Why I Hate Winston Churchill

September 5, 2024 Hunter Wallace Britain, History 98

I hate Winston Churchill.

I don’t say this because I am pro-Hitler or a National Socialist. I’m not.

I have never been interested in actual fascism. I don’t have a fascist bone in my body. I can’t fathom the appeal of wearing a uniform and genuflecting before a Duce or a Führer. Overall, I think Adolf Hitler had a disastrous foreign policy. I also find Nazi racial theories and eugenics to be too extreme. Fascists were vitalists who believed that a good war would “revitalize” their nations.

I hate Winston Churchill because I am a White Anglo-Protestant Southerner. I am more of a Christian isolationist. I dislike warmongers. I dislike liberalism and antiracism. I didn’t have a strong opinion about Winston Churchill and his legacy until the Iraq War. Churchill’s name and legacy was repeatedly invoked by neocons to justify invading Iraq and defeating the “Axis of Evil.” David Frum and Richard Perle wrote a book in 2003 called An End to Evil: How to Win the War on Terror. It appealed to people with the sort of Marvel comic book mindset who see the world as being divided between “good guys” and “bad guys,” Autobots and Decepticons who make devastating decisions on the basis of “principles.” They do not worry about the fallout or the long term consequences. Hitler is just the ultimate “bad guy” to them.

Before I knew much about him, I began to associate Churchill with warmongers launching global crusades for liberalism and democracy. The ghost of Winston Churchill is still being invoked to justify stupid wars all over the world like in the recent debate among House Republicans over Ukraine aid. Churchill is still inspiring new devastating wars from beyond the grave. Meanwhile, the scarecrow of Hitler is trotted out to justify toppling other “evil doers” like Saddam Hussein or Qaddafi or Slobodan Milosevic or Vladimir Putin. Donald Trump, of course, has also been compared to Hitler by aspiring Churchills.

The real Winston Churchill was a more sympathetic, complicated figure. Far from being a modern ethnomasochist, he supported Keeping Britain White in the 1950s as Third World immigrants began pouring in from the colonies. If anything, Churchill was more racist than most people who read and comment on this website. He was a diehard British imperialist and a proud British nationalist. He was a traditionalist who took great pride in his ancestor John Churchill, the Duke of Marlborough. Churchill wrote a four volume series called A History of the English-Speaking Peoples. He was the sort of person who you would think would gravitate toward likeminded people here.

Winston Churchill loved the British Empire. And yet, no one was a bigger contributor to the destruction of the British Empire than Churchill, which he committed to dismantling in the Atlantic Charter. He transformed Britain into an indebted American satellite. Churchill was a nationalist who genuinely loved Britain. And yet, he escalated a war that discredited nationalism and stigmatized racism, which has erased “Anglo-Saxons” at British universities. Churchill was a lover of freedom. And yet, liberalism survived the war in large part because of Churchill, and it has since mutated into Keir Starmer’s Orwellian police state which is more tyrannical than fascism. Muslim rape gangs now roam Britain thanks to Winston Churchill and you can be arrested and incarcerated for posting wrongthink on social media.

Worst of all, Winston Churchill who was half-American rallied the English-speaking peoples to the defense of Britain in its war against Hitler. He succeeded in dragging us into that conflict. Americans were brainwashed by war propaganda into believing that Hitler was a cartoon racist villain. This was a role which Southerners were immediately recast in as the internal villain who were “like Hitler” once Hitler himself was vanquished. We have been on the defense since the Truman administration. The fact that Southerners fought on the Allied side in the war in Europe and the Pacific was quickly forgotten.

I really can’t blame the people who reduce the memory of Churchill to his foolishness, to his stubborn unwillingness to compromise and deescalate, to his dying on principle, win at all costs and damn the consequences attitude. I agree that this is the most significant characteristic. I just do not remember him fondly in light of what his decisions, actions and “victory” have wrought.

98 Comments

  1. “I can’t fathom the appeal of wearing a uniform and genuflecting before a Duce or a Führer.”

    But you can fathom the appeal of catering to the GOP “base”? I mean let’s be honest here the nazis had a lot more going for them than whatever leftovers you think you’re going to work with. Having to listen to boomer concerns or play along with womens lib because muh big tent is a lot more humiliating than anything involving nazis. Be honest with yourself for a second here.

    • @Fox Mulder,

      “I mean let’s be honest here the nazis had a lot more going for them than whatever leftovers you think you’re going to work with. Having to listen to boomer concerns or play along with womens lib because muh big tent is a lot more humiliating than anything involving nazis. Be honest with yourself for a second here.”

      Larping at awesomeness of Nazism can’t ever be done more enough by you guys, can it? Your false strawman arguments of Hunter genuflecting to women’s lib and boomers, cuz Big Tent or something will go no where. Encouraging entryism, grass roots organizing, and activism within the GOP is not genuflecting to vice, immorality and corruption. Its taking the fight to the enemy. We are not hermits!

      Most of the Rightwong is already going into the GOP and organizing. There are already alot there as Stafffers in DC and Capitol Hill or various State capitals. There is nothing you guys can signal to stop it. WE WILL TAKE OVER. DEUS VULT!

      • Of course a bunch of lukewarm 20th century christians will totally take over (at least locally) the jewish debt machine. Who are you kidding. You think nobody has seen your type before and how easy you fold and sell out? I mean best of luck to you really, just don’t count on too many people to invest their hopes, time and money in what’s already spectacularly failed. Christianity didn’t and won’t work because it has no barriers. You can just claim you believe in Jesus Christ and that’s it. You think the jews let you in the club that easily? Why would we invest in people who will never be able to defend whatever power they conquer (if they are even able to at this point which is highly doubtful)?

        • Muddled Fox- “Christianity didn’t and won’t work because it has no barriers.”

          What do you mean, exactly. Jesus was quite clear on this: “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14But small is the gate and narrow the way that leads to life, and only a few find it.” Matt. 7.

          Some of the most heroic feats of Western/Eastern History are the self-abnegations of the saints and holy men and women who sought to enter that ‘strait/narrow’ gate. Crucifixion of Christians was not a barrier?

