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:

We are told that Kathleen Scott and Nansen were lovers, and that their affair was consumated in a Berlin hotel, there is absolutely no reliable evidence for this whatsoever, and it appears to have been invented by Huntford. They may have been friends, and Nansen may have had a crush on her, but hey, Kathleen was a vivacious and sociable lady, she had a lot of pals, it doesn't mean she was banging all of them, GOSH! Also I think this may have been one of the things Huntford had to pay the Scott family damages over, because it's not truuuueeeee 🤠 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. Ráadásul ezzel dédelgetjük azoknak a lelkét is, akik velünk értenek egyet - hisz valójában mi is azt szeretjük a legjobban, ha ki van mondva nyíltan, hogy az "ők" és a "hülyék" tulajdonképpen szinonimák. Ettől valahogy jobban érezzük magunkat. Democracy in Danger The newspaper’s extensive reporting and analysis of the various threats to democracy from populism, oligarchy, dark money and online disinformation. Also, his last line made me literally laugh out loud: "P.S. One of those stories I told you about Donald Trump in Chapter 10 is a deliberate lie - sorry"The premise of this book is to explore and debunk ten great history myths which are frequently passed off as truth. The author sets his case straight away. Fake History is based on lies which are used to push agendas today. This often comes with idealising a past which bares little resemblance to the reality (as much as we can tell it) those gone before have lived. The reason the Norwegians were (and still are) so good at polar travel is because it's where they live, they do it all the time, they learn to ski before they can walk. Nansen is a towering figure in Norway, and rightfully so (just don't Google his nudes). Amundsen will always be a polar hero, but he is not so highly regarded due to falling in with the likes of Mussolini and his big interest in The Fash during his later years. I regard the improvement of the condition of the British people as the main aim of modern government”

I'm unsure why the food taken on the expedition is mentioned at all - they needed enough supplies to last 65 men YEARS - of course they took a lot of food?! Secondly, I get the main message of his book. Fake History and the promotion of it is dangerous and serves certain agendas. I also agree that statues are political statements. Frankly, Edward Colston and his tasteless statues can go to hell. They should be constantly debated and challenged. History isn’t concrete. We find out more pieces of it’s puzzle and it evolves. 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? In short, the 'dominant narrative' of history has, for the last thousand years at least, been dictated by the 'dominant people' and that means it has been written by white males, about white males, for white males. English, Otto (2021). Fake History: Ten Great Lies and How They Shaped the World. London. ISBN 978-1-78739-639-5. OCLC 1246540717. {{ cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher ( link)

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 Horribly edited -- if edited at all. Grammatical and punctuational errors abound, as do typos, formatting errors, spacing issues. The rambling essays are often riddled with errors, which gave me pause as to anything I was reading had merit.