . Retrieved 27 December 2021. Alas, there’s no simple fix for fakery – it’s endemic. Perhaps it’s even partly what makes us ‘us’ … and, occasionally, deranged despots. It is a great book to read but be assured it is certainly not a strict factual account of history with balanced views on what might have happened. Instead the sources are carefully edited to bear out the opinions of the author and meet his agenda. Whilst stating how our history is based on the version we read or were taught when younger, he clearly chooses the versions he wants to make his point.Was Genghis Khan a bloodthirsty barbarian? Actually, English argues, the myth is part racist trope, part self-spun lie: “[the Mongols’] greatest weapon of all was their terrifying reputation”.