          Now, if you mean milquetoast antinomian sectarian Protestant-schism, then I am agreed with you. But even HW is in a rather strict Lutheran creedal assembly. He’s not exactly one of those aforementioned Prots.
          And your reductionistic statement, “You can just claim you believe in Jesus Christ and that’s it. ”

          No. Most definitely no. Not in my Church, not on my watch, not among my communicants. Even the RCC has a THREE-YEAR initiation/preparation for Baptism program (or did in the 1980’s). So, perhaps you are doing a straw man argument…. or you don’t realize that such people you describe are CINOS- Christians in less than Name only. I don’t know. But there you are. Without excuse.

        • “Christianity didn’t and won’t work because it has no barriers.”

          Spoken like a true Anti-Christ Whore of Babylon.

          YOU ARE A PAPIST!

          • “(((I))) watched with glee for 10 decades while your kings and queens fought for 10 decades over the gods they made.” is also applicable today. While Whites argue about every little petty thing imaginable the Jewish Marxist juggernaut rolls on.

      • “…Larping at awesomeness of Nazism can’t ever be done more enough by you guys, can it?…”

        The attempt to get rid of Jews washes away all sins. Nothing else matters.

        After Hitler had been in power a few years and kicked the Jews out of running(ruining) the country, in the US farmers were hanging themselves in their barns while Germans were going on company paid vacations.

        What ever the fallout from Hitler, if you look at the number of deaths, the totally Jewed USSR lost more men than the Germans. So fighting the Jews even if you lose means a better outcome for your country.

        • @Sam J,

          “The attempt to get rid of Jews washes away all sins. Nothing else matters.”

          Larping at genocide just proves either you are insane or an agent proveceteur. But, I like showing how foolish you are sometimes, so I will ask you, how getting rid of Israel and causing Jews to move here in the millions will get rid of Jews?

          Also, where does it say our Lord and Savior said getting rid of Jews washes away all sins? All you can point too is some Papist pedophile Priests, Bishops, and Popes. All of whom are deservedly in Hell.

          “After Hitler had been in power a few years and kicked the Jews out of running(ruining) the country, in the US farmers were hanging themselves in their barns while Germans were going on company paid vacations.”

          Jews were like about 350,000 perhaps 500,000 in Germany. Their numbers didn’t go down until the end of the 1930s. Lots of them came to America. It appears you want America to be the dumping groind not just of Papists running to the border, but also of Jews fleeing Sand N@ggers in Israel and Europe. This is typical Machievellian Popery. Thankfully, more and more Southern Nationalists are being made aware of your ilk’s schemes. The grift is over.

    • ” I can’t fathom the appeal of wearing a uniform and genuflecting before a Duce or a Führer.”

      Yeh, because you haven’t seen your family starving or freezing.

      ” I think Adolf Hitler had a disastrous foreign policy. ”

      Because he stopped judeo-marxism from taking over Europe and perhaps the world ?

      “. I also find Nazi racial theories and eugenics to be too extreme. ”

      They weren’t nearly so strict as California’s in the 1920s.

    • ” I also find Nazi racial theories and eugenics to be too extreme”

      Without scrupulous racial hygiene, by nature or government , nations collapse.

      • Yea, indeed, entire Civilizations, AIPAC. FWIW, let me theologically enlighten.

        HW (and all Western Xtians) here is dealing with a Theological error (like many in the West) that attends the fallacy of the impartation of Original Sin (when those who talk about the ‘innate goodness of man’ come up against it, sooner or later) to [sic] ‘all men.’ This article over at Faith and Heritage was my introduction to the issue, and it took me over a decade to understand the ramifications of all three positions: Pre-existence, Creationist, and Transducianism.

        https://faithandheritage.com/2017/08/traducianism-the-doctrine-of-the-soul-as-genetic/

        Put simply: Pre-existence is the idea that all the souls that ever will be are like the Mormon cosmology- all these souls floating around, waiting for bodies to inhabit. It’s basically Pagan and Greek.
        Creationist: Most likely, what HW believes, as the RCC’s do. God creates a soul, the minute a sperm and egg copulate. Problem is, this tends to impute unrighteousness to God, since souls are either good or evil upon conception (cf. the story of Jacob and Esau, and Paul’s comment: “Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand…As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” [Rom. 9:11,13] God, then, each time conception occurs, ‘damns’ certain souls to perdition- or something like that, as far as Pelagians/Arminians/Methodists/Free-Will Baptists would say…..
        Transducianist: I think this is the one that both: a) respects God’s Election, but also b) Man’s responsibility/culpability.

        Tertullian… “rejected the gnostic separation of spirit and matter, arguing that the soul and the body are inseparable and both originate at the moment of conception. Tertullian maintained that the soul was corporeal and even nourished, along with the body, by corporeal substances. He refuted existing theories of the origin of the soul found in Greek philosophy with his own. Tertullian is the father of traducianism.”

        This view explains why the National Socialists’ views on genetics, eugenics, and the intersection of the Darwinian secular ‘survival of the fittest’ made SOME sense on CERTAIN points. It is my rationale that only Adamic humanity CAN be spoken of as both God’s choice, and the ONLY ‘IMAGO DEI’ [ Gen. 1:27] in Holy Scripture from Genesis to Revelation. Not all hominids are Adamic, and therefore, not al hominids are ‘human’ – as far as GOD/SCRIPTURE view the issue. Transducianism is also the only biblical/trinitarian manner in which God could incarnate; and how/why Jesus Christ, as Fully God, chose only ONE ETHNICITY to incarnate into, and is conjoined Hypostatically to that ONE Ethnicity, ALONE (a true ‘SOLA’) for all Eternity.

        Thus, Jesus is both a) God and b) Our ‘KINSMAN-Redeemer,’ for it is only a ‘next of Kin’ in O.T. law, who COULD ‘redeem HIS PEOPLE from THEIR sins’ [Matt. 1:21] while leaving all others alone, [think of Boaz and Ruth]…

        Because the GENETIC PROCREATION OF THE SOUL IN ADAMKIND ensures at least their Genetic/LINEAGE ABILITY to Choose, if God has ‘predestined them to eternal life.’ [ Acts 13:48- while those who either a) never had that soul/flesh election, or b) mar/destroy it (coal burning) lose it utterly. This explains the scrupulous care for the genealogies, UNTIL the EDOMITE/CANAANITE scum infected the records, @150 years prior to Christ during the period of ‘assimilation’ ‘migrant immigration’ into Judea by these related (but not transducianly ‘pure’) cursed individuals, by John Hyrcanus, the last High Priest/King of Israel, before the Romans.

