|
|
Churchill WAS a neoconI am sometimes amazed by how little history even my fellow conservatives seem to know. Lawrence Auster is of course well-known for the way he joins Leftists in his paranoia about the “neocons” so I guess that helps us understand his latest lapse. He has put up a post consisting mainly of a letter from an historian claiming that Winston Churchill was NOT a neocon. In the narrow sense that Churchill was not Jewish and that the term “neocon” is only a recent invention, that does, of course, have to be true. In the broader sense—a neocon being a former Leftist who favours foreign military intervention in favour of democracy—however, to say that Churchill was not a neocon betrays no knowledge of history whatever. He joined the British LIBERAL party in 1904 and served as Colonial Under-Secretary under Campbell-Bannerman and as president of the Board of Trade and Home Secretary under Asquith. So he was in his early years a promininent Leftist in terms of British politics at the time. But, like the neocons, he later (1925) changed his tune and became a prominent Conservative. And as for foreign interventions in favour of democracy, who was Secretary of War under Lloyd George when Britain sent troops to join the “white” Russians in fighting the Bolsheviks in 1919? It was Winston Churchill! And there is no doubt that Churchill did not repent doing so. One thing he never changed was his fierce opposition to Communism—an opposition that is also characteristic of the neocons. And though Churchill was not Jewish, he was at least philosemitic. As Auster notes, Churchill once said: “Where the Jew goes there is oasis. Where the Arab goes there is desert.” So on the four primary neocon identifiers—Jewishness, anticommunism, Leftist early life and support for military intervention in the cause of promoting democracy—Churchill scores 3 out of 4—and on the Jewishness angle he might be said to have done his best! I gather that not all neocons are Jewish anyway—particularly if you include the Straussians in what is after all a pretty loose classification to begin with. Auster does not link to it but the article which started the recent discussion about Churchill as a neocon is here Posted by jonjayray on Friday, April 1, 2005 at 09:44 PM in Blogs & Blogging Comments:2
Posted by Fred Scrooby on April 01, 2005, 11:38 PM | # “Lawrence Auster is of course well-known for the way he joins Leftists in his paranoia about the ‘neocons’ so I guess that helps us understand his latest lapse.” (—from the log entry) I don’t know enough about Churchill to comment on the entry’s main question, but as for the above excerpt, I can’t fathom where the notion of “paranoia” comes in in relation to Auster’s reactions to neocons. I’ve never seen anything in his critiques of the neocons that could even remotely be considered “paranoid.” I think John R. was being a bit careless with his language there. What he wrote is incomprehensible for anyone who’s read lots of commentary by Auster. 3
Posted by jonjayray on April 02, 2005, 01:39 AM | # I thought readers might like to see Mr Auster’s comments on the above post. I sent him a link immediately on posting it. As my post above was relentlessly factual, I was hoping for a similarly factual reply. I first got from him an email which said: “Your gratuitously insulting tone is a disincentive to reading your stuff. Your comment that I “join the Left in attacking the neocons” is itself a species of ignorance. I’ve been criticizing neocons for over 15 years, since many years before the left even heard of neocons”. I was a little disappointed with that reply but still hoped for some attempt to address the facts at issue so replied as follows:
The next email from Mr Auster simply said: “Fact: You’re half-cracked.” I was still searching for the deep meaning and acute reasoning in that one when another email arrived: “More than that: you are positively stupid, as when you write: One thing he never changed was his fierce opposition to Communism—an opposition that is also characteristic of the neocons. So, neocons oppose communism; Churchill opposed communism, therefore Churchill is a neocon. Only a person incapable of basic logic could write such a thing. Another dumb thing is that you treat the article as though I had written it, when in fact it was written by Spencer Warren, whom you don’t even mention by name. Apparently you live in such an intellectual fog that you’re unable to distinguish the author of something from its publisher. And expanding on my point from my last e-mail, my reasons for opposing neocons have nothing to do with the left’s reasons for attacking them. You might as well not bother sending me any more things you may happen to write about me, as I don’t think they are worth reading. Perhaps Spencer Warren may want to reply, however, since it is his article that you are attacking.” Mr Auster is obviously disturbed. 4
Posted by jonjayray on April 02, 2005, 01:52 AM | # Scroob My own comment on neocon paranoia is here: http://dissectleft.blogspot.com/2004_09_19_dissectleft_archive.html#109571462972773667 5
Posted by Mark Richardson on April 02, 2005, 01:54 AM | # Stuka, I expect that part of the explanation for the Churchill cult on the right is that Churchill came to embody a British fighting spirit during WWII. He was also the figurehead of a nation at a time when the nation was making great sacrifices. I’m sceptical that his conservatism ran too deeply, as he twice undermined efforts to establish immigration controls at critical moments in British history. Someone who acts in this way to undermine his own national tradition is not, in my view, profoundly conservative. As for Lawrence Auster, I think he’s a first rate thinker, who’s capable of genuinely independent thought and moments of clarifying insight. I’ve never come across any glaring lapses in historical knowledge on his part. I think part of the problem, John, is that you think there can only be one obvious interpretation to draw from any body of historical knowledge. Therefore, if someone draws different conclusions to you, you assume that it’s due to some basic lack in the reading of history. Reading history widely is important, but so too is forming a coherent view from what you read. The second task is difficult, and will always be open to dispute and discussion. I’m still open-minded about my own interpretation of things even having spent many years of academic study and professional work as an historian. 6
Posted by Arcane on April 02, 2005, 02:41 AM | # John, Give Lawrence a break… like everyone else in the world, he has his days. As far as I’m concerned, Auster is one of the smartest defenders of Western Civilization there is on the internet right now. You don’t have to hate the neocons to simply realize that many of their political positions are antithetical to the survival of Western Civilization, ie, open-borders David Frum-style. Their love of big government isn’t exactly the most conservative thing in the world, either, and threatens to fracture the Meyer-esque fusionist coalition that brought conservatives like Reagan to power in the first place. But one criticism of the neocons that I can’t stand is this idea that all neocons share the same political positions, which is simply untrue. Neocons are always arguing with each other over something… I think they’re a lot more independent-minded in their politics than those who criticize them think they are. 7
Posted by jonjayray on April 02, 2005, 04:58 AM | # I agree with a lot of what Auster says but when he gets it plainly wrong he should admit it. I note that nobody has challenged me on the facts concerned 8
Posted by jonjayray on April 02, 2005, 05:03 AM | # Arcane I have posted a broader look at Auster’s views here: http://dissectleft.blogspot.com/2004_12_19_dissectleft_archive.html#110339131904210824 9
