Profile for ben g > Reviews

Personal Profile

Content by ben g
Top Reviewer Ranking: 272,150
Helpful Votes: 111

Learn more about Your Profile.

Reviews Written by
ben g

Show:  
Page: 1
pixel
Babel Inc. Multiculturalism, Globalisation, and the New World Order
Babel Inc. Multiculturalism, Globalisation, and the New World Order
by Kerry Bolton
Edition: Paperback
Price: £14.00

7 of 7 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars A timely call to anti-globalisation resistance, 23 May 2014
Kerry Bolton belongs to a growing number of anti-establishment authors drawing attention to the fact that the world's economic and political systems are being taken over by monopolist corporate interests and their political collaborators working for the establishment of a new world order.

His book "Babel Inc" correctly identifies multiculturalism and globalisation as the chief instruments through which the above goal is being achieved and traces their origins to the "progressive" traditions of European Enlightenment and American Puritanism.

Of particular interest are the sections on Africa and decolonisation as a prelude to globalisation and world government. The book describes US support for black African leaders intended to displace European administrations and take control of Africa's resources under the guise of "self-government" or "independence".

Though always the preserve of the wealthy, corporate funding controlled by Carnegie, Rockefeller, Ford and associated foundations has turned philanthropy into a global multi-billion-dollar industry feigning concern with social and environmental issues in order to advance the agendas of self-seeking multinational corporations.

The above corporate interests are responsible for setting in motion a worldwide "One World One Race" movement designed to create a new human race, an amorphous, monochrome and docile global population adhering to an elite-manufactured global pseudo-culture assembled from distorted elements of Afro-American and Latin American traditions and from which all traces of local distinction have been carefully excised, in order to better serve as economic cogs and cannon fodder for the globalist scheme.

In this process, democracy has been all but abolished. Policies affecting entire nations and continents are no longer made by the electorate or even governments but by elites ruling from behind the scenes: these elites decide that there must be mass immigration and mass immigration it is; they decide that there must be multiculturalism and multiculturalism it is; they decide that there must be globalisation and globalisation it is; they decide that distinct races must be eliminated and it is done ....

Subversive US activities in European countries with a strong cultural tradition of their own, such as France, exemplify the ruthless methods employed by US globalists to eliminate all opposition to their nefarious designs.

Where France once encouraged revolution in America, it is now America's turn to foment revolution in France. Only that, this time, the goal is not liberty but its suppression. This is being replicated in all European countries, particularly those with any remnants of national consciousness.

From subversive music genres like hip hop to Islamism, everything that is alien and lends itself to the suppression and replacement of local western culture is being enlisted in the service of the new multiculturalist tyranny.

A particularly disturbing sign of things to come is the development of psychotropic medication designed to reshape human consciousness in line with the globalist agenda by reducing "racial bias" and eradicating all resistance to the new multi-ethnic world order.

Unsurprisingly, the author highlights the urgent necessity of halting and reversing these catastrophic trends by eliminating the foundation of global corporate power emanating from the international economic, trade and banking system, and concludes by calling on all opponents of this common enemy of mankind to unite against the global oligarchy and put an end to its maleficent rule.
Comment Comments (3) | Permalink | Most recent comment: Jun 7, 2014 3:15 PM BST


Revolt on the Right: Explaining Support for the Radical Right in Britain (Extremism and Democracy)
Revolt on the Right: Explaining Support for the Radical Right in Britain (Extremism and Democracy)
by Robert Ford
Edition: Paperback
Price: £14.99

23 of 66 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars More Fabian Socialist smoke and mirrors, 24 April 2014
There is a massive media campaign on to suppress public opposition to the establishment and bring Labour back. Its main instigators are the Fabian Society and left-wing financial interests. In addition to dozens of newspaper articles, the campaign has produced propaganda publications like "Revolt on the Right", branding UK Independence Party voters "radical" and "far-right" - as well as "poorly educated", "financially insecure" and "old" - in order to mobilise all Fabian Socialist, Labourite, Stalinist and Communist activists and agitators in the country against what is perceived as a "revolt on the right".

