When Churchill died in 1965 I was 13 years old. My grandparents and parents were solemn and respectful of the 'great' man who had helped them survive WW2 in central London. We had all sorts of history lessons at school about his 'exploits' and 'heroics'.... it was nauseating.
I had been named after a child who died in the bombing and I spent my pre-school years playing in the bomb craters. Our house was crumbling; the stairs collapsed; the ceiling fell on my mum's head when she was cooking. War was very much a part of my awareness at that time.... I could hardly avoid knowing about it. I even had a ration card until I was 2 years old.
I became an anti-war activist at 15 years of age. I demonstrated outside the US Embassy to stop the war in Vietnam. I did not want any more kids to have to grow up in bomb craters like I did.
My Grandad caught a glimpse of me on the BBC news that night and met me from school the following day demanding to know what I thought I was doing!
My family never understood why I did not respect politicians or British foreign policy or even the gutter press that they all read and believed unquestioningly.
In a way, I am glad that the generations who went through WW2 are not around to see the world we endure now. I am glad that their pretty pink bubbles of illusion about the likes of Churchill were never popped during their lifetimes. It would have broken their hearts to know what a shit Churchill really was and how much he detested the common people.
He was a Zionist puppet for the Black Nobility and I look forward to a day when people truly understand what that awful word really means. It does not mean supporter of Jews. It means quite the opposite. A Zionist is a Nimrodist and you don't get more imperialist than that.
Frances, I am so honored that you subbed my YT! Thanks for sharing your personal story here. My dad fought in WWII, stationed in England, and I'm also glad that he didn't have to face how he'd been used.
I was thinking this morning how the concept of honor has been degraded over the centuries of European conquest. It never existed regarding the 'barbarian' or internal colonies like Ireland/ Scotland. But maybe the betrayal of the Versailles trick was new, that Europe would renege on agreements within its own countries. And now we take for granted that politicians are corrupt and that we bomb civilian cities. It's all been so normalized we're not shocked by anything.
I think that this series on WWII is a prelude to the work that you and Nefahotep have done on the Black Nobility. I'll be writing about that sometime soon.
Thanks for daring to speak your truth, that is why I subscribed to your YT channel. It isn't easy to challenge the prescribed narratives, especially about the hidden hands behind our governments. There are plenty of good sources (as you are finding) but few people want to face up to the huge deceptions that have always been fed to them since the printing press was invented.
I carried a protest sign saying "Know Your Enemy" to many protests in London and was shocked at the number of people who would stop me to ask who the enemy is..... 🤦
Thank you both for writing honestly! It's such a relief. It truly is incredible that people can't wrap their heads around how much has been inverted even in recent history.
Aug 31, 2023·edited Aug 31, 2023Liked by Tereza Coraggio
When Churchill was asked whether he was worried about how history would portray him, he reportedly said, "History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it" - which, of course, he did - in six volumes published between 1948 and 1953!
Interesting, Tirion. He was a clever guy, quick with a quip and eminently quotable. Someone on the last comment thread said he authored "Tell a lie often enough and it becomes the truth." But I can't find a source for it.
Ever try reading that unctuous garbage? What a self satisfied phoney.
Then there's this.
Finest hour for actor who was Churchill's radio voice
Recording proves who really made those war speeches
Vanessa Thorpe, arts Correspondent
Sun 29 Oct 2000 03.03 EST
"PROOF THAT some of Winston Churchill's most famous radio speeches of the war were delivered by a stand-in has emerged with the discovery of a 78rpm record.
The revelation ends years of controversy over claims - repeatedly denied - that an actor had been officially asked to impersonate the Prime Minister on air.
The record makes it clear for the first time that Norman Shelley's voice was used to broadcast some of the most important words in modern British history - including 'We shall fight them on the beaches'. It is marked 'BBC, Churchill: Speech. Artist Norman Shelley' and stamped 'September 7, 1942'.
Dec 2, 2023·edited Dec 3, 2023Liked by Tereza Coraggio
Yes, as a school student, I even spent my pocket money on buying a paperback edition! As for the speeches, I hadn't realized that the claim about the recordings having been made by an actor was controversial. As the "Guardian" article says, in those days proceedings in parliament were not broadcast or recorded except in stenography for Hansard; so the recordings could not have been live and using a voice double - like using a body double - was an opportunity for increased efficiency/productivity for Churchill, who - much as he enjoyed the sound of his own voice - would probably have preferred to spend his time swilling champagne and necking oysters!
Such an important point, Kevin. In my book I have a chapter on the Irish-Scottish women and children (after the men were killed) abducted through bounties to police and brought to be the first slaves. They were much cheaper than African slaves and, as indentured servants, were only paid if they survived. So the numbers worked or beaten to death are astounding and heartbreaking. And of course, the starvation imposed as the fake 'potato famine'. I'm sure you can add more.
Wow!! Thank you so very very much for this! So few are aware and black Americans will often argue that they were the only slaves! What is the title of your book! I'd love to get a copy when I am financially able! The so called "famine was actually a genocide with three of the five million who died dying on the coffin ships.
Yes, it's very controversial. As if suffering is a zero-sum game and somehow White slavery makes African slavery less terrible. Here's my book: https://www.amazon.com/How-Dismantle-Empire-2020-Vision/dp/1733347607. But I've been reading some chapters into my videos and posting them on Substack, so I'll put that chapter on my list to prioritize.
Hello Tereza. Let me just add this reference to Churchill's essay "Shall We All Commit Suicide". I have already posted the full transcript with selected highlights so here is the link:
“Shall We All Commit Suicide” – Winston S. Churchill
My own journey through 'all things Russian' brought me to the same jaw-dropping point. Let me also recommend "The Forced War" by David L Hoggan in which we see that it was actually Lord Halifax who did most of the heavy lifting to ignite WWII, thence carried forward by Churchill, and it was actually Chamberlain who declared war by reading what he was told to read. The opening chapters also give a great history of Poland and the unfortunate belligerent chauvinism of Józef Beck. As usual, it is never the people - and we should always only focus on these psychopathic warmongers who constituted the governing regimes
Julius! I haven't heard from you in awhile. I'll read this transcript with great interest.
You put that so well, "jaw-dropping point." I'm astounded at what I didn't know. Yes, Unz quotes from Hoggan in American Pravda and I forget if I got to him in my last article on it. Unz writes: "The same year that Taylor’s book appeared so did a work covering much the same ground by a fledgling scholar named David L. Hoggan. Hoggan had earned his 1948 Ph.D. in diplomatic history at Harvard under Prof. William Langer, one of the towering figures in that field, and his maiden work The Forced War was a direct outgrowth of his doctoral dissertation. While Taylor’s book was fairly short and mostly based upon public sources and some British documents, Hoggan’s volume was exceptionally long and detailed, running nearly 350,000 words including references, and drew upon his many years of painstaking research in the newly available governmental archives of Poland and Germany. Although the two historians were fully in accord that Hitler had certainly not intended the outbreak of World War II, Hoggan argued that various powerful individuals within the British government had deliberately worked to provoke the conflict, thereby forcing the war upon Hitler’s Germany just as his title suggested."
