1932: A True History of the United States
7.57
Ratings: 7.57/10 from 81 users.
To Govern a Republic, One Must Know the Minds That Created It ...while a nation goes speculation crazy the people neglect to think of fundamental principles.
These were the words of Franklin Roosevelt in the months leading into the Democratic National Convention of 1932.
Roosevelt knew that the fight for the United States Presidency was not simply a game of political machines and punditry, but that this coming fight demanded a leader who understood the historic enemy of the United States and the founding principles of the nation.
Sorry for the typos. "bad trait" instead of bat. "well" instead of welling ...and any others I missed.
I wouldn't be surprised if some parts were inaccurate but also that some if not many parts are accurate.
FDR did as much harm as good, creating a new kind of govt slave or welfare class. I appreciate much of what @DC Jones had to say. Putting one's faith in any govt or politician is a mistake.
Who ever you are, do you need govt to do the right thing? Or would you be attempting to take every advantage and take advantage of everyone you could?
The monied and powerful use govt as a tool to take advantage; get laws passed or rewritten in their favor. They corrupt the police and the courts as a tool against the little guys in their way. I have witnessed all of this first hand, friends getting their neck stepped on by corporate interests via their minions in govt, far worse than I. Appellate courts playing cover for the lower court blatant fraud and even stupid judges colluding with corporate attorneys using the wrong laws which clearly don't apply, all on tape, yet no one cares. You can find online, writings from retired judges detesting what the courts have become. Ever increasingly over the years, the laws are written to benefit the govt itself as well as the lawyers, both which use those laws to "lawfully" extract sums of money from the populace. Both the govt and lawyers have always been parasitic. Either the older one gets the more you are able to see it or they decided not to hide it any more and just went for who they truly are, leaving yet more ruins in their wake.
What has caused govt and govt to become what it does? People who agree with those who say, "I'm from the govt, let us do that for you (for a fee)." If you are the type to say, "I don't want to be bothered with arranging for security and utilities and schools and justice system and care of the truly needy in your community, then you are the problem. It is lack of citizen involvement and oversight which has allowed them to become the overbearing eavesdropping money grubbing propaganda producing behemoth that govt has become.
Note that the film cited "Anarchists" as being the assassins more than once. Were they? And what is an Anarchist? To me a true Capitalist and a true Anarchist aren't that different in practice, both preferring to be left alone by govt to trade with their neighbor or whomever without govt interference. The major difference is that the Capitalist is willing to accept a minimalist govt as a necessary evil for some practical reasons. The Anarchists have had their fill of govt and view them as an Unnecessary evil for some very practical reasons. At any rate don't be fooled by the term Anarchist. They are not evil and don't want what you may think of when the words "total anarchy" are used.
For instance, suppose there was no govt which facilitates the stealing of your future tax obligations to give to dead broke banksters who gambled away money they created as debt, multiplied by excessive leverage via fractional reserve banking (all legal via banking lobby promoted banking laws in congress). Such a govt gave your future tax obligations to foreign banks in the many billions as well. Such a govt gave billions to strengthen your foreign enemies who have clearly stated they want to kill you. How does such a govt benefit you? Is it possible to prevent any welling meaning govt from becoming such an evil govt viewing you as its slave and enemy at the same time? If you can devise such a sure fire rock solid way to prevent a minimalist govt from becoming a maximal govt... prevent it from intruding and infecting itself into every aspect of everyone's life, then you may be able to convince a few Anarchist to that which you have devised and limited. Yet the usa govt was to be limited. How did it grow to become what it is? It took up every bat trait of those it surpassed. From this docu it is easy to see the English influence, they funneled many a nazi into the cia and nasa and likely other agencies. The nsa has evolved into the new kgb. All these things are against the constitution. So how did it come to be? 1. propaganda and limited information they call "the news" 2. people preferring to "let govt handle things" 3. the usual suspects looking to take advantage: banksters, lawyers, large corporate ceo's, the same being war profiteers. 4. marxist infection of the education system paid for by those who desired "workers not thinkers" (Rockefeller and others similar)
What happened to the usa? You forgot the "u" in the usa. U gathering together united to see to it wise honorable decent people were running from all parties for all offices to guide the ship through the straights and narrows. Instead U let criminals, and too often your direct enemies run things. If you can help it, never elect a lawyer to anything. Most of them have been compromised in their schooling to have "flexible"(questionable) morality and ethics. "All's fair if money is to be had."
Again, major media is corporate owned and therefore propaganda. Find truly independent sources of information lest you vote for your enemy which the major media claims is your friend. Even many of the local more rural papers are owned by just a few companies these days.
Made up crap...do not waste your time
Excellent documentary. I enjoyed it immensely. It explains how the US came to be an oligarchy. The British are still experts at covert manipulation and dirty dealing.
