Podcast: Play in new window | Download | Embed
WWI? That was just a bunch of German royal cousins staging a fight, wasn’t it? Join James for this in-depth edition of Questions For Corbett, where he gets to the bottom of the royals’ role in the WWI conspiracy.
Video player not working? Use these links to watch it somewhere else!
WATCH ON: 
/ 
/ 
/ 
/ 
/ 
or DOWNLOAD THE MP4
SHOW NOTES
Watch: King Charles speaking German in Berlin
The Birth of the House of Windsor
George, Nicholas and Wilhelm by Miranda Carter
Hidden History by Gerry Docherty and Jim Macgregor
The Two Edwards: How King Edward VII and Foreign Secretary Sir Edward Grey Fomented the First World War by Peter Hof
King Edward VII: evil demiurge of the Triple Entente and World War I
The immorality of the House of Windsor
WWI Q&A – Questions For Corbett #042 (including WWI reading list)
The Ex-kaiser in Exile by Lady Norah Bentinck
Before 1066 and the new Norman ‘overlords’ (who entrenched the UK ‘class’ system), weren’t the Germans in power in most of the UK? E.g. the Saxons?
Is this an ongoing ‘battle’ between certain European families?
No, these families, together, seem to be playing the ongoing, very successful, divide and rule game, whilst making massive profits from war.
The Saxons and the Danes made up the bulk of population of England, a good chunk of the north was the ‘DaneLaw’, because it was settled by ‘vikings’ which is (as I understand it) why English depends on word order rather then suffixes to say who is doing what to whom. The languages were pretty close so they ended up speaking a simplified pidgin versions….. I sometiomes look at Pidgin BBC news and think thats what it probably sounded like to old guys.
The Normans were basically ‘vikings’ who settled in Normandy, so biologically they were not really VERY different people BY TODAYS STANDARDS.
At the time all these peoples felt that they were very different from each other.
I do not think that many families have managed to maintain themselves for a thousand years, TBH, and even those that may have would probably be horrified by each others ideas if they met via time machine.
You might also have added that Edward VII was a keen banjo player. References to this are to be found in the autobiography of his banjo instructor and 19th century banjo pioneer Alfred Davis Cammeyer, “A Banjo Sings It Through”.
Well, thanks for that. No wonder Eddie got to do so much “caressing”.
Some people don’t like banjo, but I love it. “As long as the guitar plays, it’ll steal your heart away. ”
Or the banjo.
It is completely forgotten nowadays that from the 1860s up until WW1 the banjo was an immensely popular instrument in the UK, having been introduced by minstrel groups from the USA. In Cammeyer’s book he details his frequent engagements to perform at private parties for the wealthy and influential classes of London.
That’s nice to know. Music is a universal language, perhaps more compelling than Sioux war bonnets and African lips and butt cheeks. Wonder if those elite were wiggling? And I wonder , does Turdeau play the banjo?
And then, the people got Sister Rosetta Tharpe at the train station, the woman Buddy Holly and Elvis used to go listen to to learn how to play rock guitar.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-manchester-27256401
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9a49oFalZE
It’s interesting to see the restrained energy present in Bo Didley’s sixties’ performances. The kids were clapping and bouncing in their seats.
Well Trudeau has a history of blacking up – as did the white minstrels wishing to appear as blacks during the 19th century. But I always like to think the banjo brings out the best in people so I couldn’t imagine Poo-dough being an aficionado.
Heehee, me neither.
He serves as Klaus’ instrument. Wonder what Klaus calls that one?
I just got Cammeyer’s book down from the shelf and did a double take at the title of Chapter XVII: “Mr Alfred de Rothchild”!
Oh, you can’t just leave it there….I’m hanging.
Same Rottenchildren?
Dorothy Parker was originally a Rothschild, but not that kind at all. So, that name is not exclusive.
When rereading “‘Who Built The Moon” once, I looked into the authors. One of them had a career in consumer psychology. That explained their “theories” spun from facts. The facts were outstanding. Their theories, manipulative.