What is striking about Robert Redford and Matthew Goodwin's "Revolt on the Right" is that instead of proving their central thesis suggested in the title, the authors in fact systematically demolish it by showing that the electoral system is "heavily stacked against insurgent parties," that UKIP have failed to take their revolt to Westminster and that the concerns represented by the party have "no voice in the halls of power." The same, incidentally, holds true for the European Union where, as the authors concede, the "revolt" has little prospect of making a difference any time soon. So not much of a revolt, after all.

The fact is that the Left has been telling us that the Right is "on the rise" since the days of Oswald Moseley. Just as we are expected to believe now, the country at the time (late 1930s and early 1940s) was allegedly on the verge of a cunning takeover by "Fascists" and "Nazi sympathisers". What actually happened was that Stalin-admirers Labour in 1945 came to power to impose their first socialist regime on an unsuspecting and hoodwinked public.

So, I will believe that there is a "revolt on the right" when I see it. Meanwhile, it is pertinent to ask why anyone would want to write books suggesting that the Right is "on the rise" when the most likely outcome of the next general elections is another Fabian Socialist (Labour) government.

We don't have to go far to find an answer. Dr Ford is principal investigator in the left-wing Institute for Social Change (ISC) which is closely associated with the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) - a Fabian operation set up by former Fabian Society chairman Harold Wilson and fellow Fabian Lord Young (who authored Labour's 1945 election manifesto) - and funded by the same left-wing, pro-immigration foundations like the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and Unbound Philanthropy that are bankrolling the Fabian Society and its projects.

Similarly, Prof Goodwin received a postdoctoral research fellowship from the ESRC and has been involved in projects run by assorted Fabian Socialist outfits such as the Young Foundation (named after Fabian Lord Young, above), Policy Network (set up by Fabian Tony Blair together with fellow socialists Gerhard Schroder and Bill Clinton, and chaired by Fabian Lord - or "Prince of Darkness" - Mandelson), Chatham House (organised by Fabians R H Tawney, John Maynard Keynes and Philip Noel-Baker) where Goodwin is an associated fellow and ... the Fabian Society itself.

With such an exclusive Fabian Socialist, pro-immigration and pro-EU background, it is wholly natural for these esteemed academics to attack anyone who dare to oppose the Left and its pro-immigration and pro-EU policies. Let's not forget that they choose to refer to UKIP's "revolt" as a "counter-revolution" (p. 191).

The Fabian Society, to whose circles the authors indisputably belong, is a private organisation working to establish a socialist-technocratic world government on behalf of its industrial and financial sponsors: Rothschild, Rockefeller, Tata, Cadbury and Rowntree. The latter funded the Fabian Research Department that produced "International Government" - the blueprint for the League of Nations.

The Fabian Society, whose founders' favourite intellectual occupation (in their own words) was scheming, has always encouraged its members to infiltrate or set up political and academic organisations to advance its agenda. In 1900, the Society founded the Labour Party which it has controlled ever since.

While purporting to represent the working classes (in order to ensnare and control the socialist and labour movement for its own agenda), Labour showed its true Fabian colours in the 1930s when it vowed that it "will not abandon, now or ever, the vision of a new world order."

It was Labour PM Clement Attlee, a leading Fabian Society member, who introduced the 1948 British Nationality Act allowing all inhabitants of the British Empire (nearly 800 million) to enter, work and settle in the UK without restriction.

It was Labour Home Secretary David Soskice, another Fabian, who introduced the 1965 Race Relations Act to suppress opposition to immigration.

It was Labour Home Secretary Roy Jenkins, former Fabian Society chairman, who in 1966 rejected integration in favour of "cultural diversity" a.k.a. multiculturalism which he made Home Office responsibility.

It was Labour PM Tony Blair, a long-standing Fabian Society member, who in the late 1990s and early 2000s imposed a regime of uncontrolled mass immigration "to make Britain more multicultural," etc., etc.