"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, [applause]-that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people;" -- Abraham Lincoln
Hamilton was an elitist and cut from the same cloth as the European aristocracy. Madison was also an elitist, considering people of his class as the more responsible members of society, and as such, only his class of men with property and wealth should control America, but he recognized the need for some check on the power of the wealthy to maintain enough of a balance between the haves and the have nots, or the population would inevitably revolt. This was the idea that prevailed during the writing of the US Constitution during the Philadelphia Convention. Hamilton's views were so radically pro elitist, that even for the elite they went too far. Having esteem for any politician, even for the best of them is a huge mistake.
Roosevelt was indeed a far better president than most, but his idea of (alleged) benevolent imperialism in developing the countries of the world that colonialism had impoverished was still imperialism. He knew that Japan, a warrior/samurai culture was not going to fold up it's tents and leave China, Manchuria, Korea, etc., and the embargo implemented by Roosevelt to deny Japan resources like scrap iron and steel, but especially oil would force Japan to seize the oilfields of the Dutch East Indies and lead to war. Freezing Japans assets, the lend lease program, and loads of other evidence shows clearly that Roosevelt intended to involve America in WW II.
America should never have exported oil in the first place. Oil is wealth. What the energy of oil produces is wealth that has been spent. Products and services are what is being bought. Exporting oil or natural gas is in reality the effort by the status quo to deprive everyone else in America from spending that wealth. When machines can build machines to provide everyone with what they need, people must constantly be barraged with propaganda/advertising to get them to work, work, work, for things they don't need.
Governments are by the rich for the rich, and the only way they can be rich is for them to keep everyone occupied working. China builds ghost cities and fills up Americas landfills with junk to keep it's population occupied. The Egyptions built huge piles of rocks in the dessert for the same reason. America builds prisons, creates wars and the enormous military industrial complex, the insanely pervasive security/police apperatus and the parasitic lawyer/judicial/swindle system to keep people occupied or oppressed. Jobs and growth is all polititions know when it should have been clear at least twenty or thirty years ago that "progress" had reached the point of diminishing returns, but the rich and powerful in their hubris couldn't and never will realize that they are not special, and never have been. They must control everybody according to the Game Theory they force us all to live by, or other psychopaths like them lacking empathy will control them. They are certainly not enlightened, and prevent any enlightenment to the extent that people can't even see they are work, work, working to their early demise though it's not far in front of them.
I suppose the parasites think that it is only right that the foolers run the world, and it's those that they fool that are too stupid to manage there own affairs let alone everyones, who are at the root of our problems.
The foolers fool themselves by keeping people in the dark and then blaming them for having to be led around obstacles they can't clearly see, but the worst of them it appears have the persona of a vampire that lacks even contempt, seeking only gain, and are indifferent to the species that mental illness separates them from.
I like History and I do think that,school children should see this.
Hi, I'm one of the creators of this film, and just wanted to say thanks for all of the discussion. I'm glad to see it provoked so much discussion, on and off topic. -Spencer Cross
The whole documentary, I couldn't get past the narrators voice. He sounded like Chakotay from Star Trek. The the credits rolled: narrated by Robert Beltran. Too awesome.
This is not as crazy as it sounds. Wherever the English went they took 'lebensraum" as Hitler called it..."living space". They took Scotland. forced the Irish out of their own land (and culture and language), same to the Welsch , removed the Native Americans from coastal North America and took over the black African Slave trade from the Dutch, Spanish and Portuguese, forced the French Canadians out of Nova Scotia (more lebensraum); took India, Nigeria and set up Australia as a big penal colony. The British are looked upon as so civilized but they have brought so much misery to the world (I forgot Palestine, Iraq and Egypt). In the long run of history the English will be looked upon the same way we look at the Nazis today. As gluttons for the land and resources of others , whatever the cost to those others.
What a load of horse s*it.
Scotland actually created the Union, and still want to be part of it. They may well have fought the Welsh a thousand years ago, but English and Welsh have been happily together for hundreds of years. The English were one of the first to ban the Slave trade, and the only reason why other countries stopped was becasue the Royal Navy enforced it. They were also responsible for freeing thousands of white Christian slaves in North Africa whilst every other nation ignored the issue. They helped defeat the dying Ottoman empire with the Arabs, ever heard of Lawrence of Arabia or Gertrude Bell? To purely blame the British for the problems today is to write off three thousand years of history. Jerusalem and the whole area has never been at peace since the times of King David and the Assyrians, and never will be because of the different religions and the pure hatred and racism that exists there.
And if Britain did not take India, Australia, or Nigeria another European country would have, and probably been worse off for it as at least the Engllish gave them modern democracy and other things such as railways and sanitation etc. And as someone with lots of Indian friends, they really don't care that the British once ruled them, in fact we actually have some good banter about it over a pint.