He then talks about how he "suffered a series of nervous breakdowns, and by the end of the 1960s he had resigned his position at San Francisco State College, the last serious academic position he was ever to hold. He subsequently earned his living as a research fellow at a small libertarian thinktank, then after it folded taught at a local junior college, hardly the expected professional trajectory of someone who had begun with such auspicious Harvard credentials.
In 1984 an English version of his major work was finally about to be released when the facilities of its small revisionist publisher in the Los Angeles area were fire-bombed and totally destroyed by Jewish militants, thus obliterating the plates and all existing stock. Living in total obscurity, Hoggan himself died of a heart-attack in 1988, aged 65... "
Been reading and listening across a diverse range of themes - absorbing as much as I can while just watching the headlines flow by. I admire your courage and integrity in taking on this topic.
Incidentally, here is a link to both the PDF (see download options) and full audio reading of Hoggan
• The Forced War: When Peaceful Revision Failed. By David L. Hoggan
It's interesting to see that information along side the info on the financiers of Hitler. Like the Walbergs, Schiff, Kuhn Loeb and J.H. Schroder Bank. That's just main land European financial assistance. There was IG Farben through which Hitler got help from the Rothschilds.
I know! It's very curious. It's like both sides of the war were being funded by a faction of very wealthy Jewish 'rulers' against their own people. But is that so different than Churchill goading Hitler into bombing England in order to perpetuate the war? Or FDR forcing Japan into the war with sanctions and setting up Pearl Harbor as a 'cheap and easy' way out of the Great Depression? If William Jennings Bryan had been elected, the Depression would have been resolved before it happened, in actual peace and prosperity.
Winston Churchill's mother Jenny Jerome was Jewish. Randolph Churchill was not Winston's biological father. He was in fact the son of the future King of Serbia, with whom his mother had a premarital affair.
Aug 31, 2023·edited Aug 31, 2023Liked by Tereza Coraggio
Oh, one other thing I think needs to be pointed out, when you mentioned this: "It's like both sides of the war were being funded by a faction of very wealthy Jewish 'rulers' against their own people." The Ashkenazi Jewish that were the "Leaders" inside of their community have NEVER been truly Jewish in the same sense as the "Average Jew" that you might meet in everyday life. The leaders of this community were in fact Sabbateans, who in private and secret practiced blood rituals. The regular Jew was both a scapegoat and a sacrificial goat to convince the world that the Jewish people needed to build Israel so that they can have a country of their own. The regular Jewish communities in the US and elsewhere, were vehemently opposed to creating Israel and they were very Anti Zionist, yet the plan to create Israel was one of the centerpieces to the two world wars. Create a crisis --- Create a problem --- Provide a solution to the problem THEY created.
The situation with the "Elections" back in those days, if you study them closely shows manipulation. The shenanigans played out by the so called "leaders" of the WWII era seems to illustrate that there were very controlled roles in those positions. Actually if you consider that the Ashkenazi Bankers were ALSO servants to some very "Hidden" others; then you begin to see the much bigger picture. So, we can clearly see what Churchill did was so obviously funded and supported, yet so were the players over here in the US. Now in Germany; at that time, Hitler was both a "Puppet" and an "Opportunist" in that very sense, he sold both sides of the conflict into buying the war. Both WWI and WWII were in the beginning stages of planning in around 1880.
"1880 – 1919 – preparing for WW II
1880 - Rothschild agents begin fomenting a series of pogroms predominantly in Russia, but also in Poland, Bulgaria and Romania. These pogroms result in the slaughter of thousands of Jews, causing approximately two million to flee, mainly to the USA, but some settle in Palestine."
"1897 - The first Zionist congress, founded by the De Rothschild family after first staging the Dreyfus affair, takes place in August 1897 in Basel. The leader of the Zionist Congress Theodor Herzl wrote in his diary that Zionism is founded on anti-Semitism."
The thing to keep in open consideration is: The "Ashkenazi Jewish Bankers" are just the "Banking Staff," for the REAL Parasites --- I call them the Original Bloodline or what they used to call themselves in more ancient times "Dragon Bloodlines" or "Grail Families." Basically, they are families that can trace their "lineage" back to original Roman Senator Families who were driven out of Rome when it all fell apart. The plan of the World Wars was always about taking land; hence the Papal Bulls and the "Trust System."
So when you described the Churchill bailout of his financial disaster by a Jewish Billionaire, I think that Billionaire was "Told" to do it by someone much MUCH higher on their "Hierarchy."
It's probably easier to picture what all this really looks like if it can be put to a proper diagram, I have those laying all over the kitchen counter, the rest of my family gets irritated at me for doing all this....
Yes, I'll work on making a very clear to read diagrammatic illustration. Then I'll re-post the info found on those very long list you checked out. I'm probably only going to focus more on the individual reptiles who are the highest up on their totem pole.
Dec 4, 2023·edited Dec 4, 2023Liked by Tereza Coraggio
Jewish banks were lending money to Germany after WW1 only so that Germany could pay the draconian reparations imposed at the Treaty of Versailles in 1919. When Hitler came to power in 1933, he refused to keep paying the banks. Instead he printed new money free of debt to pay the German workforce to get back to work building autobahns, Volkswagens and Messerschmidts. Of course the banks were horrified, and instructed Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain to declare war on Germany in 1939, using a fake treaty with Poland as a pretext.
I'll check out How to Dismantle an Empire. The funny thing about how to view Economics, it looks quite different if viewed from the National local level as opposed to the International level.
I suggest you have a sensitivity around toxic masculinity. Of course men say to other men: “If you say things like this, people won’t take you seriously.”
Thanks, Shane. Toxic vs. tonic masculinity is definitely a theme of mine, and I would agree with you that I do have a sensitivity around it. I define toxicity as superiority. We could probably put Churchill at the furthest extreme of that. What Englebert 42 did was a very small example but they're on the same continuum. Without being surrounded by 'serious men' who ridicule anyone who argues with their 'irrefutable facts,' Churchill could never have gotten away with what he did. Imagine that, we could live in a world where bombing civilians was unthinkable, much less bombing them to goad the enemy into bombing your own civilians so they'd support your war. Just my thoughts, and why I keep pointing it out.
Indulge me, if you will. Why does that make his masculinity relevant? There are plenty of female blood soaked monsters right now in the U.S. administration getting away with what they are doing, which seems identical to what Churchill did. Even if they are all toxic masculine/feminine types, why attribute their actions to toxicity or sex, or 'serious men' as opposed to traits common to all humans: greed, use of force, psycopathy, evil, etc?
In my series on it, I see the masculine and feminine as two sides of the brain that all of us have in equal measure. We live in an economic system dominated by the masculine at the expense of the feminine. The purpose of our economy is not to raise the next generation to have security and take responsibility. Children are a byproduct of a system that serves the ejaculations of powerful men, as the recent revelations of pedo-sadistic cults shows. And absolutely there are patriarchs without penises like Hilary and Nuland. They out-macho their sadistic husbands.