That opposition to immigration is of central concern to the left-wing establishment and its spokesmen like Ford and Goodwin is obvious from their claim that "opposition to immigration, which is prominent in UKIP's campaigns, plays a central role in driving support for the radical right" and that "immigration scepticism (i.e. wanting to reduce immigration) is among the principal factors for predicting who will vote for a radical right-wing party."

The authors also assert that Euroscepticism and support for parties like UKIP "is driven by a general belief that the EU and its accompanying institutions threaten national sovereignty and national identity" (p. 188).

Again, it was Fabian Society member Clem Attlee who, in the late 40s and early 50s, wanted a Socialist "United States of Europe". Together with fellow Fabians Ernest Bevin and Herbert Morrison and European socialists (as well as with Astor and Rockefeller funds) Attlee was instrumental in initiating the United Europe project. His Foreign Secretary Bevin chaired the conference that established the Organisation for European Co-operation in obedience to the requirements of the Rockefeller-engineered Marshall Plan, culminating in the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC), later known as "European Union".

Stating that support for UKIP is driven by a "general belief" that the EU is detrimental to national sovereignty suggests, incorrectly, that there is no threat from the EU. In reality, it doesn't take a genius (or any academic training) to see that the threat to national sovereignty and identity from international organisations like the EU - and UN - is not a "belief" but a fact.

The Fabian leadership had already come to rubbish national sovereignty as "outmoded" in the early 1900s. The Fabian-Labour-controlled Socialist International - which acted as a propaganda mouthpiece for European union in the early 50s - declared that national sovereignty "must be transcended" and we know that the EU has always intended to abolish national sovereignty from the statements of its architects. The chief among them, Jean Monnet, declared that the abnegation of sovereignty was an "indispensable first principle." Fabian Socialist Foreign Secretary Morrison co-issued the 1951 Washington Declaration stating that the ECSC was "a major step towards European unity." The first president of the ECSC Assembly (later European Parliament), the Belgian socialist Paul-Henri Spaak, promised to "rebuild the Roman Empire," the obvious implication being that member states were to be reduced to the status of centrally-controlled imperial provinces.

As admitted by the Europa website (published by the EU), "the establishment of the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) was the first step towards a supranational Europe". Gradual abolition of national sovereignty has remained a central objective of the EU as expressed in the phrase "ever-closer union" (EEC Treaty a.k.a. "Treaty of Rome", 1957).

Our whole treacherous establishment - not just Labour - was perfectly happy with that. As stated by "Conservative" Churchill in the Commons, "The Conservative and Liberal Parties declare that national sovereignty is not inviolable ... we are prepared to consider the abrogation of national sovereignty ... I will go even further and say that for the sake of world organisation we would even run the risk and make sacrifices" ....

The phrase "for the sake of world organisation" exposes the true Fabian agenda which is nowhere more clearly expressed than in Labour Party manifestos declaring, "For us world government is the ultimate objective and the United Nations the chosen instrument" - the same United Nations, that is, that was created, funded and controlled by the Rockefellers and associates for their own agenda, and whose migration chief Peter Sutherland (chairman of the Rockefellers' Trilateral Commission) has infamously requested the EU to do its best to undermine the ethnic homogeneity of member states.

In light of this, opposition to the establishment and its undemocratic agenda is wholly justified. Indeed, democracy and justice can only be upheld by fighting what is undemocratic and unjust. "Toppling the establishment who got us into this mess" (as recently urged by Nigel Farage) and restoring democracy and justice is exactly what the country needs. Yet, tellingly, Fabian publications like "Revolt on the Right" are not overly concerned with democracy and justice, indeed, such concepts tend not to form part of their vocabulary. Hence, instead of indicting the undemocratic establishment and its policies, they attack its critics, demonising them as "radical", "far-right", "poorly educated", "financially insecure" and "old".