The English will never be seen in the same way as the Nazis, apart from sad racists as yourself. They will, however, be seen as the people who helped defeat the national socialists, facists and communists. There are a lot more positives than negatives, but nice to see you only focus on the bad stuff. And as for gluttons for land and resources, just read up on what the Chinese are doing in Africa now and its wildlife.
The English acted the same way as every other nation of their time, European or not.
Yours faithfully,
a Welshman ;) x
The British,( perhaps due to the many contributions to the world) are arrogant people. Indeed the English did contribute A lot of Good, however, I also admire the Scots, They have contributed much to invention.You mention a lot of the good about the Brits, for sure! had some Barbarians like the Nazis's taken over the world, we'd be polishing their boots. However, Let us not forget the genocide of the Native American population, the So called American Indian are all but extinct those that do exist have such low self esteem, they have become alcoholics and drug addicts, living in the worst parts of the country, their ancestral roots were annihilated, when they were forcibly xianized. Not Good!
You also have your facts wrong. The Brits did control the slave trade even after the US civil war. Just one of the facts you got wrong. The UK more than GW BUSH got the USA to invade IRAK. The documentary is rather one sided but it does tell it as it was for the most part.
Typically arrogant...
Yours truly,
American by default of slavery...
The dynamic within the British Isles is indeed unique and dates to the waning days of the Roman Empire. Beyond that, English imperialism has wreaked havoc across the globe for the last 500 years (To be fair, this goes for many European powers). You left out the Opium Wars with China and somehow forgot to mention Mohandas Ghandi and the struggle for Indian independence.
To say that British overlords were less brutal than others would have been is the most fallacious argument I've heard in awhile. The English have never sought to help it's colonies rise up on their own merits. As a consequence, the U.S. was a rare case in which a colony was able to rise up through war. The English got their act together during the course of WWII and thereafter, but don't think that we have forgotten history. You did almost face a two front war in the 1930's and 1940's.
Whatever the pro`s and cons of this documentary, you Know you are a True American if you believe in a fair and equitable society and not one that makes gain from those it pretends to protect and nurture. I believe that the only valid supporters of America and Freedom are those that not only subscribe to the principals of the constitution, but those who are willing to protect it at all costs, anything less would be as much support for its abolition, through the simple act of Apathy.
If you're a conspiracy nut, you'll probably enjoy this documentary. If your interest in history is more serious, don't waste your time.
Oh, well what is "not serious" from this documentary? Its idiotic to just say "its a waste of time" without providing any reasons to believe that.
Excellent history lesson of how the USA got to be as it is today...
This is all related to the federal reserve conspiracy. The assassination attempt on Jackson, the assassinations of McKinney, Lincoln, JFK, were ALL perpetrated by the same interests.
This is all the connected to the federal reserve conspiracy.
Larouchian drivel. Please ignore!
Look at the credits: Lyndon Hermyle LaRouche, Jr., enough said.
Hadn't heard of him. Read some wikipedia. Quote: "Writing in The Washington Post, Stephen Rosenfeld said LaRouche's ideas belonged to the radical right, neo-Nazi fringe, and that his main interests lay in disruption and disinformation."
Nuff said I guess?
i had heard the same condemnations for a couple of decades now. i wholeheartedly believed them to be fairly factual representation of his aims. yet the point of view expressed in this doc tend to belie that view. it speaks entirely opposed to the current form of globalist economic fascism that has led us to this heretofore unheard of concentration of wealth in the hands of the few that we currently experience. a champion of new deal economics policies hardly seems radical right. "disruption and disinformation" is kind of nebulous. would a policy of disrupting the economic path that led us here be of necessity a bad thing? back in the "reagan revolution" days, wouldn't castigating the proponents of "trickle down economics" have been considered "disinformation"? history has shown that theory to be entirely flawed, our current world economic cycle of bubble-crisis-bubble-crisis proves that. perhaps at least the economic precepts championed by larouche deserve some independent examination, and honest scrutiny.
@ Harry Nutzack.
Ok, so I've given it my full attention. Very interesting. My conclusion - elitists, in whatever form, believe the end justifies the means. There are logical, even ironically honourable justifications for this when DOMINATION is truly perceived as the only long term means of survival. Extremism in other words. Extremism can be relative though, look at this...
An RT advert opens with "Corporations rule the day", but that's not close enough to the the truth. "Extremism and elitism have always ruled the day" would be more accurate, but would be relatively extreme in itself if broadcast as a replacement!
Does this then imply that extremism can sometimes be applied to relative situations??? If so, one can *always* say the end justifies the means...relatively speaking...if one believes in what they are doing enough. This is very disturbing to me, extremely in fact!