I don't know if you saw Sharon's comment, who made your same point. As I told her, I capitulate. This is a put-down that's common to both genders and that women also do to men, as she points out ;-)
"History" is always a complete and utter fabrication based on worldviews that serve whichever Empire(s) happen to be in power.
We don't even recognize obvious fabrications when the facts are prescient and irrefutable and the lies (read: future history) are being shoved down our throats.
Given our degree of being impressionable and gullible, it's a wonder we don't seize up like an old engine running without oil when presented with truths which obviously cannot be so.
And in this, if we cannot even surmise truth in our present day, good luck being able to piece it together from "official history."
No-one accounts for intuition nor our own unofficial sources of information. All is known to us when we simply trust our instincts.
Thanks for reading, Philip. I see intuition or spirit as the feminine, right-side of the brain. I think that it still needs to go back-and-forth with the masculine of rationality, logic, facts. Otherwise, imo, it's hard to distinguish intuition from emotional manipulation. People have a very visceral, 'intuitive' reaction against things that change their world-view and make them question whether they're the good guys.
Personally, I wouldn't throw history out with the propaganda bathwater. I think it's easier to see how people were fooled in the past, because it isn't personal, and then to extrapolate that to the present day. But I say that with full respect for you and for intuition!
Intellect and reason are indispensable tools to help us process information gathered with our physical senses. That is their primary purpose.
"Facts" cannot be included in this since any given truth assigned to events is strictly subjective. Much as we'd like to think so, there is no "official reality," and it can, and does, vary from person to person.
Physical reality is imagery created by us reflecting non-physical events and processes.
In other words, we create all of our reality through our perception. It is only through the strength of the mass beliefs that we find any common ground at all.
In that, again, we can believe anything we want, and we can find agreement within the mass belief. It doesn't, however, make any of it "true." Only true to the extent that it is agreed upon. That doesn't make it factual.
Studying "history" should actually be referred to as "studying the mass beliefs of history." That would be more concise.
I love that I can go between the socio- and the spiritual with you, Philip. My mother would have agreed with you that there are no facts and everything's subjective. That's why (and it took me 60 yrs to figure this out) it was useless to have an argument with her. If I looked up that Mother's Day was created as an anti-war proclamation, well, you can find anything you want on the internet. If I quoted from the Bible, she said, 'that's not in MY bible.'
You know from reading me that I entertain the possibility the world is not real but our collective delusion. But the way to get out of that is to use my own portal on the One Mind to question the delusion of separateness.
To say that Reality doesn't exist is to say that God doesn't exist, since God is What Is by definition. If we're each separate cosmic astronauts creating our own reality bubbles, that would be a wretchedly lonely existence. Not to say it isn't true.
On history vs. "history", I'll respond more where Nefahotep cites your comment. I think it's below somewhere. Thanks for engaging!
Aug 31, 2023·edited Aug 31, 2023Liked by Tereza Coraggio
Please don't misunderstand - I'm not saying that we and our world aren't real. As real as the Universal Creating One and Whole.
The imagery is still very real, but it is a process of manifestation from our inner world.
Everything that we believe is true. Then it becomes a matter of evaluating our belief systems to see how they are creating our truth.
My only point is that that can vary wildly from individual to individual. So everything is "true" within its context for the individual who is having the experience.
When I project that onto history, I take everything that is claimed with a very large grain of salt. For every accepted "official" take on history, I guarantee that there are alternative worldviews that have been lost that would very much disagree with the mass beliefs.
I like alternative viewpoints around history such as the one you presented here.
The biggest issue we are facing right now is the practice of the authorities forcing themselves on people who they feel are guilty of wrong-speak or wrong-think. It's ugly and it's going to get worse before the logjam blows.
I'd wanted to get to it in this episode but it was already too long. Great lecturer, very funny too when he becomes his own heckler. I think you'd like the rest of Jonathan's article too.
Aug 31, 2023·edited Sep 3, 2023Liked by Tereza Coraggio
I like your Stack, I really do. That's why I subscribe. I think you are meticulous and informed, but I have to pull you up on one thing. I deal with quite a few writers, many male and this: 'I will also add that men don’t say to other men, “If you say things like this, people won’t take you seriously.” That’s what men, who assume their own authority, say in a patronizing way to women...' is palpably not true in my experience. I have been present when agents and publishers have said this sort of thing to male writers who are trying to push the boat out or try something new. In fact sometimes I've witnessed women say it to men. It was particularly prevalent at the BBC which was always resisting the new - particularly after the 1980s - whether fact or fiction. It was a feeble excuse to justify their fear of taking a risk. Other than that, keep up the good work.
“And I didn’t even mention that Churchill bombed the disarmed French fleet and killed 2000 [rounded up] of his own allies because he mistranslated a French word.
These are what passes for heroes these days; God help us.”
In passing for other readers …
The following excerpt from “Germany’s War” by John Wear describes the attack by the English (Churchill) on the French fleet in Algeria and the massacre of 1297 innocent (so-called ally) French sailors.
“Great Britain Practices Uncivilized Warfare"
“In addition to ignoring all German efforts to make peace, Churchill and other leaders of Great Britain began to conduct a war of unprecedented violence. On July 3, 1940, a British fleet attacked and destroyed much of the French fleet at Oran in southwestern Algeria to prevent it from falling into German hands. The French navy went to the bottom of the sea, and with it 1,297 French sailors. Churchill and the British government did not seem to mind that 1,297 of their French ally’s sailors were killed in the attack. This attack on the French fleet illustrates Churchill’s determination to continue fighting Hitler “no matter what the cost.”[71]”
"[71] Source: Fischer, Klaus P., Hitler and America, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2011, pp. 122-123."
“A surprising aspect of the British attack on the French fleet is that low-flying British airplanes repeatedly machine-gunned masses of French sailors as they struggled in the water. It is an event still remembered with great bitterness in France. This deliberate British war crime was soon followed by the assassination of French Adm. Darlan by British agents in Algiers.[72]”
"[72] Source: Bird, Vivian, “An Examination of British War Crimes During World War II,” THE BARNES REVIEW, Vol. VI, No. 6, Nov. /Dec. 2000, p. 56."
Wow, Julius. Thanks for adding those jaw-dropping details. Did Churchill really mistranslate a French word or was that just a 'oops' cover for this deliberate and horrifying tantrum? All I can picture is Churchill as a big wailing baby breaking his toys so no one else can have them.
Hi Tereza, I could tell, by the look on your face, you were about to destroy someone with their own words. I laughed out load as you ate that guys word salad up.
My dad said that Germany was purposely destroyed after WWI that lead to WWII.
You may have already read this, but just in case you missed it, H. Graham Lowery wrote "How the Nation Was Won" and there are chapters on Churchill's Grandfather ancestor the Duke of Marlboro John Churchill (1650-1722). It sounds to me that they were in a competition on who could do a better job of destroying the world.
I enjoy all those little details you provide us with. Thanks
One thing is clear; history is written by the victors. The world still believes the allies were the "good guys," not realizing that American troops raped and looted every town they entered. There are so many truths about WWII that are unknown and untold, you could write volumes about it all.
