The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewPat Buchanan Archive
Will Churchill's Statue be Next to Fall?
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll 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 three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

On Gen. George Washington’s orders, the Declaration of Independence, signed in Philadelphia, was read aloud to his army. On hearing it, the troops marched to Bowling Green, decapitated and pulled down the statue of George III, and sent the remnants to be melted down into musket balls.

It was a revolutionary act, a symbolic statement. These once-loyal American subjects were now rebels and no longer owed allegiance to the king. They would fight to end his rule in America.

During the recent demonstrations and disorders here, similar acts had about them an aspect of societal rebellion and a repudiation of a heritage.

In Richmond, Virginia, a statue of Christopher Columbus, who generations of American children were raised to revere as the intrepid Italian explorer who discovered the New World, was pulled down and thrown into a lake.

In Boston, the Columbus statue was beheaded.

In a half-dozen states, statues of Confederate generals and soldiers were pulled down. Gov. Ralph Northam promises to remove the huge statues of Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson from their century-old places of honor on Richmond’s Monument Avenue.

In Philadelphia, the statue of fabled Italian American cop, police commissioner and mayor, Frank Rizzo, was desecrated and hauled away.

Retired Gen. David Petraeus has written to urge that all army bases bearing the names of Confederate generals, such as Forts Benning, Bragg and Hood, be renamed. Robert E. Lee, who is everywhere at West Point, says Petraeus, was a U.S. soldier who “committed treason.”

Nancy Pelosi wants 11 statues, including those of Confederate President Jefferson Davis, Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens, and Sen. and U.S. Vice President John Calhoun, removed from the Capitol.

The purge of historical figures has spread to Europe.

The giant statue of King Leopold II in Brussels, who was enriched by the brutalitarian plundering of his Congo colony, has been taken down.

In Bristol, England, a statue of Edward Colston, philanthropist and patron of the city but also a slave trader, was thrown into the harbor.

At Oxford, students are moving to take down the statue of Cecil Rhodes, the archimperialist and founding father of Rhodesia who created as his legacy the Rhodes scholarships for British and American students.

Resumes of all the once-admired great men who discovered, explored and colonized the New World, as well as all those who created and first led the United States, are being investigated to determine how egregiously these men violated the egalitarian and democratist dogmas of modernity.

The list of malefactors seems impressive.

Who are we talking about?

Nearly half of the signers of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were slave owners. So, too, were five of our first seven presidents and two of the four men on Mount Rushmore.

George Washington won the war for independence. Thomas Jefferson doubled the size of the nation with the Louisiana Purchase. Andrew Jackson saved the nation from defeat by the British at the Battle of New Orleans and seized Florida.

James Polk took us to war with Mexico and relieved it of what is now the American Southwest and California.

All four of these nation-builder presidents were slave owners.

The systematic dishonoring and disgracing of men once revered has only just begun. But it represents a spreading revolution in thought and belief about the origins and history of America.
How far is this going?


During the London protests in solidarity with Black Lives Matter, there was painted on the Parliament Square statue of Winston Churchill, who historians voted “the greatest man of the 20th century” for his role in leading Britain against Nazi Germany, the word “racist.” The mob wanted Churchill’s statue down.

And was Churchill a racist?

Surely, he was an archimperialist, a lifelong defender of the British Empire who believed in the supremacy of the Anglo-Saxon race and its right to rule what poet Rudyard Kipling called “the lesser breeds without the law.”

Churchill disparaged people of color whom the British ruled, from the Caribbean to Africa, to the Middle and Near East, to South Asia and the Far East, in terms that would instantly end the career of any American or British politician who used them today.

Historian Andrew Roberts writes of Churchill that he was a “white … supremacist (who) thought in terms of race to a degree that was remarkable even by the standards of his own time. He spoke of certain races with a virulent Anglo-Saxon triumphalism.”

Many Americans, especially among the young, view the history of the European exploration, the colonization of the New World, and the creation of Western empires not with pride but with shame and guilt. And they want to make expiation by canceling out all the honors accorded such men, be it in statues or the names of cities, towns, parks and streets.

And their numbers and militancy are growing. The left has the bit in its teeth and is dragging the panicked elites along.

How this ends without permanent division in the country escapes me.

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of “Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever.”

Copyright 2020

Hide 94 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. It should be whites wanting to remove Churchill memorials. He was one of the most evil men in recent history and killed millions of whites, plus lots in India, and destroyed the British empire.

  2. How this ends without permanent division in the country escapes me.

    Permanent division is already a fact. Physical separation will follow.

  3. Robert E. Lee, who is everywhere at West Point, says Petraeus, was a U.S. soldier who “committed treason.”

    Robert E. Lee resigned his US Army commission to return to and serve in his home state’s militia. Aside from the question as to whether or not secession was legal, a question that was only settled after the fact, the fact pattern of Lee’s actions don’t immediately suggest knowing treason at the time he took his actions.

    David Petraeus knowingly passsed classified information to his uncleared biographer, with whom he was also having an extramarital affair. While passing classified material to a biographer might not rise to the level of treason, it certainly violates a number of national security laws that dance right up to the line of treason.

    So, do we trash as a traitor the otherwise honorable guy who fought for his home state at a time when he believed it to be legally separated from the US, and do we do it on the recommendation of an adulterous weasel who knowingly passed state secrets to an unauthorised recipient?

  4. Many Americans, especially among the young, view the history of the European exploration, the colonization of the New World, and the creation of Western empires not with pride but with shame and guilt. And they want to make expiation by canceling out all the honors accorded such men, be it in statues or the names of cities, towns, parks and streets.

    But they are not giving their property to Native Americans and returning to the Old World. They feel shame and guilt, but they are not fools.

  5. anon[185] • Disclaimer says:

    Pat Buchanan wrote a book questioning USA’s involvement in Churchill’s European War. Has Pat read his own book?

  6. And their numbers and militancy are growing. The left has the bit in its teeth and is dragging the panicked elites along.

    You wanna save the statues? Have historians discover that they were all ‘gay’.

    Or make TV shows and movies that depict them as blacks and non-whites.

    Hey, it worked with Hamilton.

    Imagine a TV show that features Churchill as a big fat Negro who said bad things about whitey.

    That will save him.

    Or have some historian dig up some obscure clue that maybe Columbus was a homo mulatto.