Oh no doubt this was Alfred, grandson of Nathan. He worked in the Rothschild bank in London as well as being a diplomat and so called philanthropist. He was a socialite, patron of the arts and art collector, and also quite a handy pianist, according to our banjo playing observer. He apparently enjoyed Cammeyer’s banjo playing as he invited him several times to his town house in Mayfair as well as featuring Cammeyer’s banjo orchestra in a programme of classical music at Covent Garden Opera House. There are no references to his family’s plans to subjugate the planet into technocratic slavery – Cammeyer seemed to enjoy these elite circles so he couldn’t be expected to be critical.
It amazes me how people almost worship the Windsors. They are a family of murderous thugs. They are arrogant. The royals think we are crud, as Ripley so famously said in Alien 3. I don’t get it.
Same reason folks worship Drumph. They want to be that, that money.
Great Being, bless me with a dry home and a magical money-pot to buy books. And great vision until I leave.
Thank you, James Corbett.
Good day James, as usual you cover the subject of your QFC in the informative and enthusiastic way I have become accustom to for over a decade.
You make mention of some elements of history that I have encountered in a documentary which happens to open with content from your WWI conspiracy documentary. It’s a lengthy documentary but it has also been broken down into a playlist for easier consumption. This would seem to be the perfect material to throw in that locked room to spur on debate. But the material presented within also raises to some interesting points and seems to connect dots much like you do for a longer span of time in our history. Have you seen this and if so have you any comments on it? For the rest of this audience I would love to hear your take on the contents and implications of this work.
In The Name of Zion (Full Documentary)
https://www.bitchute.com/video/cssXkCAPV3jY
Oops, “Oh no
This video is unavailable in your region.
Sorry.”
I’ve never experienced this on Bitchute…🤔
My region is the Netherlands.
You know, that country below sea level.
With a king who’s grandfather was a confirmed Nazi, Bernard.
Married to Zorregieta of Argentina, arranged by his grandfather Bernard.
The country which had the first central bank.
Slave trades, probably with consent of African “leaders” (a history unexplored). Financed by …Portugese Jews? Venetians?
Somehow, this tiny country, which seems to be so great in agriculture, food for the world!! oppressed more and more, having a AIVD chief (local CIA) becoming the unelected (!!) premier/prime minister, whereas the former rotten prime minister Rutte is the follow up on Stoltenberg Navo..hmmm..grrr…
No good can come out of this.
A tiny country where Bilderberg started..
And yes, a refugee place for Kaiser Wilhelm..
How convenient…
How convenient that the Netherlands are off the radar..
such a tiny country…apparently under the radar?
But such a big part in the TriStateCity shit, and affecting food crisises, at the cost of our farmers..land is now even claimed for munitial depots and stuff..the Defence ministry is claiming properties…
Not good..not good at all..
All aboard the war train.
Well, “buying” (sic)/taking Manhattan Island for a few trinkets didn’t hurt Holland one bit. Didn’t take long for Peter Stuyvesant to start screaming “there ‘s too many people here”.
In “The Shell Game: How America Was Stolen One Dirty Deal At A Time”, the author refers to those particular colonizers as “the penny pinching Dutch. ” European colonizers considered the Native American Gifting Culture to be “criminally insane”, in the precise words of the imperialist French.
I can sympathize about the food, though. Hey, there’s still a few bison left in No. America. Maybe Holland could take to bison farming.
And yes, it’s the EU Law regarding internet that is censoring you.
I have stored a copy on pCloud at this link. You can play or download it.
https://filedn.com/lWUgKTJ3ChYR8m5G1iQhzxR/VideoDownloader/In The Name of Zion/In The Name Of Zion (Full Documentary).mp4
Thank you!
Latin translations of virus, from the web:
NOUN
virus
virus
poison
venenum, virus, toxicum
venom
venenum, virus, pus
slime
limus, pituita, virus
strong smell
virus
pungency
acrimonia, sal, virus, acritudo
sharp taste
virus
salt taste
virus
Silly, actually, how philip wished to be reincarnated as a deadly virus when, clearly, he had already existed as a grotesquely mutated version.
Great topic, James!
It’s ironic that the royals tried to erase all traces of their German ancestry, and then along came Edward VIII, who revelled in it, and tried to get the Nazis to bomb Britain.
minnie
Possibly, but since the Nazis were quite anti monarchist I doubt that they would have let him be more then a puppet….though TBH war with the UK was never their actual plan anyway.