And people have! But I don't know if the level of depravity that we've become inured to in recent invasions and occupations was true for WWII. It was an idealistic generation who hoped to survive, go home and raise a family. As they did, leading to Boomers like me. I think there was a sense of honor among the troops that was betrayed by those who fomented the war. Maybe you're right but I'd need more specifics. It seems like it would go against what they thought they were fighting for. And the Germans were white like them, not as easy to dehumanize as other races.
This is a fascinating exercise in “cognitive psychology”. I am not sure whether to classify it as Hegelian dialectic or cognitive dissonance.
Philip Mollica wrote:
"History" is always a complete and utter fabrication based on worldviews that serve whichever Empire(s) happen to be in power.
In “Twilight Over England” William Joyce writes
“How much can be learnt from history has long been a matter of speculation. Much depends on the capacity of the pupil. There is probably no branch of learning, except economics, in which conjecture plays so large a part. <b>Almost any set of facts can be selected, in a partial fashion, to prove any theory, however, absurd.</b> “
This has also been stated in terms of fitting a historical narrative to a set of data points. Any subset of data points can be selected to fit one’s particular version of the truth.
Yuval Noah Harari (NOT a fan of this transhumanist/eugenicist) stated something similar in ‘Sapiens: A Brief History of Mankind’:
<b><I>“So perhaps happiness is synchronising one’s personal delusions of meaning with the prevailing collective delusions. As long as my personal narrative is in line with the narratives of the people around me, I can convince myself that my life is meaningful, and find happiness in that conviction.” </b></I>
I'll reply also to Philip here. I've given a lot of thought to this question of how much credibility to give someone in history, science or journalism. Somewhere I have a metric for things that move someone towards the credibility or skepticism ends of the spectrum. It included what the person stood to gain or lose by the position they were taking: Did it enhance or threaten their professional reputation? Their livelihood? Their life? Did they make money directly or indirectly? Did they make enemies or lose friends, especially powerful ones?
I don't think we should ever 'believe' and abandon our critical thinking, especially with those we like! But I wouldn't go full YNH at the other end and say that all meaning in life is a delusion. That's certainly the WEFfie way of thinking. But meaning can only be measured by how close it comes to reality, so if truth is all relative, YNH is right. Once we've given up on the existence of facts and logic, all that's left is your authority vs. mine.
Dear Tereza, my preferred housewife. I ordered your book in early July and read it on and off until mid-August. As is the case for this piece on Churchill, your take on the history of economics (to be brief in content purpose) is fascinating and remarkable. I wrote in June that I discovered a soulmate in you and I confirm. I admire your tenacity because I have none! Or Almost compare to yours. You would make a bunch of piranhas blush next to yours. Such a fierce combattant of truth is commandable. I also wrote a little review on Amazon. So thank you very much indeed.
This really did make me roll on the floor laughing! Especially the piranhas. I've been compared to a bulldog clenched onto a pantsleg before but never piranhas!
And your review of my book was so kind. And you got my intent in billing myself as a housewife. In the first place, what little credentials I have aren't relevant to my subject. But second, I hoped to make people think twice about 'a housewife' as capable of serious research and analysis. So you give me hope that I can bring new meaning to this term other than the pat on the head and, "of course, raising children is the most important job!" No, bringing all the intelligence and skill we have to re-inventing the world is the most important job. If raising kids gives us a reprieve from serving the market, don't waste it on entering the Soccer Mom Olympics.
And I love your title and perspective in your Substack. Happy to be connecting on the economic and spiritual planes, Marc!
Researching US wars has stripped me of patriotism. You can't help but come to the realization we are not the good guys. Americans should research the song that led the US into WWII--God Bless America. It was written by Israel Berlin also known as Irving Baline. There are many dots to connect here that clearly exposes them and their god. Thanks.
but who is the "we"? The American Empire (US) is the personification of evil, as all empires before. Especially the British, much more so the Dutch and the Portugiese and the Romans. The American people are tricked to conflate their country (we the people) with the ruling government machine. Once they see its two separate things, they might be able to get their country back and reduce the government to its bare minimum. Only the US constitution allows for it. No other place on earth like this! This is why people from outside the US admire this place and would like to join, despite its government.
How to collapse the house of cards? Collapse the monetary system and default the federal debt all at once.
Self sufficient people with intact families living near the land will mange to survive more easily. Its a big circle back to what the founding fathers envisioned. Not easy but worth it.
Excellent point, DaCon. By merging our own identities with the actions of other people, over whom we have no control, it makes it harder to hold them responsible. Made worse by the control they have over us, particularly through our monetary system as you point out.
The second is more complicated. Even if 'we' default on the Federal debt, the Treasury bills held by China can buy up all the real estate. And the money held in tax havens in $100 bills would stretch to the Moon and back several times (I have it calculated in my book).
What my book proposes is Ben Franklin's plan, which is what the War was fought for. It backs the local credit system that I call carets with mortgages, and returns that amount monthly to residents in dividends targeted to the things we want to promote: locally produced food, wellcare, education and home maintenance, in my design. But I think we agree on what the goal is: self-sufficient families in self-reliant communities living close to the land.
To Mike's point, it was also jaw-dropping when I discovered that the Pledge of Allegiance included the Nazi salute.
"The fog of war," as they say has staying power. Identities are always in play and will always inform our ability to take in information. The stigma of being 'anti-semitic' operates much like the 'conspiracy-theorist' stigma we've seen more recently. These are cognitive firewalls - don't go there; serious people don't go there. In fact, serious people do go there - and they pay the price. Fascinating, thank you Tereza, for being you. Having read, I'll now listen to your video. Best.
When Churchill died in 1965 I was 13 years old. My grandparents and parents were solemn and respectful of the 'great' man who had helped them survive WW2 in central London. We had all sorts of history lessons at school about his 'exploits' and 'heroics'.... it was nauseating.
I had been named after a child who died in the bombing and I spent my pre-school years playing in the bomb craters. Our house was crumbling; the stairs collapsed; the ceiling fell on my mum's head when she was cooking. War was very much a part of my awareness at that time.... I could hardly avoid knowing about it. I even had a ration card until I was 2 years old.
I became an anti-war activist at 15 years of age. I demonstrated outside the US Embassy to stop the war in Vietnam. I did not want any more kids to have to grow up in bomb craters like I did.
My Grandad caught a glimpse of me on the BBC news that night and met me from school the following day demanding to know what I thought I was doing!
My family never understood why I did not respect politicians or British foreign policy or even the gutter press that they all read and believed unquestioningly.
In a way, I am glad that the generations who went through WW2 are not around to see the world we endure now. I am glad that their pretty pink bubbles of illusion about the likes of Churchill were never popped during their lifetimes. It would have broken their hearts to know what a shit Churchill really was and how much he detested the common people.
He was a Zionist puppet for the Black Nobility and I look forward to a day when people truly understand what that awful word really means. It does not mean supporter of Jews. It means quite the opposite. A Zionist is a Nimrodist and you don't get more imperialist than that.