Balance is the key for me. Balance in all things. If this video has done nothing more than add balance to the view, then it is a success, but only if its information is credit worthy. Calling it all disinformation is the attempt [by the Washington Post journalist] to discredit it.
Disinformation is everywhere, it's fractal : the closer you look at any information, the more subjective it becomes. Sometimes it is unintentionally employed as a result of over zealous beliefs. i.e. it's neither evil, nor as maliciously intented as the word's connotation implies.
My overall conclusion: It always comes back to what you choose to believe. Universal truths are very rare.
You need to read some more... That's absolutely propaganda rubbish... What else is propaganda is the text book version of history...
to criticize this effort over minor errata of minutiae if the worst kind of folly. yes, there is all too brief attention payed to some factors, as well as an obsession with laying blame at the feet of the brits alone. but the majority of the information in this film can be read as a roadmap of what led us to the dire straits both economical and political we find ourselves in worldwide. it also offers a signpost that points out a road to recovery for all. the concentration of wealth in the hands of the few bleeds us all dry. the manipulations and speculations that make that possible do us all harm. the myth that allowing further concentration into the hands of those few will somehow benefit us all in the long run is a falsehood. privatization only benefits those few. currently, the power rests in the hands of those few, both economic, and political. you will get no relief from their frontmen, no matter what political affiliation they claim. the time has come for siezing the power from them, and their puppets. not with guns, not with bombs, but with words, actions, organization and unity of purpose. in short, grassroots effort to claim the politics of our lands, worldwide. grassroots efforts to bring honesty and realistic expectations that are sustainable to both business and industry, worldwide. find honest, unimpeachable locals, and convince them to lead. find honest, unimpeachable locals, and convince them to organize. the time is right, if we all make the effort, we can win the world. just imagine the world we would live in now, had the cold war never happened, and all that effort had been put into betterment of the world for all. we can make that world a reality, if we try.
I agree with Harry's points completely. When I first saw Lyndon LaRouche appear on the screen, I thought to myself, "Oh God! Where did this piece of propaganda come from? and almost dismissed it as junk. Had some time to kill, so I thought I'd watch it for the "entertainment value" of the propaganda. I was quite surprised by that most of the claims and inferences it makes can be factually verified from historical evidence. I was quite surprised also by the progressive tract it took. Is LaRouche still living? He must be in his 90s!
Alive and well and I find his groups research to be pretty amazing actually. He can be over the top but you would be too if you were thrown in the clink for 8 years by the American oligarchy. I find his book Dope Inc meshes very well with information written by Antony Sutton, English born American Patriot and Libertarian now deceased who broke Skull & Bones wide open.
Never seen world history from this point of view before....must say I found it very interesting. It explains a lot in my mind. And a lot of todays Euro and Greek crisis.
lol!! 5:30 seconds in and already have spotted like 5 errors! The English didnt force the Chinese to smoke Opium? and it didnt bankrupt the country or the people. (read Narcotic Culture: A History of Drugs in China, or Opium: A History by Booth) -anyway, point is it is full of simplifications and exaggerations ans outright lies already; all clear indicators it's propaganda. I am sure there is much truth sewn in but life is in the details my friend, the details. Read a quality history book and you'll earn that
Why is it called the Opium war? Did not the British start a war because the Chinese wanted to halt the epidemic that was spreading due to the Indian supply? I agree that this is piece is highly questionable and who are the nerdy "experts, why should I listen to their opinion? The facts of this case, however, are very well documented and the fact is the British Empire and its front the East India Company engaged in large scale trafficking of opium to China against the will of the state. Why do you think Hong Kong was held until 1997? Did the lose it playing dice?
Even with history your only getting one side. The side that won.
Goebbels would be most proud. A complete work of fiction from start to finish. Absolutely useless as a historical document.
Sorry for the second statemant but. TO SUGGEST THAT BISMARCK AND WILLHELM WHERE FAILURES? The Germans not only rivaled the world and threatened to take it over not once but TWICE! to immagine anything other to this point is to allow it to happen aggain. Bismark and Wilhelm were geniuses unmatched with the simple fact as being mortal, they could not see future events! To take away from Germanys rightful place as not a superior race but a DEFFINATE geological and influential POWER not only then! but even in the 20th century and still today! GREECE NEEDS GERMANY TO BAIL THEM OUT! Anything less than observation is pure stuppidity!