    Anyway, what is striking is how no one is coming out to defend the status.

    It goes to show conservatives should be called cravenites. A bunch of cowards. But when even conzos have swallowed the ‘white guilt’ pill this is the result.

    If mobs went around targeting MLK statues, blacks would come out and fight.

    But whites? Cucky wucks. Maggots.

    But then, in a culture where pop culture dominates, do any whites even care about past history?

    They care more about Batman or 007 than real historical figures.

    • Replies: @Dumbo
  7. Exile says:

    Racial separation is no less necessary for the UK than the US.

    Blacks who have been schooled and media-maddened by Jewish agitators for decades in every Western country will not be satisfied with anything less than a South African solution for the White Question.

    “All lives will matter when Black lives mattter” is shorthand for “your lives have no meaning until we get what we want.”

    As Israelis like to say about the Palestinians “you cannot co-exist with people dedicated to your destruction.”

    • Replies: @Paul
    , @Malla
  8. JimDandy says:

    Churchill was the scum of the earth–I actually learned that from you, Pat. How many tons of “live bait” was The Lusitania, according to Winston? 45,000, I seem to recall.

    So, I despise him, but I am enraged at the idea that his statue would be torn down. He is a part of England’s history, like so many other kings and queens, etc. He is a symbol of many things to many people. And a braying mob of spoiled brats has no right to destroy property. Period.

    I saw one elderly British woman who was defending a statue of the man who started the Scouting movement say, essentially, should Antifa and BLM go to Egypt and blow up the pyramids?

    It seems that “lads” from all around England (sometimes referred to as “soccer hooligans”) are heading to London on Saturday to defend the statues. The police will no doubt continue their policy of regarding these men as the criminals for standing in the way of the hateful terrorists. Good luck, boys. Our prayers are with you.

  9. Paul says:

    Does the memorial to Martin Luther King, Jr., on the National Mall in Washington, D.C., need to be torn down? He plagiarized his Ph.D. dissertation, and his treatment of women in private (as has been exposed by his associates) was appalling.

  10. Removing statues is akin to burning books – history can be unpleasant, violent. We should remember it, and learn from it. Churchill was as much of a c u n t as Hitler (for the high crime of aggression).. mayhaps more – a better artist yet a forger, and certainly more violent. Removing his memory, is removing his lesson.

  11. KenH says:

    Retired Gen. David Petraeus has written to urge that all army bases bearing the names of Confederate generals, such as Forts Benning, Bragg and Hood, be renamed. Robert E. Lee, who is everywhere at West Point, says Petraeus, was a U.S. soldier who “committed treason.

    Robert E. Lee was a citizen of Virginia and Petraus is saying that he should have committed treason against his state instead. During the civil war era one was a citizen of their state, not the U.S.

    As far as claiming the confederacy was committing treason what does General Betrayus think the black and antifa insurrections are doing by destroying property, tearing down statues of historical giants and attacking the U.S. as “systemically racist”? Oh, and now they are seceding from the United States with territory they just seized in Seattle. This isn’t how you petition for a redress of grievances.

    I wonder what would happen if white nationalists seized territory anywhere in the U.S.? It would be Ruby Ridge all over again which would be met with raucous applause from the Jewish media and the establishment.

  12. JimDandy says:

    Aw, c’mon, back in the day sometimes a hooker just needed to be pimp-smacked and sent flying across the room. How else was a black man of God supposed to get his money’s worth?

  13. @The Alarmist

    Excellent. Thank you. Lee could shit a better man than Petraeus.

  14. Paul says:

    Israel with its land grabs and ethnic cleansing are the destruction of Palestine.

    • Agree: Druid
  15. Rich says:

    Every statue of every White man, or woman (Queen Catherine’s statue in Queens, NY is an example). will be torn down. Until, and unless, someone stands up to prevent the desecration. Our leftist Taliban is backed by powerful forces, forces who may one day come to regret their actions.

    I once thought Petraeus was a decent man who was destroyed by a ‘honeypot’. Turns out he’s just another PC piece of garbage. The Left hates him, and now he’s lost any supporters he may have had on the right. Good riddance.

  16. Trinity says:
    @Carlton Meyer

    IF we lived in a healthy world that had never been fed total lies about WWII, Winston Cuckhill would have been demonized for the war criminal he was instead of being lionized as some type of hero. Firebombing German women and children civilians and this guy has been celebrated as a hero. No further proof needed that history is indeed written by the victors or that it is a lie agreed upon.

    • Agree: mark tapley
  17. JimDandy says:
    @Carlton Meyer

    Agree with your assessment of the man, disagree with your remedy. Where does it stop? Should the victimized Indians tear down all of their statues of Gandhi because he would have been #Metoo’d at Harvey Weinstein levels today and was somewhere on the spectrum between racist and “white” supremacist?

    • Replies: @showmethereal
  18. Pontius says:

    First they came for Jebediah Springfield..

  19. anon[191] • Disclaimer says:

    I hope they take all of Churchill’s statues down and all memorials to him because if he was pro-white when he was young, he was the greatest enemy of the white race when he was older. He kept the war going against Germany when Hitler was making peace overtures and he got the United States into the war resulting in untold millions of European dead. He ordered the bombing of the most beautiful and culturally significant cities in Western Europe and who knows how many cultural treasures were destroyed because of him. Had he not provoked a war with Germany, Germany might’ve destroyed Communism in the Soviet Union and kept that nation from suffering from it for the next 50 years and avoided the Cold War, Korean War and Vietnam War. There isn’t enough fire in hell to give that man what he really deserves.

    • Replies: @anonymous1963
    , @Druid
  20. Fox says:

    Tearing down monuments and memorials has been initiated in 1945 in Germany after it had suffered military defeat, the new overlords did it first themselves, then put emigrants (among them the returning members of the Frankfurt School), traitors and the enemies of Germany in power. They were all for eradication of the past. A lot of power was given to people who can’t really add up two + two, but they were determined to have it their way, no matter what the cost. Ever since that day, it has become ok to desecrate monuments in Germany, either through active assault by the Antifa, by active neglect or cowardice of municipal or Church offices who were giving in to the whining and scandal mongering of the indignation industry. The precedent of what is happening now in countries Whites consider their homelands was set through the total defeat that was seen fit for Germany, not only militarily, but continued after the weapons fell silent. It was taught in schools as a commendable course of action to achieve victory.
    Now the same destructive energy has been let loose from its chains elsewhere.
    Too bad that thinking ahead seems not to be a quality found in politicians produced in democracies.