James, I would love to request an interview/chat with yourself and Matthew Ehret, he used to be a la ruche person. But I would love to see the points that you two differ on, and what you align on. He seems like a great mind and force for light.
An excellent book about the international outlook of the European royals in the early 20th century, and the actions of some of Queen Victoria’s offspring is “Go Betweens for Hitler” by Karina Urbach.
On the subject of “its all the venitians/jews/freemasons/ect” I would point argue that there are PROCESSES of politics that drive the actions of players to act in certain ways.
Italian Bankers of the middle ages acted very much like the Jewish bankers who replaced them. The Russian bolsheviks had the same Geo-politicial drive to influence India and get warm water ports as Imperial Russia did, the Japanese have had a thing about Korea since forever because of where it sits…. and the British Empire and newly Unified Germans were going to have issues whoever was running those countries.
However I will say that the Circulation Of Elites (as in the book “The Populist Delusion”) has brought certain groups into power. They each bring their own flavor to politics.
Jews were NOT big players in the French Revolution (that was England via Masonic lodges and reading groups ( the “NGO’s” of the day) or probably starting in WW1, but they WERE the big players in making Germany loose WW1 and in bringing about the Bolshevik Revolution.
History after ww1 is not intelligible without taking this group into consideration…and it would appear now that with the Trump stuff going on that we are coming up to a civil war between jews and hopefully new circulation of elites (which will probably still be very jewish, but less so then at present).
https://archive.org/details/struggleforworld0000knup/page/24/mode/2up?q=1694
In 1917, after Tzar Nicholas II abdicated, British Prime Minister David Lloyd George made a statement in Parliament implying that the event was in line with one of Britain’s major war aims:
“The overthrow of the autocratic government in Russia, through the revolution, means that the one aim of the Allies is to end autocracy, and if it takes a revolution to do it, so much the better.”
I think the destruction of the Russian Monarchy was one of the key motivations. Interestingly Freemasonry had been outlawed in Russia since 1822.
Derrik
Yes, I belive you are correct
According to “prolonging the agony” by Docherty (2nd book after “Hidden History”) stopping Russia from threatening India and the eastern bits of the British Empire. They said that was why Galipoli was a deliberate disaster, to lure Russia into staying in the war with the hope of getting Constantinople/Istanbul.
Russia was the 2nd big target for destruction after Germany- it still is both for geopliticial reasons and the hatred that the Ethnic jews still feel for it.
Wallstreet and the Russian Revolution by Dr Spence goes into detail about the money the US put into that too, and Dr Spence has spoken on many podcasts about it. Funny enough he is not at all easy to find on YT anymore.
Also regarding Freemasonry- acc to “The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit” by EM Jones France was led to revolution by British funded masonic lodges and reading groups.
In the same way NGO’s are used to destabilize countries now
https://corbettreport.com/flashback-ngos-are-the-deep-states-trojan-horses-2018/
The jewish hand in that was VERY SMALL because jewish power only really got going later on….Dr Jones describes the Enlightenment as a british Black Op gone wrong
I’m going to have to retract that DLG quote above as I can’t find the original source.
It’s not clear to me how you can positively state that Jewish involvement in Freemasonry was “very small” in the years running up to the French Revolution.
Derrick
I say that based on what I read in 2nd edition of “Jewish Revolutionary Spirit” by EM Jones…he goes thru the lead up and sees Freemasonry as a manifestation of the JRS but one used by the British to destabilize their rival France.
It would be hard for Unemancipated Jews to play much part in the masonic groups that fomented the revolution…the jews at that time were mostly the SERVANTS, or at best junior partners, of the Ruling class (as they were in Poland where their behavior made them very unpopular) just as they were in the USA until the post war years when the gradually supplanted their former masters.
While Jews were active in the British government they were not fully emancipated in France unti Napoleon and while the Bavarian Illuminati are also seen as having the JRS, by Dr Jones, they were not an Ethnic Jewish organization. I have no doubt that jews played SOME part in the funding and such but the main players were gentiles.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_France
Thats my opinion, I can not state 100% that there was not another layer of activity, but my opinion is given above.
