Somehow I never saw Titanic until this year. I know, I know. What? I missed it on release and then somehow enjoyed the irony of a movie fan having never seen such an important film. Again: I know. I know. What?
Regardless, resolving this years later prompted an entirely different viewing mindset than if I had seen it back in the day.
I taught history for high schoolers for a very brief period, basically tutoring-type classes for under and over achieving students. There was only one time that I ever saw a textbook make an opinion statement on a person's character which was then used to explain their actions.
Example: no textbook ever said, "U.S. Grant was a fearful and selfish man at heart, and was trying to get himself killed, which is why he was so great leading men into war" (I am just making that up as an example).
I read a textbook that said Andrew Jackson was a hothead and held grudges, and this is why he fought the Federal Reserve, simply because he did not like Clay and Biddle.
I know. I know. What? How do they know that? Beyond this, why are they injecting opinion into a history textbook? Beyond that, this is not true. Talk trash on him for the Trail of Tears, but for fighting the Fed?
That was a big eye opener for me. It's not hard to think that, due to ignorance or malice, someone is crafting the story of the Federal Reserve for the sake of public opinion.
A quick note in case this isn't old news: the Reserve is a private group, not connected to the US government, which loans America Federal Reserve notes called dollars, with which America takes on immediate debt once we circulate them into the economy, a debt that cannot be repaid. Basically, we are all paying someone else just to use US currency. This money could be going to the actual US, which would help with schools, health, technology, etc., but it is not.
That said, these were my thoughts after seeing Titanic earlier in the year, which of course, is an awesome, very well made film. (I've posted before on their use of repeated dialogue. https://steemit.com/film/@lionsuit/titanic-1997-repeated-dialogue)
Benjamin Guggenheim Isidor Straus Jacob Astor
They said no to the Federal Reserve idea.
Nelson Aldrich A. Piatt Andrew Henry Davison Arthur Shelton Frank Vanderlip Paul Warburg
They said yes to the idea.
The group of six went down in history as the architects of our modern American banking setup.
The group of three got invited onto the Titanic and died, which supposedly allowed for the passing and setup of the Federal Reserve to be very smooth.
What is weird about the whole thing is that J.P. Morgan was behind setting up the Federal Reserve, no secret. He also owned the Titanic, no secret.
At the end of the day, how does anyone know the boat hit an iceberg? If you are trying to take over the money system of a nation, which would make you near-infinitely rich, would sinking one giant boat to get rid of your enemies matter to your bottom line?
I do not know. This is the kind of thinking people are doing more of though. It seems more and more reasonable to doubt the official story of history, especially when the film retelling of a story this important seems to cover, smooth, and distract from the holes in the official story, i.e. making it seem that planning a lack of life boats onboard the ship was an act of hubris.
Is the Titanic "hit job" theory absurd? It's definitely not absurd. Is it the truth? Again, I don't know. The storytelling part of my brain quite easily makes the connection though. The only thing to do is ask yourself. Just don't scoff, because you do not know one hundred percent, and this is an important issue.
Be well. http://www.LionSuit.com