Frances, I am so honored that you subbed my YT! Thanks for sharing your personal story here. My dad fought in WWII, stationed in England, and I'm also glad that he didn't have to face how he'd been used.
I was thinking this morning how the concept of honor has been degraded over the centuries of European conquest. It never existed regarding the 'barbarian' or internal colonies like Ireland/ Scotland. But maybe the betrayal of the Versailles trick was new, that Europe would renege on agreements within its own countries. And now we take for granted that politicians are corrupt and that we bomb civilian cities. It's all been so normalized we're not shocked by anything.
I think that this series on WWII is a prelude to the work that you and Nefahotep have done on the Black Nobility. I'll be writing about that sometime soon.
Thanks for daring to speak your truth, that is why I subscribed to your YT channel. It isn't easy to challenge the prescribed narratives, especially about the hidden hands behind our governments. There are plenty of good sources (as you are finding) but few people want to face up to the huge deceptions that have always been fed to them since the printing press was invented.
I carried a protest sign saying "Know Your Enemy" to many protests in London and was shocked at the number of people who would stop me to ask who the enemy is..... 🤦
Thank you both for writing honestly! It's such a relief. It truly is incredible that people can't wrap their heads around how much has been inverted even in recent history.
When Churchill was asked whether he was worried about how history would portray him, he reportedly said, "History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it" - which, of course, he did - in six volumes published between 1948 and 1953!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Second_World_War_(book_series)
Interesting, Tirion. He was a clever guy, quick with a quip and eminently quotable. Someone on the last comment thread said he authored "Tell a lie often enough and it becomes the truth." But I can't find a source for it.
My recollection is that the cognitive psychology "lie" quote was in fact Goebbels ;)
Hitler wrote a lot about "The Big Lie" in "Mein Kampf."
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/joseph-goebbels-on-the-quot-big-lie-quot
Ever try reading that unctuous garbage? What a self satisfied phoney.
Then there's this.
Finest hour for actor who was Churchill's radio voice
Recording proves who really made those war speeches
Vanessa Thorpe, arts Correspondent
Sun 29 Oct 2000 03.03 EST
"PROOF THAT some of Winston Churchill's most famous radio speeches of the war were delivered by a stand-in has emerged with the discovery of a 78rpm record.
The revelation ends years of controversy over claims - repeatedly denied - that an actor had been officially asked to impersonate the Prime Minister on air.
The record makes it clear for the first time that Norman Shelley's voice was used to broadcast some of the most important words in modern British history - including 'We shall fight them on the beaches'. It is marked 'BBC, Churchill: Speech. Artist Norman Shelley' and stamped 'September 7, 1942'.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2000/oct/29/uknews.theobserver
Yes, as a school student, I even spent my pocket money on buying a paperback edition! As for the speeches, I hadn't realized that the claim about the recordings having been made by an actor was controversial. As the "Guardian" article says, in those days proceedings in parliament were not broadcast or recorded except in stenography for Hansard; so the recordings could not have been live and using a voice double - like using a body double - was an opportunity for increased efficiency/productivity for Churchill, who - much as he enjoyed the sound of his own voice - would probably have preferred to spend his time swilling champagne and necking oysters!
He hated the Irish and considered us sub human so may he ...
Such an important point, Kevin. In my book I have a chapter on the Irish-Scottish women and children (after the men were killed) abducted through bounties to police and brought to be the first slaves. They were much cheaper than African slaves and, as indentured servants, were only paid if they survived. So the numbers worked or beaten to death are astounding and heartbreaking. And of course, the starvation imposed as the fake 'potato famine'. I'm sure you can add more.
Wow!! Thank you so very very much for this! So few are aware and black Americans will often argue that they were the only slaves! What is the title of your book! I'd love to get a copy when I am financially able! The so called "famine was actually a genocide with three of the five million who died dying on the coffin ships.
Yes, it's very controversial. As if suffering is a zero-sum game and somehow White slavery makes African slavery less terrible. Here's my book: https://www.amazon.com/How-Dismantle-Empire-2020-Vision/dp/1733347607. But I've been reading some chapters into my videos and posting them on Substack, so I'll put that chapter on my list to prioritize.
Hello Tereza. Let me just add this reference to Churchill's essay "Shall We All Commit Suicide". I have already posted the full transcript with selected highlights so here is the link:
“Shall We All Commit Suicide” – Winston S. Churchill
https://juliusskoolafish.substack.com/p/shall-we-all-commit-suicide-winston
My own journey through 'all things Russian' brought me to the same jaw-dropping point. Let me also recommend "The Forced War" by David L Hoggan in which we see that it was actually Lord Halifax who did most of the heavy lifting to ignite WWII, thence carried forward by Churchill, and it was actually Chamberlain who declared war by reading what he was told to read. The opening chapters also give a great history of Poland and the unfortunate belligerent chauvinism of Józef Beck. As usual, it is never the people - and we should always only focus on these psychopathic warmongers who constituted the governing regimes
Julius! I haven't heard from you in awhile. I'll read this transcript with great interest.
You put that so well, "jaw-dropping point." I'm astounded at what I didn't know. Yes, Unz quotes from Hoggan in American Pravda and I forget if I got to him in my last article on it. Unz writes: "The same year that Taylor’s book appeared so did a work covering much the same ground by a fledgling scholar named David L. Hoggan. Hoggan had earned his 1948 Ph.D. in diplomatic history at Harvard under Prof. William Langer, one of the towering figures in that field, and his maiden work The Forced War was a direct outgrowth of his doctoral dissertation. While Taylor’s book was fairly short and mostly based upon public sources and some British documents, Hoggan’s volume was exceptionally long and detailed, running nearly 350,000 words including references, and drew upon his many years of painstaking research in the newly available governmental archives of Poland and Germany. Although the two historians were fully in accord that Hitler had certainly not intended the outbreak of World War II, Hoggan argued that various powerful individuals within the British government had deliberately worked to provoke the conflict, thereby forcing the war upon Hitler’s Germany just as his title suggested."
He then talks about how he "suffered a series of nervous breakdowns, and by the end of the 1960s he had resigned his position at San Francisco State College, the last serious academic position he was ever to hold. He subsequently earned his living as a research fellow at a small libertarian thinktank, then after it folded taught at a local junior college, hardly the expected professional trajectory of someone who had begun with such auspicious Harvard credentials.
In 1984 an English version of his major work was finally about to be released when the facilities of its small revisionist publisher in the Los Angeles area were fire-bombed and totally destroyed by Jewish militants, thus obliterating the plates and all existing stock. Living in total obscurity, Hoggan himself died of a heart-attack in 1988, aged 65... "
Been reading and listening across a diverse range of themes - absorbing as much as I can while just watching the headlines flow by. I admire your courage and integrity in taking on this topic.
Incidentally, here is a link to both the PDF (see download options) and full audio reading of Hoggan
• The Forced War: When Peaceful Revision Failed. By David L. Hoggan
https://archive.org/details/tfrdw
The book by Arthur Ponsonby - "Falsehood in War-Time" - underpins my awakening.