Posted by WJ Phillips on April 02, 2005, 06:23 AM | # David Irving has claimed that Winston had a Jewish bloodline through his mother, ‘Jenny Jacobson Jerome’. True or not, one can infer deep connections between Churchill’s political thinking and personal contacts (and financial obligations) and a skein of British philosemitism that far precedes neoconnerie’s roots in the Judaeo-Bolshevik revolution. British Israel—the cult that held that Anglo-Saxons were ‘Isaac’s sons’, one of the twelve lost tribes of the Diaspora—became influential among British imperialists in the mid-19th century. Queen Victoria herself, egged on by Dizzy, was interested. George Eliot’s ‘Daniel Deronda’ was another result of this sympathetic identification. Victorian Christianity, under the sceptical prodding of German higher criticism of Scripture, became more conscious of the OT origins of the faith. The morality of the Torah and its chronicles of ferocious battles and conquests seemed appropriate to the ethic of imperialism. Like the Jews, the British were to be a Light Unto the World of benign, improving governance by all means necessary. And just as Churchill was in hock to Jewish financiers for much of his life, so much of the British establishment of 1850—asset-rich in land but cash-poor—was coming to rely on the Rothschilds and their ilk, for which the quid pro quo (literally) was the acceptance of rich Jews into the upper ten thousand. Churchill’s father, Lord Randolph, was (like WSC) an improvident and very irregular Conservative, urging its turn towards imperialism. The old Country Party of squires had been mistrustful of all foreign entanglements and treasure-seeking colonial adventures because they swelled taxation and the powers of a central government (‘the Court’) detached from the roots of Old England. Cobbett was one of the most trenchant of their spokesmen. This isolationist faction in Parliament had been swamped by the rising commercial bourgeoisie after the Reform Act, and was led by adventurers and landless professional politicians such as Dizzy after the split over Free Trade. By the time Salisbury retired, in the throes of the Boer War, the messianic flag-waggers and Imperial protectionists were in full command of the Conservative Party. The younger Churchill, fresh from Malakand and Africa, was catnip for them. He only crossed the floor to the Liberals because he was against Tariff Reform; his concern for the condition of the people (he invented labour exchanges and was all for Lloyd George’s welfare state) echoed Lord Randolph’s preaching of ‘Tory Democracy’—state largesse, but with the nobs staying in charge of the purse. By the early 1900s, after Rosebery, there were enough Liberal imperialists for Churchill to feel more at home in a party of radicals: they had accepted the Empire, and merely wished to lead it towards self-government and European acculturation more firmly than Tory blimps did. Without too much strain one can see in the Liberal government of 1906 the genesis of the post-1945 warfare/welfare state. It was plotting the eventual independence of India, more and bigger battleships and old age pensions for the poor at home—all at the same time. What had to go out of the window, as predicted by the Newcastle Programme of 1892, was the hands-off individualist and ethical Liberalism of Gladstone. To deflect the competition of the Labour Party for the new prole electorate, the Liberals had to become interventionists and taxers. Churchill’s lifelong dedication to the survival of a governing caste, dispensing benefits to the masses and enforcing western values on an expanding Empire while being periodically endorsed by democratic votes, has obvious resonances with America in this millennium. More so since both the UK in 1900 and the USA in 2000 were in steep decline relative to the globe’s emergent superpowers: a decline both nations sought to deny by bluster and over-armament. End-of-history neoconnerie as the regnant ideology of today’s United States plutocracy has points in common with the purblind, Social Darwinian arrogance Kipling warned against in ‘Recessional’. Then as now, the two major parties within the leading superpower preserved a semblance of difference by squabbling furiously over trivia (Lords reform, Irish Home Rule, Welsh disestablishment then; ‘gay marriage’, how to pick judges and gun control today) while tacitly agreeing on the big questions. Then, in Britain, the big questions were rearmament against a rising Germany to preserve the post-1815 European power balance, and a growing encroachment of the State on the wealth, freedom and privacy of citizens for the greater good. Now, the burning issues are the wisdom of unilateral pre-emptive crusading against Islamist ‘Terror’, and the enlargement of GDP as an overriding good: even if it entails flooding the republic with unassimilable aliens, depleting resources too fast and fouling one’s own and others’ nests. 10
Posted by Phil Peterson on April 02, 2005, 07:23 AM | # Churchill was a Neocon? Id like to know how many Neocons would express such sentiments on Race: 11
Posted by Phil Peterson on April 02, 2005, 07:42 AM | # One thing he never changed was his fierce opposition to Communism—an opposition that is also characteristic of the neocons. John Ray’s breezy treatment of historical facts is astonishing. How could the Neocons have shared that characteristic when the vast majority of them (at least the older ones) were Trotskyists? 12
Posted by Phil Peterson on April 02, 2005, 07:56 AM | # And as for foreign interventions in favour of democracy, who was Secretary of War under Lloyd George when Britain sent troops to join the “white” Russians in fighting the Bolsheviks in 1919? If Military interventions to stop Communism is a characteristic unique to Neocons, every American President from the late 1940s onwards would be characterised as a Neocon including Eisenhower and Nixon. That is absurd. 13
Posted by Phil Peterson on April 02, 2005, 08:00 AM | # And as for foreign interventions in favour of democracy, who was Secretary of War under Lloyd George when Britain sent troops to join the “white” Russians in fighting the Bolsheviks in 1919? John, you should pay more attention to history instead of breezily accusing anyone who is critical of neocons of being ignorant. The White Russians were not fighting to restore “Democracy” but the MONARCHY which had been destroyed by the Bolsheviks: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Russians I dont know what to say John except shake my head in astonishment. 14
Posted by jonjayray on April 02, 2005, 08:38 AM | # Ah! At last some real argument: Churchill’s view on race were common on both the left and Right at the time so prove nothing The neocons started out as trotskyists but ended up as anticommunists. Churchill never was a Trot but he WAS a Leftist of his day early on. I started out saying that the parallels were not exact. You cannnot compare periods of around a century apart and expect totally exact comparisons. Note that I said he was a neocon “In the broader sense”. Even so his anticommunism was very similar to neocon anticommunism “If Military interventions to stop Communism is a characteristic unique to Neocons, every American President from the late 1940s onwards would be characterised as a Neocon including Eisenhower and Nixon” I made it perfectly plain that anticommunism was only ONE of a set of 4 conditions for being a neocon The “White” Russians were hardly homogeneous but whatever they would have settled for if they had won would have been more democratic than Communism. The Tsarist regime was in fact well down the road to becoming a constitutional monarchy. Any more debating points for me to shoot down? 15
Posted by Phil Peterson on April 02, 2005, 09:03 AM | # John, You are disturbingly fast and loose with facts. Churchill may have been a “Leftist” (since this is such a loose term as I have been pointing out to you in vain unfortunately that it means nothing). It is one thing for Churchill to have felt sympathy for the working men of Britain and to have felt a need to improve their lot through legislation and quite another to be a Trotskyist - to stand for the complete destruction of everything in society for the creation of some theoretical Utopia. Note that I said he was a neocon “In the broader sense” Next you will tell us that George Washington was a Neocon. “In the Broader sense” I am a Neocon because to be a Neocon you must be human which I am. The “White” Russians were hardly homogeneous but whatever they would have settled for if they had won would have been more democratic than Communism. Another slight of hand to support your incredibly shaky argument. Whether the Russian monarchy would or would not have evolved into a democracy (like Britain) is a matter of speculation. There was nothing very “democratic” about the Tsar’s regime in 1917. Churchill understood that Communism was a monstrosity and therefore Monarchy was infinitely preferable to Communism. That is not the same thing as saying that it was some kind of divine mission to turn every nation on earth into a “Democracy”. As it happens, it seems to me that the ideology is more important to you than historical details. 16