        While this isn’t Naziism, it is a far more biblical and historical/anthropological way to view all of Western/Orthodox civilization as the ‘Ecumene’ from which Christ was to draw both the ‘Judean and the Hellene’ [ Rom. 1:16-17] and NONE OTHER.

        • @Fr. John+
          “Creationist: Most likely, what HW believes, as the RCC’s do. God creates a soul, the minute a sperm and egg copulate. Problem is, this tends to impute unrighteousness to God, since souls are either good or evil upon conception (cf. the story of Jacob and Esau, and Paul’s comment: “Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand…As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” [Rom. 9:11,13] God, then, each time conception occurs, ‘damns’ certain souls to perdition- or something like that, as far as Pelagians/Arminians/Methodists/Free-Will Baptists would say…..”

          your comments were disturbing to me to (say the least) that, since it implies damnation, for example, ‘Problem is, this tends to impute unrighteousness to God, since souls are either good or evil upon conception …’, until I realized that the passages dealt with OT peoples (i.e. before Christ arrived).

          On Christ’s arrival, He freely gave redemption to all who believe on Him – thus nullifying that ‘ souls are either good or evil upon conception’.

          • No, sorry you’re wrong. St. Paul used the Jacob/Esau analogy in the New Testament, in the book of Romans, to point out that nothing has changed between the old covenant and the new covenant. Your attempt to bifurcate the Bible, is the oldest protestant trick in the book. It doesn’t work. It is anti biblical, and you’re acting more like Esau, than Jacob.

            There is still only one race of people who are the recipients of God‘s grace. It is not a universalist religion. Not all men are saved. Not all races are even included in the predestinated covenant of Jesus Christ! You are Worshiping a false God and a false faith that has nothing to do with biblical Christianity.

  2. At the beginning Churchill was an admirer of Mussolini like Gandhi and others but then he started his crusade against the axis…. Sincerely I’m not an admirer of 20 century historical figures, i like more people from 19 century like Bismarck of whom I am reading a biography.

    • @Marcel,

      Churchill was in fact a man from the 19th century. He grew up and later received a commission from Her Imperial Majesty and Empress of India, Queen Victoria in the late 1800s. He was already retired from her military commission when he attended the coronation of her grandson, King George V, as the Emperor of India at the Delhi Durbar in 1911. There all those arrogant heathen Wog N@gger princes and potentates had to bow before a high throne upon which sat a pure as White Christian sovereign, and could only do so after traversing thru 50,000 armed men. The thought of giving up India, Britidh rule, White rule wherever, was as far from their minds as giving up Texas today. When you read Churchill and the era he lived in, you will know he was the last stalwart defender of that which most American and British and other White country nationalists hold dear and why he fought so strenuously against a new from of heathen savagery from within the bosom of a country he liked and respected. He shouldn’t be hated but adored.
      https://youtu.be/4VCpkplKUf8?si=e7XkpIpFrclVagHv 

      Churchill grew up and learned before the days of planes, automobiles, and computers. He was tutored by the Gods of the Copy Book Heading. In fact he knew them personally, not just as a poem, and they weren’t nice. This 19th century background was an argument against him by 20th century political opponents. Today its what you all want to be, but you now call him a 20th century sell out. He can’t win for losing with you guys can he?
      https://youtu.be/_6_MgUGz_Ts?si=wCuWg9kiT-88LNbq

      Nonetheless win he did, not just as a Prime Minister, not just as a painter, not just as a father, not just as tactical commander in the trenches of WWI, but as far back as the 19th century colonial wars. He was a decorated soldier and war correspondent with campaigns from India to the Middle East to Southern Africa all before the 20th century. He fought Jihadis in India under the British Raj like here, https://youtu.be/lCqL9IktHQs?si=Ix2JOwalJTeDZnc2, or in the British cavalry like here
      https://youtu.be/f6UmKsqz6aQ?si=eUKyLfCSpMmA7PhG.

      While he acknowledged, treasured and loved the valour and friendship of the Rajputs, Sikhs, Nepalese, and Bengali men who served under him, he didn’t believe Moslems or Hindus should have representative government let alone settle to live under one in the UK. He thought it sacrilege when that little wog sh!t Ghandi walked up the steps of the Inns of Court in his native garb and called it a sacrilege to Christian Britain for a half naked fakir to enter.

      Churchill was a man of action, an artist, and an  adventurer and politician. He felt a need to meet the standards of his forebears which not only included his trade protectionist father and almost PM, Lord Randolph Churchill, but the weight of centuries of ancestors whose ghosts often visited him with inspiration as he has recounted. https://youtu.be/BvaVh6WGPE0?si=jUzRg4YRR8VI1yaO. Having slept in some of these old family residences, I can believe it. Like most of us, he was not a supporter of mass Democracy, but supported representative government by military land owning White Christians. He had many similarities with Hitler, except he wasn’t a historinic madman, a Papist, a German, or a borish gangster. He was an Anglo-American. Thats why we won WWII under his leadership and the Papist Nazi Germany lost. Nazi larpers need to get over it and join up with us and our heroes.

      • Your alcoholic German hater wrecked his beloved Empire and quite probably all of European mankind. All for nothing. Look at his little Island now. Brits being murdered, raped, and replaced by 3rd worlders and a government that hates and represses its own native people. All for nothing…all could have been avoided.

        • British voters showed their appreciation of Winnie in 1945 … by voting him out of office before the war in Asia was even over. His cucked-out response to the murder of his friend Lord Moyne at the hands of Zionazi terrorists in Palestine while WWII was still underway was beneath contempt.

          Winnie lived long enough to see his beloved empire collapse like a house of cards amid the winds of change that he himself had generated in a perverse butterfly effect, made painfully clear by the 1956 Suez Crisis, when Eisenhower stood up for Egyptian sovereignty in defiance of Anglo-Franco-Israeli aggression. He got to see his protege Anthony Eden smash his ministry on the jagged rocks of that fiasco.

        • @ Tikkun Olam
          Yep,
          He was a dupe for forces he didn’t know or understand, a fool doing the devil’s work.