    If Churchill’s statue is toppled now, I can’t regret it; even though the Mob doing it is in no way conscientious of just what destructive person Churchill was and what catastrophes he brought on the world. All they see is that he was a “racist”. That he is covered all over in blood, that he actively worked to bring about not only the Second, but also the First World War, and that he was already looking forward to yet a bigger war after the war ended in 1945, this time against the Bolsheviks, that doesn’t bother them. These people live in a world defined by slogans

    • Replies: @Kratoklastes
    , @anonymous
  21. nsa says:

    Amelika had a collective orgasm when all those Saddam statues were toppled…….remember? Karma is a bitch. Later, Saddam’s actual head was pulled from his body…..we can only hope the Karma wheel continues to turn.

    • Agree: JimDandy
  22. JimDandy says:

    I mean, is it really different players behind both?

  23. anon[327] • Disclaimer says:

    W.C., a two World Wars criminal who should have been hung.

    Well, the stupids and cowards have come out.

    Richmond and Nuthnham deserve two new monuments on Monument Avenue
    as replacements for Lee and Jackson: A toilet and an outhouse.

    The New Virginia: Virginia is for Dumpers.

    Virginia’s leaders typical of current leaders of states.
    What you get when the borders aren’t sealed and
    prisons are too restrictive on not accepting drag-ins.

  24. In a way it is ironic because Churchill did more then anyone to destroy the position the west and Britain once enjoyed. He overwhelmingly supported war against the Kaiser in 1914 and in 1939. Both German wars exhausted and ruined Britain. And both were completely avoidable. Britain is the classic invade the world / invite the world moron.

  25. @nsa

    Who was really responsible for that stupid war with Iraq? Hint, rhymes with few.

    • Replies: @schnellandine
  26. @anon

    Whether by design or accident, he did great harm to the white race.

  27. Anon[414] • Disclaimer says:

    As George Carlin said “Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups” sitting here in a South Africa smashed by those whites in Europe and the United States who considered apartheid an abomination I have to say karma is a bitch

  28. Druid says:

    And all for his debtors, the zionists. He was a spendthrift alcoholic!

    • Agree: anonymous1963
    • Replies: @ThreeCranes
    , @Kratoklastes
  29. @Carlton Meyer

    It should be whites wanting to remove Churchill memorials. He was one of the most evil men in recent history and killed millions of whites…

    At least his sins were in service to his country. FDR’s were close to treason.

    …and destroyed the British empire.

    It’s not “destroyed”. It’s moved to Britain and living on the suck.

    • LOL: bluedog
  30. @JimDandy

    It seems that “lads” from all around England (sometimes referred to as “soccer hooligans”) are heading to London on Saturday to defend the statues. The police will no doubt continue their policy of regarding these men as the criminals for standing in the way of the hateful terrorists. Good luck, boys. Our prayers are with you.

    It seems like a trap set by the evil ruling class.

    The Jewish-dominated media is already calling them ‘far-right” and “hooligans”.
    They will no doubt use this to push for more censorship and draconian laws. This is the same media which called Antifa and BLM rioters “peaceful” protesters despite the mayhem.

    The British police work under instructions. Prior to this former Prime Minister Gordon Brown and his Home Affairs Minister at the time allegedly told them to ignore mostly Muslim Pakistani men who were targeting British girls for sex enslavement because of Saudi oil money propping up the UK economy.

    • Replies: @anonymous1963
    , @JimDandy
  31. ivan says:
    @The Alarmist

    Petraeus was a vastly overrated soldier to boot. One of those fellows who think that by reading TE Lawrence he knows all about the Arabs. One of the worst of lot that GWB brought to justify pre-emptive war on the Arabs. Scum just about describes him.

  32. sarz says:

    Churchill was one of the slimiest bastards of all time. David Irving gives a good account of some of his sliminess. Among many crimes he knowingly killed millions of Indians through the great famine. Not only should his statues be melted down, his bodily remains should be put through a garbage processor and dumped. His headstone should be turned to powder and his former grave should be replaced by a pit of tar.

  33. Svevlad says:

    It is 2070.

    Moscow demands a whooping 1 million sacrifices today. Beijing, their standard 5 million.

    Already the candidates have began to trickle down to the ghetto-cities of the West in order to participate in this sacred refutation of white supremacy. The crowd gathers around the statues of the most notable white men, from Romulus to Hitler, stained with blood of previous sacrifices.

    The candidates fight who gets to be first to die. Casualties mount almost immediately. Things quickly subside, however. The Overwatch likes the sacrifices to go somewhat orderly.

    The sacrifices start. It is a standard procedure – the sacrificed walks up to the statue, with the goal of hitting it with his head that he dies instantly.

    Meanwhile, foreign troops move barrels of what seem to be chemical weapons to the myriad autonomous zones throughout the land. In Moscow, the populace is cheering – finally, they shall take care of both the western, and the islamist problem with one blow.

    Don’t call it hell, it’s the future you chose.

    • Troll: bluedog
  34. In the postwar lionizing of Winston Churchill we forget that during his long political career his contemporaries widely distrusted him as a man who was of unstable temperament, unsound judgment, and of what one historian has called, “rhetorical (and also alcoholic) excess.” His record in public life was uniquely controversial, characterized by catastrophic blunders paid for dearly in human suffering, about which he cared nothing. Churchill was infamous for his aristocratic arrogance, and his patrician lack of empathy with the people of his nation and indeed of the world. In his rarified social circles, he never went into a shop, never rode on a bus, got lost the one and only time he attempted to navigate London’s Underground, and even as late as 1951, in classic upper class ignorance, he said most Britons lived pastorally “in cottage homes,” on the estates of aristocratic landowners as in centuries past.