On reflection, calling dissenters "radical" and "far-right" can only mean that the authors have dug their trenches on the side of the establishment, as does their designating the "revolt" as "counter-revolution". And if Fabians side with the establishment it can only mean that the establishment has become left-wing or Fabian; "poorly educated" really means "not wholly indoctrinated and brainwashed by the Left who controls the education system"; "old" means "too experienced to be hoodwinked" and "financially insecure" means either "insufficiently bribed" or "with nothing to lose" - the only candidates we can rationally expect to see through the establishment's game and put up resistance. And that's why they have been singled out for persecution and repression by the Machiavellian Left.

According to Ipsos MORI boss Ben Page, "Revolt on the Right" is "an essential analysis of the phenomenon that is UKIP in the run up to the 2015 General Election" and "vital for anyone studying modern British politics seriously". He would of course say that, considering that Ipsos MORI surveys are widely cited and published by the two authors.

What is more, Page himself has been on the payroll of Rothschild-Rockefeller operations Shell and IBM and is currently involved with Fabian outfits like the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) and the Social Market Foundation (SMF). IPPR was set up by Fabian Society chairman Tessa Blackstone, is advised by former Fabian Society general secretary Sunder Katwala and is funded by the European Commission, the Rockefellers' JPMorgan Chase Foundation as well as Joseph Rowntree and associated pro-immigration foundations.

SMF is funded by BP, Joseph Rowntree Foundation and the authors' ESRC. In addition to being a Fabian creation as stated above, ESRC is a clone of the Rockefellers' Social Science Research Council (set up in the 1920s by Fabian leader Sidney Webb), to which it maintains close links, and is being funded by the Department for Business which was set up by Gordon Brown's Fabian-Labour regime and is headed by Business Secretary Vince Cable, a pro-immigration Liberal Democrat.

In light of these facts, the Ipsos MORI statement to the effect that its boss "is absolutely committed to ensuring survey research makes a difference for decision makers" (Ipsos MORI website) acquires a new, and rather poignant, meaning.

In summation, "Revolt on the Right" stands exposed as a one-hundred-per-cent establishment project, from Ipsos MORI data to the authors, their employers and collaborators to the finished product. It represents another blatant attempt to cover up the takeover of the political system and academic institutions by Fabians and their financial backers, and to ensure another victory for their Labour front and final defeat for democracy.

Now if Labour supporters woke up to reality and saw their party for what it is, we might have a proper revolt instead of an imagined one.

(More from "The Labour Party, a puppet of the Fabian Society" and "The Fabian Society: the masters of subversion unmasked" on the Free Britain Now website.)
Comment Comments (12) | Permalink | Most recent comment: Aug 6, 2014 11:52 PM BST


The Meaning Of The 21st Century: A Vital Blueprint For Ensuring Our Future
The Meaning Of The 21st Century: A Vital Blueprint For Ensuring Our Future
by James Martin
Edition: Paperback
Price: £9.99

4 of 4 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars A new dispensation for corporate interests, 28 Nov. 2013
Dr James Martin's concern for the fate of the planet and its inhabitants is commendable. The "solutions" he is suggesting to the world's problems are the exact opposite.

In this book, he makes the extraordinary claim that multinational corporations are "the only human organisation capable of achieving the complex and difficult tasks that are ahead," which is why they must take a greater role in the world's affairs. This after stating that corporations already have "more impact on people's lives than government."

What multinational corporations Dr Martin is talking about is clear from his background and the organisations he has set up. Dr Martin started his career as a computer scientist with Rockefeller-controlled IBM where he worked for nearly 20 years.

With the assistance of Rockefeller associate Bill Gates and fellow billionaire George Soros, the futurologist Dr Martin - by then a multi-millionaire in his own right - founded the Oxford Martin School (OMS) to "address the most pressing challenges and opportunities of the 21st century."

The School is run by former World Bank vice-president Ian Goldin and has an advisory council controlled by the World Economic Forum, whose participants Dr Martin praises for their alleged concern for "sustainable development" and "the future of the planet."

The World Economic Forum ("Davos set") is dominated by Rockefeller-controlled multinational corporations and associated interests like Saudi Aramco (originally a Rockefeller-Saudi joint venture), Chevron, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs and the Rockefeller Foundation.