On the DLG quote I have no doubt that the desire it expressed was true even if it was not uttered- Jews (inc those in Britain) had a strong ethnic hatred of Imperial Russia based on Russian reaction to jewish behavior
My interest in conspiracies focuses on the necessity of establishing a psychological divide of “us/them”, “good/evil”, “human/sub-human”, and the latest variations, e.g., “white hats/black hats”. It’s not “divide/conquer” as much as “divide and dehumanize to justify murder”. Of course, it’s NOT murder if “they” deserve it, and that eliminates the need to feel guilty.
In Larken/Amanda’s communication tutorial “Candles in the Dark” and the off shoot “Tiny Candles” the starting assumption is that most of us are voluntarists, humanitarians but most have been indoctrinated with “The Most Dangerous Superstition”, a belief that turns us into self-sacrificing political zombies, in varying degrees.
The strategy taught is similar to Socratic Dialogue. The questioner is a catalyst ONLY, not a debater, not a lecturer. The goal is to induce introspection by establishing the respondents beliefs, values, until a contradiction is found. That ends the session, allowing the subject time to reflect, reconcile. Thus, the subject de-programs themselves. No other method is so effective, so empowering, so lasting.
Of course, not everyone will respond. A small percentage are psychopaths. They are easy to identify, holding positions of power without accountability or conscience, e.g., most politicians.
voluntaryist
“…“us/them”, “good/evil”, “human/sub-human”, and the latest variations, e.g., “white hats/black hats”….”
To get past that you should read “The Populist Delusion” by Neema Parvini.
He takes an Amoral look at how power actually operates. The author has said on YT that ideology is bunk created to justify those with power doing what they want….I dont TOTALLY agree with that TBH.
Duck: “To get past that you should read…”? I am not hung up. I understand the goal of inducing prejudice, hate for groups, is to get people to identify with a group, not be an individual, and depersonalize others, devalue/discount their humanity.
Once accomplished, the individual is disarmed without the concept of a “self” to base his theory of ethics. This results in an arbitrary ethics which varies from the values of group to group, collectivism. It will lead to social chaos, division, violence. All that remains is to harness that strife and direct it for personal gain at the group’s expense. In war, both sides may have winning elites, short term, but long term, everyone has less of the most valuable asset, lives.
“…I understand the goal….. is to get people to identify with a group, not be an individual…..”
NO-
The goal of the modern ‘Total State’ (as Auron Macintyre writes in the book of that name) is to BREAK DOWN the group and leave people AS INDIVIDUALS because as single people they are helpless to resist and depend upon the State.
You identity has zero meaning as “JUST” a lone individual- identity is YOU in relationship to others, Father, Mother, sister. brother, worker, co-religionist, ect.
“…Once accomplished, the individual is disarmed without the concept of a “self” to base his theory of ethics. …”
No one cares what a single lone nut thinks his ethics are….they care what a GROUP of people think ethics and acceptable behavior are. A Group can externalize ethics into behavior, a single person Can NOT.
example:
If you lived in a town of Aztecs cutting out human hearts you may be as ‘ethical’ as you wish but your ‘ethics’ mean as much as a fart in such circumstances.
What possible VALUE would they have? Even to you?
“…harness that strife and direct it for personal gain at the group’s expense…”
THIS is why I recomended Populist Delusion to you, you fail to see that the strife is harnessed for the BENEFIT OF ONE GROUP at the expense OF THE OTHER GROUP.
NO SINGLE BAD ACTOR COULD DO ANYTHING BIG …they are a group acting in their own group interest.
Duck: You remind me of the book “Anthem” by Ayn Rand. It is a story of a person who grew up in a dystopian society that has abolished the concept of “individual”, the word “I”. Are you “gaslighting” me? Never have I thought of myself as “we”, in 81 years.
For example, you say: “NO SINGLE BAD ACTOR COULD DO ANYTHING BIG…they are a group acting in their own group interest.” A single bad actor = they are a group??? I’m at a loss for words. WTF are you talking about?
I am an individual human, therefore I think. I don’t need to be in a group to think, but I can enjoy exchanging thoughts with others. I seek out exchanges, I value them. They help me to expand my context by further developing my ideas. However, at first, my beliefs were not those of society.