    The anti-semitism of his family is now all but forgotten, as, ironically enough, are their ties to the Rothschilds, who more than once came to the financial rescue (or some might say took predatory advantage) of his profligate grandfather, uncle, and mother. His father Randolph was impulsive and unstable, known since his days as an Oxford undergraduate for his problems with drinking, gambling, over-spending, and sexual adventuring. His mother was the daughter of the American plutocrat once called “the king of Wall Street” and was disparaged in English society as “Lady Randy” for her willingness to use her charms to advance her husband’s political career. Neither was accepted in polite society or at the courts of Edward VII or of his son George V. Winston’s three children all struggled with the family disease of alcoholism, one taking her own life in despair.

    Churchill perfected the use of mass terror-killing in the Third World, and brought this sinister expertise to the First World in his relentless air campaign against German civilians in the Second World War. He flatly refused to negotiate with a Germany that admired the British Empire, and sought an alliance with it as an ally in the coming struggle with the rising new imperialist powers, the USA and the USSR, in the deadly race for global dominance. An Anglo-German alliance would have saved Europe, neutered Stalin, and perhaps allowed the United States to have remained a republic in spite of her overly ambitious rulers. But certain powerful special interests were against it, and that was that.

  35. Dumbo says:
    @Priss Factor

    There was a theory once that Columbus was a Crypto Jew, maybe this could save his statues?

    They care more about Batman or 007 than real historical figures.

    True. Whites show more anger if Netflix cancels their favorite series.

    • Replies: @TGD
  36. If Cristofo Colombo was not a white man – he would be called a leader of a band of robbers – murderers – rapists and extortioners.

    Cecil Rhodes was an unrepentant racist who literally believed that Anglo-Saxons are better than anyone else. How is that different than the Japanese during the Meiji period??

    Churchill did basically nothing while millions of Indians – who were a British colony – died of starvation. They condemn Mao for such – but not Churchill??? Double standards.

    • Agree: Menes
    • Replies: @Malla
    , @Anonymous
  37. Emslander says:
    @The Alarmist

    The culture of the United States military, as indicated by Petraeus, Kelly, Mattis and the current Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, seems to have been defined by Jane Fonda and Abbey Hoffman, historical figures unfamiliar, no doubt, to the current crop of revolutionaries, but once the very definition of revolutionary.

    Don’t expect anything good to come out of the defenders of the Western World. I doubt if our generals could find the Western World on a map. Not even if assisted by their homosexual lovers.

    • Replies: @follyofwar
  38. @JimDandy

    The whole irony of “Me Too” is that it’s anti male leadership. Women in power used (and use) sex to control as well. People in power tend to have strong sex drives. No I’m not condoning rape -that is a different issue and is wrong. But just pointing out the hypocrisy of “victims” who were clearly using their “assets” to advance their career with someone in power. Catherine the Great would be “me too” if she was a male in modern times. I won’t make any jokes about a famous woman in US politics… But I’m sure she has skeletons.

    • Replies: @JimDandy
  39. @Paul

    Let’s be real here. Sure MLK was a womanizer. He was a hypocrite because he’s supposed to be a man of faith… But he’s more like JFK or even a Trump – than Jeffrey Epstein or even a Bill Cosby. The former two just love women – but there is no indication they were strong deviants like the last two.

    • Replies: @Anon
  40. @Druid

    One reason Churchill needed to get and stay in power was to enjoy the endless supply of fine food, booze and cigars needed to feed his addictions. The cost of those habits alone would have busted him. He was a perfect example of that class of English aristocracy whose expenses had outrun their revenues. Feeding grandly at the public trough was a necessity for Churchill and worth the price of dismantling Britain’s empire while destroying Europe’s bastion against Communism and devastating some of Europe’s most beautiful, enchanting towns and inner cities.

    A man ruled by his appetites. A sterling example of what Plato called the “intemperate man”.

    • Agree: Kolya Krassotkin
  41. Malla says:
    @Carlton Meyer

    plus lots in India

    No he did not. I have disproved this. Also Churchill was a better person than FDR.

  42. Malla says:

    Churchill did basically nothing while millions of Indians – who were a British colony – died of starvation.

    False False False.
    On receiving news of the spreading food shortage Churchill spoke to his Cabinet, saying he would welcome a statement by Lord Wavell, his new Viceroy of India, that his duty “was to make sure that India was a safe base for the great operations against Japan which were now pending, and that the war was pressed to a successful conclusion, and that famine and food difficulties were dealt with.” (Italics mine.)5

    Churchill then wrote to Wavell personally:

    Peace, order and a high condition of war-time well-being among the masses of the people constitute the essential foundation of the forward thrust against the enemy….The hard pressures of world-war have for the first time for many years brought conditions of scarcity, verging in some localities into actual famine, upon India. Every effort must be made, even by the diversion of shipping urgently needed for war purposes, to deal with local shortages….Every effort should be made by you to assuage the strife between the Hindus and Moslems and to induce them to work together for the common good.6

    Again Churchill expressed his wish for “the best possible standard of living for the largest number of people.”7

    Next Churchill turned to famine relief. Canada had offered aid, but in thanking Prime Minister MacKenzie King, Churchill noted a shipping problem: “Wheat from Canada would take at least two months to reach India whereas it could be carried from Australia in 3 to 4 weeks.”8

    At Churchill’s urging, Australia promised 350,000 tons of wheat. King still wanted to help. Churchill feared a resultant loss of war shipments between Canada and Australia,9 but King assured him there would be no shortfall. Canada’s contribution, he said, would pay “dividends in humanitarian aspects….”10

    The famine continued into 1944, causing Secretary of State for India Leopold Amery to request one million tons of grain. Churchill, who had been studying consumption statistics, now believed India was receiving more than she would need. He remained concerned about the shipping problem, “given the effect of its diversion alike on operations and on our imports of food into this country, which could be further reduced only at the cost of much suffering.”11

    Amery [Secretary of State for India] and Wavell [Lord Wavell – Viceroy of India] continued to press for wheat, and in the Cabinet of February 14th Churchill tried to accommodate them. While shipping difficulties were “very real,” Churchill said, he was “most anxious that we should do everything possible to ease the Viceroy’s position. No doubt the Viceroy felt that if this corner could be turned, the position next year would be better.” Churchill added that “refusal of India’s request was not due to our underrating India’s needs, but because we could not take operational risks by cutting down the shipping required for vital operations.”13

    The war pressed Britain on all sides; shipping was needed everywhere. Indeed, at the same time as India was demanding another million tons, Churchill was fending off other demands: “I have been much concerned at the apparently excessive quantities of grain demanded by Allied HQ for civilians in Italy, which impose a great strain on our shipping and finances,” he wrote War Secretary Sir James Grigg. “Will you let me have, at the earliest possible moment…estimates of the amount of food which is really needed….”14