With the leaders of the global corporate community firmly behind it, the OMS has virtually taken over Oxford with a budget of millions of pounds and 38 institutes with 400 academics beavering away on corporate-friendly projects ranging from the economy to immigration.

While the problem of "shaping humanity's long-term future" is being taken care of by the School's Commission for Future Generations and associated Future of Humanity Institute, the world's economy is being fixed by George Soros' Institute for New Economic Thinking and migration is being sorted by the pro-immigration Migration Observatory and International Migration Institute.

Apart from being a member of the Rockefellers' notorious Council on Foreign Relations, Soros has a long track record as speculator and gold market manipulator who reportedly broke the Bank of England and was involved in a plot to cash in on the fall of the euro by placing large bets against the currency. Notably, he has been accused of ruining Eastern Europe's economies by hijacking their privatisation programmes after the fall of communism.

Soros' collaborator, OMS director Ian Goldin, is an immigrant from South Africa who, in his own words, has made immigration his life-long passion. His belief that open borders are "an ideal to work towards" and that large movements of immigrants are "good for the economy" has led him to announce that immigration will "define our future" and to call for more of it.

With self-appointed "problem solvers" like the above in charge of drafting the blueprint for our future, the world can look forward to its troubles getting a great deal worse rather than better.


The Milner-Fabian Conspiracy: How an international elite is taking over and destroying Europe, America and the World
The Milner-Fabian Conspiracy: How an international elite is taking over and destroying Europe, America and the World
by Ioan Ratiu
Edition: Paperback

18 of 18 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars Explosive, iconoclastic, revolutionary, 22 Nov. 2013
"The Milner-Fabian Conspiracy" is a very thorough and devastating critique of western society and the self-destructive course it has taken since the 1800s.

Ioan Ratiu's razor-sharp analysis of socialism - already on the rise in the "Progressive Era" of the 1890s to 1920s - explodes all the central tenets of that system, exposing it as a convenient smokescreen behind which unscrupulous political leaders and financial interests have made common cause to gain power and influence for themselves.

Fabianism, Britain's very own brand of socialism, joined the camp of liberal capitalist imperialism from the start, with Bernard Shaw's Fabian manifesto declaring that China's institutions were incompatible with British trade interests which is why the world powers, Britain and America at the forefront, had to impose a new order on that country - and everywhere else in the world.

The imperialists, Lord Milner above all, responded in kind by publicly coming out as devout followers of socialism. Other "liberal capitalists" - Lord Rothschild, Sir Ernest Cassel, the Rockefellers - were more discreet about their socialist sympathies, contenting themselves with financing a network of socialist projects from the Fabians' London School of Economics to the Lincoln School and Teachers College of New York.

The glue cementing this strange marriage of convenience between the political "Left" and the corporate "Right" has been the shared objective, already stated in Marx and Engels' "Communist Manifesto," of concentrating finance, economy and politics in the hands of a state controlled by the Socialist Party or by multinational corporations (depending on whether we look at it from the viewpoint of the "Left" or that of the "Right").

This symbiotic coexistence of a morally bankrupt political profession and the equally immoral monopolistic sections of the corporate community has resulted in a steady shift of the political system to the left, leading to a virtual suspension of democracy and reducing society to a plaything of undemocratic forces: irrespective of the political party in office, the system will follow the prescribed leftward course inexorably leading to concentration of power in the hands of the few or what the author describes as a "gradual transition from democracy to dictatorship."

Nigel Farage of the UK Independence Party has said that we've got three "social democratic" parties in this country. Ioan Ratiu shows that the Tory lurch to the left has roots going back to "conservatives" like Churchill and other key movers behind left-wing projects like the Common Market.

The book shows that it isn't just the European Union, the United Nations, the World Bank and other international organisations aiming to establish world government on behalf of self-appointed international elites, but individual countries' elected governments themselves that have imposed undemocratic policies on their own people, notably, mass immigration, multiculturalism and Islamisation. The impact on traditional society, its values and its culture has been devastating, leaving rising numbers disorientated, confused and in fear for their future.