        • @Tikkum Olam is coming for You,

          “Your alcoholic German hater wrecked his beloved Empire and quite probably all of European mankind. All for nothing. Look at his little Island now. Brits being murdered, raped, and replaced by 3rd worlders and a government that hates and represses its own native people. All for nothing…all could have been avoided.”

          Oh its Churchill’s fault that Hitler drove the world into war. In reality, it was your Anglo-Saxon Protestant hating Papist sexual deviant (he liked golden showers) Adolf who destroyed Germany, Central and Eastern Europe, sold out the later to the Bolsheviks, brought the first Moslems guest workers into Europe, and obliterated what remained of Chivalrous Christian Europe. He did it for his own megalomania. He was given ample opportunities to work with the Allies against the Soviets but he wanted supreme dictatorial control. All of this mess couldve been avoided, but, he was a typical Alpinic dumbkopf Papist.

        • Correct, and the pope even issued a bull in 1937 that rebuked the Third Reich. Golda Meir publicly lauded the pope for opposing Hitler. Many of the original guests at Dachau were Catholic priests.

        • Marcel- TYVM. Sometimes the anti-Christian (i.e., catholic)blindness of AGB is astounding to behold. Because he neither understands, nor will admit, that- Rome being the first protestant, all Protestants hold Roman theology in their bosoms, unknowingly, as my many posts have tried to demonstrate via theology, history, and geography….

          AGB, everything you said about Churchill is correct and true. As an cello-Norman, I respect and revere what England was until about 1914. But as my German forebears also flow in my veins, I cannot for the life of me, understand why the West decided to attack Germany, and why Dresden had to be bombed. Apart from ONE THING.

          JEWS. JEWS IN BRITAIN’S ARISTOCRACY going back centuries, [cf. mileswmathis.com] – next, the JEWS IN England’s Banking, going back to Rothschild and pitting France and England against each other to ENRICH THE F*CKING JEWS’ COFFERS.
          And Churchill’s dependence on Jews, which is fuzzy in my memory, but I do remember it.

          If we want to blame anyone for anything in Europe prior to 1939, and clearly and consciously in America after 1936, as Attorney Edgar J. Steele had to die a martyr for, ‘It’s the JEWS, Stupid!’

        • @Marcel,

          “Nazi Germany was not Papist…….”

          You guys’ ahistorical ignorance is what is astounding. In fact, Hitler, almost all the senior leadership of the Nazis, and the majority of the Nazi Party were all Papists. Hummers Waffen SS was modeled on the Jesuits bit as a Nazi Party militant order.

          As to how they treated the Protestants and Catholics, consider what happened to the different churches. While the Nazi government demanded all of the Protestant Christians be subsumed into the so called Germanic Christian Church, the Roman Catholic Church was entirely exempt and allowed to continue with special privileges granted it by the Lateral Treaty.

          Pope Son of the Bitch the X or whatever bragged about this coup and how it saved the Church and would grind the Prods under the Nazi boot, all of whom were of course Papists themselves. It was a Papist coup de etat the likes of which haven’t been seen in Germany since the Wars of Religion.

          Post War Western Europe, which required a unifed front against the Soviet threat suppressed these discussions for obvious reasons. Its long past the point of not discussing it, especially now that the Papacy has declared war on all of us Prods once again. All of you Papists larpong at being Nazis is just another imperial campaign to subjugate Protestants like Southern Nationalists thru your honey trap, controlled op, provocative Jew hunting.

          • Look I don’t even comment, it would be a waste of time…….but i want to tell you this: remember that until white european or american will be divided on some issues and they will make war with each other, nothing will be accomplished.
            P.s. I am not a papist (although I am from a Catholic country) and I have not gone to church since I was 18 years old.

        • You’re right Narcel. Hitler, even though he was raised in a Catholic family, hated the Catholic Church. The Nazi’s were Anti-Catholic. Their propaganda was always hammering at the Church. Hitler closed down their schools. Many priests and nuns ended up in concentration camps for just being priest and nuns. Yet, some will claim Adolph was a ‘papist’?

          • @Stephan Dalton

            “You’re right Narcel. Hitler, even though he was raised in a Catholic family, hated the Catholic Church. The Nazi’s were Anti-Catholic. Their propaganda was always hammering at the Church. Hitler closed down their schools. Many priests and nuns ended up in concentration camps for just being priest and nuns. Yet, some will claim Adolph was a ‘papist’?”

            Yes, Hitler was a Papist, as were most Nazis. Hitler hated anybody who believed they were superior to him. But, he was still a Papist. As a result, the Nazis provided exemptions for the Papists that they didn’t give to Protestants.

            Instead, the later were forced to be solely incorporated into the Nazi state in the same manner as the Orthodox Church was subordinated to the Commie Party in the USSR. This was the origin of the great debates among the Protestant Germans regarding what to do with the Nazis. It resulted in increasing numbers of them being sent to the concentration camps. The only reason some nuns and priests went to the concentration camps was principally when the Nazis started trying to exert more control than had been agreed upon with the Papacy. Even then it was small fries compared to the Prods who either bent the knee or went in droves to the camps.

            Ultimately, Nazi State tyranny over the Churches helped push the mostly Protestant dominated officer corps into slowly breaking faith with their tradition of subservience and rebelling against the Nazis. Eventually, this included events some of the Papist officer class too (after they started breaking with the Lateran Treaty). But overall, the Papacy was given special protection under the Nazis, because well, the party was Papist inspired as part of the general fascist movement.

            There are two great ideological proxies for representing the two great Euro-Christians sects of Western Europe. They are Zionism and Fascism. Protestants have generally supported Zionism, Papists have generally supported Fascism. Israel is a Zionist State project and the EU is a Fascist State project. The UK (Protestant) left the EU Fascist project. Ireland (Papist) chooses to remain a colonial province of the EU Fascist project. The UK was traditionally friendly toward Israel, while Ireland was traditionally friendly toward Israel’s enemies. You can use this proxy origin to explain all sorts of political relations. At any rate, its rather simplistic pattern but it works reasonably well in determining international networks and superbly well in recognizing the ethno-sectarian origins of the respective ideologies.

      • The confusion here is not understanding the Victorian Briton–which is excellently displayed in Dickens’ characters–Scrooge, Tiny Tim, etc.
        These caricatures were real, one-dimensional people, reflected in the England of the time.
        Churchill was likewise: a class warrior snob, big business the same as Empire and Country, the Calvinist humping of authority as Godly.
        If one reads the White Papers of the post-war period, the allocation of limited resources for Empire continually shrinks as the resources for the Cold War balloon.
        Churchill was a class-warrior. The fascists were supporters of capitalism, but their populism, retarding of lobbying and middle-class backgrounds were an unproductive, gross graft on to the free-market, neoliberal Calvinism of Anglo/American Liberalism.

  3. Terror bombing of the German civilian population was the heart of Churchill’s strategy in WW2:
    “But when I look around to see how we can win the war, I see that there is only one sure path . . . and that is an absolutely devastating, exterminating attack by very heavy bombers from this country upon the Nazi homeland. We must be able to overwhelm them by this means, without which I do not see a way through.”
    (Prime Minister to Minister of Aircraft Production, July 8 1940)

    • @WU,

      Yeah he was talking about bombing military industrial targets. There was no policy to kill German civilians to force a surrender. In contrast, Nazi Germany publicly threatened to flatten all of Warsaw and Rotterdam if they didn’t surrender. When they didn’t, Hitler and Nazi Germany flattened them and deliberately killed scores of thousands of men, women, and children. They publicly threatened to do the same to Paris, which after the rapid advance of Nazi Germany, caused the French government to collapse and surrender.

      Hitler threatened to so the same to Britain. With a small army without weapons, but protected by sea, a huge navy, and a fighting air force, their was huge debate whether to seek terms or continue fighting. The King and Queen wished to continue fighting and made London the hq for every government and royal in exile. Bit, there were many aristocrats and other common folk who wanted to surrender. Ultimately, under Churchill’s ministry the British decided to continue fighting despite some asking to surrender.

      For daring to not submit to Hitler, most of central London, Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool, York and other cities were destroyed and scores of thousands of civilians killed. There was great danger for many people as life was far less mobil then, than now, and most people lived in the same neighborhoods their whole lives. But, those communities were often destroyed. When studied there in the late 20th century there will still many building in ruins and even areas where you couldn’t go into because of unexploded ordinance.

      But for the British civil defense and the Royal Air Force, Germany would’ve obliterated all of urban UK within a year, then bombed the navy to bottom of the sea, invaded, and then killed off most of the male fighting population, and used British woman as sex slaves. No joke, that was their plan. Nonetheless, they didn’t cuz of a generation of warriors who didn’t suck nazi, fascist, commie, bullsh!t continued to fight. Their victory didn’t get us the place you all complain about cuz Hitler lost (so childish), just that their victories was sold out by lesser generations. I am glad I got to know some of these WWII era people and hear their stories. Not just children who remember the skies of London filled with aerial combat and V-bombs, but pilots who survived. Be like these guys, not the boomers or our present phucked up young generation of barbarized losers.
      https://youtu.be/gTv_4DPQUnQ?feature=shared

      • Churchill understood the English language. “Exterminate” means killing all people regardless of age or sex. It does not mean surgical strikes on industrial targets.

        (Like your other hero Netanyahu is doing in Gaza.)

        He also thought Stalin’s collectivization was worthwhile and the show trials of the late 1930s were legitimate.

        • Sure. This letter was written after some of Germany’s first bombing raids on England. He believed they were more terror bombings and believed if Britain did not respond, Hitler would continue to terrorize the British populace. The letter caused concerns in the Air Ministry. Thats why he followed up with a second letter clarifying his language as requiring bombers that could make pinpoint attacks not carpet bomb.

          This whole piece is a well known clever piece of Anglophoboc disinformation. In fact, Bomber Harris used the first letter to justify night bombings which were less accurate than daylight bombings surmised that Churchill’s first letter could be used to justify the heavy collateral casualties from bombing military industrial targets. You are parsing bits and pieces of historical primary sources in attempting to revise history. But, they are thin ice. So, keep trying though.

    • “Terror bombing of the German civilian population was the heart of Churchill’s strategy in WW2:”

      Also the naval blockade in an attempt to starve the Germans into surrender.

      • @United States of AIPAC,

        “Also the naval blockade in an attempt to starve the Germans into surrender.”

        What a gaslight. Ever hear of the U-Boat campaign and Battle of Atlantic? Launched to starve Britain who got more than half its food from overseas. Germany by contrast had all of the great Agricultural areas of Europe to feed its population. Germans had hardly a difficult time. It only got hard for them in the very end of the war from winter 44 to Spring 45. The British were half starved, and bombed out through most of the war and continued on rations until 1955. Germany was off rations in 1949.

  4. Churchill did name the J as the leaders of Communism everywhere:

    “ Zionism vs Communism the struggle for the Jewish soul”

    London Times

    See in Anti Zion by Grimstad at the Colchester Collection

      • Worse military leader. You don’t win three-front wars. Napoleon tried invading Russia and failed miserably, losing a huge portion of his army in retreat. He actually knew something about fighting wars too. The Austrian painter failed to grasp the fundamental lesson from Napoleon’s failure. He wasn’t a Genghis Khan or even a Napoleon.

  5. “I don’t say this because I am pro-Hitler or a National Socialist. I’m not.”

    There is no scenario where the white race can survive and declare that Hitler is evil. If you are pro white, you can’t be anti Hitler.

    • The white way is minding your own business and trying to live in peace. And it is what is going to save us from the hell you are pushing for. You are a jew aren’t you kyke?

    • The world doesn’t always have to be split between pro and anti. Some people just don’t feel strongly about certain things.

      You can be strongly pro-white, but not care about Hitler, and there’s no sensible argument that says otherwise. Hitler died 80 years ago. I don’t feel strongly about ANYONE, other than Jesus Christ and my grandparents, that lived over 80 years ago.
      That doesn’t mean that I’m unaware of their historical significance. It doesn’t mean I don’t have any sympathies for them. But Hitler was a human being, not a God, and my distant cousin kinship to Hitler, (if any), would have to be traced back at least 5-6 or more generations. In no time in history did ancestor worship or veneration bridge those kinds of generational gaps. So again, not really my blood job, and not actually a deity. His existence 80 years ago doesn’t require me to be “pro” or “anti” anything.