I searched for others who “made sense” as a youth, but found none. Nor did I find anyone who shared the interests I did. I read a lot, the entire encyclopedia, before I was 11. I had time when I was expelled from 4th, 5th grades at 9, 10, in the early ’50s. I had boycotted 1st grade as too regimented, extremely boring. NOTHING is more painful than boredom. I asked questions that really seemed important, e.g., “What does ‘pledge’ and ‘allegiance’ mean?”, “Why are we forced to ‘pledge’?” My answer was not verbal, but physical assault, expulsion. I was puzzled, not angry.
I found some who asked similar questions, in comic books, my favorite was “Mad Magazine”.
I was an atheist at 8, an anarchist at 12, had only one friend most of my life. I found a “like mind” at 23, when I read, “The Virtue of Selfishness” by Ayn Rand. She gave me the key to understanding philosophy, Aristotle’s metaphysics. I owe her for helping me use “A = A” as a fundamental tool to better understand my “self”, to develop my ethics, politics, and identify, giving meaning to my life.
voluntaryist
“…Never have I thought of myself as “we”, in 81 years…”
You never said to your family “WE are going for ice cream?”
You never said to you wife “WE should buy this house?”
You never went to a family get together and though “We drink too much and fight at this things?” 😉
You never though “Damn….WE better not put up with this crap?”
If so then that kinda proves the point if your 81 and have no family line going into the future. Worse is if you had a family and DONT think of them as “we” because your too self focused.
“……had only one friend most of my life. …..”
So you are exactly the kind of livestock the Elite enjoy having around- without anyone to help you .
Speginess is useful, but is in fact a fault, IMO, even if I suffer from it myself a bit
I started boycotting tax at 11 when I discovered it. My check had S.S. tax of .75%, less than a dollar, I was making 50 cents/hour. I quit on principle and self employed, finding I could make more $ and avoid being robbed. I have fought back by donating to many, many libertarian groups and finding ways to protect my earnings from theft (tax).
The “livestock” told me I was a fool who would soon be in jail, since the ’60s.
I can’t love anyone without loving myself. I don’t have to love myself less to love my wife, family. There is no sacrifice of the “self” in love of others. By “friend” I meant personal confident.
Voluntaryist
But you DO need to consider them as “we” to love them…. are you retracting what you said that you NEVER thought of “us” or rather “We”????
IF your wife and kids are not “WE” with you then why would you provide for their needs?
“… I don’t have to love myself less to love my wife, family. ….”
1) Do you habitually put your own needs and wants over those of your family? IF so then you love YOURSELF MORE.
or
2) Do you sacrifice YOUR wants so that others can get theirs?
IF so you love THEM MORE then yourself…
Your issue is that you are trying to use logic to analyze relationships , which is the wrong tool for the job.
Knowledge will pass away, LOVE will not because it comes from God
Reason/logic is our only tool to obtain knowledge. Emotions, feelings, are physiological reactions to ideas, conclusions, values. Our beliefs may be based on our reasoning or that of others who transmitted them to us, if we get them second hand. As such, they may not be counted on as fact, and strong feeling about them are only proof of our emotional attachment, not to veracity. Emotions do not create reality.
We need to infallibly reason for ourselves to be “certain”. And if we started from a valid principle, we only have to be sure we made no logical mistakes.
“…..Reason/logic is our only tool to obtain knowledge…..”
Rubbish.
If I want to count a horses teeth I look in its mouth.
Logic is deeply flawed when data is lacking or when starting from an erroneous supposition.
“…… Emotions, feelings, are physiological reactions to ideas, conclusions, values……”
They are the secondary heuristic of reasoning- people avoid shit and puss because it disgusts them and do so WITHOUT needing to know bacteriology.
Maybe you should read “The Righteous mind”
If I want to count for a full explanation
You have not yet answered my question…since you ‘NEVER’ think “WE” when you think of your wife what possible reason do you have to do anything for her good?
Do you put her or your own wants first?
Logic is NOT flawed. It is not reliable if based on an incorrect premise. We know we have done so when we can come to contradictory conclusions using the same premise. A contraction warns us of our error.
Data is always limited because we are not omnipotent. We don’t need to know everything to know something, in context.
“people avoid shit and puss…” You are conflating sensory input reactions with emotions, knowledge.