Posted by Phil Peterson on April 02, 2005, 09:10 AM | # John, Did Churchill LOVE open borders? This is I think the crucial thing about Neoconservatism. As the article on Churchill’s racial concerns proves, he didnt love open borders because he had the same conception of nationhood that most of us do here: that if you destroy the oragnic basis of a country (its ethny), you have destroyed the country. Neocons dont care about the organic basis of the country because they are Jews. Their loyalties lie with Israel. Their first priority is Israel. Churchill was supportive of Zionism but I doubt if he felt a greater loyalty to a settlement in Palestine than Britain. Therefore, he would not have been supportive of all and sundry middle eastern military adventures purely for the interests of Israel. Churchill supported Zionism because he believed that it weaned Jews away from the more destructive tendencies that were inherent to European Jewish intellectual movements, primarily Bolshevism. And then this: http://www.fpp.co.uk/bookchapters/WSC/WSCwrote1920.html Next you will tell me, “Ah well, everyone talked this way about Jews in those days”. The whole argument is bunk. 17
Posted by Phil Peterson on April 02, 2005, 09:19 AM | # So lets just recount the important facts here: 1. Churchill was not an open borders man. 2. Churchill supported the “White Russians” to overthrow Communism (not the same as establishing “Democracy”) 3. Churchill had orthodox views on Race and believed in the Organic basis of a Nation. 4. He supported Zionism because he saw it as a good diversion to wean Jews away from Bolshevism (not the same as making Israel your first priority in life). 5. He was not a Trotskyist at any time (unlike the Kristols and the rest of the gang) 6. His view of Jewry was realistic. That article on Jews proves it. If he had written it today he would have been denounced as a horrible Jew-hater, Jew-baiter, Nazi scum, Anti-semite and the rest of the smears that are regularly hurled at all and sundry by paranoid Oragnized Jewry. Any other points John? 18
Posted by Phil Peterson on April 02, 2005, 09:31 AM | # John Ray, As I have a good memory I remember asking you after Geoff linked to the same Zionism versus Bolshevism article, whether you thought Winston Churchill was an “anti-semite”. Your response: “Not so sure about Winnie but Chamberlain (the man who assctually declared war ion Hitler) was definitely antisemitic. .........”. See here: http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/547/ Now you turn around and tell us that Winnie was the next best thing to being born Jewish. Why so fast and loose John? I really don’t understand any of this. What are you trying to prove? That being an orthodox conservative is the same thing as being a NEOCON? So that all “Conseravtives” can agree against the loony left and get Social Security privatized? 19
Posted by Guessedworker on April 02, 2005, 01:01 PM | # WJP, Welcome to MR. A most auspicious opening. 20
Posted by Arcane on April 02, 2005, 02:35 PM | #
Many White Russians were social democrats and other leftists who had broken with Bolshevism… lets not forget that the Russian Civil War started after the Bolsheviks destroyed the social democratic Kerensky regime. I might also note that the monarchy had abdicated almost nine months before the Bolshevik Revolution, and during that time period a semi-democratic regime existed.
In 1906, the First Duma was formed and the Second Duma in 1907. Although they had little political influence, it was a good start. The Third Duma had a pretty good amount of influence from 1907-1912, although it wasn’t nearly as democratic as the First and Second. The Fourth Duma actually played in role in the Kerensky’s provisional government and was dissolved by the Bolsheviks in the Bolshevik Revolution.
While it is true that Churchill was never a Trotskyite, it is untrue that the both Kristols were Trotskyites. Irving Kristol was definitely a Trotskyite in the early years, but William Kristol was never on the left. In fact, one of his college roommates was Alan Keyes. Also, many of the contemporary neocons were never Trotskyites. Richard Perle was “Scoop” Jackson’s chief-of-staff and a registered Democrat, but he was never a Marxist of any sort. There is little evidence that Paul Wolfowitz was ever a Trotskyite or even much of a leftist. Elliott Abrams was a member of Social Democrats USA, which was very anti-Communist and originally broke with the Democratic Socialists of America because of the DSA’s weakness towards totalitarianism. Max Boot was never on the political left, nor was Robert Kagan. Other prominent neocons, such as William Bennett and Jeane Kirkpatrick were liberals, but never Trotskyites. One individual who is never thrown in the neocon camp, was a heavy influence on the political right, and was a former Trotskyite was James Burnham. Funny how paleocons like [the now deceased] Samuel Francis glorify this former-Trotskyite while condemning the rest. 21
Posted by Arcane on April 02, 2005, 02:51 PM | # I might also note that while Norman Podhoretz was a Trotskyite before becoming a neocon, his son John was never on the political left. James Woolsey is still a registered Democrat and takes many Democratic positions on domestic policy, although he is extremely influential in Republican circles. However, he was never a Trotskyite. Michael Novak isn’t Jewish (he’s Catholic, like Jeane Kirkpatrick) and was also never on the political left. Yet another neocon who isn’t Jewish and was never on the political left is Frank Gaffney. This just goes to show that this idea that neocons are all Jewish former-Trotskyites is absurd and that the modern definition of neoconservatism has more to do with their stances on various political issues than their ethnicity or their past lives. The original definition of a neocon, first developed by the socialist Michael Harrington, was a leftist who moved to the political right. So again, the original definition has little to do with the modern movement. 22
Posted by Andrew L on April 02, 2005, 04:12 PM | # Philosemetic is a word that needs more exposure, Churchill is of our blood line stemming back to Sir Andrew Luttrell and Lady Margaret Wyndham,The closest jewishness in him would be some Scottish influence, I did not realize that Jewishness was a race of people, I thought it was a Long standing religious doctrine, Philosemetics also would say Follow the Seagull if you are lost at sea, And lets face it Jewish Doctrine has been the only doctrine in Civilization that has survived through out time,where others perish. That at least must tell some one, they done something right, but for that very reason, it is persicuted. 23
Posted by Svigor on April 02, 2005, 04:17 PM | # Neoconservatives are, in the main, Jewish. I am unaware of a single neoconservative who champions the Palestinians over the Israelis. 24
Posted by seelow heights on April 02, 2005, 04:20 PM | # I don’t think anyone doubts that the founders of the neocon tendency were Jews. Some were ex-Trots and some were not.I believe the true intellectual founding father of neoconism was Max Schactman. He was a Trotskyite who eventually came to ally himself with the Scoop Jackson wing of the Democratic Party.Once the Dems became McGovernized there was no room for the followers of this wing in that party and the move to the GOP by the main body of the
25
Posted by Phil Peterson on April 02, 2005, 04:57 PM | # I was not initially going to respond to posts by our dear friend Arcane but will do so for the sake of maintaining a balance in this discussion. I was abused and slurred numerous times by our friend earlier on this blog and will therefore need to suspend memory of that temporarily to respond to these posts. My response is in no way indicative of any acceptance of those slurs and abuses nor does it constitute waiver of a right to an apology. Other blogs (such as GNXP perhaps) might have banned Arcane for the use of such language. That we have not confirms our belief in free-speech. However, future outbursts, the use of slurs and volatile abuse shall result in an immediate ban. We believe in free speech but the right must be exercised in a certain way. This blog is not a shouting house for all and sundry to abuse our adherence to free speech principles. Henceforth all responses from me to Arcane shall take place in the third person. There can be no communication in a direct way here. Anyway, Many White Russians were social democrats and other leftists who had broken with Bolshevism… lets not forget that the Russian Civil War started after the Bolsheviks destroyed the social democratic Kerensky regime. I might also note that the monarchy had abdicated almost nine months before the Bolshevik Revolution, and during that time period a semi-democratic regime existed The imporant question here is the majority. If the White Russians had won Monarchy would have followed. In 1906, the First Duma was formed and the Second Duma in 1907. Although they had little political influence, it was a good start. The Third Duma had a pretty good amount of influence from 1907-1912, although it wasn’t nearly as democratic as the First and Second. The Fourth Duma actually played in role in the Kerensky’s provisional government and was dissolved by the Bolsheviks in the Bolshevik Revolution. If anything this shows that Democracy was a long way away. Colonial India also had various bodies of all kinds that were “elected” under British supervision. This was not Democracy. Democracy followed many many years later and in Pakistan which was carved out of India, it collapsed soon after never to recover fully. It is now a military dictatorship. If anything this shows that the flowering of Democracy was not a foregone conclusion. It was simply a possibility that would have taken many years to bear fruition. Churchill knew that but he supported the White Russians because he held Communism to be an utter monstrosity. That its collapse may not be replaced with “Democracy” but Monarchy did not bother him. 26
Posted by Phil Peterson on April 02, 2005, 04:58 PM | # While it is true that Churchill was never a Trotskyite, it is untrue that the both Kristols were Trotskyites. Irving Kristol was definitely a Trotskyite in the early years, but William Kristol was never on the left. In fact, one of his college roommates was Alan Keyes.
The one thing that stands out about Neoconservatism is its Utopianism. It does not matter that many Neocons did not start as Trotskyists. They learnt everything about Politics from men who were at one point Trostskyists. These men never abandoned their utopianism for public consumption (whether they believed in its themselves is a mater for some debate and I wouldn’t get into it now). The three defining characteristsics of Neoconservatism are: 1.Fanatical loyalty to Israel and support of the Far-Right in Israel. Churchill was far too superior to these men to be compared to them or to be considered one of them. It is an insult to his memory and to his political genius to be lumped together with these Neocons. It is not surprising that Churchill is sought to be usurped by the Neocons. They have sought to redefine all of American history in the most ideological terms (to suit their own ends of course). They seek to do the same with Churchill. No surprises there. The well informed should know better. 27
Posted by jonjayray on April 02, 2005, 05:07 PM | # “There was nothing very “democratic” about the Tsar’s regime in 1917. Churchill understood that Communism was a monstrosity and therefore Monarchy was infinitely preferable to Communism. That is not the same thing as saying that it was some kind of divine mission to turn every nation on earth into a “Democracy”.” I don’t think the neocons ever thought the Shiites of Iraq were pure democrats either but they saw them as better than Saddam
28
Posted by Arcane on April 02, 2005, 05:28 PM | # Seelow, you said:
The only major one I can think of is Francis Fukuyama.
David Horowitz and the Frontpagemag.com crowd are probably the most influential immigration restrictionists in the neocon paradigm. Phil, you said:
The feeling is mutual.
We cuss out Nazis all the time, and usually ban them.
This coming from the arch-slurrer, himself! Hilarious!
I have severe doubts that a monarchy would have followed. An authoritarian regime is most likely, but since the last Romanovs were killed by mid-1918 it is highly unlikely that a monarch could have emerged.
But it was definitely on the way! A monarch would have to bring about democratic reforms in order to keep the non-Bolsheviks from becoming just as revolutionary. Of course, if the Germans hadn’t of shipped Lenin back to Russia with tons of money and support, it is questionable whether the Bolshevik Revolution would have even occurred. And you still ignore the point that the tsar abdicated the thrown many, many months before the Bolshevik Revolution… had the Bolshevik Revolution not occurred, the chances of some sort of social democracy forming would be pretty high.
Your point about Churchill is absolutely correct. Churchill was definitely a realist on this sort of thing.
Correct. He advocated a much more balanced approach concerning Israel.
Sure, but he was still a Trotskyite at one point in time. This means that he was still a neocon, by definition.
Well, glad to see you ignored all of the points that I made above.
I agree.
Is there any group in the West, other than a few Nazis, fascists, and Commies who has attempted to usurp Churchill?
What group hasn’t? 30
Posted by Effra on April 02, 2005, 05:47 PM | # My admiration of Churchill is a long way this side of idolatry. As a do-nothing isolationist, I am exasperated by his lifelong romance with warmaking. He only said ‘jaw-jaw is better than war-war’ at the end of his days, when H bombs had made the stakes too high. From his youth he was always game for a military adventure, a tendency that subsequently clouded his record: Gallipoli, Norway, Dieppe. Had he won in 1945, he might have tried to hang on to India by force. He was a general manque, but at least he was not an armchair plotter playing with the lives of soldiers and ‘collateral damage’ civilians like the armchair neocon chickenhawks of Washington. Churchill’s concern for the British poor was sharpened by the Boer War’s revelations of the working man’s unfitness for fighting. As Clementine Churchill noted, his ignorance of ordinary people’s lives was almost total, and he preferred borrowing from Jews to living on a scale he could support in solvency. In WW2 his hesitation about forming post-war domestic policies and embracing the Beveridge Plan was due to his fear that too much government spending on health and social security would curb his beloved defence budget, and compromise Britain’s lingering affectation of equality with the USA and USSR. The short period of Churchill’s career to which we are all meant to pay unequivocal homage, and which is the neocons’ showpiece, is his defiance of Hitler from June 1940 until December 1941. Yet even this would not have been possible without the prudent preparations for national air and naval defence undertaken by the Baldwin and Chamberlain governments, before Neville Chamberlain was displaced—by the author of the disastrous Norwegian intervention! Forgotten figures such as Inskip and Hore-Belisha had stiffened the lion’s sinews so that Norman Shelley could roar over the radio on Winston’s behalf. Churchill proceeded to negotiate a deal with Roosevelt which began the fire sale of the very Empire he had sworn to preserve: an Empire Hitler repeatedly, explicitly and credibly made plain he had no designs upon. (I don’t care two hoots about losing the Empire, but Churchill should be measured against his professed objectives like any other politician.) We know that Churchill’s ‘victory whatever the cost may be’ effusions in 1940 were not wholly sincere, for there was a moment when he, like Halifax, considered a truce. Besides, he knew almost for a certainty that a German invasion in summer 1940 was not a serious possibility. He was whipping the nation into belligerence to impress the Americans, hoping that the mood would last long enough to make Britain seem a worthy fighting ally in an invasion of Europe we could no more undertake alone than Wellington could have won at Waterloo without Prussians and Dutch. The sentimental legend of defiance which Churchill’s memoirs began and American gullibility has frozen into unquestionability needs to be thawed out. 31
Posted by Phil Peterson on April 02, 2005, 05:51 PM | # Arcane: The feeling is mutual. PP: Other blogs (such as GNXP perhaps) might have banned Arcane for the use of such language. Arcane: We cuss out Nazis all the time, and usually ban them. PP: However, future outbursts, the use of slurs and volatile abuse shall result in an immediate ban. Arcane: This coming from the arch-slurrer, himself! Hilarious! Our friend here is an interesting man to say the least, suffering perhaps from Amnesia (perhaps induced). I cannot see how the feeling could be mututal in that circumstance when our friend here used a word called “Motherfucker” (something I did not and cannot imagine ever doing). I am aware of this word for it is used usually in high-brow Rap Videos that are televised on various TV channels on a ragular basis. It was a shock to hear this word from someone who does not consider himself, shall we say, “low-brow”. That said, what I have said earlier stands. Any future use of such epithets will result in a ban. I hope I make myself sufficiently clear. David Horowitz and the Frontpagemag.com crowd are probably the most influential immigration restrictionists in the neocon paradigm They are a minority among Neocons. That neocons are overwhelmingly in favour of open borders is a point our friend Arcane has accepted in these words: You don’t have to hate the neocons to simply realize that many of their political positions are antithetical to the survival of Western Civilization, ie, open-borders David Frum-style. PP: It is not surprising that Churchill is sought to be usurped by the Neocons. So that takes care of John’s argument about Sir Winston Spencer Churchil being a Neocon. I rest my case. 32
Posted by Arcane on April 02, 2005, 06:03 PM | #
There is no single offensive phrase in the English vocabulary that can better describe what Nazis are than the one used above, although there are numerous other offensive phrases that work just as well. No single group has brought more harm to Western Civilization (if they can even be characterized as “Western”) than the Nazis, except maybe the Communists, who are in a close tie with them. 33
Posted by Phil Peterson on April 02, 2005, 06:05 PM | # There is no single offensive phrase in the English vocabulary that can better describe what Nazis are than the one used above, although there are numerous other offensive phrases that work just as well. No single group has brought more harm to Western Civilization (if they can even be characterized as “Western”) than the Nazis, except maybe the Communists, who are in a close tie with them. There is no single word in the English vocabulary that speaks more about the level of a man’s taste. 34
Posted by Arcane on April 02, 2005, 06:15 PM | # Funny how you have more problems with a phrase than you do with Nazis… doesn’t that say something about you? Do you prefer the term “evacuation” to “extermination?” 35
Posted by Phil Peterson on April 02, 2005, 06:26 PM | # Funny how you have more problems with a phrase than you do with Nazis… doesn’t that say something about you? I don’t recollect Churchill using the term “Motherfucker” to describe the Nazis. What does that say about Churchill? Is our dear friend Arcane implying that Churchill was somehow…...........oh dear! 36
Posted by Guessedworker on April 02, 2005, 06:42 PM | # Arcane, We haven’t had to ban anyone from this site yet and that’s a record I’d like to continue, if possible. GNXP might “cuss out Nazis all the time, and usually ban them.” You are doing what, anyway, you want to do. But we don’t ban anybody who can present his or her political views or principles in a succinct and civil fashion. A failing in either requirement, however, will be met with a polite request to observe the rules of the house or leave. Play the game and you are welcome here. 37
Posted by Fred Scrooby on April 02, 2005, 06:52 PM | # “David Horowitz and the Frontpagemag.com crowd are probably the most influential immigration restrictionists in the neocon paradigm.” (—Arcane) David Horowitz, a very good man btw—one of the best, is unfortunately somewhat schizophrenic on immigration (his only blemish that I can see): he swings back and forth on it. Yes, he has published some excellent articles calling open borders into question and denouncing outfits like the Marxist Ford Foundation which heavily support open borders and one-worldism. But he has not been a consistent voice on the matter. I forget who in the thread besides Phil Peterson said there were no partisans of immigration sanity among the neocons, but whoever it was, they were all, he and Phil, right: there are none, although it’s true that Horowitz—again, a very good man in all other respects—is as close as one gets. “We [at GnXp] cuss out Nazis all the time, and usually ban them.” (—Arcane) Godless Capitalist libels people who aren’t Nazis and bans those as well. I’m not a Nazi, and was banned twice by that non-white advocate of white-race genocide, the second time accompanied by psychotic characterizations and name-calling that could only come from a seriously mentally unstable person. 38
Posted by Phil Peterson on April 02, 2005, 07:06 PM | # Fred, Considering that our friend Arcane considers us a bunch of un-reconstructed Nazis, we are a pretty tolerant bunch, wouldn’t you say? 39
Posted by Fred Scrooby on April 02, 2005, 07:59 PM | # Phil, a number of regular and semi-regular commenters here (I’m one of them) were treated like dirt, outrageously slandered, then banned at the site Arcane blogs for (I’m not blaming Arcane), while foaming-at-the-mouth brown and yellow advocates of the equivalent of white-race genocide there were warmly welcomed, pampered, and praised by the individual calling himself Godless Capitalist. MajorityRights.com has offered to us an opportunity to speak. I know I’m far from alone in feeling sincere gratitude for that. 40
Posted by Andrew L on April 02, 2005, 08:14 PM | # I Thought of Godless as Communist or Socialist, Pantheism is a appropriate description, that also includes Islam, amazing how linguistics and inovative vocablury can alter the once understood notion of definition. Definitive meaning. 41
Posted by Mark Richardson on April 02, 2005, 08:17 PM | # Phil, I agree with most of the points you made re Churchill. However, despite Churchill’s comments on race I don’t think it’s clear that he supported immigration control. In fact, twice in his career he acted in favour of open borders. The first was earlier in the twentieth century when there was a campaign to raise the price of a British passport as a limited measure of immigration control. The campaign was moving ahead successfully until Churchill organised against it. Then in the early 1950s when members of his cabinet were trying to limit Commonwealth immigration, they were unable to gain Churchill’s support. This was a critical moment when Churchill as PM failed to support cabinet colleagues. So although he was not an open borders ideologist like some of the neocons, his record on the issue, despite his personal attitudes to race, is not so good. 42
Posted by Arcane on April 02, 2005, 09:16 PM | # Alrighty then, I won’t use that language again… I’ll just refer to Nazis as “genocidal psychopaths.” 43