    Churchill and his Cabinet continued to struggle to meet India’s needs. While certain that shipping on the scale Amery wanted was impossible without a “dangerous inroad into the British import programme or a serious interference with operational plans,” the Cabinet grasped at every straw, recommending:

    (a) A further diversion to India of the shipments of food grains destined for the Balkan stockpile in the Middle East. This might amount to 50,000 tons, but would need War Cabinet approval, while United States reactions would also have to be ascertained; (b) There would be advantage if ships carrying military or civil cargo from the United States or Australia to India could also take a quantity of bagged wheat.15

    A month later Churchill was hoping India had turned the corner when his Minister of War Transport, Frederick Leathers, reported “statistically a surplus of food grains in India.” Still, Leathers emphasized “the need for imported wheat on psychological grounds.” What were they? Amery explained that “the peasant in 750,000 villages” might hold back “his small parcel of grain” if no outside aid was in sight. He said he could ship 200,000 tons, “provided that the twenty-five ships required were surplus to the Army’s needs.” But Amery wanted double that quantity.16

    Again trying to help, the Cabinet suggested that India had underestimated its rice crop. While agreeing to send the 200,000 tons, Churchill told Amery he could get another 150,000 tons from British Ceylon (Sri Lanka) in exchange for excess rice: “The net effect, counting 50,000 tons previously arranged [was] 400,000 tons of wheat.”17

    In April, it was Lord Wavell asking not for 400,000 but 724,000 tons! Now the problem was unseasonable weather and a deadly explosion in the Bombay Docks, which destroyed 50,000 tons of food grains. Peasants were still holding back their crops, he said; rumors were circulating [in India] “that London had refused to ask America for help.” The exasperated Cabinet retorted: “If we now approached the United States and they were unable to help, it would at least dispel that allegation.”18

    One can sense Churchill’s frustration. Whatever they did, however they wriggled, they could not appease the continued demands from India—even after calculations showed that the shortage had been eased.

    Churchill agreed to write President Roosevelt for help, and replace the 45,000 tons lost in the explosion. But he “could only provide further relief for the Indian situation at the cost of incurring grave difficulties in other directions.”19

    As good as his word, and despite preoccupation with the upcoming invasion of France, Churchill wrote FDR. No one, reading his words, can be in doubt about his sympathies:

    I am seriously concerned about the food situation in India….Last year we had a grievous famine in Bengal through which at least 700,000 people died. This year there is a good crop of rice, but we are faced with an acute shortage of wheat, aggravated by unprecedented storms….By cutting down military shipments and other means, I have been able to arrange for 350,000 tons of wheat to be shipped to India from Australia during the first nine months of 1944. This is the shortest haul. I cannot see how to do more.

    I have had much hesitation in asking you to add to the great assistance you are giving us with shipping but a satisfactory situation in India is of such vital importance to the success of our joint plans against the Japanese that I am impelled to ask you to consider a special allocation of ships to carry wheat to India from Australia….We have the wheat (in Australia) but we lack the ships. I have resisted for some time the Viceroy’s request that I should ask you for your help, but… I am no longer justified in not asking for your help.20

    Roosevelt replied that while Churchill had his “utmost sympathy,” his Joint Chiefs had said they were “unable on military grounds to consent to the diversion of shipping….Needless to say, I regret exceedingly the necessity of giving you this unfavorable reply.”21

  43. El Dato says:
    @Carlton Meyer

    The British empire was already dead, it just didn’t know it. Unless you are talking about his role in WWI?

  44. Malla says:

    Racial separation is no less necessary for the UK than the US.

    In the UK, it should be expulsion of invader outsiders. Needs to go back to 99% native British population.

    • Replies: @anonymous1963
  45. TGD says:

    There was a theory once that Columbus was a Crypto Jew, maybe this could save his statues?

    Because of many discrepancies in the accounts of Columbus’ early life and other factors, there was a credible argument made that Christoper Columbus (known in the Spanish speaking world as “Cristobal or Juan Colon (Colom),” was a Jew masquerading as an Italian.

    Credible Y-DNA evidence shows that he was actually a Catalan whose family was hostile to the family that ruled Spain. This does not preclude that his mother’s family were Jews.

  46. Malla says:

    Churchill disparaged people of color whom the British ruled, from the Caribbean to Africa, to the Middle and Near East, to South Asia and the Far East, in terms that would instantly end the career of any American or British politician who used them today.

    Churchill was the man who stood up for the rights of the lower castes in India. The truth is slimey M.K. Gandhi met with the slimey Mountbatten (Last Viceroy of India and most probably crypto Jewish) and traded away the demands of the lower caste leaders in return for Pakistan (demand of the Muslim League), in the period just before India’s (& Pakistan’s) independence from the British Empire. This was a back stab to Ambedkar, the leader for lower caste rights. Ambedkar wanted a separate electorate for lower caste Indians in Independent India. Remember, lower caste Indians had suffered a form of slavery unmatched in human history.

    When Ambedkar went to Britain to try to get, Clement Atlee, the Labour leader refused to meet him (ironic ironic, lefties not care about exploited lower caste Hindus enslaved for millennia!!). It was Churchill who met Ambedkar and said he would do whatever he can to help Ambedkar’s cause.

  47. Buchanan is doing 4D chess here because he kinda wants Churchill’s monument taken down, lol.

  48. Malla says:

    If the British people are to lose their Indian Empire, they shall do so with their eyes open, and not be led blindfold into a trap.


    Gandhi stands for the substitution of Brahmin domination for British rule in India. You will never be able to come to terms with Gandhi.


    But that is not all. To abandon India to the rule of the Brahmins would be an act of cruel and wicked negligence. It would shame for ever those who bore its guilt. These Brahmins who mouth and patter the principles of Western Liberalism, and pose as philosophic and democratic politicians, are the same Brahmins who deny the primary rights of existence to nearly sixty millions of their own fellow countrymen whom they call ‘untouchable’, and whom they have by thousands of years of oppression actually taught to accept this sad position. They will not eat with these sixty millions, nor drink with them, nor treat them as human beings. They consider themselves contaminated even by their approach. And then in a moment they turn round and begin chopping logic with John Stuart Mill, or pleading the rights of man with Jean Jacques Rousseau.