You should read: Ayn Rand’s “Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology”, expanded second edition, edited by Harry Binswanger and Leonard Peikoff.
I don’t understand your question about my use of “we”. I don’t lose myself, my ideas, and think as a group, like a Borg, when I consider the thoughts of others.
“…..Logic is NOT flawed. It is not reliable if based on an incorrect premise. …..”
YES, but how do you know your premise is correct? Even if its partially correct how do you know its FULLY correct?
THUS we are forced to test our model of reality- built thru logic- AGAINST THE REAL WORLD.
If it does not match the real world do you not agree that something is WRONG with our reasoning?
You are in grave error thinking logic generates knowledge- as CS Lewis said in the earlier parts of Abolition Of Man all knoeldge comes down to something that is ‘self evident’ which it is NOT POSSIBLE TO APPLY LOGIC TO.
“……..We know we have done so when we can come to contradictory conclusions using the same premise. A contraction warns us of our error……”
Yes…BUT- is that the ONLY way we know we are in error?
If our reasoned results do not match reality does that show an error in our reasoning?
“…..Data is always limited because we are not omnipotent…..”
Thus, our logic IS ALWAYS an approximation. It is NOT a way to GAIN KNOWLEDGE it is a way to PROCESS knowledge.
“………“people avoid shit and puss…” You are conflating sensory input reactions with emotions, knowledge……”
NO…. I am saying that these reactions are based on knowledge that we DO NOT reason out from facts. The knowledge that these things are bad for us CAN NOT come from logic unless we have the full data on contagion can it?????
ALSO YOU CAN NOT GENERATE KNOWLEDGE FROM LOGIC BECAUSE KNOWLEDGE COMES FROM SENSE DATA OF WHAT HAPPENS IN THE OUTSIDE (REAL) WORLD.
“,,,,,You should read: Ayn Rand’s “Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology”, …..”
I may do so one day but in the mean time why don’t you explain their arguments? TBH Rand was not a great AFAIK and her conclusions do not match the real world as far as I can see
“…….I don’t understand your question about my use of “we”. I don’t lose myself, my ideas, and think as a group, like a Borg, when I consider the thoughts of others……”
YOU SAID EARLIER “…Never have I thought of myself as “we”, in 81 years….”
AND I ASK IF YOU THINK OF YOU AND YOUR WIFE AS “WE” BECAUSE IMO YOU ARE SUFFERING A CONTRADICTION OF SOME KIND HERE (see below)
Contradiction:
If you do not form a unit with your wife WHY would you do anything for her benefit?
If you only for your own needs you love YOURSELF MORE and if you care for her needs to the detriment of your you LOVE HER MORE.
Identifying with a group should not require hate or dehumanizing another group. It could be a group around pride in shared values, culture, etc.
Overlooking the existence of cultural context from which the ideas of voluntarism, anarchism etc. come from is a little bit short sighted. It is part of the “de-racinated” agenda thrust on people, particularly Europeans.
I don’t see any problem with people taking pride in their cultural background, their family and ancestors. This does not mean they cannot also be individuals, but they come from a context, each of us has one. Most of this audience is probably from the west, thus comes from Europe and/or its culture.
Duck is right about one thing in particular and that is the need for community in order to survive. The lone wolf will perish.
I am not saying that ones ethics need to align with a group and in fact that is not a norm for persons from European culture. I think it’s wonderful actually, some of the most beautiful things about the culture from Europe, the philosophy, the values, etc. No need to be ashamed of it.
cu.h.j
“…Identifying with a group should not require hate or dehumanizing another group….”
100%
I dont feel the need to hate other people just because their not in my family or group.
On the other hand I would be pulling those closest to me into the lifeboat first were we wrecked on the ocean…..but I would not be gleefully whacking everyone else with the oars either.
LOL except maybe the girl from the movie Titanic, she was awful. 😉
Reminded me instantly of those Rogues of Satire from Victorian Era.
Gilbert and Sullivan.
Specifically HMS Pinafore which interweaves multiple levels of satire on British Royal Hypocrisy.
To begin with, the Title of the Opera : HMS Pinafore
What is a pinafore? you might ask…
A sleeveless apron that a British Girl would “pin a-fore” her good dress.
