I felt that this book didn’t quite meet my expectations, but I still got much out of it. To that extent I will give the sequel “Fake Heroes” a go. Not in the least that, to my regret, I was once a Che Guevara fanboy. Much has changed since then. English, Otto (27 July 2021). "England's Upper Classes – A Dangerous Cult". Byline Times . Retrieved 27 December 2021. I liked some of the chapters. The Churchill chapter and the Britain in WW2 chapter were interesting and made me think. It's easier to fool people than to convince them they have been fooled.The first rule of propaganda is that the target audience must be gullible enough to believe everything they hear or read.The second is that an attractive lie is always better than the ugly truth, and the third is that even if people realise that they're being brainwashed, they willingly buy it anyway." You can see that all over social media these days, lots of disinformation.

The John F. Kennedy chapter is unsurprising. He was a voracious serial adulterer who was fulfilling the ambitions of his father by going into politics; this is not new infromation, but I suppose it's good that people feel more free to write about it these days. There's definitely no harm in being real about the actuality of people's lives versus the image projected by their publicists. Identity, Empire and the Culture War Byline Times explores the weaponisation of Britain’s past as a key tool in a dark project of division and distraction 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.Culture History, music, cooking, travel, books, theatre, film – but also with an eye on the ‘culture wars’, nationalism and identity. Hard to convey how truly appalling this book is. One thing it isn't is a history book. It's a rambling disjointed collection of hobby-horse baseless opinions. The episode on 'Hilter wasn't a failed artist', is prime territory. The author even lets slip that Hilter was a failed artist, (after all he was twice rejected from the Vienna Academy of Fine Arts!), but he still carries on trying to undermine this historical fact. As though this fact would in some unfathomable way lead us to humanize the monster. The author then goes on to tell us that Mein Kampf is not a good book. Well thanks for that, without you we would have all thought it was wonderful.

History books are usually informative, occasionally exciting but rarely funny. "Fake History" is all three - often it's laugh out loud funny, as my fellow passengers on the Aberystwyth to Birmingham train discovered yesterday. This is history written as it should be; researched, clear and - as mentioned - bloody hilarious in places. For the most part it was an enjoyable sequel, but I was disappointed to find that the chapter on Captain Scott was based so heavily on Roland Huntford's 'Scott and Amundsen', a book that is known to be incredibly biased, and in the case of some assertions untrue or without evidence (polar exploration history is my main career focus so I do know a bit about this). As in the Huntford, Scott is presented as an overly emotional, sentimental mess who wishes to climb the career ladder purely for his own egotistical reasons, we are not told that he was the sole financial support to his mother and sisters after his father and brother died, so promotion was essential to stop the family becoming destitute. Inside each chapter there’s no real sense of effort to convince, just an array of self-congratulatory scrutiny and bizarre deducement, conspiracy theories and pretending to uncover some irrefutable truth. It felt like the ramblings of a madman. 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: Mivel a másik oldal hülyéi úgyis hülyék, ezért nyugodtan szálljunk bele a mítoszaikba páros lábbal. Küldjük el Churchillt a búsba, például. Meggyőzni ezzel se fogjuk őket, de legalább szórakozunk rajtuk.Whether it's virtuous leaders in just wars, martyrs sacrificing all for a cause, or innovators changing the world for the better, down the centuries supposedly great men and women have risen to become household names, saints and heroes. But just how deserving are they of their reputations? Omissions aside, English also makes numerous factual errors. Each one in itself may be minor, but as they are so many that they collectively undermine the value of English’s book. For example, Churchill was observer of the Cuban insurrection, but he did not fight for the Spanish. As Churchill put it “I have not even fired my revolver. I am a member of General Valdez’s staff by courtesy only, and am decorated with the Red Cross only by courtesy”. A fun, authoritative and alternative history of the world that exposes some of the biggest lies ever told and how they've been used over time. According to English, anything Churchill did was mainly for the purposes of self-promotion. When Churchill achieved anything good, it apparently can be attributed to the influence of his wife. English gives as an example of this the social reforms Churchill introduced while at the Board of Trade. However, Churchill stated his support of social reform as early as 1899, five years before he even met Clementine. While campaigning in his first ever election, Churchill said: