The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewJohn Derbyshire Archive
Is Boris Johnson Churchill Redux—and Would That be A Good Thing?
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Britain is in crisis! A mighty national challenge looms! The nation’s very sovereignty hangs in the balance!

The populace is divided and confused. The political leadership is—as it usually is—an uninspiring clique of dithering seat-warmers and time-servers, none of whom has ever had his peace disturbed by an original thought, seasoned—as it usually is—with a sprinkling of criminals and lunatics. Will no-one come forth to save the situation?

Yes! Up from out of the political ranks emerges one man willing to seize the moment. With origins in the monied upper class (along with with an American connection), educated at one of the premier old boys’ boarding schools, with a respectable track record in both legislative and executive office, our man knows his way around political high society.

He is, however, a somewhat dubious character, widely regarded by those who follow public affairs as at best, to borrow Christopher Hollis’s comment on Evelyn Waugh, “not quite a gentleman,” and at worst a self-promoting and reckless adventurer of no fixed principles.

Still, even his severest critics allow that he is something of a fascinator, an eloquent speaker with a well-stocked mind and a ready wit, author of several books and innumerable fragments of opinion journalism—a character of the type people form strong opinions about one way or another, but whom no-one can quite ignore.

The elevation of Boris Johnson to the post of Britain’s Prime Minister has brought the parallels with Winston Churchill to mind—to the minds of both pro-Johnson and anti-Johnson partisans.

Johnson himself has been doing his best to help us make the connection: one of his books is a biography of Churchill, published in 2014 for the fiftieth anniversary, the following year, of Churchill’s death. Did we really need another biography of Churchill by 2015? Probably not, but Boris Johnson gave us one anyway, in what one is bound to suspect was an act of, yes, self-promotion.

Under the circumstances it would not be surprising to see a new surge of interest in Churchill. Heck, the sesquicentennial of Churchill’s birth is only five years away. Book publishers are already flipping through their Rolodexes looking for historians, I feel sure.

Here is an early entry in the field: Churchill’s Headmaster: The “Sadist” Who Nearly Saved the British Empire, by Edward Dutton. It is an oddity in the vast bibliography of Churchilliana, concentrating on less than two years of the infant Churchill’s life, 1882-1884.

Churchill spent that time, aged not-quite-8 to 9½, as a pupil at St George’s school in Ascot, 25 miles west of London. This was a boarding school for boys with about 40 fee-paying pupils.

In Britain this kind of establishment is called a “prep school,” because it prepares its inmates for entry, usually at age 13, to the big old boys’ boarding schools—confusingly to Americans called “public” schools, though they are entirely private—like Eton, Harrow, and Winchester.

These public schools have been educating Britain’s high elites for four hundred years. Boris Johnson attended Eton, the twentieth Prime Minister to have done so. Churchill went to Harrow—after, of course, prep school: that year and a half at St George’s followed by three and a half at another place.

(George Orwell immortalized the prep-school experience in his 1947 essay Such, Such Were the Joys.” That was a different school, however, and thirty years on from Churchill at St George’s; and some of Orwell’s classmates accused him of having colored up his account for dramatic effect.)

Why concentrate on such a brief period of Churchill’s early life? Dutton has two aims. First, he wants to rehabilitate Churchill’s headmaster at St George’s, who has received a mostly-bad, sometimes very bad, press from Churchill’s innumerable biographers, and from Churchill himself. Second, he has a point to make about the development of Churchill’s personality and the consequences for twentieth-century British history.

The headmaster’s name was Herbert Sneyd-Kinnersley. Born 1848 into a good old (but not aristocratic) English family, he attended a public school (Rugby, Harry Flashman’s alma mater) followed by Cambridge University, where he got a law degree. After graduation he spent six years as a schoolmaster before starting his own school in 1877—the school that, via a name change in 1880, became St George’s.

The school had therefore been in business for five years when Churchill showed up. Sneyd-Kinnersley’s headmastership continued for two years after Churchill left. Sneyd-Kinnersley died suddenly from a heart attack in 1886, aged only 38.

The main charge against Sneyd-Kinnersley is the one given in the book’s title: that he was a sadist. Churchill himself wrote in his autobiographical work My Early Life:

I am sure no Eton boy, and certainly no Harrow boy in my day, ever received such a cruel flogging as this headmaster was accustomed to inflict on little boys who were in his care and power.

That is supported by other accounts from graduates of St George’s: writer Maurice Baring, sinologist Edmund Backhouse, diarist Harry Kessler, art critic Roger Fry, and others.

All note the frequency and ferocity with which Sneyd-Kinnersley beat misbehaving pupils on their bare buttocks with a bundle of birch twigs. This was a grisly business. Fry:

The swishing was given with the master’s full strength and it took only two or three strokes for drops of blood to form everywhere and it continued for fifteen or twenty strokes when the wretched boy’s bottom was a mass of blood.

Churchill, who was a very naughty boy indeed, certainly came in for some of these floggings. It all sounds appalling to our modern sensibilities, but there are questions that can reasonably be asked.

Was Sneyd-Kinnersley worse than other prep-school headmasters of the 1880s? Are the often-quoted witnesses—including Churchill himself—reliable? Are there contradicting, pro-Sneyd-Kinnersley accounts? And: To what degree did Sneyd-Kinnersley’s actions contribute to Churchill’s withdrawing from St George’s in the Summer of 1884?

Dutton gives over many, many pages to these issues, all tending to exonerate Sneyd-Kinnersley from the worst of the general charges against him.

ORDER IT NOW

Churchill’s parents withdrew the boy from St George’s at last for health reasons, transferring him to the more salubrious Brighton, a seaside town where the family doctor lived. The school’s policies on corporal punishment seem not to have been a factor, or not much of one. The most Dutton will allow is that:

If Sneyd-Kinnersley had treated Churchill very slightly differently—either less physically harshly or with more concern for his health—then there would have been no Churchill, or, at least, no Churchill as we know it. He’d have grown up to be a far more cooperative, altruistic character. And as we will now see, if that had been the case then there would likely have been no World War II as we know it, no bankrupting of Britain, no collapse of the British Empire, and no descent into many of the problems which Britain faces today.

That leads off into Dutton’s final three chapters, in which he offers a debunking of the myth of Churchill as a national hero and a restatement of Pat Buchanan’s thesis in Churchill, Hitler, and “The Unnecessary War” (minus the Oxford comma) that it would have been better for Britain to stay out of both World Wars, and that Churchill was instrumental in their not having done so.

From there on we get full-bore anti-Churchillism. One of the section headings is actually “Churchill the Barbarian.” Churchill was, Dutton tells us, “a high-functioning psychopath,” and so on. He needed to be “‘broken’ into an English gentleman.” Sneyd-Kinnersley was just the chap to do it, but he “got the balance slightly wrong.”

What to make of this?

Dutton’s rehabilitation of Sneyd-Kinnersley is persuasive. He notes, for example, that while both Roger Fry and Harry Kessler wrote graphically about flogging at St George’s, neither was actually flogged. On hearing of the headmaster’s death, Fry wrote that “although he never inspired me with much respect he was, I think, kind-hearted on the whole.”

And while the strenuous beating of small boys on the buttocks with birch twigs indicates psychopathology to a modern observer, and Victorian schoolmastering likely did attract some abnormal characters—including perhaps some on Sneyd-Kinnersley’s staff—nobody in the 1880s thought the way we do about such things. The headmaster seems, indeed, not to have been a sadist. At worst, his was a case of arrested development—Peter Pan syndrome.

As to the anti-Churchill stuff, I don’t personally mind it. As I said, with a figure as large as Churchill it’s hard not to take sides. I myself, growing up in England in the middle decades of the last century, heard both sides at full volume.

My father was a Churchill-hater; not for Buchananite-Duttonian reasons, but because of Dad’s experiences in World War I and generalized class antagonisms.

Meanwhile, in the other ear, I was getting the dominant social narrative, as encapsulated by celebrity historian A.J.P. Taylor in his 1965 tome English History 1914-1945, which we undergraduates all read when it came out. Taylor described Churchill therein as “the saviour of his country.”

(And yes, children: There really was a time, not so very long ago, when “celebrity historian” was a thing.)

I don’t buy the book’s main thesis, though. “If Sneyd-Kinnersley had treated Churchill very slightly differently” then Churchill would “have grown up to be a far more cooperative, altruistic character”? Really? How could we know this? How could Sneyd-Kinnersley have known it? Does it accord with what the human sciences today tell us about the path of development from child to finished adult?

