I'm not sure what to make of it … wondering how much there is to it.
I got about half way through the preface and put it away.
My take:
Nonsense. Drivel. Historical revisionist propaganda.
I don't see how anyone who has more than an 8th grade knowledge of history (by California public schools standards) can read it without a half-dozen Whiskey-Tango-Foxtrots per page.
I submit the summary timeline is "exhibit 1" in the court of discredit. Oh look at how all those things line up in time! My goodness. See the British and French and Russians making an alliance just 7 years before WW1 -- they surrounded poor Germany! And then when the Russians started falling out the Americans jumped right in! It was all an Anglo-American conspiracy to manipulate the Germans, right?
What drivel. No mention that the German Empire, with the 2nd largest population in Europe, had already aligned with the Austro-Hungarian Empire, with the 3rd largest population in Europe, and then signed an alliance withe the Ottoman Empire, with the 4th largest population in Europe, to form a block that had, far and away, the largest population in Europe. To suggest that the evil ruling Anglo-American dynastic elites were manipulating Europe is just plain nonsense. Britain was responding to the emergence of a massive powerblock in Europe, just as they did with the French in the 1800s, and the Spanish/Dutch in the 1700s.
And that whole Anglo-American dynasty bit is exhibit #2. He spouts on about the self-perpetuating elites that control the purse strings and politics of the western world. Oh really? How many Washingtons, Adams and Jacksons are prominent in American politics today? How many Chases, Morgans or Stanfords? How many Roosevelts or Kennedies? How are the Bushes doing in controlling the worlds' politics these days? Anybody care to recount for us the details of Bill Gates' or Jeff Bezos' rich and powerful family lineages?
Dynasties in the US last for about 3 generations. One generation makes a mint as "robber barons" in some emerging economic sector. The next generation frequently, but not always, finds a place in politics. The third generation gets fat and lazy. And by the fourth generation they are irrelevant.
Doesn't mean there aren't abuses of power, and good cause for democratic reforms. But it ain't royalty, and never has been. To toss it in with the British, as if they were all cut of the same cloth, is just silly. Or ignorant. But not well reasoned, and not supported by any sort of historical examination, unless you think history consists only of what you can remember of your grandfather's stories.
Shame I took the time to read the first page and a half. Wasn't anything to get out of it, as far as I saw.
Your mileage may vary.
-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)
paints up some WWII Soviet aircraft.