    Let me just direct your attention once more upon these untouchables, fifty or sixty millions of them, that is to say more than the whole population of the British Isles; all living their lives in acceptance of the validity of the awful curse pronounced upon them by the Brahmins. A multitude as big as a nation, men, women and children deprived of hope and of the status of humanity. Their plight is worse than that of slaves, because they have been taught to consent not only to a physical but to a psychic servitude and prostration.


    There is a more squalid aspect. Hitherto for generations it has been the British policy that no white official should have any interest or profit other than his salary and pension out of Indian administration. All concession-hunters and European adventurers, company-promoters and profit-seekers have been rigorously barred and banned. But now that there is spread through India the belief that we are a broken, bankrupt, played-out power, and that our rule is going to pass away and be transferred in the name of the majority to the Brahmin sect, all sorts of greedy appetites have been excited, and many itching fingers are stretching and scratching at the vast pillage of a derelict Empire. I read in the Times newspaper, in the Times mind you, only last week of the crowd of rich Bombay merchants and millionaire millowners, millionaires on sweated labour, who surround Mr. Gandhi, the saint, the lawyer, Lord Irwin’s dear colleague and companion. What are they doing there, these men, and what is he doing in their houses? [MALLA: I think Churchill is talking about among many others, Ghanshyam Das Birla, who was an Indian millionaire magnate who made his millions on exploited Indian labour and funded Gandhi, he was M.K. Gandhi’s disciple. The Birlas are Marwaris, one of the supreme mercantile communities of India, having a reputation of being extremely miserly. Woe is to a man who has to work for a Marwari company, they will squeeze you out and pay you peanuts.]

    They are making arrangements that the greatest bluff, the greatest humbug and the greatest betrayal shall be followed by the greatest ramp. Nepotism, back-scratching, graft and corruption in every form will be the handmaidens of a Brahmin domination.
    [MALLA: Nepotism, back-scratching, graft and corruption? Oy Vey, we in India today are steeped in it, it is like a thick fog here, it is everywhere.]

  49. Mr. Grey says:

    The brother was keeping it real, you racist.

  50. @Emslander

    They exist to serve and protect Israel, and to fight its wars. They care naught for the Homeland.

    • Agree: mark tapley
  51. Escher says:

    The Chinese must be thinking that their path to world domination just got a whole lot easier.
    The entire western world appears to be going through its own cultural revolution.

    • Agree: bruce county
  52. @Malla

    Mountbatten’s wife was partly Jewish, but he himself?

    • Replies: @Malla
  53. JimDandy says:

    Hillary? Can you imagine her sexual history? Kamala whored herself to Willie. Why hasn’t he been #Metoo’d?

  54. anon[418] • Disclaimer says:

    Depends on who is slashing the tires.

    Mother Jones
    Jun 8
    Some protesters, news crews, and medics in Minneapolis found themselves stranded after recent protests: The tires of their cars had been slashed.

    Many assumed protesters were to blame. But videos reveal a different culprit: the police.”

    • Replies: @Anti-White
  55. @anon

    White American “civilization” for you. But the Jews…

  56. @JimDandy

    Somebody tell me again why Britain fought the German wars?

    • Replies: @Expletive Deleted
  57. @Amerimutt Golems

    Trust the Jew media to spin it this way.

  58. @Malla

    Right. But it was actually 99.81% Native British population in 1951.

  59. One thing for sure, we learned the moneyed class lacks courage and conviction. They will say and do anything to keep their bottom line.

  60. Derer says:

    Who is pushing this deplorable agenda? The shameless (liberals) hypocrites. They used to exposed communists for altering photos, leaving blank pages of history, removing statues and now they have declined to the same level. What benefits serve the removal of part of history, we used to brag about being truthful in comparison. This sinister move goes against the very principles that made America great.

    • LOL: bluedog
  61. Anonymous[208] • Disclaimer says:

    It is different because Rhodes was correct.

    • Troll: showmethereal
  62. Meena says:
    @Carlton Meyer

    Another example of Stockholm syndrome . Best be called stuck-home syndrome . This is the new home built by the Churchill worshipper . But the main priest was the Jewish mafia who financed this home of Churchill in the first place .

    Another Jewish thug – Richard Perle wrote an article chastising the British for throwing out Blair telling us that British had done did that ,they threw out the best – the Churchill.

    British voters, is appalling ingratitude. What other words describe the defeat inflicted on Winston Churchill after he saved Great Britain,..
    Like Churchill and Thatcher, Blair has shown great courage in leading where he thought the interests and values of the nation demanded. On the issues that matter to him, he has refused to be deflected by discouraging opinion polls or troublesome backbenchers. Nowhere has this been more evident than in his muscular foreign policy. He has faced the rise of Islamist extremism that aims to destroy the West. And he has driven domestic policy boldly, with little help from a timid bureaucracy and active opposition from the uncomprehending remnant of Old Labour.
    Some of the Prime Minister’s critics, especially among Old Labour, have portrayed him as spinelessly deferential to the United States and especially to President Bush’s foreign and defence policies, hence the derisive ‘poodle’ metaphor so artlessly deployed by commentators and politicians. Never more than a substitute for serious assessment of his policies, the label ignores the fact that Blair has frequently been ahead of Bush (and Clinton before him) intellectually and rhetorically, especially in designing strategies for combating terrorism.
    The interactions of British and American foreign policy are far more complex and subtle than Blair’s critics imagine. Just as Thatcher stiffened the first President Bush’s resolve (as Bush was wavering on whether to drive Saddam Hussein from Kuwait, she said: ‘George, don’t go wobbly on me’),

    • Replies: @bluedog
  63. Half Jew Churchill (mother Jenny Jacobson) did more to ruin the British Empire than all the other conspirators put together. The warmongering alcoholic Churchill did have lots of help from the other Zionists including Alfred Milner, Cecil Rhodes, Edward VII, Arthur Balfour, Lloyd George and others, his devotion to the Jew nationalistic cause shined the longest.