My Dad’s stock response when faced with a counterfactual hypothetical was: “If my aunt had balls, she’d be my uncle.” I’m afraid Dutton’s main thesis inspired the same reaction in me.

It is also at odds with our current understandings about personality development. Heritability increases with age. Yes, the childhood personality is very plastic; but once adult independence sets in, the personality reverts to a form largely ordained by our genes, like a shape-memory alloy. Could some slight extra concern on Sneyd-Kinnersley’s part, or a few more (or a few fewer: Dutton isn’t altogether clear on this) beatings have changed this trajectory for Churchill? I doubt it.

And Dutton’s approach is doubly peculiar because one of the book’s strengths is the author’s comprehensive knowledge of the human sciences. Life History Strategy (also known as r-K Theory); evolutionary psychology; Big Five personality theory; the roots of pedophilia; Vico’s Social Cycle Theory; … there is intellectual depth here of a kind not often found in popular biographies and histories. I wish it had been put to better service.

The book held my attention none the less, as an engaging curiosity. Certainly the author can’t be faulted for lack of diligence in research: he has read everything about his subjects. There is a huge bibliography and a decent index.

There are also odd incidental factlets to tease one’s attention. Long after Sneyd-Kinnersley’s passing, for example, St George’s became a boarding school for girls aged twelve-plus. Queen Elizabeth’s great-grandaughter Princess Beatrice, now thirty years old and favored for the next royal wedding, attended St George’s; she was elected Head Girl in 2006. And Beatrice’s great-great-grandfather Algernon Ferguson was one of Sneyd-Kinnersley’s pupils! So the wheel turns.

I wish Edward Dutton success with the book, and I await with interest his investigations into the development of Boris Johnson’s personality and its effect on history.

(Republished from VDare by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: History • Tags: Boris Johnson, Britain, Winston Churchill 
Hide 131 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. I can see branding Boris a sociopath, because he does disply from time to time a glimmer of conscience: As for Winston Churchill, it is difficult from the record to discern whether he is a sociopath or a psychopath.

    • Agree: anon19
    • Replies: @TomSchmidt
    , @Moi
  2. dearieme says:

    My father was a Churchill-hater

    Mine instructed me not to join the Churchill-worshippers: he did think, though, that he had been the man for the hour.

  3. dearieme says:

    On Boris: I saw a recent American reference to him as “goofy”. If so the US must recently have adopted higher intellectual standards than are usual in its history.

    As a boy he won King’s Scholarship to Eton from which he won a Classical Scholarship to Balliol. In addition to his Latin and Ancient Greek Boris is fluent in French.

    He is a rackety character but not remotely “goofy”. Compare him to your President and members of Congress; few (if any) will equal him in ungoofiness. He’s not the sort of chap where someone has to pull strings to wangle him into Harvard.

  4. peterike says:

    Well, if Johnson is a new Churchill — that is to say, a mass murdering monster — let’s hope he trains his wrath on Britain’s horrendous immigrant population rather than, say, some rag-tag nation in the Middle East. But if Johnson is also a new Churchill in another way — a man who jumps when his Zionist masters pull the strings — then no good will come of him.

    Out of England’s top ten national problems, ten of them are “immigration.”

  5. @The Alarmist

    The book Human Smoke makes him out as a psychopath. Ralph Raico, too.

    • Replies: @gda
  6. @dearieme

    On Boris: I saw a recent American reference to him as “goofy”. If so the US must recently have adopted higher intellectual standards than are usual in its history.

    The problem is that American TV news is designed for an audience with an attention-span that is a fraction of that of UK news, if you can believe it, and even more so for events and people beyond waters’ edge. Most Americans only know Boris from his flag-waving, bicycle-helmeted, hanging-in-the-air appearance on a zip-line.

    That picture screams goofy. That’s all the average American has seen of the man; no intellectual standards are involved here.

    • Agree: Pater
  7. A123 says:
    @dearieme

    Boris is no Churchill. He lacks the strong beliefs needed to earn such an appellation. Fortunately, Merkel is also much weaker than the last Fuhrer. Thus, Boris does not need the backbone of Churchill to win the upcoming conflict with the EuroReich.

    For example, Johnson has a history of being a pro-immigration Mayor (1):

    Boris Johnson called for an “earned amnesty” for as many as 400,000 illegal immigrants when he was Mayor of London. … He said that anyone who had been living in the capital for more than five years could show their “commitment to this society” and be given the right to stay – so they could then pay taxes.

    However, he grasps the truth, “To wield power one must retain power.” It seems likely we will see a 180 on immigration, because that is what he needs today as PM rather than Mayor. If one wishes to compare him to a modern politician, he has Bill Clinton’s ability to pivot on secondary issues.

    Boris will never be a visionary leader, but riding Brexit to the top spot leaves him few tactical options other than delivering on those promises.

    PEACE 😇

    __________

    (1) https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9586740/boris-johnson-illegal-immigrants-amnesty/

    • Replies: @Брат
  8. @peterike

    Johnson is also a new Churchill in another way — a man who jumps when his Zionist masters pull the strings —

    That’s the gloomy prospect most of my own social bubble entertain. His plan is to get re-elected (or even elected in the first place) as PM at the next GE. And then torpedo Brexit below the waterline at the behest of his owners, all the while loudly proclaiming that Brexiting has truly occurred. Nothing else matters.

    To that end he and the almost entirely Remainer civil service/Whitehall will lie, bluster and dissemble well past this Halloween. Interminable delays on imaginary technicalities, all blamed on Brussels and Strasbourg, the Irish, the Scots, or even the little grey chap currently in charge of the Labour Party for all I know.
    Essentially, what we’ve seen for the last three years.

    If and when he manages to beat Labour in a snap General Election called due to a vanished Tory majority, or because the pretence of being Brexiteers can no longer be sustained and support starts to drain like dirty bathwater, we’ll see an astounding volte-face and cosy accommodation with the Luxembourgish Empire. This time with no escape hatch, and too late for UKIP or Nigel the City Boy to mount any electoral challenge.

    • Agree: GeeBee
  9. All my older relatives absolutely detested Churchill, to their dying days. Old-school (prewar) socialists/Labour mostly, bla bla troops welsh miners tanks machineguns Glasgow bla bla etc. Even ladylike maiden aunties would practically spit.
    But not as much as my great-grandma. A war widow since 1916, when her husband’s regiment fell foul of the Turks, leaving her with 5 young children. A good chunk of the town’s men got taken out, so she didn’t even get to feel special.
    Dangerous to mention him around her, even when all the hoo-ha around his (Churchill’s, great grandad’s still somewhere in the sandbox) funeral was going on. A school pal gave me a commemorative book about him on my birthday in ’65, somebody probably gave it to him and the accursed thing just got passed on like the Black Spot. I had to hide it in the house in case she spotted it when she came round.

    • Replies: @Amerimutt Golems
    , @Alden
  10. And yes, children: There really was a time, not so very long ago, when “celebrity historian” was a thing.

    We’re they as thick on the ground as they have been here of late?

    Stephen Ambrose, David McCulloch, Nathaniel Philbrick, Doris Kearns Goodwin, Thomas Fleming (the other one, paleos), David Hackett Fischer, James W [gag] Loewen, etc…

    There were many before this, too.

    • Replies: @Mr McKenna
  11. John

    Trump has just declared WAR against his Native Born White Working Class base on TV..The ANTIFA get a free pass…..KAMALA Harris our next POTUS…

    • Replies: @TomSchmidt
    , @Belisarius
  12. dfordoom says: • Website
    @peterike

    Out of England’s top ten national problems, ten of them are “immigration.”

    Out of England’s top ten national problems, ten of them are the English ruling class.

    • Replies: @Realist
    , @GeeBee
    , @Wizard of Oz
  13. Big Daddy says:

    Churchill was a bum. Every military escapade he supported failed. Ruined the Empire needlessly. Prevented Hitler from most likely eliminating the Soviet Union. Sold out Eastern Europe to Stalin needlessly. Bankrupted Britain. Sybarite and profligate who sold out to Zionism for money.

    Oh, and a psychopath. Read David Irving’s Churchill’s War. You’ll puke.

    • Replies: @Pater
    , @gda
    , @Winnetou1889
  14. @Expletive Deleted

    Looking at David Lough’s No More Champagne: Churchill and His Money, Winston Leonard reminds me of the character played by English actor Nigel Havers in the old TV series The Charmer.

    • Replies: @JMcG
  15. pyrrhus says:

    As long as Boris Johnson achieves Brexit, preferably the no-deal variety, he will be much better than Churchill…..Churchill, by his reckless actions before and during WW1 and WW2, single handedly wrecked Britain and the British Empire….Churchill was not only pro-WW1, he was in favor of confiscating the two Turkish ships built in Britain and already paid for by Turkey, resulting in Turkey changing sides…His war of attrition in a completely unnecessary war with Germany, while waiting for the US to get pushed into WW2, resulted in a bankrupt Britain that was still on food rationing in 1953 (except for the upper classes like Churchill)…
    Churchill, a brave soldier and eloquent writer, was a complete disaster leading the UK.

    • Replies: @refl
    , @JRB
  16. @peterike

    e trains his wrath on Britain’s horrendous immigrant population

    He will do no such thing.

    Two of the most powerful positions in the cabinet were given to browns

    Priti Patel took Home Secretary

    Sajid Javed took Chancellor of the Exchequer

  17. A123 says:
    @TomSchmidt

    Blair Mtn is being rather alarmist. Trump is working 5 steps ahead to the Dems 1 step approach. He is going to back them into a corner where they have to vote against one of their constituencies. For example here is a first pass at linking gun related laws with immigration:

    https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/08/05/after-shootings-donald-trump-proposes-gun-background-checks-and-immigration-reform/

    If that doesn’t fly Trump will work other approaches. This isn’t the only option.

    The most likely end state is that nothing will pass and the Dems will take the blame. The other possibility is they will negotiate something positive. Either way Trump scores a win he can take to the voters.

    PEACE

  18. @TomSchmidt

    Trump spoke to the Nation today on TV…..He stated that White Nationalism is America’s number one enemy….And this means exactly this:WHITE NATIONALISM=NATIVE BORN WHITE AMERICAN MALES PUBLICLY SPEAKING OUT AGAINST TO BEING VOTED INTO A WHITE RACIAL MINORITY WITHIN THE BORDERS OF AMERICA…….BY THE HIGHLY RACIALIZED POST-1965 NONWHITE DEMOCRATIC PARTY VOTING BLOC…..

    • Replies: @TomSchmidt
  19. @A123

    Is that 4 or 60 p-adic -symplectic dimensional Chess on the back of giant turtle? Trump is massively increasing nonwhite LEGAL IMMIGRATION=The highly RACIALIZED nonwhite Democratic Party Voting Bloc…That is enthusiasticallly votes for THE GREAT REPLACEMENT….So you are a retard-pinhead….

  20. Realist says:
    @dfordoom

    Out of England’s top ten national problems, ten of them are the English ruling class.

    Same as here, also Germany, France and most of Europe.

    • Agree: Herald
    • Replies: @Curmudgeon
  21. Sergei says:

    One doubts that the young Boris suffered the same outrageous beatings as were inflicted on Churchill at his prep school, so Boris was deprived of that element of character formation. However I am sure that many people would think it is still possible to now strengthen his character by beating him now, and volunteer for the task.

    • LOL: TKK
    • Replies: @anonymous
  22. MBlanc46 says:

    The first time as tragedy. The second time as farce.

  23. anonymous[191] • Disclaimer says:
    @Sergei

    By the time Boris Johnson got into prep school, the worst that could happen to you was being fondled by the likes of Jimmy Savile or various school-masters of his ilk.

  24. unit472 says:

    It is interesting how cruel school headmasters and elite school bullies are credited with developing a superior ruling class. In the United States ‘hazing’ was found in our military academies and the US elite did not often attend them. Would it have made a difference in our government if our leadership had attended West Point and Annapolis more than Harvard or Yale?

  25. Pater says:
    @Big Daddy

    Ever heard of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact? Besides FDR was much more pro Soviet than the British.
    You ascribe too much power & agency to a single politician such as a British PM who was working in a complex, competitive & non-deterministic context.
    Irving is a great historian though he shows a lot of hindsight bias.

    • Replies: @J. Alfred Powell
  26. gda says:
    @TomSchmidt

    What a load of codswallop. Baker should stick to porn.

    Churchill must be one of the very few psychopaths (and/or mass-murdering-monsters) ever to have had the interest, dedication and brilliance to divert his blood-lust to being first a prolific writer and later painter. How on earth did he manage to spare the time from his psychopathing and mass murdering?

    We need a few more “psychopaths” such as he.

    • Replies: @TomSchmidt
  27. gda says:
    @Big Daddy

    Your hard-on for dissing Churchill is showing. It’s not a pretty sight

  28. @gda

    Can I assume you’ve read Baker’s book with his specific quotations from Sir Winnie?

    And just so we understand each other: is bombing civilians psychopathic or not? Today we refer to non-state actors who kill civilians for political or strategic ends as terrorists. Do you agree with that? Then it’s a question as to the psychopathy of terrorists. Keep going, and see where you end up.

    By the way, mentioning that a political figure was both a writer and a painter doesn’t preclude psychopathy. See if you can find another…

  29. Appoints schmaltzy oo-poor-widdle-me-i-sonofrefugee globalist (((Dominic Raab)), then third world crapistaners frumpi Patel & javid to most senior cabinet positions.

    Bumbling Buffoon Boris – typical upper class Etonian Judas Twit!!!

  30. @A123

    Oh, I see.

    I’ve no doubt he’d sellout the gun rights crowd to please Ivanka. So now I understand the worry.

  31. @War for Blair Mountain

    Did he use the term nationalist or supremacist? I don’t know too many white nationalists who think the white race is supreme, and can survive any onslaught: that’s why they want a separate nation.

    I miss Obama and the high rates of deportation.

  32. JMcG says:
    @Amerimutt Golems

    An excellent, scholarly book. I had no idea how much Churchill owed to Jewish financiers who paid his multi-hundred thousand pound debts off in the thirties.It was really an eye-opener for me.

  33. @Reg Cæsar

    (And yes, children: There really was a time, not so very long ago, when “celebrity historian” was a thing.)

    FWIW, Taylor was basically written out of polite society (particularly in the USA) for his “Origins of the Second World War” which allowed the patently insane notion that wars are sometimes fought between Conflicting Interests rather than between Good and Evil.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  34. @TomSchmidt

    a political figure was both a writer and a painter doesn’t preclude psychopathy. See if you can find another…

    Winston was also a keen amateur bricklayer. If he’d teamed up with a certain housepainter they could have put politics aside and become a top-notch all-trades outfit. I wonder if Uncle Joe was any good at plumbing?
    Instead of squabbling, would the world be a better place? I suppose poor Adolf would have had to carry the other two effort-wise, as they would have been completely ratarsed drunk all day long, regardless of occupation. He’d have been quite good at shouting at them for being lazy arses, though.

    • Replies: @Old Prude
  35. He probably wants to be, but he’s not enough of a drunk to think up plans like anthrax bombing all of northern Germany, or starving the Bengalis, or gassing the Russians, or, or, or..

    Man, Hitler – what a douche, all he had to do was not halt his army just before Dunkirk and this Empire would have fallen in full.

  36. Брат says:
    @A123

    It’s hilarious how Brits imagine Brexit to be a reenactment of the Battle of Britain.
    But that’s not what’s going down here.
    The Brits had their chance to join the crusade against Bolshevism. Instead, they allied with the Bolshevism and backstabbed Europe. And now the Bolshevism is devouring Britain lol!
    Brits could have stopped this all long ago. They had a decisive role to play, and they failed. And they haven’t stopped failing ever since. At least British ladies can enjoy a paki bull every once in a while.

    • Replies: @Parfois1
  37. “then there would have been no Churchill, or, at least, no Churchill as we know it. He’d have grown up to be a far more cooperative, altruistic character. And as we will now see, if that had been the case then there would likely have been no World War II as we know it, no bankrupting of Britain, no collapse of the British Empire, and no descent into many of the problems which Britain faces today.”

    Nonsense.

  38. refl says:
    @dearieme

    Someone who farts around that he knows classical languages is a non-entity that should be kept out of politics.

    He should simply be reminded that there are more people around with a bit of education who do not feel entitled by it to hold high office.
    Quite the opposite: with classical education you also learn understatement. Else, you have not got the point. I would prefer an acomplished buisnessman any time as leader over a rich kid who is proud that he once went to school.

  39. GeeBee says:
    @dfordoom

    It’s not really a ruling class as such. It is a ruling elite. There’s a difference between class and cabal. In the case of pretty much the whole of what we still think of as ‘the West’, that cabal is very largely composed of those who own the matrix of real power that resides in the ‘Financial International’ and Big Business (especially what we call the military-industrial complex), together with its attack-dog, the media-entertainment complex. These people, who to all intents and purposes can be thought of as owning the government (the leaders of which do as they are told and happily dance to their masters’ tune) are very largely composed of Jews. It’s a stark analysis, but just try proving it to be false.

  40. refl says:
    @pyrrhus

    Churchill was not only pro-WW1, he was in favor of confiscating the two Turkish ships built in Britain and already paid for by Turkey, resulting in Turkey changing sides

    The ships were seized and instead two equal German ships were hearded to Constantinople, which brought the Turks into the war on the German side. This was needed because -Britain could not be allied with Russia and Turkey at the same time, -above all Turkey had to be put on the side of the losers because otherwise Palestine could not be handed to the Zionists. Read firstworldwarhiddenhistory.com ,”The hidden history of the first World War”.

  41. ” . . . “then there would have been no Churchill, or, at least, no Churchill as we know it. He’d have grown up to be a far more cooperative, altruistic character. And as we will now see, if that had been the case then there would likely have been no World War II as we know it, no bankrupting of Britain, no collapse of the British Empire, and no descent into many of the problems which Britain faces today.””

    I should clarify my initial reaction. It is very difficult to determine the post development of corporeal punishment. And my comments are not to make a case against it. I think it has its place and i defend a parent’s right to discipline their child accordingly.

    However, if the descriptors are accurate and not mere exaggeration then concluding that someone having been subject to such treatment either was not over the top or to ill effect merely because said recipient was as PM Churchill was — noncompliant is a guess.

    It is entirely possible for one to come through abuse and have the exact disposition as PM Churchill exhibited. Because there is no one definitive developmental response to such treatment.

    In an odd twist, I agree with Mr Derbyshire – that’s scary.

    ——————–
    I have not read Mr. Buchanan’s text, however, to suggest that PM Churchill is responsible for WWII and Hitler is strange in that when PM Churchill comes to power the war had already been two years in progress.

    ——————————-

    I have no idea, How PM Johnson will fare. One hopes that it will be smooth sailing and at least successful.

    God save the Queen.

    • Replies: @refl
    , @Johnny Walker Read
  42. Voltair says:

    If Churchill was the undertaker that buried the British Empire…. Boris will be the undertaker that buries the Union.
    At least with clown Boris we get to have some laughs on the way to the funeral….I will at least, dont know if the British will find it all that funny.
    Scotland and Irland are not happy!!

  43. JRB says: • Website
    @pyrrhus

    Yes, he is still an enormous hero in the UK, but if you look at it objectively he played a big role in the wrecking of the British empire in the first half of the 20th century.

  44. Moi says:
    @The Alarmist

    The twain are racist psychos.

  45. @Mr McKenna

    If the criterion is getting him/herself regularly into the mass media as well as selling lots of books Niall Ferguson is surely a big contender now. Perhaps not so much Andrew Roberts or A.N (Andrew) Wilson though, fwiw, I might rank them well up with Ferguson as historians I would read more of in a parallel life.

  46. Greg Bacon says: • Website

    Churchill was a Zionist stooge, gladly doing the bidding of his Jew masters when it came to handing over Palestine to the Khazars, along with Lord Balfour. Before that theft, he helped the war mongers gather great profits during the early years of the Great War with his clumsy handling of the Gallipoli tragedy.

    Boris is an ardent Zionist, and maybe even Jewish, as he has that DNA.

    My prediction is that nothing good will come from Boris’ tenure, unless you’re Jewish or a Zionist.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    , @Voltair
  47. @dfordoom

    What is England’s “ruling class” today? That Britain hasn’t had a ruling class whose rile was competent to the the degree required by growing problems since 1911 – 14 might be inferred from Britain’s relative decline by all sorts of measures. But, even so, that could be said to depend on all sorts of unfavourable contingencies, such as the incompetence of Nicholas ll seen as the cause of most of WW1’s disastrous course and consequences. True, favourable contingencies include Hitler stopping the Wehrmacht to let Goering’s Luftwaffe finish off the British at Dunkirk, Barbarossa and Pearl Harbor….

  48. refl says:
    @EliteCommInc.

    when PM Churchill comes to power the war had already been two years in progress.

    Try this one:

    Churchill and Stalin negotiated the starting of co-operation in a war of many fronts against Germany since April 1939. In July it was agreed that when Germany and the Soviet Union attack Poland, the declaration of war of the western allies would be focused only against German actions. On the 23rd of August 1939 Stalin and Hitler signed the so called Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement. Its secret extra protocol included the so-called concept of the sphere of interest that did not mean permission to conquer the Baltic states and Finland. It meant instead the right to demand strategic bases in case of war. On the 15th of October 1939 an agreement was signed between Stalin and Churchill (the allied forces). The core of it was the plan to destroy Germany both militarily and economically. Churchill’s old plan regarding the Scandinavian operation was also accepted.

    From ” Finland in the eye of the storm”. But that is just one aspect of Churchills behind the secene dealings.

    https://juliusmilaitis.blogspot.com/2011/05/finland-in-eye-of-storm-erkki.html?m=1

    There is a difference between who has the top job and who is in power.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  49. Lazza says:

    They both serve their Jewish paymasters.

  50. Boris, like his hero Churchill and his supposed nationalist “brother from another mother” Trump are/were died in the wool Zionist, and that has or never will end in anything good.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  51. @Greg Bacon

    Balfour was at most Christian Zionist, actually quite anti-Semitic and pleased at the idea of Jews going to Palestune, a fairly lightly populated part of an Ottoman province. Also the terms of the Balfour Declaration give no support to the idea that anyone was handing over any territory – which anyway still had to be carved out of Ottoman territories after much negotiation of boundaries and the creation of League of Nations Mandates. And you are wasting our time with ignorant BS lazily derived from your prejudices when you neglect to notice that Churchill was out of serious political power from 28 May 1915 (and serving as an infantry officer in France for a considerable time) until he was appointed to the non-Cabinet Ministry of Munitions on 17th July 1917 well after whatever Jewish influence had been exercised brought America into the war and shortly before the already negotiated Half our Declaration was actually handed over.

    What “theft” can you be talking about? The British made no attempt to give Palestinian land to Jews. There has always been very limited amounts of freehold land available in the old Ottoman territory and the first Zionist inroads were achieved largely by buying land owned by absentees who sold quite freely.

    As for Boris, only someone obsessed could call him an “ardent Zionist”. As between the importance to Boris of Israel faring well and Boris’s political career faring well the ratio is surely about 1 to 100.

  52. Anon99 says:

    Dutton has an entertaining youtube channel called “the Jolly Heretic” where he covers a variety of topics. Here he is talking about the subject of his book:

  53. @TomSchmidt

    Clearly you ar no historian Your anachronisms prove that. The Red Cross was founded 11 years before Churchill’s birth. Massacres occurred under the Dutch in Bali, the Germans in Namibia and AmericansAmericansNative Americans before Churchill became a minister of state. Thw Anti-Personnel Mine Ban was not adopted until September 1997 (and without the US). German cruisers shelled civilians in Scarborough in December 1914, Zepellins bombed London indiscriminately in WW1. Both sides attacked civilians by blockades and submarine warfare. You have to be joking if you think Churchill was other than a standard participant in total war in WW2 when all combatant countries that could aimed (rather inaccurately) to destroy production facilities and drive civilian workers away from their work. Bomber Harris’s rationale seems to have been “If you don’t like being bombed get out of the cities where the munitions factories are”. No doubt he would have pointed to the hundreds of thousands of children and many mothers evacuated from London and other cities, including many leaving the UK. Not nice but not perhaps in the category of lining up civilians and shooting them which the Germans did in Czechoslovakia and France as well as in the East.

  54. He might want to dump his indian dept heads willing to take the country needlessly into war to demonstrate that they are more British than the British.

  55. Voltair says:
    @Greg Bacon

    Churchill to had Jewish ancestry.
    His mother Jeneen Jerome was the daughter of a wealthy Manhatten finnacier.
    She came with a 50,000 pound dowery…a lot of money in those days.
    Winston was controled by the Jewish FOCUS group.
    The Jews declared war on Germany in 1933 and Winston was on board for that mission soon after.
    Very simmilar to the situation with Trump and Iran

  56. @Johnny Walker Read

    In what sense do you call any of those egoists “Zionists”? Happy to accept Jewish money and votes sure, but do you really think they care[d] about Israel?