For the millions who want to see a change the book has an important social and political message. Desperate acts of violence like those of the Norwegian Anders Breivik and street protests like those staged by the English Defence League are of little effect - as recently conceded by EDL leaders themselves.

The author argues that it is the turn of the conservative masses, the traditional defenders of justice, democracy and freedom, to be revolutionary, go on the offensive and put an end to the undemocratic New World Order that is threatening to destroy our world.

This is an essential handbook not only for those who want to know what is happening to our world and why, but also for those who want to put democracy back into the system and steer western society away from a self-destructive course.
Comment Comments (22) | Permalink | Most recent comment: Oct 5, 2014 2:44 PM BST


The House of Morgan: An American Banking Dynasty and the Rise of Modern Finance
The House of Morgan: An American Banking Dynasty and the Rise of Modern Finance
by Ron Chernow
Edition: Paperback
Price: £13.31

2 of 3 people found the following review helpful
4.0 out of 5 stars Monumental, epic and essential, 14 Nov. 2013
Verified Purchase(What is this?)
This is a monumental, epic account of the Morgan bank spanning a century and a half. With branches in New York, London, Paris and Philadelphia, the Morgan Group was one of the first truly global financial institutions and, in the early 1900s, the most powerful in the world.

Apart from banking and finance, the Morgan empire included extensive interests in key resources and commodities from steel to railways. This inevitably led to close links to the ruling political elites, which added to the Morgans' immense power and prestige.

The detailed portraits of Morgan chiefs like John Pierpont Sr. - protuberant nose and all - highlight the ruthless personal ambition, the incessant hunger for power and hatred of competition as the driving forces behind the extraordinary wealth, power and influence amassed by the group and explains the extensive Morgan involvement in international business and finance.

As Ron Chernow shows, it was these international commitments that forced the Morgans to take an active interest in European affairs, causing them to side with London and Paris against Berlin and turning them into champions of the Allied cause in the conflict that ensued.

The Morgans' involvement in financing the Allied war effort was absolutely crucial in saving the Allied side from impending financial disaster and the Allies, Britain above all, openly expressed their indebtedness at the time, as is clear from statements by Lloyd George, Lord Moulton, Lord Northcliffe and others.

Unsurprisingly, the Morgans re-emerge in 1940 among the leaders of the Committee to defend America by Aiding the Allies, which as Chernow points out, perfectly reflected the established position of Morgan interests.

However, while references to America's financial assistance to the Allies abound in US newspapers of the time as well as in later publications, the information found in British papers (e.g., The Times) is disappointingly meagre and disappears almost completely in later literature. Max Hastings' "Catastrophe" is a prime example, though by no means an exception.

This lends some credence to the rising number of people voicing the view that the involvement of US financial interests in international conflicts like the First World War has been deliberately hushed up and exposes the collective amnesia afflicting a British psyche moulded by the Daily Mail. So, it was good to see that, at least on the US side, some important things are still remembered.

On the minus side, the author could have been more generous with data on Morgan-associated outfits like the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and the Pilgrims Society that have been instrumental in shaping Anglo-American foreign policy.

Even so, on the whole, I tend to agree with the view that "The House of Morgan" is an essential book for understanding the money and power behind the major historical events of the last 150 years.

J P Morgan itself lives on as part of the Rockefellers' JP Morgan Chase. Tony Blair's role as chairman of its international advisory council shows that, for better or for worse, the saga of influence and power goes on.


Catastrophe: Europe Goes to War 1914
Catastrophe: Europe Goes to War 1914
by Max Hastings
Edition: Hardcover
Price: £15.00

57 of 82 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars Another missed opportunity, 7 Nov. 2013
Sorry to side with the underdog but do people really pay £30 (the price stated on the cover) just to read page after page of French troops trying to cut off the ears of German prisoners and Austrians bayoneting Serbian villagers to death?