if you research man there is factual base for most of this the U.S and Britain were anything but buddy buddy In fact America had plans to attack Canada and take it
It is such bs that the Germans started WW1. The Brits and Russians started that war for obvious reasons. Russia invaded Germany before Germany had even finished mobilishing. Read "the Russian Causes of WW1" by Sean McMeekin. The victors write history and Woodrow Wilson was a stone cold Anglophile. His wife was British. At the time most Irish and Germna-americans knew this and opposed the war. Hell the German Royal family was the same family as the British and Russians. It was no war for democracy. Did the Brits give democracy to the Palestinians or Iraqis after the War. The only way Ireland got partially freed was terrorism (see the film "Michael Collins"). The Brits have been landgrabbing since the Middle Ages. They did not want competition from the Germans and the Russians feared Germany and wanted to take Instanbul for their fleet.
i have seen this Doc. before. I decided to watch it again. For the Hobbiest Historian, you are doing yourself harm believing all this in its entirety. FACT 1 : As far as the slaves and man creating anything. Man has of yet, not created anything! The closest we have come is changing mass to energy. We cannot change energy into mass, and everything else is simply changing what is, into something else. FACT 2 : pertaining to an sceme of the British Empire takeing cotton to sell to Inda and then to China for Heroin. The story is correct as far as the East India company, however these were all different buisnesses, to exclaim or even make a conclussion that it was the British Empires Intent? Such as the British Empire fell slave to the BANK OF ENGLAND, So America at that time was fighting it; It has no factual basis of concludeing that the Empire, The Crown, or anything other than the East Indian trading company was involved. FACT 3 : It was the Bank of England that gave the money to Napolean, who inturn raped pillaged and pludered Europe to only again loan the money to defeat him and get all of it back + interest, setting up the Louisiana purchase and all the following events of buying something thats not anyones in the first place. WITH THAT SAID! Sure there was obviously corruption going on. BLAME THE BANK OF ENGLAND!
your knowledge of history is missing important pieces. The bank of England aka house of Rothschild loaned the country of England money so they enter ww 1. Previously, the Rothschild family gained(swindled) control of the Bank of England while England was just about to defeat Napoleon. Thus you missed more than half of the gist of the entire film. The house of Rothschild is not only the new comer on the block but only one such rich family that rule the world.
Before Rothschild, the world was divided into sovereign countries though ruled by incestuous royal families. These so called benign royal families (queen Elizabeth 1 in 1600) granted companies like E.I.T.C a royal charter which gave them limited liability status and a monopoly. Since the trade of the time was cotton, spice, opium, and sugar it would be very hard to believe that these large companies did not have connections to slavery as well. Furthermore, in 1670 king Charles 2 strengthened the royal charter granting them the right to mint money, make war and peace, and more. Therefore your claim that the crown, or empire had nothing to do with involvement in financial/political affairs of the world is far from the truth. All rich individual parties such as EITC, royality, banksters, even large religions had their vested interests in mind.
Conversely, the opposite is true that anything that threatened trade could be and was removed by war, assassination, or any other method necessary.
Thus the rich royal, industrial, and bankster families were behind wars that have plagued this planet for several centuries. They built countries such as Hitler's Nazi Germany and they destroy countries democracy's as well.
Regardless if you believe all the details prescribed in this documentary, one thing is obvious, throughout all of mans history, there has always been an element of manipulation by the elite wealthy to shape and control the future of man with the intent to rule the world.
We are constantly being lied to, class warfare has always existed, most world leaders are related, banks fund and create wars and our leaders are not out of control..quite the opposite, they are just out of our control.
Very Interesting!
I have to wonder why history is being so manipulated to make the democratic powers look like the enemy? when freedom is only had in that system. Makes me wonder if there are not more at work now in the Mideast than is observable by the normal historical perspective? The powers of darkness are rearing their heads again in ways we had not been aware of.
This is a horrible doc- it says things that are just plain wrong and says a lot of other things in a manner that is biased.
So I'm turning it off after about 5 or 10 minutes. Here is part of the reason why: The brittish east indian company did not import slaves to north america- at least not legally. The brittish actually used their navy to catch slave ships in the 19th century. Brittian and France would have never entered the war on the side of the south because they did not support slavery. I hate to be arrogant, but if you don't believe me here you need to read more. And as I continue to listen here I hear more and more things that are either wrong or questionable.
I'm glad to see that at least some of the people commenting here also point out that this doc isn't accurate. Anyone trying to educate others needs to first make sure that what they are saying is actually true.
This doc needs to be moved to the conspiracy section- or at least taken out of the history section.
OMG- booth was recruited by the brittish? I haven't heard that one- what a load crap- this definitely belongs in the conspiracy section. Brittian in 1860 could have squashed america like a bug. This doc sucks
British corporations, just like other European entities of the Spanish, French, Dutch and Portuguese, did indeed import slaves to North America. If they did not, then who did? Britian and France did indeed support the Confederacy not because they were pro-slavery but rather because they needed all that cotton for their textile industries. If you want history with sugar and spice and everything nice read the lies told in junior high school history.