    • Replies: @Johnny Walker Read
  57. @refl

    One has to get used to lazy rubbish in UR threads but it is hard to know what to make of commenters who seem not to know that WW2 began in Europe on 1st or 3rdSeptember 1939 (when Churchill was restored to office as First Lord of the Admiralty) and that he became PM in May 1940.

  58. J1234 says:

    My father was a Churchill-hater; not for Buchananite-Duttonian reasons, but because of Dad’s experiences in World War I and generalized class antagonisms.

    It wasn’t until a few years ago that I learned from my dad (a WW2 vet) that my grandfather was very anti-war in the 1920’s and 30’s because of his experience in the first war (he was wounded in France in 1918, I think.) I think my dad sort of kept this from us when we were kids in the 1960’s because being “anti-war” at that time carried a lot of negative connotations for conservatives. I don’t know that my grandfather was anti-Churchill, but had he lived long enough to read Buchanan’s book, he probably would’ve been. The reason I mention this is because it wasn’t until I found out about my grandfather that I really appreciated the pre-WW2 American anti-war sentiment that I’d read about in history books.

    I wouldn’t be inclined to read Dutton’s book because after viewing some of his videos, I’m a little suspicious of his academic prowess. And, at times, his sanity. I still watch his videos now and then, and enjoy them, but mostly as entertainment.

  59. Rurik says:

    Churchill = Rotherham

    The only question is will Boris Johnson also = Rotherham

    And that will be decided when Johnson betrays England to the ((EU)) / (((ECB))), and fails to implement Brexit.

    England today needs a modern day Saint Isabella and a modern-day Torquemada, because England today is like 13th century Spain, totally dominated by Jewish supremacist$ and their Muslim rapist pets. Duh.

    This, is what England needs:

  60. Rurik says:

    England, like the rest of dying Europe, will only recover if or when they grow the spine and integrity necessary to admit that they were monstrously wrong in their suicidal adventures against Germany in the last century, and admit that Hitler was right.

    Jewish supremacy and British well-being are mutually exclusive.

    England under Rothschild is a pedophile paradise like Moorish Spain.

    The spirit of Lion Heart is dead, your school girls are playthings for middle aged immigrants and your little British boys are playthings for the pedophile elites.

    sell them to the highest bidder!

    you “won” the war!

  61. JimDandy says:

    When I hear the name Churchill, I immediately think darkly of the following. Is that reductive? Sue me.

    ***Churchill visited the ship in dry dock and referred to Lusitania as “just another 45,000 tons of live bait.”

    When war began, German submarine captains, to save torpedoes, would surface and permit the crews of cargo ships to scramble into lifeboats, and then they would plant bombs or use gunfire to sink the vessels.

    Churchill’s response was to outfit merchant ships with hidden guns, order them to ram submarines, and put out “Q-ships,” disguised as merchant ships, which would not expose their guns until submarines surfaced.

    German naval commanders began to order submarines to sink merchant ships on sight. First Sea Lord Sir John (“Jackie”) Fisher said he would have done the same.

    Churchill, seeing an opportunity to bring America into Britain’s war, wrote the Board of Trade: “It is most important to attract neutral shipping to our shores, in the hope especially of embroiling the United States with Germany. … We want the traffic — the more the better — and if some of it gets into trouble, the better still.”***
    –Pat Buchanan

    • Replies: @Curmudgeon
    , @Winnetou1889
  62. @Realist

    I disagree. The top 10 problems of every “western liberal democracy” are Zionism and its manifestations.

  63. @JimDandy

    The Lusitania wasn’t neutral. It was laden with materiel, contrary to the Neutrality Act, and the Germans knew it. They tried to take out ads warning people not to sail on it, but the (((newspapers))) refused.

    Before the US entry into WWII, Rosenfeld had the US navy reporting the position of German ships to the UK, also in violation of the Neutrality Act.

    • Agree: JimDandy
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  64. they look alike; alcoholic psychopath

  65. Churchill was at the helm when GB was still kind of great and certainly Britain. The clown is at the helm when GB is neither great nor Britain. So, who cares?

  66. Sean says:

    Mad Frankie Fraser said almost every convict prefered the cat o nine tails, to being birched. The noise of the birch was “unbelievable”. Being on the bare buttocks the birch was was humiliating, and it hurt much, much worse than the cat.

    Roald Dahl’s account of a supposedly sadistic teacher inflicting a vicious flogging was said to be deceptive because the offence, which Dahl omitted to mention, was a 17 year old being caught in bed with a 12 year old boy.

    I think most accounts of being punished at school are exaggerate. That said, Churchill was birched which was very much of an an anachronism in schools by that time. His removal from the tender mercies of Herbert Sneyd-Kinnersley was said to have followed Chirchill’s nurse making a report on the injuries to his buttocks. Churchill was born in the only non royal palace in Britain, his father was the son of a Duke. Half American as was McMillian (Enoch Powell made a funny speech about that).
    A lot of the great leaders were ethnic half outsiders A Corsican and and Austrian spring to mind but many other examples exist

  67. @Curmudgeon

    “laden with [war] matériel]? ” is a vast overstatement for a passenger liner with a full crew and complement of passengers and their luggage. That is not to say that it did not carry some war matériel but what’s your authority for saying

    1. that German intelligence knew what it was carrying

    2. That instructions to attack the Lusitanua had, in consequence, been communicated to the captain of the U boat which sank it?

    And what is your authority for saying that the Germans tried to take out advertisements warning passengers not to travel on the Lusitanua on that, or any, voyage? Which newspapers? Owned by Jews? You seem to forget that relatively few of America’s newspapers were owned by Jews in 1915 and that German Jews still far outweighed Ostjuden amongst influential American Jews. Do try not to let your obsessions get in the way of understanding some of the real facts of history.

    BTW ignorant prejudice and laziness has led you to another credibility destroying blunder. The “Neutrality Act” didn’t apply to the Lusitania (which was not American anyway, was it?) because it wasn’t passed till 1935. Take note:

    On August 31, 1935, Congress passed the first Neutrality Act prohibiting the export of “arms, ammunition, and implements of war” from the United States to foreign nations at war and requiring arms manufacturers in the United States to apply for an export license.

  68. Dan Hayes says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    Wizard of Oz:

    For your information and edification, I’ve seen copies of the newspaper ad warning Lusitania passengers of dangers involved in their passage. I will admit that the notification appeared to be buried in the newspaper innards; it being more like a legal notice!

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    , @Alden
  69. @Rurik

    Whatever they are, those cute kids don’t look English, or even native British.
    Eyes, eyebrows and other things are just “off”, if not plain wrong. Only Island Gaels have those gigantic ears, for instance, but a different pattern.
    Rich kids from a fee-paying school with an exotic foreign mummy? Euro-models for a school uniform catalogue?
    Could be French, Italian, Spanish maybe?

  70. @Rurik

    And another thing …
    The high-key photography partially disguises the fact the that little fellow is brown.

    tl;dr not even Welsh.
    Do your homework, Ivan. It’s almost like you don’t know what you’re talking about.

  71. @Wizard of Oz

    Fair enough, maybe I should have used the term “Shabbos Goy”, although many of these ADMITTED Zionist are “closet Jews” who have secretly converted to Judaism.
    Again, straight from the horses ass: https://jewishnews.timesofisrael.com/boris-johnson-zionist/

    And again, not all Zionist are Jooish: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/zionism-is-not-judaism_b_577777

  72. @Wizard of Oz

    Germany tried to warn the American passengers. It was the NYT that buried the warning in their paper.

    • Agree: Dan Hayes
    • Replies: @Rurik
    , @Wizard of Oz
    , @Alden
  73. Rurik says:

    It’s almost like you don’t know what you’re talking about.

    what does the eye color of the boy have to do with an epidemic of British school girls being gang raped by middle aged immigrants?

    Or the serial pedophiles who’re coddled by the British press?

    Or the fact that England destroyed itself in a suicidal hate-fest against Germany- on behalf of Jewish supremacists, who’ve opened the gates to England for every dreg and loser and rapist the world over?

    Does the boy’s particular hue, (simply culled from the Internet in a search for ‘British school kids’), alter the fact that England is engaged in a depraved hate-fest against the (white, racist, homophobic, xenophobic, sexist) British people?