Posted by Guessedworker on April 03, 2005, 03:13 AM | # “genocidal psychopaths.” A very long list, I fear. 44
Posted by Phil Peterson on April 03, 2005, 03:58 AM | # Mark, I would need to read more about the specific periods that you mention and why Churchill chose not to support stricter controls. All said and done, I do believe that not many in the 1950s could have foreseen the pandora’s box that would be opened by some of their decisions. Back then it may have seemed like a few immigrants working in the factories and so on. Nothing unmanageable. Also, there was little of the “England is a mongrel nation” nonsense. There was no fooling around with our sense of nationhood. 45
Posted by Phil Peterson on April 03, 2005, 04:54 AM | # Phil, a number of regular and semi-regular commenters here (I’m one of them) were treated like dirt, outrageously slandered, then banned at the site Arcane blogs for (I’m not blaming Arcane), while foaming-at-the-mouth brown and yellow advocates of the equivalent of white-race genocide there were warmly welcomed, pampered, and praised by the individual calling himself Godless Capitalist. Fred, Perhaps they felt threatened by your arguments. Its good to have you and everyone else here at MR. 46
Posted by jonjayray on April 03, 2005, 06:07 AM | # 45 Comments so far! 47
Posted by Stuka on April 03, 2005, 08:10 AM | # David Horowitz, a very good man btw—one of the best…Horowitz—again, a very good man in all other respects… Really? What do you make of his long-running feud with the Antiwar.com crowd? Or his McCarthy-like DiscovertheNetwork.com project? Or his endorsement of Muslim terrorist apologist Stephen Schwartz? Yes, Horowitz occasionally has given a voice on his site to immigration reformers and white nationalists, and has shed some light on anti-white academic Noel Ignatief. But, his other activities, including his relentless Israel First boosterism, make me doubt that he’s entirely useful. What do you think? 49
Posted by Arcane on April 03, 2005, 03:00 PM | # “genocidal psychopaths.” A very long list, I fear. Indeed, and certainly not limited to Nazis. 50
Posted by Svigor on April 03, 2005, 03:59 PM | # Fred: I have to concur that GC frequently displays behavior that is either dishonest or irrational. I’m inclined to think it’s both, because adaptive dishonesty (i.e., preventing free speech to keep “Nazis” - anyone who thinks white people have a right to express ethnocentrism - off his site in order to play house nigger to the mainstream) doesn’t require the antics he displays. The arguments and their merits have absolutely nothing to do with his behavior by the way. I had a short exchange with him at GNXP and later via email (after I was banned) and all he did was brawl with hordes of strawmen. Phil: LOL. Yeah Arcane, can we call that a tacit admission that Nazism stands for free speech and civility? Perhaps they felt threatened by your arguments. That’s a certainty. As Effra pointed out (was it in this thread?), the authors of GNXP are trying to bring HBD (race-realism) to the masses. They can’t have white ethnocentrism (the only offensive kind) getting in the way. That agrees with their genetic interests (white racial suicide) as well, so they get to hit two birds with one stone. Arcane: For that matter, your label “Nazi” isn’t limited to Nazis either. Further, your categorization of Nazis as the worst of the worst is plain silly. Communism killed tens of millions more. 51
Posted by Arcane on April 03, 2005, 05:14 PM | # They can’t have white ethnocentrism (the only offensive kind) getting in the way. GNXP doesn’t tolerate any kind of ethnocentrism, and right now there is a post up by Razib glorifying Western Civilization and attacking those who despise it. “Ethnic pride” is one of our don’ts. Further, your categorization of Nazis as the worst of the worst is plain silly. Communism killed tens of millions more. I never characterized Nazis as the “worst.” What I said was:
The Nazis killed between 15 million and 31.6 million people in less than 6 years on one continent alone. I’m quite sure had they been in power as long as various Communists were, they would have killed just as many, if not more. 52
Posted by dlg on April 03, 2005, 05:26 PM | # I am skeptical of the idea that most neocons are in favor of “open borders”. Little Green Footballs is a weblog that could be classified as neocon, and it just posted this item: http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=15305_Mexico_vs._the_Minutemen&only=yes 53
Posted by Arcane on April 03, 2005, 05:38 PM | # The New Criterion is regularly accused of being a neoconservative journal, but they too are opposed to open borders, have traditionalist conservatives write for them a lot, and even praise Theodore Roosevelt’s opposition on “race suicide.” 54
Posted by Fred Scrooby on April 03, 2005, 07:46 PM | # Stuka asks (4/03, 12:10 PM), “What do you make of [David Horowitz’s] long-running feud with the Antiwar.com crowd? Or his McCarthy-like DiscovertheNetwork.com project? Or his endorsement of Muslim terrorist apologist Stephen Schwartz?” I’m not too up on details of those. I didn’t know he had a long-running feud with the Antiwar.com crowd, but a feud between Justin Raimondo and someone who supports the Bush administration’s policy in Iraq wouldn’t exactly come as a surprise. I’ll add that my own views on Israel accord with my views on races, ethnicities, ethnocultures, nations, and nation-states in general. Briefly, I consider the late Rabbi Meir Kahane, often called a member of the Israeli “far right” or “extreme right,” to have been a completely ordinary, apolitical, middle-of-the-road, sensible, normal person with perfectly ordinary, normal, sensible views on things, views which I agree with, and which were neither “right” nor “left,” neither “conservative” nor “liberal,” and I view Likud the same way except that I consider Likud politicians Netanyahu and Sharon to have veered too far left (too far left if Israel is meant to survive; not too far left if Israel is meant to perish). I can understand why some conservatives (I consider conservatives in general to be mere “normal people” needing no special political name, but I use “conservative” by convention where communication necessitates it) are distinctly unsympathetic toward Israel’s survival (rather than being sympathetic or having some neutral attitude such as, “I don’t concern myself with countries other than my own”): they’re mad at the Jews because so many Jews and so many organizations that are heavily funded and staffed by Jews promote things which the Jews involved ought to know perfectly well are mortal threats to white-Euro Christendom—in fact often DO know it, and are supporting them for precisely that reason! (The editorship of The American Conservative Magazine may conceivably fall in this category. It’s an excellent publication but they seem antipathetic to Israel in a way that doesn’t make sense given their other views on things.) Everyone can understand this: “You guys are trying to kill all I hold dear, so why should I care about the survival of all you hold dear! Go jump in a lake! I’m extending my sympathies to the Palestinians!” I don’t hold this view, because I see it as unprincipled and wrong in the case of the Jews and Israel (though exactly this view could be principled and right in other situations). I don’t hold it but I understand it. (Disclaimer, in case anyone’s wondering: I have some Jewish ancestry at the grandparent level, and Jewish in-laws. I consider myself Catholic, which is how I was partly raised.) Stuka, I don’t see what you’re referring to in calling Discoverthenetwork.com “McCarthy-like.” I’ve visited mainly their blog, MoonbatCentral.com, which I find excellent except that it doesn’t concern itself with what I consider one of today’s most important topics, the world-wide drive by both right and left to replace the white-Euro Christian race and ethnoculture with non-white and/or non-Christian Third-Worlders, thereby committing genocide against whites. If anything, Moonbat Central is concerned first and foremost with Israel. I support Israel but don’t consider it the most important issue in the world today. If Jews like Horowitz do so consider it, I can certainly understand and respect that. I don’t know anything about Stephen Schwartz or Horowitz’s endorsement of him. (continued in next comment) 55
