Churchill Debate

At Majority Rights, I am arguing with Dan Dare over whether or not Winston Churchill was an asset or liability to the West. My position is that the liberalism of the British public and elite determined their negative reaction to the Third Reich. In the absence of this liberal consensus, Hitler’s regime would have been evaluated in a different light, and there wouldn’t have been such a rush to war (or the disastrous racial consequences that followed in its wake).

Winston Churchill played no small role in inciting the war, drawing other powers into the war, continuing the war long past the point when it was even remotely in the British self interest, and polarizing the war into a contest between racism vs. anti-racism. Hence, Churchill was a “liability” for the West. I can’t find anything positive to say about him.

About Hunter Wallace 12366 Articles
Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Occidental Dissent

21 Comments

  1. Well, if you happen to hate Polish people, you should be grateful that Churchill got a lot of them killed.

    If you don’t hate Polish people, yeah, I can see how there’s nothing positive to say…

  2. Churchill was a disgusting specimen who played a demeaning role as a janissary of Jewish interests which were determined to benefit from the insane internecine strife of WWII.

    When I first read the appalling truth about Churchill I felt like the skinhead Nazi who, upon completion of a reading of Arthur Butz’s, ‘Hoax of the Twentieth Century’, gave up his adoration of the German leader because, “Hitler didn’t exterminate them at all”.

  3. ”I will not pretend that, if I had to choose between Communism and Nazism, I would choose Communism.” – Winston Churchill

    Poor ‘Winny the pooh’! I guess his ‘opinions changed not so much with the wind, but with how much he drank on a given day—or, more aptly put, how much could he AFFORD to drink, i.e. how much of an ‘allowance’ would his ‘adviser’ (handler) Henry Strakosch advance him if he behaved and followed the script?

    http://www.heretical.com/miscellx/churchil.html

    http://www.fpp.co.uk/bookchapters/WSC/Waley_Cohen.html

    ==
    On Communism:

    “Bolshevism is not a policy; it is a disease.”

    “The day will come when it will be recognized without doubt throughout the civilized world that the strangling of Bolshevism at birth would have been an untold blessing to the human race.”

    http://southafrica-pig.blogspot.com/2009/02/winston-churchill-on-communism.html
    ==

    And last but not least –

    “Zionism versus Bolshevism”

    http://www.fpp.co.uk/bookchapters/WSC/WSCwrote1920.html

    http://hidhist.wordpress.com/churchill/winston-s-churchill-zionism-versus-bolshevism/

  4. Also guys, DO NOT EVER FORGET the role the ‘WHIN-bag’ played in the Lusitania tragedy –

    […]
    “Winston Churchill and Woodrow Wilson, in an operation financed by the major banking houses, arranged for the shipment of weapons on the Lusitania in May of 1915. The Lusitania luxury ocean liner was owned by the Cunard Steamship Line Shipping Company and officially part of the British auxiliary navy. The ship’s owners were paid £218,000 a year (£150,000 for reserve military service and £68,000 to carry Royal mail). As an auxiliary naval ship, the Lusitania was under orders from the British Admiralty to ram any German ship seeking to inspect her cargo. In 1915, it was against U.S. law to put weapons on a passenger ship traveling to England or Germany.” […]

    “The Lusitania: A classic example of war profiteering”
    http://www.teachpeace.com/teachpeacemoment9.htm

    &

    “Who Really Sunk the Lusitania”
    http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=5726

    ~

    OR, his DISASTROUS hand in the pointless battle at Gallipoli and the Dardanelles (which caused him to be FIRED from his ‘First Lord of the Admiralty’ gig) –

    “Straits of Disaster: How a British gambit in World War I turned into a battlefield fiasco”
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203771904574175763132225506.html

    “The Dardanelles Disaster: Winston Churchill’s Greatest Defeat”
    http://www.amazon.com/Dardanelles-Disaster-Winston-Churchills-Greatest/dp/1590202236

    ~

    Well, I take it that Churchill was just the type of ‘shabbos goy’ politician type that the forces of MARX-MAMMON-MASONRY (MMM) have seem fit to promote and advance to do their bidding (and cover-up their crimes and incompetance)—all at the expense of the TRUE BRITISH PEOPLE and nation.

    Ah ‘Whino Winnie’! May he be burning in hot whiskey in his spot in hell. What an utter travesty for the Northern European peoples!

  5. Yes…nothing positive to sy about Churchill, especially since his views onthe negative aspects of Jewish influence were well documented in public comments made. Read ‘Blood, Class, and Empire’ by Christopher Hitchens – who lays out in several texts Churchill’s suspicion of the Jews.