    Exemplified by their draconian punishment of some bloke who was simply pointing out the serial rape of England’s children by stone-age goons.

    That, is what I’m talking about E.D., for the record.

    How does if feel, I wonder, to have “won” that war (so that Jewish supremacists can force Brits to fund their replacements on the island they’ve lived and loved and struggled on with an amazing tapestry of gallantry and follies and heroics, for centuries).

    All tossed down the drain so the British people won’t feel like ‘racists’, huh?

    I guess all they really need is to go fight some more wars for Zion. What, one wonders, will be the next absurdity to plop out of Perfidious’ dank holes of treachery. Another ‘Scripal’-like idiocy?

    Or perhaps another brazen provocation towards Iran, (as always, in slavish and abased fealty to Zion).

    In a few generations, that ‘brown’ boy as you call him, will probably be the whitest fellow left in Merrie Olde.

    • Agree: Parfois1
  74. Rurik says:
    @Johnny Walker Read

    Also, all Perfidious’ lies to the contrary, it was also carrying war munitions.

    The Germans were right to sink it.

    https://centenarynews.com/index.php/article?id=1616

    America fought on the wrong side of both world wars.

    Ironically, if Germany had won, England (and France and Europe and N. America) would all be far, far better off today.

  75. Republic says:

    GEORGE GALLOWAY GIVES THE LOWDOWN ON UK PM BORIS JOHNSON

    https://www.rt.com/op-ed/464839-boris-johnson-british-problems/

    You’d have to be mad to think Boris Johnson is the answer to Britain’s problems – George Galloway

    • Agree: Johnny Walker Read
  76. Agent76 says:

    Aug 14, 2019 Boris Johnson: Brexit opponents ‘collaborating’ with EU – BBC News

    The prime minister said the EU had become less willing to compromise on a new deal with the UK because of the opposition to leaving in Parliament.

    Jul 15, 2019 Brexit MEP Matthew Patten: Our voices must be heard!

  77. @Rurik

    I agree totally. Even Patton said so when he came to his senses after the end of the war.

    America had no business sticking its big fat nose in either European conflict.

  78. The fizz is strong with this one:

  79. Parfois1 says:
    @Rurik

    Ironically, if Germany had won, England (and France and Europe and N. America) would all be far, far better off today.

    Ironically it was Germany (actually Hitler) who blew it:

    1 – Saving the BEF at Dunkirk,
    2 – Going East

    Was he a mole planted by Perfidious Albion?

    • Replies: @Rurik
  80. ‘…If Sneyd-Kinnersley had treated Churchill very slightly differently—either less physically harshly or with more concern for his health—then there would have been no Churchill, or, at least, no Churchill as we know it. He’d have grown up to be a far more cooperative, altruistic character…’

    That is highly unlikely. Even the most qualified acceptance of the triumph of nature in the ‘nature versus nurture’ controversy rules it out, and furthermore, while perhaps another headmaster would have beaten Winston less, someone like him would have come in for a substantial amount of physical chastisement wherever his parents had sent him in Victorian England.

    I doubt if any plausible replacement for Sneyd-Kinnersley would have significantly altered Churchill’s personality. Winston would have been Winston, in any likely universe.

  81. Agent76 says:

    May 29, 2016 BREXIT : Dr. Paul Craig Roberts 2016 : End the EU, a CIA Covert Operation

    Remain” or “Leave”? What does the UK’s EU Referendum—scheduled 23rd June—really amount to? Is it simply the opportunity for UK citizens to decide if Britain should stay in the European Union? Or is it something of greater significance, with broader and more serious implications? And just what is this thing called the EU anyway?

    Sep 19, 2000 Euro-federalists financed by US spy chiefs

    The documents confirm suspicions voiced at the time that America was working aggressively behind the scenes to push Britain into a European state. One memorandum, dated July 26, 1950, gives instructions for a campaign to promote a fully fledged European parliament. It is signed by Gen William J Donovan, head of the American wartime Office of Strategic Services, precursor of the CIA.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/1356047/Euro-federalists-financed-by-US-spy-chiefs.html

  82. Parfois1 says:
    @GeeBee

    It’s not really a ruling class as such. It is a ruling elite. There’s a difference between class and cabal.

    Good point – it’s important to notice the difference. Class is different from power. The current power elites in most capitalist countries are of the moneyed variety rooted in Jewish wealth and consequent control of the corrupt body politic and information outlets. Sometimes they merge as in a marriage of convenience but remain distinct social strata.

  83. Parfois1 says:
    @Брат

    And now the Bolshevism is devouring Britain lol!

    Holy cow! Pray tell all about the British Bolshevik Revolution which no-one but you have noticed. How come the Bolsheviks missed Buckingham Palace, Westminster, Whitehall, No.10, the Tower and all that and their respective occupants.

    Stupidity looms huge and roams at large.

  84. Rurik says:
    @Parfois1

    Hitler) who blew it:

    2 – Going East

    Hitler’s very raison d’etre was to slay the genocidal fiend that had gotten Russia as by the ‘hair of its head’, and threatened to do to Germany what it had done to the Kulaks.

    The nature of the fiend was demonstrated at Katyn, by the Red Army rapists, and especially when the war was over, and they stayed and enslaved Eastern Europe. Proving for anyone with two synapses to rub together, that Hitler was right about ((them)) all along.

    Letting the British army go at Dunkirk, was just one more of many gestures to the West that he wanted peace with England. (This was and is well-known). And that his only aim was to destroy the ((existential threat)) to Germany and the West that he rightly perceived was emanating out of the ((London and NYC banks)), which had funded the Bolsheviks in the first place.

    Now that ((the offspring)) of the very fiends Hitler was fighting, are taking England down the road to humiliating genocide and homomania, perhaps a few perceptive Brits will finally understand their grandparent’s pathetic folly.

    • Replies: @AnonFromTN
  85. @Big Daddy

    Barf indeed, Big Daddy! Barf indeed. Churchill was a drunk war monger who destroyed the British Empire because he could not reasonably deal with Hitler who was fighting Russian Commies. Hitler saved Europe from the Russian Commie scourge for a bit and has been pilloried for it. OK we know there was anti-J, but he saved Europe from the Commies for a bit.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  86. @JimDandy

    Yes, Churchill was as vile as you have provided the instances thereof.

  87. @Pater

    FDR’s unstated deep project was to take down the British Empire in Wall Street’s favor, and he succeeded. A veracious history of US-British relations from 1919-1945 and after shows far more covert antagonism than otherwise. The US and Britain were world trade rivals through the inter-war period and from the beginning FDR used US “aid” to Britain and US war strategy to US advantage and British disadvantage. As a result of the war, the British Empire was kaput — goodbye India, Pakistan, and the rest, and the US replaced Britain as the dominant figure in the Middle East of Oil, where the contest continued through the 1954 Iran coup and beyond. The grand “alliance” summed up to the end of Imperial Britain and the confirmation of Imperial Wall Street (don’t call it America because it isn’t America any more than the British ruling 1% was or is England).

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    , @S
    , @Pater
  88. David Irving’s Churchill’s War: The Struggle For Power (vol.1) (Veritas, Australia, 1987) and Churchill’s War: Triumph In Adversity (vol. 2) (Focal Point, London, 2001) are BASIC TEXTS for an fact-based informed view of the climactic period of Churchill’s career and of his character. They are brilliant documentary historiography, exemplary in their penetrating, ranging research and careful, meticulous documentation. British “Intelligence” (so I understand) raided Irving’s office and seized his papers, preventing — probably forever — publication of the third and concluding volume of this masterpiece. This is, itself, a stark and resounding testimony to the penetrating candor and terrible truth of this work. It is also a permanent toweringly-evil crime against historiography on the part of the British “Authorities” who have c0llaborated to suppress it. History will long remember and despise them for it.

    • Replies: @Anon
  89. @Rurik

    Well Jews would have been better off.

    • Replies: @Rurik
  90. 1953 not 1954 but not bad for a wraith whose memory must be by entanglement.

  91. @Winnetou1889

    Actually Hitler’s madness and ill judged actions were the biggest reason much of Europe was subjected to Soviet Communism for 45 years. How does his two years of killing Reds in the Soviet Union stack up against that for a result you might approve? If he hadn’t broken his word and invaded Czechoslovakia in March 1939 he might indeed have done something useful against the Bolsheviks.