I believe they had privateers, though, that captured and freed slaves from travelling American ships. This is something I heard of, and I admit ignorance about the subject.
What exactly is your point? If they had privateers, then they hired the privateers. You can't wash your hands of responsibility or wrong doing merely because privateers or independent contractors were doing your bidding.
Explain to me what responsibility I have for what happened so many centuries ago, especially considering that my family is from Latin America???? Sounds like those folks that want reparations.
None. "You" or "your" in the context expressed did not mean YOU. It's a figure of speech. Stop being so literal, like most of your posts. Perhaps YOU should not comment about subjects of which YOU admit YOU lack knowlege.
My apologies. However, I have already mentioned that I do not know much about the subject. I just sought to be enlightened by someone, not pounced on. Perhaps I came off as too hostile (and unnecessarily defensive) in my last comment. Either way, let's continue the discussion in a nicer light :)
When I was referring to privateers, I did not say that they were capturing slaves for their own purposes. They were freeing slaves. But this is hearsay. I have nothing to back that up.
Don't believe British propaganda. They excel at making themselves seem better in history than they actually were. There were no privateers freeing slaves, if there were who was funding them? And, if there were how long did they last? A week? And, if there were, how many slaves did they free? Measurement is more valuable than hearsay.
Agreed, this might be a bit propagandist. I've also heard from another camp that they were actually pirates. But I also think that it glorifies them a bit.
If there is one core truth in this documentary, it is that the methods of exploitation result in less overall prosperity (even in the long run for the exploiters). Unfortunately, if one studies La Rouche one can see that his philosophy is entangled in the culture war, the very conflict that prevents any populist movement and assures oligarchy even in democratic systems. So...still part of the problem.
I think that everyone is making a mountain out of a mole hill. This documentary is very interesting but it's produced to educate people on the ideas of Lyndon LaRouche. I had no idea who he was until I looked up his name after I watched the film. I now understand why the History in this film was twisted and sensational. I don't care about one's political views or morals, but it is important to make sure that History is told correctly. This film is not historically accurate! Once I researched Mr. LaRouche I understood what was happening with the film. I neither like or dislike the man, and I will say that the documentary was sensational and very entertaining. If I didn't have a history degree I would have bought everything that was said in the film. Keep an open mind, but make sure that you realize that everyone has their own motives.
What imbeciles or cads recruited Len Marcus (later styling himself Lyndon LaRouche) into the Socialist Workers Party of James P Cannon? The is an entirely BOURGEOIS history of Britain and the United States - with the usual racism (here in placing fault collectively on "the British"), omission of the aboriginal Americans who were disenfranchised and genocided, and complete absence of the working and peasant classes. The players in LaRouche's drama are burgess, bourgeois, and aristocratic personages around which history is alleged to revolve. No class analysis whatever, not even to mention labor's struggles for collective bargaining in the various countries. Revolutions are passed off as as plots by one or another national elite. As useless as David Icke's historical theory that alien lizards are behind landmark events.
It's Chakotay!!!!
Yes, it seems to be Robert Beltran narrating... picked up the voice in about 2-3 seconds... very distinct voice.
FDR Murdered JFK and got himself sworn in with Jaqueline Bouvier in her lovely brain spattered dress, still in utter shock.
How very amusing. FDR was the enemy of The United States.
Gentlemen, all of your comments contain at least a modicum of truth. Agree with me, please, that it is impossible to find a world leader that doesn't have to deal with such powers as the world bank, the illuminati, the black money racket, the Carlisle group, the Zionists, and generations of families like the Bushes, world-wide, that are in the covert-op business of money, and more.
This doc rocks, and little old 1st-gen American me by way of the Romanovs, the Shah, and Geneva has learned a bit, surely.
Oh, yeah, all you lineage-freak dudes, just consider: aren't we all
children of Abraham?
And...I think he was in the law biz (excuse my google-less ignorance)and before the campaign trail he was seen making fresh-strawberry hand-cranked ice cream for Mary when she was seriously sketchin' out.
OK, I have a life to get to, but I must aside to Mr. Keighan: "Dude, don't hold back! I mean, tell us how you REALLY feel!" *wg*
Kisskiss from Maine to all you sons and daughters!
Stalin, Churchill, and the biggest liar of all FD ROSENVELT. (YEA, THAT'S HIE REAL NAME) All sitting next to each other. Doesn't that reek of Illuminati to you? Three ENEMIES all together! Reminds me of the "controlled landing" of King George II and his "remote-comtrolled landing on the aircraft carrier with 'MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" on the HUGE sign. "Accomplished? Then WHY are we STILL there? Can you spell OIL PIPELINE?
"Much like the abused child that grows up to abuse his own children we are just repeating what was done to us"
Such is the history of every nation since the dawn of time.