Yes, a ship good Queen Vickie would have to have had in the fleet!
Thank God for Bernais when he finally popped up… rest up those Royal Dogs…
Well, one thread of hypocrisy in Pinafore refers directly to “higher levels” of loyalty than to one’s country.
In other words “That Big Club” Carlin refers to is above ALL nationality.
And was so also in Victorian Times. Maybe more than ever.
Here’s specific libretto (words) of “He is an Englishman” Gilbert & Sullivan’s Pinafore:
He is an Englishman!
He is an Englishman!
For he himself has said it,
And it’s greatly to his credit,
That he is an Englishman!
For he might have been a Roosian,
A French, or Turk, or Proosian,
Or perhaps Itali-an!
But in spite of all temptations
To belong to other nations,
He remains an Englishman!
He remains an Englishman!
”
For those curious or courageous enough to endure British Opera,
Excellent Stage Performance by Australian Opera (subtitles thank god!)
BooToob took it down && put it back up again:
2 parts:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNmzXFJPU5M (Act I)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3tgUpSp9hY (Act II)
The “Englishman” song is toward the end of Act II, extending to finale.
My understanding is that Queen Vickie was NOT impressed.
But … Music and Story simply too good not to have played out.
Themes and Satire STILL relevant today… Gilbert & Sullivan were simply genius
I’m always surprised that you never seem to mention the Berlin-Baghdad Railway and its critical threat to the British sea trade and navy and opening up of Middle East Oil in regards to the reasons Britain would want to subdue Germany in causing WW1. Check out Enghdahl’s A Century of War for more info. The Berlin-Baghdad Railway wikipedia link is useful. And The Prize by Yergin may have touched on it too.
Ihafky
I THINK he did mention that before, in the WW1 series.
I could be mistaken, its been a while since I watched the series, but I have a book on that on my too read pile that IIRC I grabbed because he mentioned that railway. I do not recall Mr Corbett going into great depth on it
I missed THIS story which is kinda a repeat of the same thing
https://www.reuters.com/world/russias-putin-irans-raisi-oversee-railway-deal-signing-2023-05-17/
“….The Rasht-Astara railway is seen as an important link in the corridor, intended to connect India, Iran, Russia, Azerbaijan and other countries via railways and sea – a route that Russia says can rival the Suez Canal as a major global trade route….”
Thanks James for sending me down that rabbit hole when you aired your WWI Conspiracy years ago. Or should I say spiraled me? ‘Peeling the onion’ layers upon layers of truths and lies.
What got me was Alfred Milner. When you mentioned him coming from Tubingen, Germany (it’s Tübingen!) it wouldn’t leave me at ease. At that time I lived in Tübingen for almost 20 years and I needed to know more. I bought Hidden History, did some online research and noticed how little there was on Milner. Or was there?
Starting 2019 I decided to go on a quest to learn anything I could about him. Him, his parents, his wife, his ties to Germany over the decades, his Kindergarten, his affairs, his Rhodes Trust, his political career, his wars, his victories and failings – if there were any.
His parents are buried in Tübingen’s old cemetery. His school still stands, his house I believe too.
The city and university archives have some gems to tell. Yet even those have been partially swept by… somebody (missing files in the archives).
I’ve combed the internet bookstores for antique original books and biographies on him. Each biography, newspaper article, archive file is unique and sheds a new light on him and on history.
I even bought the original “Milner’s Credo” 1925 in The Times newspaper. (I get carried away sometimes;) There is even a second part to the Credo!
There is sooo much to say about him and so much more to learn. I’m planning on visiting his archive in Oxford soon and hope to put it all together on paper one day.
He was also just a piece of the puzzle in the WWI tragedy, but a very big piece that has been (purposefully?) silenced in mainstream history – in german as well as in the english literature. His role as a puppeteer pulling the strings between the press, government, royalty and military and at the same time himself being a puppet in the web of even mightier circles, is in my opinion completely underrated in the history of late 19th century, beginning 20th.
I hope you publish that paper and tell us here on the CR, I would love to read it
Easily my favourite part was the tea annecdote at the end, Hollywood couldn’t have made a better twist ending as the screen faded to black and credits rolled.