  92. @Dan Hayes

    Thank you. Indeed the Comment to which I was replying had very little right. The advertisement in no way substantiates the Commenter’s allegation that German intelligence knew about the cargo but – own goal – make a it clear that German U boats might sink British passenger liners in what the Germans had decided was the wrong place – just like the bombing of cities where factories might be making war material. And of course, far from showing that American Jews buried or disallowed the warning it shows that he German Imperial Embassy would not pay for an ad on the front page or p.3 which might have saved a lot of American lives.

    • Agree: Dan Hayes
  93. @Johnny Walker Read

    However, as I said to Dan Hayes

    “Thank you. Indeed the Comment to which I was replying had very little right. The advertisement in no way substantiates the Commenter’s allegation that German intelligence knew about the cargo but – own goal – make a it clear that German U boats might sink British passenger liners in what the Germans had decided was the wrong place – just like the bombing of cities where factories might be making war material. And of course, far from showing that American Jews buried or disallowed the warning it shows that he German Imperial Embassy would not pay for an ad on the front page or p.3 which might have saved a lot of American lives.”

    It is actually a valuable discovery inasmuch as the terms of the advertisement should make all the haters of [choose your 20th centiry war leader] who blather about war crimes by bombing pause to stop and think. Otherwise their tender consciences will let them slip into criticising the sanctions on Iraq which (on Saddam Hussein’s watch it is true) led to the deaths of 5 trillion babies.

    • Replies: @Rurik
  94. @J. Alfred Powell

    #97 was meant as a reply to this. And it’s correction of the date is sound. But I was led to click on “J. Alfred Powell” and have found the mysterious J.A.P commenting on several threads so, though it still seems that his life is brief he may not yet be dead. I may follow up though my read on for returning to this thread is to toss in a confounding quote for those who blather about Churchill as a Zionist.

  95. @peterike

    Another lazy obsessive bullshitting. Here’s what I got while looking up Revisionist Zionism in Wikipedia (which had to play the story pretty straight for obvious reasons).

    “In the Churchill White Paper of 1922, the British Government had made clear that the intent expressed by the Balfour Declaration was that a Jewish National Home should be created ‘in’ Palestine, not that the whole of Palestine would become a Jewish National Home. All three Revisionist streams, including Centrists who advocated a British-style liberal democracy, and the two more militant streams, which would become Irgun and Lehi, supported Jewish settlement on both sides of the Jordan River; in most cases, they differed only on how this should be achieved.”

  96. Anon[252] • Disclaimer says:
    @J. Alfred Powell

    Come on out of whatever closet you are in and give us more than the last Chinese whispers your fading hearing has picked up while helping down another round of port. Given some of the crap Stinnett served up as overwhelmingly convincing documentation that you applied no critical eye to your subjective reasoning and “so I understand” personal assertions of belief are not enough.

    • Replies: @Herald
  97. Rurik says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    Well Jews would have been better off.

    you’re the ((ones)) who insist on the ‘us against them all’ mentality, so it should come as no surprise that what’s good for the people of the planet isn’t considered ‘good for the Jews’, since that is the paradigm that ‘the Jews’ have set up and live by.

    Oh, I forgot, you’re not Jewish.

  98. Rurik says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    the sanctions on Iraq which (on Saddam Hussein’s watch it is true) led to the deaths of 5 trillion babies.

    no wiz, it was an estimated 500,000 children who died for lack of medicine and clean water.

    But not to worry, since their cruel deaths were “worth it”, when considering the greater goal of doing what’s “good for the Jews”.

    Just as all the wars since 9/11 have been waged so slaughter innocent people who’re considered inconvenient to that metric. What’s “good for the Jews” = death and misery and suffering for everyone else. Huh?

    Including of course the hundreds of millions of innocent people who died in the Jew’s wars (and gulags and terrors and genocides…) of the 20th century alone.

  99. I think you knew that my “trillion” wasn’t meant to be literal. You did, didn’t you? Actually I don’t think there is a technical expression for that usage that I have come across but I think I could label it as a pretty good way of indicating lack of interest in pursuing some arguments or lines of discourse.

    • Replies: @Rurik
  100. Rurik says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    a pretty good way of indicating lack of interest in pursuing some arguments or lines of discourse.

    kudos wiz

    you’re not as doddering as you seem

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  101. S says:
    @J. Alfred Powell

    FDR’s unstated deep project was to take down the British Empire in Wall Street’s favor, and he succeeded…As a result of the war, the British Empire was kaput..

    On the surface in 1945 it indeed looked mighty bad for the British Empire.

    Things might not be as they appear, however, as there are indications that this post WWII shift of power from the British Empire to the United States had in reality long been planned and agreed upon.

    As some have pointed out, many events in the world of politics are not in reality as spontaneous as they might seem, but are rather quite deliberate.

    There was for instance the remarkable US published 1853 geo-political book The New Rome which indicated that the 1776 Revolution had been a planned ‘temporary’ strategic false split between the US and UK from the very beginning, that in the future the US and UK would reunite, and when they did the center of power of the British Empire would move from England to the United States, the US then taking the lead.

    Filling out the details The New Rome book doesn’t have, the present day US writer Fon Belcher explores this very same subject. Belcher is apparently a distant relation of the prominent British royal governor and ‘first native born’ North American Freemason Jonathan Belcher (1682 – 1757).

    According to Belcher, decades prior to 1776, powerful elements of the Whig party in Britain had been studying for various ideological (and apparently strategic) reasons the idea of moving the center of power of the Empire from England to British North America, and making the North American colonies the ‘peripheral center’ of the Empire.

    The British Board of Trade as well as other imperial officials had played a role in this too.

    The North American colonies and colonists were to be a ‘reserve force’ to fight wars for the Empire in it’s times of need, it’s ‘ace in the hole’. In time, the British North American colonies were to take England’s position as the Empire’s center of power, and England would become the outlier.

    Anyhow, I seriously doubt the British Empire in reality ever had any intention of letting it’s rich North American colonies (or it’s colonists for that matter) go.

    In that light I compare the everyday US citizen’s historic relationship to the British Empire since 1776 to the plight of Number 6 and his relationship with his unseen island handlers in the famous 1960’s British TV series The Prisoner.

    From the bottom of page 87 and top of pg. 88 of The New Rome; or, the United States of the World..

    ‘The stupendous greatness of England is factitious, and will only become natural when that empire shall have found its real centre. That centre is in the United States..’

    The New Rome (1853) – pg 87 – 88

    The stupendous greatness of England is factitious, and will only become natural when that empire shall have found its real centre. That centre is in the United States. The Anglican empire is essentially oceanic. Its dominions extend along the coasts of the Atlantic and the Pacific, the lesser and the greater ocean. America, lying in the midst of the ocean, is therefore its natural point of gravitation…

    ..The realization of an idea higher than could be developed in the mother island, that of the republican democracy, required a temporary segregation of the centre; that task accomplished, it is time to call for a re-union ; but the former adjunct being now no longer merely the geographical centre, but the political and social focus, must take the lead…

    https://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/the_new_rome_or_the_united_states_of_the_world_1853

    http://www.belcherfoundation.org/camerica.htm

    http://www.belcherfoundation.org/trilateral_governor.htm

  102. @Rurik

    Speaking of occupation: Soviet occupation of Germany and Eastern Europe ended in 1991, 46 years after WWII. American occupation of Germany and Japan continues to this day, 74 years after the end of WWII. Now, who is a more fiendish fiend, pray?

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  103. Rurik says:

    Soviet occupation of Germany and Eastern Europe ended in 1991

    the wall came down because it wasn’t needed anymore.

    The Bolsheviks were now fully in control of the West.

    Russia and Eastern Europe were hemorrhaging their J-supremacists over here since the early part of the 20th century. When they finally reached critical mass, there was no more point to any wall or divide.

    who is a more fiendish fiend, pray?

    Well, that’s easy. Who is today’s drooling golem murdering and raining terror and horrors all over the planet? The ZUSA, that’s who.

    Putin wrested Russia away from the fiend. That’s why all the sabre rattling at Russia.

    Pitiable Germany has been crushed between the forces of evil that emanated out of Russia and England for the entirety of the last century.

    It boils down to this..

    Who controls the money. Who controls the nation’s credit. Who controls the issuance of its currency.

    When all those things are being monopolized by the world’s most sinister cabal of tribal supremacists, hell-bent on genocide and global slavery, then we’ve all got problems..

    Russians, Yanks, Brits, Germans, French, Palestinians, Syrians, Libyans, Yemenis, Lebanese, Iranians, Afghans, Egyptians, Jordanians, Ukrainians, and on and on and on.