Posted by Fred Scrooby on April 03, 2005, 07:48 PM | # (cont’d) Stuka writes, “Yes, Horowitz occasionally has given a voice on his site to immigration reformers and white nationalists, and has shed some light on anti-white academic Noel Ignatiev. But, his other activities, including his relentless Israel First boosterism, make me doubt that he’s entirely useful. What do you think?” I see nothing wrong with a Jew fervently supporting Israel. I don’t give Israel the priority Horowitz gives it but I’m not Jewish. I give priority to the race-replacement genocide currently underway against white societies all over the West mainly through race-replacement immigration but also by means of other policies allied with race-replacement which work hand-in-glove with it, such as deliberate domestic tax and other policies that force white birth rates down, aggressive governmental and Hollywood psy-ops tactics aimed at making whites and especially white women and white schoolchildren ashamed of being white, and many other pro-genocide strategies. Some American Jews, such as Prof. Chomsky, support the destruction of both Israel and the U.S. Some, such as David Frum, Abe Foxman, and Jonah Goldberg, support the survival of Israel and the destruction of the U.S. (or, Foxman thinks he favors Israel’s survival—he supports some assinine left-wing policies for Israel that would spell that nation’s doom as well). Some, such as Don Feder and the Jew who runs 57
Posted by Fred Scrooby on April 03, 2005, 08:09 PM | # “GNXP doesn’t tolerate any kind of ethnocentrism” (—Arcane) Maybe things have changed but when I used to be a regular visitor there, Arcane, this was false: the non-white who calls himself “Godless Capitalist” made it that the site not only tolerated Subcontinental and yellow attacks of open race-hatred directed against whites (mainly on the part of certain yellows, not so much from Subcontinentals) but warmly welcomed it. Negro ethnocentrism (I never saw Negroes there express open race-hatred against whites as I saw yellows do, but some did try to express what would certainly be called ethnocentrism, which I think is not only a legitimate but an admirable thing for Negroes or anyone else to do) was both tolerated and disregarded, neither punished nor welcomed. Finally: any defense by whites there of anti-white race-hatred attacks by non-whites, mainly arrogant white-hating yellows, was swiftly punished by “Godless Capitalist” with psychotic name-calling and often banning. Foaming-at-the-mouth anti-whites there were welcomed and pampered. Whites trying to respond to anti-whites were punished. Those are the facts, Arcane. If you believe otherwise, then dream on, is all I can say. 58
Posted by Fred Scrooby on April 03, 2005, 08:25 PM | # Erratum: a couple of posts ago (above) I said Moonbat Central was concerned, if anything, first and foremost with Israel. Thinking about that now, it’s not true. They are concerned first and foremost with leftism in general. Maybe the reason I said that was an excellent blogger who in my mind seems to “dominate” there, volume-wise (and perhaps in some respects quality-wise, or style-wise you might call it), is “Plaut’s Complaint,” whose main concern does seem to be Israel. But overall the blog’s main concerns do not lie with Israel “first and foremost.” 59
Posted by Fred Scrooby on April 03, 2005, 08:49 PM | # Sorry, another error: Where I wrote this (12:09 AM): “Finally: any defense by whites there of anti-white race-hatred attacks by non-whites, mainly arrogant white-hating yellows, was swiftly punished by ...,” it should of course have been this instead: “Finally: any defense by whites there against anti-white race-hatred attacks by non-whites, mainly arrogant white-hating yellows, was swiftly punished by ...” 60
Posted by Fred Scrooby on April 03, 2005, 08:58 PM | # “I am skeptical of the idea that most neocons are in favor of ‘open borders.’ “ (—dlg) Dlg, in the recent exchange with Robert Lindsay it came out that you were Jewish. Do you have a sense of how most Jews view the current attempted Marxist/Wall-Street/Country-Club-Republican extinguishing of white Euro Christendom through genocidal race-replacement immigration both legal and illegal? (Or is rank-and-file Jewish opinion too varied to summarize as favoring one position or the other?) 61
Posted by dlg on April 03, 2005, 09:34 PM | # To be honest, Fred, I’ve been living in Europe for quite some time and have had little contact with Jews in recent years, so my assessment of Jewish opinion is far from expert. However, my general impression is that Jews are not at all interested in destroying “white Euro Christendom”. Many look with horror on what Europe is doing to itself by allowing large-scale Moslem immigration. In America, Jews tend to approve of immigrants who are hard-working and eager to assimilate. (I’d give you a longer answer, but it’s the middle of the night here and time for me to sleep.) 62
Posted by Arcane on April 03, 2005, 10:51 PM | # Fred, 63
Posted by Arcane on April 03, 2005, 10:52 PM | # On another note, we actively point people to Majority Rights whenever we get rid of them, so you should thank us for sending over readers. 64
Posted by Fred Scrooby on April 03, 2005, 11:54 PM | # “we actively point people to Majority Rights whenever we get rid of them, so you should thank us for sending over readers.” Thanks but I’d say MR seems to be doing just fine without your “help.” (Btw, are they getting rid of you, Arcane? You seem to be over here a lot ...) Don’t send Randy McDonald, by the way—we realize he’s one of GnXp’s star attractions but ... well, we’ve got a reputation for quality to defend, young though we are ... Can’t have it tarnished ... 65
Posted by Arcane on April 04, 2005, 03:10 AM | # Getting rid of mwah? Bah! I had more posts on GNXP in the past two days than I’ve had in the past two months. It’s just that I’ve been really busy over the past months and haven’t gotten around to reading up on other blogs or blogging. As for whether or not you’re doing fine without our help, may I mention that wintermute, John Bolton, and Svigor are just a few of the ones we’ve shipped over? 66
Posted by jonjayray on April 04, 2005, 07:32 AM | # ““Plaut’s Complaint,” whose main concern does seem to be Israel” Steven Plaut is an Israeli academic. An excellent chap 67
Posted by jonjayray on April 04, 2005, 07:37 AM | # “The short period of Churchill’s career to which we are all meant to pay unequivocal homage, and which is the neocons’ showpiece, is his defiance of Hitler from June 1940 until December 1941” He is actually also well remembered for being right about both Hitler and Communism from the beginning So he is remembered for a lot more than 2 years. 68
Posted by Fred Scrooby on April 04, 2005, 10:31 AM | # “Getting rid of mwah? Bah! I had more posts on GNXP in the past two days than I’ve had in the past two months.” (—Arcane) I was obviously joking, Arcane! Lighten up! The way you respond here, you make it sound as if maybe I was onto something without realizing it (GC not been returning your e-mails lately, by any chance? ...). “As for whether or not you’re doing fine without our help, may I mention that wintermute, John Bolton, and Svigor are just a few of the ones we’ve shipped over?” Gee, thanks. We’d return the favor but every rabid white-race-replacement advocate—the lot we’d ordinarily, shall we say, “refer elsewhere”—has already been scrounged up by “Godless Capitalist” for you guys, to the point where GnXp is filled to bursting with ‘em (just the way he likes it!). But the odd straggler does show up here occasionally and, while we don’t ban so easily as you guys do (haven’t banned anyone yet, as far as I know), we’ll be sure to kindly let them know where there’s a site far more congenial to their pro-genocide-of-whites views. 69
Posted by Fred Scrooby on April 04, 2005, 10:36 AM | # “Steven Plaut is an Israeli academic. An excellent chap” (—John R.) Yes, one sees that from his log entries. I didn’t know, however, whether he was an American teaching over there or a native Israeli. 70
Posted by seelow heights on April 04, 2005, 11:55 AM | # The New Criterion is regularly accused of being a neoconservative journal, but they too are opposed to open borders, have traditionalist conservatives write for them a lot, and even praise Theodore Roosevelt’s opposition on “race suicide.” 71
Posted by Effra on April 05, 2005, 04:11 AM | # JohnJayRay: “He [Churchill] is actually also well remembered for being right about both Hitler and Communism from the beginning. “So he is remembered for a lot more than 2 years.” But this is part of the sentimentalisation of Churchill by neocons who have swallowed his own historiographical mythopoeia. He was not ‘right about Hitler’ from the beginning; in fact he did not even comment on Hitler’s accession to power, and his warnings about the danger Germany posed waxed and waned erratically for most of the 1930s. Churchill used leaks from civil servants and junior officers to exaggerate Germany’s rearmament, so he was not right about that either. As always, he chose to be an alarmist warmonger for personal political advantage, trying to overcompensate with his party for the unpopularity of his views on India, the Abdication and Free Trade. Meanwhile the National Government, quietly and without provocation of Hitler, was building up the defences which Churchill was able to use in 1940. If Churchill had had his way, the money spent on radar and fighters would have been squandered on huge bomber fleets and battleships. All this ‘Churchill saw through Hitler’ guff is not only dubious rewriting of his record. It does not make sense if we accept the great blowhard’s own claim that his priority was the preservation of British sea power and the Empire, since Hitler never remotely threatened them. Churchill sacrificed Britain’s position in the world for the preservation of the Continental balance of power, vainly pretending to the shoes of Wellington and Marlborough. He thereby helped complete the ghastly process that had begun in 1914-18: the eclipse of European Christian civilisation, and the occupation of the continent, by capitalist, mongrel America and communist Russia. The consequences for faith, culture and tradition are those we are still enduring today. Churchill’s was the most pyrrhic of victories. I recommend a good strong dose of AJP Taylor and John Charmley. 72
Posted by Geoff Beck on April 05, 2005, 08:01 PM | # Again, Effa gets to the nub. WWII financially bankrupted Britain, ruined her empire, and left the continent occupied by Americans and Russian. What’s done is done. Yes, I wish we would finally pull out all troops from Europe, including Britain. I want out of Europe not because I hate her, but because the cold war is over. In the Chalmers Johnson interview I posted on MR I discovered the US has 768 military outposts in 153 countries. 73
Posted by Noma on September 08, 2009, 02:30 PM | # Good Day. Walking is man’s best medicine. Thank you so much for your future answers :(. Noma. 74
Posted by oxyprorponfit on March 30, 2012, 10:05 AM | # insanity workout P90x is actually a fairly new workout fad, although this software is usually zero craze. Any P90x physical exercises tactic is for sure to acquire that you fantastic good shape right away as well as proficiently if you adhere to this agenda, preserve diet program, and acquire a great deal of pleasure. Let me say, you have to understand that P90x is definitely not for all. If you would like continue p90x being extra fat, unattractive, along with over and above style, P90x isn’t actually to meet your needs. Folks who wants ever would love injure muscle tissues groupings, or simply just if you can’t previously ought to be strong, p90x is not on your own. Also, while you are less likely centered on really being one of the best situated with with regards to pick-up particular sports gaming anyone accomplish, after that P90x is merely certainly not in your case. However, in cases where those actions good great, then you definately ought to probably look at the P90x workout.Madness is a great one workout technique. Next entry: The concept of race: has it entered into a political battle with little hope of resolve? Previous entry: Churchill Quote of the Day |
|
Existential IssuesWhite Genocide ProjectOf note
Recent CommentsAlso see trash folder. Swan commented in entry 'Indian beauty' on 05/23/12, 12:52 PM. (go) (view) Lee John Barnes commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/23/12, 12:45 PM. (go) (view) Swan commented in entry 'More on the Indian beauty question' on 05/23/12, 12:31 PM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/23/12, 11:43 AM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/23/12, 11:32 AM. (go) (view) Mellaba Pechios commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/23/12, 07:55 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/23/12, 03:51 AM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 10:40 PM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 10:40 PM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 10:26 PM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 10:23 PM. (go) (view) 7 Year BA commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 09:19 PM. (go) (view) DARYL commented in entry 'A repeatable comment for mass-pasting on American public message boards' on 05/22/12, 08:57 PM. (go) (view) Thorn commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 08:31 PM. (go) (view) Church of Jed commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 07:40 PM. (go) (view) Selous Scout commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 05:56 PM. (go) (view) Silver commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/22/12, 11:37 AM. (go) (view) AnalogMan commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 11:29 AM. (go) (view) Wandrin commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/22/12, 07:42 AM. (go) (view) Srakotraqu commented in entry 'A repeatable comment for mass-pasting on American public message boards' on 05/22/12, 07:30 AM. (go) (view) Wandrin commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/22/12, 07:19 AM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/22/12, 06:26 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/22/12, 02:34 AM. (go) (view) Stephen commented in entry 'Why Hitler hated Jews' on 05/21/12, 06:33 PM. (go) (view) Graham_Lister commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/21/12, 02:02 PM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/21/12, 04:46 AM. (go) (view) James Bowery commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/20/12, 11:17 PM. (go) (view) indian strategy commented in entry 'The Indian/Chinese IQ puzzle' on 05/20/12, 05:17 PM. (go) (view) Bill commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/20/12, 12:51 PM. (go) (view) Wandrin commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/20/12, 09:15 AM. (go) (view) Hymie in Afula commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/20/12, 07:24 AM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/20/12, 06:39 AM. (go) (view) Joe commented in entry 'The facial proportions of beautiful people' on 05/20/12, 06:30 AM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/20/12, 06:25 AM. (go) (view) Robert in Arabia commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/20/12, 02:48 AM. (go) (view) Recent Posts
General NewsScience NewsScience CategoriesAll CategoriesThe WritersEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer; the hashes link to authors' homepages. LinksEndorsement not implied. Controlled Opposition Crime
General
Immigration
Islam Jews
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Whites in Africa |
Posted by Stuka on April 01, 2005, 10:03 PM | #
The Churchill cult on the Right is certainly baffling. I just don’t get it. I’m an Arthur Wellesley, Duke of Wellington man myself.
Incidentally, speaking of Lawrence Auster, he banned me from his VFR forum right after 9/11 because I denounced the Neocons. Today, a few years later, he spends much of his time criticizing them. Go figure.