Wow an American calling Britain sissys hahaha!! Maybe you should look at your own history an consider how many wars America have fought under lies and false pretense. History just repeats itself, superpower after superpower repeat the same things. However, its the times which dictates how these repeated actions take place! A defeat in a war doesnt necessarily mean a lose, it could be away for example it could be a way to gain a military base in a country where it could be used as a strategic post for more important overall goal.
lies and false pretense,set forth by policymakers,whom were placed in politics by british money.Before the end of the civil war,america had NO FOREIGN POLICY, EXCEPT FOR,LEAVE US ALONE,WE LEAVE YOU ALONE..MY FOREFATHERS,(DIRECT LINEAGE) FOUGHT YOU "roman excrements" for over a thousand years..yeah i said a thousand..look up the name boy,..ancient kell,anyways...brits are sissys,money is your spine,tabloids are your mouths,and an inbred line of thieves are your brain.
once you've come down from your ivory tower....your meds are ready
ive never watched such horse S*&T in all my life... and this actually passes as U.S History what a joke absolute nonsence. Ime British an i can tell you now my historical FACTS do not match with most of what this program goes on about. what a id**t, this is not a documentary its pure fiction
dude,u brits still call the revolutionary war,the revolt,you dont teach your students about the boar war,or that ole winny was a p.o.w.,and that was just a cover to give him more cred to get elected pm, and the facts have came out that they were paid to capture him,and the dutch were paid to keep him safe and sound.u guys are just a bunch of pompus sissys,who cant win in a heads up fight,so you use collusion,spying. Your queen is of german descent,your prince phillip,is a psychopath,charles is the murderer,of the mother of his own children...just because you dont like the truth doesn't mean you need to go cussin at everything..enjoy your little island my friend,and remember "all you nedd is love",ya liverpool lilly.
firstly we are taught about the american revolutionary war just like you, a total waste of lives and some very nice tea but as long as youre happy... im not sure about the boar war but i remember a boer war... in fact i remember being taught about two.
by winny (sic) im guessing you mean winston churchill, captured whilst a corespondent during the boer war, that is no secret. everyone over here knows plenty about churchill, his being one of the greatest wartime leaders we have ever had he is taught extensively in schools... that means a lot. tell me, what was abraham lincoln doing before he took office... not from google just from what you know... i'll bet you cant.
yes we do use spying and collusion, in fact i think we sort of invented it, along with the marine commandos, the SAS and covert operations forces, cavalry and many other aspects of the armed forces that you use today... incesantly... youre welcome.
the queen is in fact of, amongst others, Armenian, Arab, British, Chinese, Cuman, Danish, French, German, Greek, Hungarian, Italian, Monégasque, Norwegian, Old Prussian, Polish, Portuguese, Romanian, Russian, Serbian, Spanish, Swedish, Ukrainian, and Yugoslavian descent. you see over here we dont put quite so much weight on ethnicity as you guys do, although with your kenyan irish/ENGLISH president i think your tolerance is rising, even if the general IQ isnt.
philip and charles are merely examples of what happens when cousins marry, a concept which is very familiar to anyone who comes from the southern states.
here in the united kingdom we love truth, we are avid seekers of it, for example if those towers had been in london there is no way in hell we would have settled for the sham enquiry you guys did, and people would have been held acountable. but i know... it made your heads hurt and there was a new episode of x-factor or celebrity kardashian love island or something and you just didnt want to think about it anymore.
As much as i "hate" trying to "defend" the United States...there are a lot of claims in your comment that are outright false (even though you claim to love the truth)...the use of elite forces, cavalry and spies have been in use loooooooooooong before there was even a semblance of modern civilization on the British Isles...so your claim of "inventing" those are as real as Americans claiming they invented the modern way of life.
Impressive ethnic history of the queen...but whereas your head of state is royalty..and hence can trace her roots through the centuries..Obama is a common man and hence we dont actually know his ethnic ancestry from where both of his parents came from...have to laugh out really when i see that you claim the British do not put "so much weight on ethnicity"...this may be true in the last 3-4 decades but history also says that the British have been one of the most "racist" nations in the world...large scale migration of people from all over the world and of different races has led to the current level of ethnic tolerance in the last few decades
Finally your claim of not settling for a sham enquiry...well while the US has got its 9/11 you have got 7/7..the investigation conducting into the bombings is as believable as the 9/11 commission and no..people have not been held accountable for that...maybe you were more interested in the fashion style of Kate Middleton rather than the bombings?