Yes! And I quoted Ponsonby in this: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/nina-jankowicz-the-warbling-warmonger.
It's interesting to see that information along side the info on the financiers of Hitler. Like the Walbergs, Schiff, Kuhn Loeb and J.H. Schroder Bank. That's just main land European financial assistance. There was IG Farben through which Hitler got help from the Rothschilds.
I know! It's very curious. It's like both sides of the war were being funded by a faction of very wealthy Jewish 'rulers' against their own people. But is that so different than Churchill goading Hitler into bombing England in order to perpetuate the war? Or FDR forcing Japan into the war with sanctions and setting up Pearl Harbor as a 'cheap and easy' way out of the Great Depression? If William Jennings Bryan had been elected, the Depression would have been resolved before it happened, in actual peace and prosperity.
Winston Churchill's mother Jenny Jerome was Jewish. Randolph Churchill was not Winston's biological father. He was in fact the son of the future King of Serbia, with whom his mother had a premarital affair.
Wow, so many layers of intrigue!
Oh, one other thing I think needs to be pointed out, when you mentioned this: "It's like both sides of the war were being funded by a faction of very wealthy Jewish 'rulers' against their own people." The Ashkenazi Jewish that were the "Leaders" inside of their community have NEVER been truly Jewish in the same sense as the "Average Jew" that you might meet in everyday life. The leaders of this community were in fact Sabbateans, who in private and secret practiced blood rituals. The regular Jew was both a scapegoat and a sacrificial goat to convince the world that the Jewish people needed to build Israel so that they can have a country of their own. The regular Jewish communities in the US and elsewhere, were vehemently opposed to creating Israel and they were very Anti Zionist, yet the plan to create Israel was one of the centerpieces to the two world wars. Create a crisis --- Create a problem --- Provide a solution to the problem THEY created.
The situation with the "Elections" back in those days, if you study them closely shows manipulation. The shenanigans played out by the so called "leaders" of the WWII era seems to illustrate that there were very controlled roles in those positions. Actually if you consider that the Ashkenazi Bankers were ALSO servants to some very "Hidden" others; then you begin to see the much bigger picture. So, we can clearly see what Churchill did was so obviously funded and supported, yet so were the players over here in the US. Now in Germany; at that time, Hitler was both a "Puppet" and an "Opportunist" in that very sense, he sold both sides of the conflict into buying the war. Both WWI and WWII were in the beginning stages of planning in around 1880.
"1880 – 1919 – preparing for WW II
1880 - Rothschild agents begin fomenting a series of pogroms predominantly in Russia, but also in Poland, Bulgaria and Romania. These pogroms result in the slaughter of thousands of Jews, causing approximately two million to flee, mainly to the USA, but some settle in Palestine."
"1897 - The first Zionist congress, founded by the De Rothschild family after first staging the Dreyfus affair, takes place in August 1897 in Basel. The leader of the Zionist Congress Theodor Herzl wrote in his diary that Zionism is founded on anti-Semitism."
The thing to keep in open consideration is: The "Ashkenazi Jewish Bankers" are just the "Banking Staff," for the REAL Parasites --- I call them the Original Bloodline or what they used to call themselves in more ancient times "Dragon Bloodlines" or "Grail Families." Basically, they are families that can trace their "lineage" back to original Roman Senator Families who were driven out of Rome when it all fell apart. The plan of the World Wars was always about taking land; hence the Papal Bulls and the "Trust System."
So when you described the Churchill bailout of his financial disaster by a Jewish Billionaire, I think that Billionaire was "Told" to do it by someone much MUCH higher on their "Hierarchy."
It's probably easier to picture what all this really looks like if it can be put to a proper diagram, I have those laying all over the kitchen counter, the rest of my family gets irritated at me for doing all this....
When reading your Dragon Court, I was wanting those diagrams. I can see why they'd contribute quite a bit of clutter, though!
Thanks for these clarifications.
Yes, I'll work on making a very clear to read diagrammatic illustration. Then I'll re-post the info found on those very long list you checked out. I'm probably only going to focus more on the individual reptiles who are the highest up on their totem pole.
Jewish banks were lending money to Germany after WW1 only so that Germany could pay the draconian reparations imposed at the Treaty of Versailles in 1919. When Hitler came to power in 1933, he refused to keep paying the banks. Instead he printed new money free of debt to pay the German workforce to get back to work building autobahns, Volkswagens and Messerschmidts. Of course the banks were horrified, and instructed Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain to declare war on Germany in 1939, using a fake treaty with Poland as a pretext.
Hi, Frank. Thanks for reading my article. Yes, I write about Hitler printing a sovereign currency in my book, How to Dismantle an Empire: https://www.amazon.com/How-Dismantle-Empire-2020-Vision/dp/1733347607. And I had thought that was why Chamberlain, and especially Rothschilds, had turned on him. But I just read an article from Nefahotep, taken from Firestarter, that's causing me to question everything at an even deeper level. Check it out: https://nefahotep.substack.com/p/adolf-hitler-made-many-mistakes-for.
I'll check out How to Dismantle an Empire. The funny thing about how to view Economics, it looks quite different if viewed from the National local level as opposed to the International level.
It would make me so happy to be read by you and see how my ideas reflect in your fine mind.
I bet I'm going to love it.
Fascinating stuff on wwii. Regarding the intro:
I suggest you have a sensitivity around toxic masculinity. Of course men say to other men: “If you say things like this, people won’t take you seriously.”
Thanks, Shane. Toxic vs. tonic masculinity is definitely a theme of mine, and I would agree with you that I do have a sensitivity around it. I define toxicity as superiority. We could probably put Churchill at the furthest extreme of that. What Englebert 42 did was a very small example but they're on the same continuum. Without being surrounded by 'serious men' who ridicule anyone who argues with their 'irrefutable facts,' Churchill could never have gotten away with what he did. Imagine that, we could live in a world where bombing civilians was unthinkable, much less bombing them to goad the enemy into bombing your own civilians so they'd support your war. Just my thoughts, and why I keep pointing it out.
Indulge me, if you will. Why does that make his masculinity relevant? There are plenty of female blood soaked monsters right now in the U.S. administration getting away with what they are doing, which seems identical to what Churchill did. Even if they are all toxic masculine/feminine types, why attribute their actions to toxicity or sex, or 'serious men' as opposed to traits common to all humans: greed, use of force, psycopathy, evil, etc?
In my series on it, I see the masculine and feminine as two sides of the brain that all of us have in equal measure. We live in an economic system dominated by the masculine at the expense of the feminine. The purpose of our economy is not to raise the next generation to have security and take responsibility. Children are a byproduct of a system that serves the ejaculations of powerful men, as the recent revelations of pedo-sadistic cults shows. And absolutely there are patriarchs without penises like Hilary and Nuland. They out-macho their sadistic husbands.
I don't know if you saw Sharon's comment, who made your same point. As I told her, I capitulate. This is a put-down that's common to both genders and that women also do to men, as she points out ;-)
"History" is always a complete and utter fabrication based on worldviews that serve whichever Empire(s) happen to be in power.