  6. Gee, humm… This is a tough one. Winston Churchill can be regarded as a hero for bringing into fruition the England of today which is the most repulsive nation in all of Europe – perhaps on all of planet earth, a country that consists of paralytic drunk girls laying in gutters while black packs of Africans run wild in orgasmic delight after white boys stabbing them to death for fun, as fags give and receive blow jobs in public parks – Yeah, I can only sit and applaud a man like Winston Churchill, a real modern hero.

  7. There seems to be some doubt as to whether or not Churchill actually wrote the above – mentioned ‘anti – Semitic’ article.
    Please see :
    http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3376884,00.html

    Few people were closer to Churchill than the Jew, Martin Gilbert, and anyway it’s an odd sort of supposedly Jew – aware warmonger who would actually have one of the Hebrew pests in residence on his estate.

  8. … “Winston Churchill can be regarded as a hero for bringing into fruition the England of today which is the most repulsive nation in all of Europe – perhaps on all of planet earth,” …
    ___

    Absolutely right Lena!!

    “Reflecting Light: Britain leads the world in race replacement” –

    … “Whole countries (with the U.K. leading the pack) are now undergoing the kind of social shift that American cities experienced beginning in the 1950s and that picked up steam in the ’60s and ’70s: a mass influx of nonwhites to the inner cities induced an equal and opposite reaction as whites moved to the suburbs to escape a perceived growth in crime, disorder, and crowding in the cities. The difference is that now it’s countries, not cities, undergoing race replacement as international corporations with jobs on offer in far-flung locations, the homogenization of popular culture, cheap phone calls, and jet travel make moving to presumably greener pastures practical for many people.

    “Because of its leftist media and government the U.K. may be at the leading edge of the immigrants in-natives out trend, but the same tendency is encouraged in all the European Union countries. In Rome I saw a phenomenon that is now common, I gather, throughout Europe. Within a short walking distance from two of the city’s most renowned attractions, the churches of Santa Maria Maggiore and San Giovanni in Laterano, is an immigrant district with all the standard trappings: stores selling cut-rate fashion knockoffs and acres of tacky jewelry, street stalls selling ditto, and lots of young men hanging out. They smoke, they argue with one another, they wait for something that will lift their lives up — basically, pretty much the same things they would have been doing if they’d stayed where they originated. Do they wonder why they bothered? Or are their lives, limited as they are, nonetheless better than anything they could have expected in their former homelands?” …

    http://reflight.blogspot.com/2006/12/britain-leads-world-in-race-replacement.html

    &

    http://reflight.blogspot.com/search/label/Britain%20self-destructs

  9. Whatever his faults, Churchill is to be credited for advocating the restriction of nonwhite immigration into the UK (before the threat had become particularly acute), seeking to restore corporal punishment, seeking to preserve the institutions of monarchy and Empire, recognising the global Moslem problem (again, before the threat had become obvious), opposing Indian independence, opposing Bolshevism, and (in his early career) helping to lay the foundations of Apartheid in South Africa by supporting Afrikaner self-rule, which he openly acknowledged would exclude Negro Africans from the vote. Were it not for WWII, he would have devoted a greater part of his political career to these and other laudable ends.

    His opposition to the Third Reich was not motivated by a belief in racial equality; it was merely a short-sighted assertion of parochial British racial interests and imperial aspirations. It was an example of Britain’s historic policy of playing the nations of Europe against one another so that they cannot build an alliance which could eventually threaten Anglo-Saxon world dominance. In this respect he was a man of his time. Moreover, there is no way he or anyone else could have predicted that the defeat of the Third Reich would have indirectly resulted in the the reduction of whites world wide into minorities within their own countries. The reason racialism fell into disrepute after WWII, thus aiding the propagandists of the liberal-minority coalition, is because of the atrocities committed in its name by the Nazis, not SIMPLY because Germany lost the second world war.

  10. Churchill seemed to have some sort of strange inveterate hatred of Germans.

    This weird obsession with Germans leads me to believe the many rumors that he was indeed a crypto-Jew sent in to destroy Aryan-kind!

    “Jennie Jerome’s marriage to Randolph Churchill, the second son of the Duke of Marlborough appears to have been a marriage of convenience, typical of many unions between spendthrift English aristocrats and daughters of Jewish financiers.

    Apparently the Marlborough’s objections were overcome by a dowry of 50,000 pounds, about five million dollars today.”

    http://www.rense.com/general67/curch.htm

  11. Britain today is just one big tragedy. Sorry to say this but your average white Brit makes your average black Zulu back home here in Kwa-Zulu Natal, South Africa, seem advanced, intelligent and sophisticated. But the rural Brits and Northerners aren’t too bad.