After watching more of this documentary, all of it in fact, there are a few things that seem to stand out that I can't help but question. First, this is simply to pro U.S. I mean it fails to mention after going on for sometime about the American experiment in equality and freedom that America was founded on the blood and slaughter of an innocent native population that greeted us with open arms and tried to help us (watch 5oo Nations and you will see what I mean). Second, I had always been taught that the Brits opposed slavery and tried to stamp it out by capturing Spanish and American slave ships at sea. Third, it casts the creation of the national parks system and the idea of wildlife conservation in a negative light, as if they were symptoms of Roosevelt's loyalty to the British or somehow stiffled the colonization of the western territories. Fourth, this doc was funded by the LaRouche PAC, a political group pushing an agenda. I am not saying I disagree with thier agenda, only that they have one, which could potentially get in the way of an objective view of history. I would have to really research the facts before I could buy much of this. I have a two year degree in western civics and studied WW1 extensively, yet I never heard of the Brits being the root of this war. Most historians chalk it up to the vast web of alliances formed between European nations and the assination of Archeduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria but, this doc goes further to say the Brits caused these things to happen. I question how they came to such a conclusion when well meaning well informed historians around the globe did not.
Indeed, entangling alliances made WWI happen. America is currently part of such alliances. WWIII doesn't seem so far from the horizon.
I agree that the native population was part of a crap-shoot deal. The British, however, had opposed slavery only after they've been using slave labor for centuries. It seems that this is the inevitable bloody predecessor to industrialization and industrial farming.
Also, I like how you mention "equality" in the American experiment. Until the 1970s, the country was one that had striven for equality of opportunity. Since 2008-09, it has been more a country that strives for equality of results, regardless of individual merit.
The one thing that made China a great empire was the meritocracy in its military. The same could be said for the US (again, until recently). The one thing that makes China a crappy governing power is the lack of meritocracy among the ranks of its elites. Again, the US was quite the opposite until recently. We're witnessing a tumble-down snowball effect, and I'm extremely careful not to mention Obama because he's not the one who started this. He's only perpetuating it with either inaction or direct mandate.
Roosevelt was quite the same, nonetheless, and I think this idea of equality of result came from some policies he enacted in the New Deal (which, by any respectable historian's account, actually prolonged the depression slightly).
You seem to have a decent understanding of history, so I invite you to engage in a provocative intellectual discussion with the American-born president of the Romanian LP, lest you already agree with me. :)
inaccurate, it was brittain, the brittish navy that halted the slave trade...
I really enjoyed this doc. Somewhat slanted away from a different kind of colonialism which is largely directed by US and EU policies. But a fun watch.
Today's United States is like a mouth with no stomach. There's not enough of anything to satiate the global beast.
teddy 'set aside east india inspired conservation parks, denying land to settlers, lincoln had wanted for development'
lol i've actually never heard the creation of the national park system put in such a negative light.... it feels kind of shady, i wonder who made/funded this docu?
LaRouche PAC, LaRouche Movement - nice, a history rewrite by a rightwing fascist group / personality cult, barely a documentary. never trust anything with TRUE in the title! XD
i get the impression that larouche is to the past as the venus project is to the future.
This documentary is by the La Rouche PAC. Read about Lyndon Ra Rouche on
Wikipedia. This guy is a nut.
Thank you for the info. Lyndon La Roche is a perennially present kook with dangerously absurd viewpoints.
Perhaps this explains the detestable U.S. practice of covertly manipulating other countries politics in order to bring about things such as regime change. Much like the abused child that grows up to abuse his own children we are just repeating what was done to us, playing the game as we know it to be played. The good news is that the vast majority of American citizens now are aware of these practices and strongly disapprove of them for many reasons. They are unproductive, immoral, and directly conflict with the image Americans have been sold about America by the established powers that be.So, am I saying, like many extreme liberals do, that we should never judge another societies practices or culture? No. not at all. As Sam "whats his name?" often points out, surely we know enough about human flourishing and what makes a productive peaceful society to speak out against obviously dysfunctional practices and, that global conversation is important and necessary. However, it should remain just that, a conversation not military action or covert manipulation. Who knows what our fore fathers would do in the current political and economic environment we now face but, I think one of Lincoln's qoutes hints at his position. He said he would rather be executed on the spot than to see the experiment in freedom and equality that he had been elected to lead fail. This is the courage and belief in our founding principles that we no longer seem to have. Now we give up our principles when they are inconvenient or make us vernerable in any way, and we excuse this by saying it is in the intrest of security. What are we becoiming? Is it worth securing? More importantly, is it worthy of us? I say give me liberty, give me justce, give me equality, and d@mn the consequences. And if that means my death, the death of America- so be it, for I would not cast my lot in a world so depraved of integrity and compassion any way.
''…while a nation goes speculation crazy the people neglect to think of fundamental principles.''
well,that's been thrown overboard !
"Fundamental principles" can not exist along with moral activism as they are based in protection of Liberty.