    Constantly in debt with his extravagant lifestyle he even resorted to faking art pieces he then tried to sell. After his disastrous (on purpose for the Zionist Jews) Gallipali campaign he only had his poorly paid seat in parliament left. He was then picked up by the Jewish Focus Group to instigate war against Germany. Churchill carried on bombing raids agains German cities for 3 months before Hitler finally retaliated. Hitler repeatedly extended magnanimous peace offers that were hidden from the British public by Churchill. Hitler even let the British army go at Dunkirk. It’s all covered by Gerry Doherty in “The Secret Origins of the First World War and also by WW2 Historian David Irving with a lot more.

    I doubt that the Zionist Icon Churchill’s statues will be removed, after all what more could shabbos goy boot lickers like Trump and Johnson and the U.S. Congress and British Parliament aspire to. Winston Churchill has served the Zionist cause most admirably. He has run the race and kept the faith. Now that the empire on which the sun never set is fast becoming a muslim shit hole he would be able to say (when sober that is) that his mission has been accomplished.

  64. Pat, they’re statues. They’re hollow inside like a Easter bunny and they only go BONG, and that’s only you hit them.

    Wake me up when we get some journeymen IUOE guys to take their rigs to Langley and pull shit down.

  65. JimDandy says:
    @Amerimutt Golems

    Yep. That’s happening. Selected clips of some individuals sieg-heiling police. My guess is that it is intended as mockery of the police–essentially calling the cops Nazis–but who knows. The fix is in once again.

  66. Anon[427] • Disclaimer says:

    Churchill was a race realist whose views on race continue to ring true for anyone who has the courage to be honest. The only things I took issue with him on were his strong support for the creation of Israel and for dragging the US into an unnecessary war against Germany in WWII. But the latter two were pretty unforgivable sins. So I don’t begrudge anyone who wants to take down his statue. Go ahead. Make. My. Day.

    • Replies: @mark tapley
    , @KA
  67. bruce county says:

  68. @Malla

    “In 1851, Alexander, son of the Grand Duke of Hesse a family close to the Rothschilds contracted a morganatic marriage with the daughter of a wealthy Polish Jewish commoner who had grown rich as a supplier of arms to the war ministry.” Thus your comment.

    This is commonly asserted, but it is a fantasy. The wife of Alexander was the daughter of a Polish general of German ancestry who was killed by rebelling Polish cadets in 1830, when he refused to lead them in their revolt against the Czar. They shot him before the very eyes of his wife and children. Neither he nor his wife had any Jewish blood at all.

    Even Mountbatten’s wife was only one-quarter Jewish. It was her father, Sir Ernest Cassels, who converted to Catholicism to marry his Scottish wife, rather than anybody on the Haucke side, which did include a good number of mixed marriage, but always between Catholics and Protestants.
    Strictly speaking, Edwina Ashley was not Jewish at all, as she did not have a purely Jewish matrinieal descent.

  69. @Anon

    The alcoholic warmongering con artist Churchill was a realist alright. He like many in the British Aristocracy realized that the Zionist Jew agenda was the path to success. He had been cast into obscurity after his disastrous performance (really on purpose as a deception to keep the Czar in the war) at Gallipoli. This bankrupt alcoholic swindler was picked up by the Jew led Focus Group to propagandize the British in preparation for the next phase of the Zionist war against Germany. The MSM and Court Historians have painted a fairy tale picture of him as they do for all of the Zionist controlled actors. Trump is another example. An Adolescent baboon that can barely put two sentences together. Pull up his court deposition he had to appear at before the Jews put this puppet in office. This idiot was supposed to be a high level real estate developer but appears more like a 13 yr. old. Most people it seems can be bought off and the Jews have the money. The few that maintain their integrity are targeted by aIPAC and the other Jew groups. As Speaker Pelosi Said “If our capital was crumbling to the ground the one thing that would remain is our commitment to Israel.”

    The attitude of Churchill was the same as shabbos goy Trump and Pelosi. No matter that 750,000 British troops died in the first war all for the Zionists. There is no amount of blood and treasure that Churchill would not sacrifice for the Zionist Jews. The leaders of Jewmerica are no different.

  70. @Carlton Meyer

    Agree as to Churchill.

    But why merely tear down statues and monuments?

    Shouldn’t forts be abandoned, returned to the native peoples from whom the land was taken?
    Shouldn’t cities founded by racists be abandoned, turned forever into grazing land?

    Do millennials and gen X think it moral to continue as inhabitants and beneficiaries of lands, cities, towns, stolen by conquerors and racists like Columbus, or settled by racists or genocidaires?

    For one example: George Washington instructed “Mad” Anthony Wayne to clear out Indians who lived on the banks of the Allegheny and Ohio rivers, in order to protect settlers in what became Pittsburgh.
    It is morally wrong to continue to enjoy the fruits of that racist and genocidal policy.
    Don’t just tear down statues and memorials, abandon the city! Leave, you liberal millennials and gen Xers and employees of RAND, Google, Carnegie Mellon aka MIC-r-us.

    Get off your knees and beat feet!
    It’s the only moral thing to do!

  71. President Obama Explains Why Winston Churchill’s Bust Was Removed From the Oval Office
    April 22, 2016
    To make room for MLK

    Will Georgetown be renamed? Will Georgetown University be torn down and tossed into the Potomac?

    Should Winston Churchill HS in toney Potomac, MD be renamed for Harriet Tubman? Or just bulldozed Israel style?

    • Replies: @KA
  72. Anonymous[162] • Disclaimer says:

    My professor used to read to us HISTORIES about Virtuous Men-women…Heroes, Icons of history BUT they had at some point fell out of favor for their private and not so private vices..Was Lincoln a closet homosexual, Did George Washington married Martha for her money, was Socrates a pedophile,? MLKing a serial philanderer? how does that matter…He said that reading about their vices made them more HUMAN..History is the cumulative result of OUR virtuous and our vices..The Radical LEFT is being so absurd, so infantile…and they walked into the room and saw their parents naked…NO babies do not come from Paris…Learning, studying History is not intended to REmake the past, we can NOT change it to fit our current passions…The LEFT must grow UP, deal with it maturely…and let suppose that teh same left one day decides to redeem a fallen one…then what???. Mao, PolPOt, Stalin, Idi Amin, Fidel Castro were not angels either…so what now..I destroy yours so You destroy mines…so idiotic…

    • Replies: @bluedog
    , @Prester John
  73. KA says:

    “ Churchill was a race realist whose views on race continue to ring true for anyone who has the courage to be honest.”