  12. …that’s where your hero Sir Winston Churchill took you, Britain.
    (said with respects to all those BNP’ers, who represent Britain’s only hope; but Nick Griffin still flashes victory signs and cites Churchill one-liners, hmm…)

  13. Prozium:”I can’t find anything positive to say about him.”

    It is obvious to all clear-headed people who care about the White race and White-Western culture in general that Churchill was an abject failure and pitiful turncoat who placed the interests of anti-White plutocratic Jewry above his own nation, his own White ethnicity, and the White race as a whole.

    I wholly dislike defending anything about him, but Churchill was a good speechmaker (sometimes), though he definitely never even came close to achieving the lofty rhetorical levels of Hitler, Mussolini, Codreanu, and some other key ‘Axis’ leaders or figures.

    Again, I’m not defending him here, but Churchill was also an accomplished writer and historian; he won the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1953 mostly for his 6 volume history of WWII entitled, appropriately, The Second World War. That series of books is amazingly exhaustive and thorough and is absolutely chock full of little-known details and minutiae about the war; however, it is also full of some shoddy errors and along with various blatant lies/half-truths (which is to be expected coming from a greedy warmongering fiend like him).

    Despite his high-intelligence and voluminous contributions to 20th Century historiography, I cannot defend any of Churchill’s sickening actions during WWII — actually, he is one of the only historical figures (or just people in general) that I actually feel an ever-growing amount of outright hatred toward.

    Churchill ultimately betrayed his own race for the sake of protecting a criminal Jewish gang of stock-exchange bandits and international anti-White plutocrats, and for that he can never be forgiven…he will always have the blood of untold millions of White innocents on his grubby little hands – http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42450000/jpg/_42450893_churchill_vandalised300.jpg

  14. A political adventurer and opportunist. The only reason the Churchill debate could be of any signficance today, I think, is that it might offend the myriad of respectable conservatives, the dangerous Jew-venerating numbskulls, who continue to idolise the man, even going so far as to buy cigars and Churchill bowties (which I think used to be advertised in the back of the National Review) to wear in imitation of him.

  15. Dan Dare is certainly committed to advancing his EGI, however adaptive or unadaptive his tack may be.

  16. Excellent article quoted, Niroy!

    “–This weird obsession with Germans leads me to believe the many rumors that he was indeed a crypto-Jew sent in to destroy Aryan-kind!–”

    True true. Winny’s mommy may indeed have been Jewish or part-Jewish.

    As the rest of the article points out –

    ==
    … “Germany’s unforgivable crime before the second world war,” Churchill said,” was her attempt to extricate her economic power from the world’s trading system and to create her own exchange mechanism which would deny world finance its opportunity to profit.” (Churchill to Lord Robert Boothby, quoted in the Foreword, 2nd Ed. Sydney Rogerson, ‘Propaganda in the Next War’ 2001, orig. 1938.”

    “UNANSWERED QUESTIONS”

    “Hitler had no desire to fight England. He regarded the English as racial brothers and feared a two-front war. He made many peace overtures, promising to uphold the British Empire in return for a free hand in Europe where he promised considerable national autonomy (e.g. Vichy France).”
    ==

    http://www.rense.com/general67/curch.htm

  17. Early in his career Churchill acknowledged the Jewish role in spreading Bolshevism and the resulting schism in the Jewish community between it and Zionism. As late as 1938 he lauded Hitler for his ability to rescue Germany from collapse.

    I can’t remember all the details but he was a deeply indebted man and sold his soul to Jewish financiers to avoid further personal financial woes. A book “Churchill and the Jews” is available documenting his pro-Jewish stance through most of his political career. I’ve always pondered whether he acted in the best interests of Great Britain or world Jewry.

    All in all he was a liability to the West. He was a drunk, an amoral opportunist and warmonger who ordered the bombing of German civilian centers in early 1940 before Germany ever attacked London. Hitler gave Churchill several chances at striking a peace accord only to be rebuffed every time.

    In the end he was no hero of the West. He aided and abetted our biological enemies and was one of the unwitting architects of the destruction of Great Britain, old Europe and Western Civilization.

  18. Both Dan Dare’s and Guessedworker’s fathers were in the RAF mass murdering and fire bombing German civilians with white phosophorus ( http://www.whale.to/b/walsh1.html ), yet they go on prattling about “German atrocities”. Some would call it chuzpah! In any case, they obviously have a vested interested in demonizing the Third Reich and their attitudes towards Germans have a distinguished family pedigree.

    I recently heard that over 40% of Black males in Britain live with White females. En-joy! Maybe the aliens replacing the indigenous population will be more pragmatic and rational.

  19. “Well, if you happen to hate Polish people, you should be grateful that Churchill got a lot of them killed.”

    Seeing things that way it might force me to say something positive about the old mass murdering drunk….nah…

Comments are closed.