We don't even recognize obvious fabrications when the facts are prescient and irrefutable and the lies (read: future history) are being shoved down our throats.
Given our degree of being impressionable and gullible, it's a wonder we don't seize up like an old engine running without oil when presented with truths which obviously cannot be so.
And in this, if we cannot even surmise truth in our present day, good luck being able to piece it together from "official history."
No-one accounts for intuition nor our own unofficial sources of information. All is known to us when we simply trust our instincts.
Thanks for reading, Philip. I see intuition or spirit as the feminine, right-side of the brain. I think that it still needs to go back-and-forth with the masculine of rationality, logic, facts. Otherwise, imo, it's hard to distinguish intuition from emotional manipulation. People have a very visceral, 'intuitive' reaction against things that change their world-view and make them question whether they're the good guys.
Personally, I wouldn't throw history out with the propaganda bathwater. I think it's easier to see how people were fooled in the past, because it isn't personal, and then to extrapolate that to the present day. But I say that with full respect for you and for intuition!
Intellect and reason are indispensable tools to help us process information gathered with our physical senses. That is their primary purpose.
"Facts" cannot be included in this since any given truth assigned to events is strictly subjective. Much as we'd like to think so, there is no "official reality," and it can, and does, vary from person to person.
Physical reality is imagery created by us reflecting non-physical events and processes.
In other words, we create all of our reality through our perception. It is only through the strength of the mass beliefs that we find any common ground at all.
In that, again, we can believe anything we want, and we can find agreement within the mass belief. It doesn't, however, make any of it "true." Only true to the extent that it is agreed upon. That doesn't make it factual.
Studying "history" should actually be referred to as "studying the mass beliefs of history." That would be more concise.
I love that I can go between the socio- and the spiritual with you, Philip. My mother would have agreed with you that there are no facts and everything's subjective. That's why (and it took me 60 yrs to figure this out) it was useless to have an argument with her. If I looked up that Mother's Day was created as an anti-war proclamation, well, you can find anything you want on the internet. If I quoted from the Bible, she said, 'that's not in MY bible.'
You know from reading me that I entertain the possibility the world is not real but our collective delusion. But the way to get out of that is to use my own portal on the One Mind to question the delusion of separateness.
To say that Reality doesn't exist is to say that God doesn't exist, since God is What Is by definition. If we're each separate cosmic astronauts creating our own reality bubbles, that would be a wretchedly lonely existence. Not to say it isn't true.
On history vs. "history", I'll respond more where Nefahotep cites your comment. I think it's below somewhere. Thanks for engaging!
Please don't misunderstand - I'm not saying that we and our world aren't real. As real as the Universal Creating One and Whole.
The imagery is still very real, but it is a process of manifestation from our inner world.
Everything that we believe is true. Then it becomes a matter of evaluating our belief systems to see how they are creating our truth.
My only point is that that can vary wildly from individual to individual. So everything is "true" within its context for the individual who is having the experience.
When I project that onto history, I take everything that is claimed with a very large grain of salt. For every accepted "official" take on history, I guarantee that there are alternative worldviews that have been lost that would very much disagree with the mass beliefs.
I like alternative viewpoints around history such as the one you presented here.
The biggest issue we are facing right now is the practice of the authorities forcing themselves on people who they feel are guilty of wrong-speak or wrong-think. It's ugly and it's going to get worse before the logjam blows.
Just adding to the collective dossier …
From Paul Craig Roberts (I believe this was mirrored on The Unz Review):
• Churchill’s War: The Real History of World War II – Paul Craig Roberts
https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2020/04/19/churchills-war-the-real-history-of-world-war-ii/
and from James Perloff (sounds like he is being interviewed by Kevin Barrett):
• James Perloff: Winston Churchill Manipulated by International Bankers
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tR0JvLFs9zg
Oh I just listened to James Perloff per Jonathan's Substack, What Do I No? https://whatdoino.substack.com/p/copy-a-funny-thing-happened-in-2012
I'd wanted to get to it in this episode but it was already too long. Great lecturer, very funny too when he becomes his own heckler. I think you'd like the rest of Jonathan's article too.
I like your Stack, I really do. That's why I subscribe. I think you are meticulous and informed, but I have to pull you up on one thing. I deal with quite a few writers, many male and this: 'I will also add that men don’t say to other men, “If you say things like this, people won’t take you seriously.” That’s what men, who assume their own authority, say in a patronizing way to women...' is palpably not true in my experience. I have been present when agents and publishers have said this sort of thing to male writers who are trying to push the boat out or try something new. In fact sometimes I've witnessed women say it to men. It was particularly prevalent at the BBC which was always resisting the new - particularly after the 1980s - whether fact or fiction. It was a feeble excuse to justify their fear of taking a risk. Other than that, keep up the good work.
Haha, I don't know if you read Shane's comment, which said the same. I capitulate my point ;-) And I thank you both for putting it very kindly.
I did, but only after I had posted my comment, thanks anyway.
She's wise, is Sharon. :)
Tereza writes:
“And I didn’t even mention that Churchill bombed the disarmed French fleet and killed 2000 [rounded up] of his own allies because he mistranslated a French word.
These are what passes for heroes these days; God help us.”
In passing for other readers …
The following excerpt from “Germany’s War” by John Wear describes the attack by the English (Churchill) on the French fleet in Algeria and the massacre of 1297 innocent (so-called ally) French sailors.
“Great Britain Practices Uncivilized Warfare"
“In addition to ignoring all German efforts to make peace, Churchill and other leaders of Great Britain began to conduct a war of unprecedented violence. On July 3, 1940, a British fleet attacked and destroyed much of the French fleet at Oran in southwestern Algeria to prevent it from falling into German hands. The French navy went to the bottom of the sea, and with it 1,297 French sailors. Churchill and the British government did not seem to mind that 1,297 of their French ally’s sailors were killed in the attack. This attack on the French fleet illustrates Churchill’s determination to continue fighting Hitler “no matter what the cost.”[71]”
"[71] Source: Fischer, Klaus P., Hitler and America, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2011, pp. 122-123."
“A surprising aspect of the British attack on the French fleet is that low-flying British airplanes repeatedly machine-gunned masses of French sailors as they struggled in the water. It is an event still remembered with great bitterness in France. This deliberate British war crime was soon followed by the assassination of French Adm. Darlan by British agents in Algiers.[72]”
"[72] Source: Bird, Vivian, “An Examination of British War Crimes During World War II,” THE BARNES REVIEW, Vol. VI, No. 6, Nov. /Dec. 2000, p. 56."
_____
Yes, God help us …
Wow, Julius. Thanks for adding those jaw-dropping details. Did Churchill really mistranslate a French word or was that just a 'oops' cover for this deliberate and horrifying tantrum? All I can picture is Churchill as a big wailing baby breaking his toys so no one else can have them.
Hi Tereza, I could tell, by the look on your face, you were about to destroy someone with their own words. I laughed out load as you ate that guys word salad up.
My dad said that Germany was purposely destroyed after WWI that lead to WWII.
You may have already read this, but just in case you missed it, H. Graham Lowery wrote "How the Nation Was Won" and there are chapters on Churchill's Grandfather ancestor the Duke of Marlboro John Churchill (1650-1722). It sounds to me that they were in a competition on who could do a better job of destroying the world.
I enjoy all those little details you provide us with. Thanks
Hahaha! I love the way you put that.
I have not read that. I just read Churchill's 'Shall We All Commit Suicide' that Julius posted in the comments: https://juliusskoolafish.substack.com/p/shall-we-all-commit-suicide-winston. I think you'd really like it since I know you're also about using someone's own words.
One thing is clear; history is written by the victors. The world still believes the allies were the "good guys," not realizing that American troops raped and looted every town they entered. There are so many truths about WWII that are unknown and untold, you could write volumes about it all.
And people have! But I don't know if the level of depravity that we've become inured to in recent invasions and occupations was true for WWII. It was an idealistic generation who hoped to survive, go home and raise a family. As they did, leading to Boomers like me. I think there was a sense of honor among the troops that was betrayed by those who fomented the war. Maybe you're right but I'd need more specifics. It seems like it would go against what they thought they were fighting for. And the Germans were white like them, not as easy to dehumanize as other races.
If you haven't yet done so, pick up anything by Max Hastings, especially "Inferno."
I can feel another level of disillusionment coming on ... I've come to recognize that sinking pit in my stomach ...
Part 1 of comment …
This is a fascinating exercise in “cognitive psychology”. I am not sure whether to classify it as Hegelian dialectic or cognitive dissonance.
Philip Mollica wrote:
"History" is always a complete and utter fabrication based on worldviews that serve whichever Empire(s) happen to be in power.
In “Twilight Over England” William Joyce writes
“How much can be learnt from history has long been a matter of speculation. Much depends on the capacity of the pupil. There is probably no branch of learning, except economics, in which conjecture plays so large a part. <b>Almost any set of facts can be selected, in a partial fashion, to prove any theory, however, absurd.</b> “
This has also been stated in terms of fitting a historical narrative to a set of data points. Any subset of data points can be selected to fit one’s particular version of the truth.
Yuval Noah Harari (NOT a fan of this transhumanist/eugenicist) stated something similar in ‘Sapiens: A Brief History of Mankind’:
<b><I>“So perhaps happiness is synchronising one’s personal delusions of meaning with the prevailing collective delusions. As long as my personal narrative is in line with the narratives of the people around me, I can convince myself that my life is meaningful, and find happiness in that conviction.” </b></I>
– part 2 when I can …
I'll reply also to Philip here. I've given a lot of thought to this question of how much credibility to give someone in history, science or journalism. Somewhere I have a metric for things that move someone towards the credibility or skepticism ends of the spectrum. It included what the person stood to gain or lose by the position they were taking: Did it enhance or threaten their professional reputation? Their livelihood? Their life? Did they make money directly or indirectly? Did they make enemies or lose friends, especially powerful ones?
I don't think we should ever 'believe' and abandon our critical thinking, especially with those we like! But I wouldn't go full YNH at the other end and say that all meaning in life is a delusion. That's certainly the WEFfie way of thinking. But meaning can only be measured by how close it comes to reality, so if truth is all relative, YNH is right. Once we've given up on the existence of facts and logic, all that's left is your authority vs. mine.
Dear Tereza, my preferred housewife. I ordered your book in early July and read it on and off until mid-August. As is the case for this piece on Churchill, your take on the history of economics (to be brief in content purpose) is fascinating and remarkable. I wrote in June that I discovered a soulmate in you and I confirm. I admire your tenacity because I have none! Or Almost compare to yours. You would make a bunch of piranhas blush next to yours. Such a fierce combattant of truth is commandable. I also wrote a little review on Amazon. So thank you very much indeed.
This really did make me roll on the floor laughing! Especially the piranhas. I've been compared to a bulldog clenched onto a pantsleg before but never piranhas!
And your review of my book was so kind. And you got my intent in billing myself as a housewife. In the first place, what little credentials I have aren't relevant to my subject. But second, I hoped to make people think twice about 'a housewife' as capable of serious research and analysis. So you give me hope that I can bring new meaning to this term other than the pat on the head and, "of course, raising children is the most important job!" No, bringing all the intelligence and skill we have to re-inventing the world is the most important job. If raising kids gives us a reprieve from serving the market, don't waste it on entering the Soccer Mom Olympics.
And I love your title and perspective in your Substack. Happy to be connecting on the economic and spiritual planes, Marc!
Researching US wars has stripped me of patriotism. You can't help but come to the realization we are not the good guys. Americans should research the song that led the US into WWII--God Bless America. It was written by Israel Berlin also known as Irving Baline. There are many dots to connect here that clearly exposes them and their god. Thanks.
but who is the "we"? The American Empire (US) is the personification of evil, as all empires before. Especially the British, much more so the Dutch and the Portugiese and the Romans. The American people are tricked to conflate their country (we the people) with the ruling government machine. Once they see its two separate things, they might be able to get their country back and reduce the government to its bare minimum. Only the US constitution allows for it. No other place on earth like this! This is why people from outside the US admire this place and would like to join, despite its government.
How to collapse the house of cards? Collapse the monetary system and default the federal debt all at once.
Self sufficient people with intact families living near the land will mange to survive more easily. Its a big circle back to what the founding fathers envisioned. Not easy but worth it.
Excellent point, DaCon. By merging our own identities with the actions of other people, over whom we have no control, it makes it harder to hold them responsible. Made worse by the control they have over us, particularly through our monetary system as you point out.
There are two points where I'd diverge. One is on the Constitution and so-called Founding Fathers, since I see that as having reversed the reason the Revolutionary War was fought: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/the-constitutional-convention-coup.
The second is more complicated. Even if 'we' default on the Federal debt, the Treasury bills held by China can buy up all the real estate. And the money held in tax havens in $100 bills would stretch to the Moon and back several times (I have it calculated in my book).
What my book proposes is Ben Franklin's plan, which is what the War was fought for. It backs the local credit system that I call carets with mortgages, and returns that amount monthly to residents in dividends targeted to the things we want to promote: locally produced food, wellcare, education and home maintenance, in my design. But I think we agree on what the goal is: self-sufficient families in self-reliant communities living close to the land.
To Mike's point, it was also jaw-dropping when I discovered that the Pledge of Allegiance included the Nazi salute.
"The fog of war," as they say has staying power. Identities are always in play and will always inform our ability to take in information. The stigma of being 'anti-semitic' operates much like the 'conspiracy-theorist' stigma we've seen more recently. These are cognitive firewalls - don't go there; serious people don't go there. In fact, serious people do go there - and they pay the price. Fascinating, thank you Tereza, for being you. Having read, I'll now listen to your video. Best.
Yes! I was going to make exactly the point you just did on my next video. Thanks for the encouragement and for double-dipping into the text and video!
I look forward to it, Tereza.
Fascinating and well presented thesis. Thank you.