    May be thee is a common factor ,a deeper more basic ,more organic structure of personality,morality,and developmental experiences underly both the racism and the servility to the powerful, obsequiousness to the gang members ,and cozying up to the closed hateful group for succor ,and validation.

  74. Gast says:

    As a German I find it amusing that statues of this Brit-asshole are attacked. Karma, chicken come to the roost, the revolution eats its parents etc.

    Nota bene: I am well aware that this statue that the attackers are not my friends, and that the eternal enemy of my kind is behind it. But sometimes it is fun to leave out the context a bit. And this bastard deserves this treatment (and much more).

  75. KA says:

    Tell me one thing that Churchill has done for common folks of Britain ? He is racist !! Only when that suited him . His attitude to Australian ,attacks on Germany , and role in waging worts war on Europe show whatever he was ,he was not a genuine . He worked for the Zionist . That was given and he never failed to deliver to them. Throughout his life as documented in the book Churchill and the Jews he was always available to carry the water carry briefs carry the can for them .
    He was the Blair and Trump combined in just one cigar .

  76. @Fox

    indignation industry

    That’s a keeper.

    • Thanks: Fox
  77. @Druid

    You left out “inbred syphilitic faggot” (and in his younger days, catamite). When he spoke of the traditions of the British Navy as being “rum, sodomy and the lash” he was almost certainly drooling.

    Were it up to me, I would disinter the cunt and shit in his skull. His ilk are very big on symbolism (and desecration).

  78. @Malla

    Churchill was the man who stood up for the rights of the lower castes in India.

    Oh please. You’re confusing his tendency to bullshit as the need arose, with any genuine give-a-fuck about Indians of any caste:

    “I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion. The famine was their own fault for breeding like rabbits.”

    This was his response to his own officials, as the famine in Bengal and Orissa worsened in 1943/44 after Churchill ordered Australian grain shipments bound for India, to be redirected to Europe.

    • Replies: @Malla
  79. Malla says:

    Amelika had a collective orgasm when all those Saddam statues were toppled

    Israel had a orgasmic storm…multiple orgasm all around where they got one set of lowly goyim nations to destroy one hated goyim power in the neighbourhood. Where is the Karma there????

  80. @Insouciant

    Piss on that. They best stay where they are and burn with the cities, we don’t want ’em ’round here.

  81. How this ends without permanent division in the country escapes me.

    It doesn't. Why would anyone with half a clue think it does?

  82. Miro23 says:

    How this ends without permanent division in the country escapes me.

    It’s worse than that. Destroying statues is a prelude to destroying people. Government is turning a blind eye to these violent leftist mobs and the MSM is right behind them – so traditional Anglo America is abandoned, humiliated and demonized.

    How it ends, is the complete destruction of Anglo America or the complete destruction of the Zio-Glob. One or the other.

    • Replies: @bluedog
  83. bluedog says:

    Thatcher was a fool and Reagan was her counterpart, who sold their souls to the 1% and neither nation has been the same sense. and without a doubt plays a large part in the coming world depression.!!!

  84. bluedog says:

    History is what we make it some true but most only made up b.s. to made us look better, after all JFK was killed by a single sniper,King was killed by another only he was not the man that killed King any more then Oswald was the one who killed J.F.K. Bobby was killed in the kitchen but not by the one who they claim was the one that killed where does that leave history?,,,,

  85. bluedog says:

    Idiot get off the white bullshit its about the vast difference in the income of the wealth between the 1% and the working class. most people have woke up to this fact but it seems you were left out,so sorry.!!!!

  86. anonymous[110] • Disclaimer says:

    Tearing down monuments and memorials has been initiated in 1945 in Germany after it had suffered military defeat,

    Not quite accurate.
    “Tearing down German monuments and memorials” — and German people, culture, even the souls of the people, was planned by none other than Winston Churchill and carried out in large measure beginning shortly after the British scurried back across the Channel in fish boats, sans armaments: the firebombing campaign was Churchill’s grand vision as he contemplated the still-smoldering embers of World War I.

    The destruction continued after German surrender and continues to this day.

    As far as the knowledge and historic record of the American people is concerned, the crimes Allies committed against the German people as well as France, Italy, Hungary etc. — the propaganda campaign to coerce Americans to kill their European brothers and sisters and destroy their European heritage has melded seamlessly into the “history” of the period, and any counter-narrative has been almost totally eradicated from America’s libraries and the academy: Hollywood is America’s Homer, but this Homer is not blind, he’s a liar.

  87. @anonymous1963

    Somebody tell me again why Britain fought the German wars?

    [Sanctimonious hand-wringing voice activated]
    [A] Belgium
    [B] Poland
    plus a load of other crap like the Aboukir incident (last hurrah of an endless series of colonial skirmishes somewhere over in Wogland/High Barbary), and the Sudetenland (provisional Czechia we were told).

    I’m so ancient these peculiar and minor things were actually taught in school history, instead of Sleigh-Berry and the Hall-of-Cost (rammed down my kids’ throats by earnest ultra-Karen “teachers”, from about Year Five through to the end of Uni). Mind you, our primitive sliderules didn’t go up to six billion or whatever the correct score is these days.

  88. Malla says:

    Oh please. You’re confusing his tendency to bullshit as the need arose, with any genuine give-a-fuck about Indians of any caste:

    At least he bullshitted. Atlee left the lower castes at the mercy of the Indian Congress.

  89. “Robert E. Lee, who is everywhere at West Point, says Petraeus, was a U.S. soldier who ‘committed treason’.”

    Well…evidently neither Lt.General Ulysses Grant nor his Commander In Chief, Abraham Lincoln, thought so.

  90. @Anonymous

    “The LEFT must grow UP, deal with it maturely”

    Emphasis on “maturely”, because most of these people are literally kids in their twenties who don’t know anything (rarely reported or commented upon by Big Media).

  91. Anon[218] • Disclaimer says:

    MLK was not merely a womanizer. There is evidence that he was very violent, and depraved with many women. He is not who we have been led to believe he was.

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Pat Buchanan Comments via RSS
Analyzing the History of a Controversial Movement
The Surprising Elements of Talmudic Judaism
Which superpower is more threatened by its “extractive elites”?