    • I live for Hitler and National-Socialism, they teach me everything.

      I won’t leave behind any offspring due to the first lesson to the Hitler Youth of Faith and Action by Helmut Stellrecht: “But if your blood has traits that will make your children unhappy and burdens to the state, then you have the heroic duty to be the last.”

      Only pure blond Aryans should reproduce.
      The fact is that I’m too racially aware not to notice, much to my chagrin, disturbing Black / Indian / Mestizo personality traits in myself, traits that demand, from my part, an eternal surveillance in order to be properly suppressed or controlled.
      Believe me, a non-Aryan person will always and inevitably have some (literally) dark corners in his soul.

      • Just to warn this site, the real César Tort doesn’t use his full name in internet forums. I imagine the poster is ‘Dr Moralez’. No doubt he’ll tell me different (what else would you expect?), but I’ve spoken to César recently and this insecure subhuman Moralez has been trolling him and The West’s Darkest Hour blog for quite some while. He hates César, and is an envious long-term rival, attempting to prevent new visitors.

    • In your lips I sense a danger, you’ve got the eyeesssss of a stranger!

      Excuse me I’ve been drinking. LOL!

    • Adolf Hitler was a Histironic Psychopath. In the end he damned the German people declaring they deserved to be destroyed because THEY failed HIM! Then he shot himself in the head.

      There is no hope in the White race in such a man. The hope of the White race is in our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and his chivalrous servants and each and every White person who has Him in their heart.

  6. Churchill shares responsibility with FDR for elevating the USSR to a major military power at the close of WWII — a position it could have never achieved without the massive diplomatic and material support it got from the USA and GB. In essence we traded Hitler for Stalin at a cost of millions of deaths and destruction on an unprecedented scale.

    Following the war he toured the USA to warn us an about the “iron curtain” surrounding Europe — a situation he played a huge role in creating.

    • The pretext for going to war against the Third Reich was the Anglo-French security guarantee to Poland. Two weeks after declaring war on Hitler, Churchill exposed the sincerity of his concern for Poland’s well being by NOT declaring war on the USSR when Stalin invaded the country from the east.

  7. Hunter, respectable article on Winston Churchill. But, your criticism, let alone hatred of him is definitely misplaced. Starting out by hating on Churchill because his ghost was used by people to justify poor foreign policy executions sets out your main argument. Namely, you are mad at Churchill because thirty-five years after his death his name was used by bad modern day policy makers and even more mad because today’s world has gone to crap since WWII or something. This is like hating Thomas Jefferson because leftists use him to justify LGBTQ and anti-racism, and because today’s world has gone to crap compared to when we lived in the wildly economically successful British Empire. Darn those Patriots! In reality, the cause you rally to was the same cause Churchill rallies too. If he were alive today, he would be a leader of the nationalist right and you’d be a follower of his.

    What I see in most people here is they are low information propogandized rightwingers who like to choose counter poses as a natural default because political autism. Since Churchill won and became the standard, they must be anti-Churchill because of their political autism. This makes them easily managed by Leftwing and Papist propagandists into going down Nazi rabbit wholes and fighting eachother. They believe Churchill was a liberal Democrat n@gger lover who hated Nordic nazi types cuz something. They think any promoter of Churchill is secretetly a syphilitic Jew like him. The reality is, Churchill was a Christian supremacist. Churchill was a Protestant supremacist. Churchill was a Nordic supremacist. Churchill was an Anglo-Saxon supremacist. Churchill was a Pro-European civilizational, Anglo-Imperialist and British Firster. Basically, Churchill was everything that Richard Spencer 1.0 said he wanted to be san the British bit. The problem was Churchill was a Protestant Britannic, while Dick was a Papist Germanophile. So, Dick could never incorporate Churchill into his future Imperium. Likewise, the rest of the Papist, especially the larping NatSoc types also jump on Churchill despite being everything he was racially.

    If everyone here educated themselves about Churchill, especially by beginning reading of History of the English Speaking People (Its quiet a saga), it would end the stupid fracture inside the rightwing nationalists movement and cement a clear unified political pathway which Americans, Britannics, and Europeans could follow. The English Speaking People series Anglo-Saxonism is basically the bedrock upon which Lathrop Stoddard, Madison Grant, and others made their own conclusions. Its no coincidence that Churchill knew both.

    You anti-Churchill WASPs are hating on people who should be your natural heroes. Intead, you’ve allowed lesser beings to use them as their playtoys. Just because some Likudniks misuse Churchill doesn’t make Churchill a Likudnick. Likewise with leftists who misuse Jefferson doesn’t make Jefferson a Commie. Take back the playtoys and put them back up as the monuments and teachers they are supposed to be for our kindred. It should be noted that Churchill devoted a not insignificant part of his English Speaking series to not just Americans, but especially Southerners. He was a noted Confederate symp and Dixiephile. Churchill should have a place of honor at all Southern identity movements. Or you can all be retards and larp about that alien Papist German supremacist historonic, Adolf Hitler.

    • “The reality is, Churchill was a Christian supremacist. Churchill was a Protestant supremacist. Churchill was a Nordic supremacist. Churchill was an Anglo-Saxon supremacist. Churchill was a Pro-European civilizational, Anglo-Imperialist and British Firster.”

      That makes him a fully Catholic Christian Empire Supremacist= a CHRISTENDOM MAN, in my book.

      Just like all the ‘Papist Kings’ and Orthodox Monarchs of the preceding 19 Centuries. You can’t jettison the historic continuity of the Doctrine of Christendom, and suddenly come up with Victorian Britain. Churchill lived during the most Anglo-CATHOLIC phase of the Church of England, for example. Pusey et al. gave England back her Catholicism, while (stupidly) also flirting with ultramontane Rome, post Tridentine ossification- but even so, there you are. This liturgical breaking through of a return to Catholic norms and forms continued until the post-Liberal German theologians (Hort/Westcott) all but crucified the English church, and only Dean Burgon in the C of E had to challenge this crap.
      Yet today, ALL PROTESTANTS WHO ADVOCATE OTHER THAN THE KJV are the worshipful heirs of the heretics HORT and WESCOTT!!!