    Because all of those people are hated with an Old Testament, Talmudic ferocity, and Woodrow Wilson handed them our collective destiny.

    Thanks Woody, you POS.

    • Replies: @AnonFromTN
  104. @AnonFromTN

    Oh C’mon. Have you caught stupidity from living in the dumber parts of America? Sure the Japanese might prefer that the US didn’t station blacks on their soil even in Okinawa but you don’t need to give much thought or do much reading to understand where the balance of advantage has been for Japan as compared with not having America’s protection.

    • Replies: @AnonFromTN
  105. @Rurik

    And you are a bit smarter than might appear from some if your posts.

  106. @Wizard of Oz

    having America’s protection

    Protect from whom? Who attacked Japan in the last couple of hundred years? Protection racket is a time-honored business of all mafias. The US is involved in it in many places, including Japan and Germany.

    • Replies: @AnonFromTN
    , @Wizard of Oz
  107. @Rurik

    That’s one explanation. Smacks of paranoia, though. Thing is, not all mega-thieves that robbed Russia in the 1990s and are robbing Russia (less blatantly under Putin, but still robbing), the US and Europeans now are Jews. Some are definitely not Jews. Some are even Muslims. They are still ruthless greedy thieves, and that’s their defining characteristic.

    • Replies: @Rurik
  108. @AnonFromTN

    Now I remembered: the US threatened Japan with military force in 1853 and made it sign an unfavorable for it treaty. That was the last time anyone showed aggression against Japan. Thus, Japan asking US for protection makes about as much sense as committing suicide out of fear of death.

    • Replies: @Rurik
  109. @AnonFromTN

    Well you may not be aware that Japan’s Constitution still places restrictions on its armed forces and it was able to get away with spending practically nothing on defence for many years by posing as reborn pacifists who would leave it all to the Americans. Also, you overlook the fact that Japan had made quite a few enemies who remind it from time to time that they haven’t forgotten. China claims islands that Japan occupies, North Korea sends missiles in its direction and kidnaps Japanese. Would you rather your sister living in a bad neighbourhood lived alone or with a big bruiser of a partner?

    • Replies: @AnonFromTN
  110. @Wizard of Oz

    Japan made enemies by its own aggression and total lack of repentance for the atrocities Japanese troops committed in WWII.

    Yes, Japanese MIC was out of luck, Japan did not waste as much treasure on “defense” as the US. They are catching up, though.

    As for the sister analogy, the last person I’d want her live with is her rapist.

  111. Rurik says:
    @AnonFromTN

    That’s one explanation. Smacks of paranoia, though

    I just wrote a comment that included the fate of the Kulaks.

    Or consider the Palestinians in 1947, I wonder if some of them were called ‘paranoid’ too?

    Or David Koresh or Randy and Vicky Weaver. They too felt they understood the nature of their enemies, and no doubt many called them paranoid.

    Thing is, not all mega-thieves that robbed Russia in the 1990s and are robbing Russia (less blatantly under Putin, but still robbing), the US and Europeans now are Jews.

    Of course not. But were it not for Jewish supremacists, (exactly as Churchill pointed out) utterly in control of Russia after the revolution, then the Red Terror would never have been.

    All you have to do is look around today. Look at all the wars and suffering and destroyed nations, millions of people murdered and maimed and displaced, and all of it a direct consequence of Jewish supremacist$ in total control of the governments of ZUS, England, France, Germany, Belgium, Canada, Sweden, and so on..

    Most of the “Russian” oligarchs were agents of Rothschild.

    Some are even Muslims.

    How much success would Muslims be having with their incursions into the West were it not for the corrosive cultural and spiritual poisons emanating out of the West’s ((media)), and corrupted governments and courts and other institutions, eh?

    Just consider the troubles created in Chechnya by John McCain and his ((neocon)) buddies. (the same people who created the deadly strife in Georgia and Ukraine).

    How many acts of terror or financial rapine would Muslims be committing in the West were it not for the (((demand))) that Europe open its gates to unlimited invasions from the Third World?

    • Replies: @AnonFromTN
  112. Rurik says:
    @AnonFromTN

    [1853] .. was the last time anyone showed aggression against Japan.

    There are scholars that might argue Russia was aggressive towards Japan’s reasonable petitions leading to the Russo-Japanese war 1904/05.

    • Replies: @AnonFromTN
  113. @Rurik

    You make some valid points, but I think you are oversimplifying it. You are conflating two different things.

    Yes, most of the wars the US waged in the last 50 years were for Israel’s benefit. Most of these wars were actually detrimental for the US national interests. Yes, most mega-thieves stealing USSR state assets in the 1990s, both foreign and domestic, were Jewish. Most, but not all. The same is true for the US and Europe. Personally, I don’t care which of them is Jewish and which is not: they are all thieves and should be in jail or, better yet, should be hanged on lampposts. That applies to Saudi, Ukrainian, and Georgian oligarchs. Say, the fact that Akhmetov in Ukraine is Tatar, as well as Usmanov in Russia, should not protect them from gallows, where they should hang next to their Jewish “colleagues”.

    • Replies: @Rurik
  114. @Rurik

    Yea, there are “scholars” claiming that Earth is flat and evolution never happened. Quacks are there to confuse us, not to enlighten us.

  115. Rurik says:
    @AnonFromTN

    Yes, most of the wars the US waged in the last 50 years were for Israel’s benefit

    not to mention our participation in both World Wars.

    Most of these wars were actually detrimental for the US national interests.

    And Western civ.

    Yes, most mega-thieves stealing USSR state assets in the 1990s, both foreign and domestic, were Jewish. Most, but not all. The same is true for the US and Europe.

    I agree.

    Personally, I don’t care which of them is Jewish and which is not: they are all thieves and should be in jail or, better yet, should be hanged on lampposts.

    There again, I agree. In fact I harbor much more antipathy and loathing for the Gentile remoras feasting off the carcass of our civilization far more than the Jewish ones, who at least are following their own evolutionary strategy, rather than the opportunistic traitors among our own selling us all down the river for a few shekels more.

    Akhmetov in Ukraine is Tatar, as well as Usmanov in Russia, should not protect them from gallows, where they should hang next to their Jewish “colleagues”.

    For centuries Tartars were known raid villages to sell ethnic Russians to the Muslims as slaves. Millions suffered a fate worse than death, because of that slave trade.

    Tartars and J- supremacists are like peas in a pod.

    One of the few actually good things the Soviets did was cleanse Crimea of that menace.

    • Replies: @Pater
  116. Herald says:
    @dearieme

    A bright boy he may be, but that only makes him more of problem.

  117. Herald says:
    @Anon

    So David Irving doesn’t doesn’t ring your bell, you don’t work for “British Intelligence” by any chance?

  118. Alden says:
    @Expletive Deleted

    So, no exemptions for men with dependent wives and 5 children in WW1. And Churchill’s genius tactic of attacking Germany from 800 miles away in Gallipoli.

    He and his parents were despicable.

  119. Alden says:
    @Carlton Meyer

    I’ve never read a David Irving book. Mostly I read the hagiographies of Churchill . Being a cynic, I read between the lines and came to the same conclusions the old labor left socialists. Lady Astor and the Cliveden set and David Irving did. He was a destructive war monger.

    During WW2 he plotted with Stalin to divide the oil rich nation of Iran between Russia and Britain after the war. Also deposed the Shah of Iran during WW2 because the Shah dared to oppose the Churchill/Stalin plan.

    At least he didn’t leave a dynasty as the Kennedy’s did.

  120. Alden says:
    @Dan Hayes

    Best not to answer the Jewish Wizard. It just goes on and on. It’s easier to ignore him if you don read his posts.

  121. Alden says:
    @Johnny Walker Read

    Best not to answer the cantankerous old Wizard. It just goes on and on. Easiest to not read his asinine posts.

  122. Pater says:
    @J. Alfred Powell

    Given that Chamberlain was already terminally ill if you replaced Churchill with any of his Tory or Labour competitors they wouldn’t have ran the war any different. The only exception being Edward Wood Viscount Halifax who was in favour of an armistice with Germany.

  123. Pater says:
    @Rurik

    I find it amusing how some of the world’s historically most fearsome cruel warrior raiding tribes in history have now joined the social justice bandwagon and are playing innocent victims of persecution by their agrarian neighbors who they predated on for centuries.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply -


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All John Derbyshire Comments via RSS