With all the critical accolades received and considering that there are thousands of First World War titles on the market, you would expect any author writing on the subject to produce a work that's both new and outstanding.

Quite apart from the fact that it is not a history of the war but only of the first five months (August - December 1914), Max Hastings' "Catastrophe" repeats all the standard cliches we have been fed by other authors without offering any new insights into the causes or other aspects of the war.

The Times says, approvingly, that Hastings amalgamates personal details with strategic arguments. That sounds about right to me as his new book turns out to be a jumble of military and biographical data and personal opinion assembled rather haphazardly and for no clear purpose other than to reinforce ingrained misconceptions about the war.

The first doubts appeared when reading (on page xix) that a Russian foreign ministry official told the British military attache "we have arranged such a nice war for you". Were Russia's manoeuvres a trap to ensnare the Germans so that the British could go in for the kill? Isn't it a fact that Britain (and its ally France) had been bolstering Russia as a rival to Germany, well knowing that a war between the two would inevitably lead to British involvement? Why doesn't the author explore this likely possibility or properly investigate the exact intent and purpose of the Triple Entente between Britain, France and Russia and other British machinations? A strangely uninvestigative approach for a much-acclaimed journalist, I think.

From introduction to conclusion, the reader is led through a maze of stories worthy of the Daily Mail, along an all too predictable path outlined by questionable and unsubstantiated claims. It is not for nothing that Hastings is in the employ of that illustrious paper.

The book is peppered with glaring inconsistencies and contradictions. The improbable assertion that the history of the First World War has been "hijacked by impassionate German sympathisers" clashes with the reality that the market has long been dominated by titles like "Catastrophe" that are not even remotely pro-German.

The notion that there were no war preparations on the British side after the 1911 Committee of Imperial Defence is refuted by the fact that Churchill developed the 15-inch gun for battleships, created a fast division, built warships powered by oil instead of coal, bought 51 per cent of the Anglo-Persian oil field to supply and finance his ships, expanded the Royal Navy Air Service, built naval air stations, etc., etc. - all with war on Germany in mind. Churchill himself said so when presenting his naval estimates for 1912-1913 to parliament.

The author believes that a German victory would have been "detrimental to European freedom, justice and democracy". He might be right on that point. But what if Russia had beaten Germany and imposed its own militaristic, autocratic and repressive regime on much of Europe - as it eventually did after the Second World War?

And how does the claim that the outcome of the war was "good" fit in with the earlier claim that the war was an unmitigated catastrophe?

Post-war election slogans like "Make Britain a country fit for heroes to live in" clashed with the reality that the heroes returning from the front had no say in anything that mattered to them at home.

The claim that the new Anglo-Saxon world order was better than the old is contradicted by the fact that the world was thrown into unprecedented economic, social and political turmoil leading to communism, fascism and - surprise, surprise - another devastating world war.

And let's face it, if Sir Max can lecture us on who is paying Labour's bills (see his Daily Mail article of Tuesday), he could just as well divulge who paid for the war. After all, it was common knowledge at the time that the Allies were saved by J P Morgan's Anglo-French loan of 1915 followed by further credits and loans. Mail owner Lord Northcliffe himself is on record for saying that the war was won within the walls of Morgan Grenfell, the London branch of Treasury agents J P Morgan. So why the sudden secrecy?

Finally, isn't it ironic that Belgium, the country we allegedly fought to defend, has become the centre of a new European empire whose love of freedom, justice and democracy is being questioned by an ever rising number of its citizens?

As for Britain, where is the democracy if our history is hijacked by the press and other vested interests? To add insult to injury, the same establishment that started wars "to keep the Germans out" has let others in without any of us being asked. In fact, our political leaders have long ceased representing the electorate.

I'm afraid "Catastrophe" is another missed opportunity for history writers to give the politics and the spin a miss and give us some plain facts for a change.
Comment Comments (20) | Permalink | Most recent comment: Jul 8, 2014 11:21 AM BST


Page: 1