      As Dr. Farrell says of modern-day Protestants (specifically those (like me) with their love of the Textus Receptus:
      Dr. Farrell notes in his “God, History, and Dialectic” that “…Protestantism came to articulate a rather interesting, and peculiar, formulation of its sola Scriptura, one all but forgotten by modern Second European (i.e., Western) scholarship, for the manuscripts selected as the basis of the sola Scriptura were none other than the Greek manuscripts underlying the so-called “Received” or ‘Traditional” text-type, sometimes call the ‘Byzantine text type.” The Protestants had, in short, adopted the ecclesiastical text-type of the Greek Orthodox Church of the First [i.e., Orthodox/’Eastern’] Europe, without, of course, adopting the non-Augustinian paradigm of that Europe.’

      ‘The implications of this are, to say the least, sweeping, for in one and the same breath, Protestantism was implying that there was indeed an uncorrupted tradition of the transmission of accurate and authentic copies of the Scriptures- that of the First Europe- while its historiography was busily adopting and engaged with the dialectical presuppositions of the (apostate) Second…..’.

      ‘…We must pause here to consider a second important implication of the classical Reformation sola Scriptura…the doctrine of biblical infallibility…has come to mean [that]… Contemporary American ‘evangelicalism,’ in other words, does NOT possess those autographs- indeed, no one does- and therefore by its own formularies, it does not possess any reliable basis for authority, biblical or otherwise, since the autographs are not extant…..’
      ?For those inclined to follow the classical Reformation view of the matter, it implies an equally self-contradictory enterprise: it must defend the accurate transmission of a particular text-type in the patristic tradition while simultaneously rejecting the doctrinal and ecclesiological witness of that tradition to such things as apostolic succession, the perpetual virginity of Mary, or the liturgical use and purpose of Ikons.” – pp.589-90

      In short, the very ‘papistry’ you fear so irrationally, AGB! LOL

      • ““The reality is, Churchill was a Christian supremacist. Churchill was a Protestant supremacist. Churchill was a Nordic supremacist. Churchill was an Anglo-Saxon supremacist. Churchill was a Pro-European civilizational, Anglo-Imperialist and British Firster.””

        “That makes him a fully Catholic Christian Empire Supremacist= a CHRISTENDOM MAN, in my book.”

        True. All Trad Prods are Christendom men. Papists dont have the corner on the Christendom or Christian Nationalism market.

        “Just like all the ‘Papist Kings’ and Orthodox Monarchs of the preceding 19 Centuries. You can’t jettison the historic continuity of the Doctrine of Christendom, and suddenly come up with Victorian Britain.”

        I dont try to. You are making a strawman argument. Papist Kings have existed thru the centuries, but not all Christian Kings were Papist in centuries past. That did not become a pattern until the Counter Reformarion when those who finally and fully submitted to the supremacy of the Papacy, a doctrine which wasn’t made Papal Doctrine until the Counter-Reformation. It was during the COUNTER-Reformation that there was an irrevocable split made by heretical Papists with their Christian brethren in the Holy and Invisible Church. That is why their is no discontinuance in the Reformation to their past. It was the Papists of the Counter-Reformation who irrevocably discontinued themselves from their past and permanently dragged the Roman Catholic Church into the gutter where it remains to this day.   

        Until that time, Christians and their corrupt brethren existed within the same ecclesiastical Church in Roman Catholic Europe. This is the reason why Luther and others were able to be Ecclesiastically ordained priests who could preach and stay within that Church hoping reforms would remove away the grossities accumulated thru the centuries. It wasnt until the Papacy ordered a conclave and elevated and cemented their supremacy and various other errors such as Papal Infallibility into Roman Catholic doctrine, and then excommunicated all the reformers and their temporal state supporters, that the split become real.

        The lack of Papal doctrine of supremacy and inerrancy prior to the Reformation is why the Roman Catholic Christian sovereigns of Europe preceding the Reformation had historically often been at odds with the Papacy regarding each others authority and were not considered illegitimate. A perfect example would be the German Holy Roman Emperors who consistently fought the Papacy over their right to rule temporal affairs and sit in ecclesiastical judgment of the church. This sometimes resulted in them even seizing the Pope, or the Pope excommunicating them. Another example was King Henry II who had Archbishop of Canterbury St Thomas Becket extra judiciously executed for treason for him unconstirutionally submitting the Church of England to Papal Supremacy and ordering the collection of Peter’s Pence as a form of tribute. With the Counter Reformation, the Papacy declared its absolute supremacy forcing the sovereigns of Europe to take sides, either Protestant Reformers or Papist Romans. This is the birth of the Papists, not the early primitive Church as you attempt to argue. 

        “Churchill lived during the most Anglo-CATHOLIC phase of the Church of England, for example. Pusey et al. gave England back her Catholicism, while (stupidly) also flirting with ultramontane Rome, post Tridentine ossification- but even so, there you are.”

        The Papists don’t stop with their Popery. Their strength has ebbed and flowed thru the centuries. That doesn’t make Churchill a Papist for existing during said advances by Protestants flirting with Popery or becoming clandestine Papists.

        “This liturgical breaking through of a return to Catholic norms and forms continued until the post-Liberal German theologians (Hort/Westcott) all but crucified the English church, and only Dean Burgon in the C of E had to challenge this crap.
        Yet today, ALL PROTESTANTS WHO ADVOCATE OTHER THAN THE KJV are the worshipful heirs of the heretics HORT and WESCOTT!!!”

        Lots of strawman arguments here. Advocating liturgical Popery is itself a sign of flirting with the Whore of Babylon but it doesn’t make one who advocates it a Papist. Its like someone who flirts with whores. Its on your way but you are not there yet. Not until one recognizes Papal supremacy (drinking the Blood of Saints with the Whore on her Dragon) does one become a true Papist. That is the deal with the devil all Papist sovereigns and state actors have made ever since. That is the true sign of the Beast on the fore head.

        “As Dr. Farrell says of modern-day Protestants (specifically those (like me) with their love of the Textus Receptus:
        Dr. Farrell notes in his “God, History, and Dialectic” that “…Protestantism came to articulate a rather interesting, and peculiar, formulation of its sola Scriptura, one all but forgotten by modern Second European (i.e., Western) scholarship, for the manuscripts selected as the basis of the sola Scriptura were none other than the Greek manuscripts underlying the so-called “Received” or ‘Traditional” text-type, sometimes call the ‘Byzantine text type.” The Protestants had, in short, adopted the ecclesiastical text-type of the Greek Orthodox Church of the First [i.e., Orthodox/’Eastern’] Europe, without, of course, adopting the non-Augustinian paradigm of that Europe.’”

        These are all arguments of Scholastic legalism that do nothing to explain the true Christian faith or the Reformation which purged it of Judeo-Greco-Roman errors.

        “‘The implications of this are, to say the least, sweeping, for in one and the same breath, Protestantism was implying that there was indeed an uncorrupted tradition of the transmission of accurate and authentic copies of the Scriptures- that of the First Europe- while its historiography was busily adopting and engaged with the dialectical presuppositions of the (apostate) Second…..’.”

        “In short, the very ‘papistry’ you fear so irrationally, AGB! LOL”

        Confusing liturgy with the spiritual baptism of the Christ is typical popery. Argue all you want about liturgical history or scholastic doctrine and who had more legitimacy cuz precedence, but as long as it recognizes that by the True Faith in Christ are we justified, it is correct. That is why Christians in Asia don’t need to have Latin Tridentine liturgy to be Christians, neither why those who practice it are necessarily not Christians, nor why those who do practice it can not be Christian. What defines them as Christians is altogether something more spiritual than all your scholarly doctrine and liturgies. Such doctrines and liturgies are insufficient for the salavation found in the Gospel of Christ. By elevating them to such a standard is why we call such Popery, superstitious wickedness, not because they are in and of themselves necessarily superstitious or wicked.

        Your arguments in this regard are the arguments of Popery. We reject them as insufficient to Faith in Christ but also do not deny them for those who wish to practice them in Faith in Christ. What we do deny is the Papacy and the sins it has pushed in Liturgies and Scholasticism to support its supremacy. We deny the Papacy because it has elevated tradition and legalism above scripture, and elevated the Prince of Rome to acting as the Supreme Pontiff in the Church of our Lord and Savior, Christ, and even to the supremacy of Christ’s authorities in the States of His Kingdom. By Christ’s name and the power of the Holy Spirit, we shall overcome these lies and especially the Popish plot to subordinate the Southern identity and American nationalist movements.

    • ” Churchill should have a place of HONOR at all SOUTHERN Identity movements ” Churchill in his book ” HISTORY of the English speaking peoples ” Wrote that he was of the opinion that the American General R.E.LEE, was the greatest CAPTAIN, of the ENGLISH speaking peoples ” I agree, and appreciate, his remark I also know, after the war, he visited KENTUCKY and had conferred upon him, an Honorary, KENTUCKY COLONELHOOD, I for one, do not hate him, even though, he was quoted as saying, ” Americans are easy to fool, just tell them how GREAT they are and they will believe anything else you tell them. ” ………one more while I am at it, he also said ” You can always trust Americans to do the right thing, after they tried everything else ” ……..

  8. Actually, what’s beginning to happen is what always happens after a major war or political event happens in history. People start going back and reconsidering if
    the decisions that were made were the right ones at the time. We are still arguing who was at fault in the Wars of the Roses, for crying out loud. As the people who were there and want to protect the Official History “ start to die off, new people without all the old prejudices start to come along. And that is healthy. And, no like Brad I, I find dressing up like nazi storm troopers as totally alien to me. We will have to forge our own way.

  9. Tired of reading schizophrenic posts meant to give the few remaining LCMS leaders who are willing to protect you a justification for doing so. You’re all over the place dude. When you get backed into a corner on Twitter you just stop responding and you wake up the next day forgetting how your argument was defeated.

        • 1. My nom de plume has nothing to do with WLP or GLR. It was inspired by George Wallace. I grew up in the same county and we are related through my father’s side of the family. Hunter is the name of my first cousin.

          2. I don’t recall ever writing anything about the 1920s in which I supported fascism or National Socialism or American intervention in either of the World Wars. I have written volumes about Western cultural decline here over the past 15 years. It is true that there were nascent negative trends like modern liberalism and modernism at work in the 1920s, but it was the Great Depression and World War II that made antiracism hegemonic.

          3. No, I first got into Luther through my historical research after graduating college. I was already interested in Lutheranism before I met my wife due to all the graduate level courses that I took on Early Modern European history. But yes, I did marry into the American church. I did not intend Lutheran services before getting married.

          4. Corey Mahler is an actual National Socialist. I have always been a Southern nationalist and populist. Feel free to search the archives. I have been posting on the internet for 23 years now and in all that time I have never identified with fascism.

          • @George Redleaf and Hunter Wallace,

            As a follower and critic of Mr. Wallace for a very, very, long time, I can second most of what he responded to you with. Although some thought he might be a Papist or Jewish infiltrator when he first arrived on the scene no one thought him to be a National Socialist or Fascist. While some of his counterparts in the broader American Nationalist movement either flirted with or where outright members of NatSoc, I’ve never witnessed him or read anything suggesting he is a Nazi or Fascist.

            As to his religious beliefs, the family and community he married into gave him a strong pass as a distant member. I should know. His gnostic beliefs were a problem for me and some of the older chappies around his father in law, but it was against his background and he solidly grew out of it, was baptized in the Lutheran Church, and has proven to be a good Christian Southern man. So, I am not sure what the point is to call out his veracity as a Southerner, a Protestant, or a Lutheran.

            One of the great things Hunter has done has been to provide an intellectual framework to discuss the fall of America and the Western World away from simplistic Anti-Semitism, Anti-Protestantism, or Anti-Romanism. For this alone, his work is sufficient. For this, more than anything else, has helped those trapped in the feedback loop of those Anti-isms, by providing a nuanced way to figure out their positions, whether it be Southern Nationalist, American Nationalist, National Socialist, Fascist, Socialist, or Communist, without falling into the simplistic Anti-isms.

            Although tiresome to me at times, all of those groups have found a way to argue their points within that moral historical framework which you have cited. We’ve had Socialist Internationalists, Republicans, Democrats, Christian Nationalists, Southern Nationalists etc make excellent points here. About the only ones I dont have time for are the incessant Anti-Semites who reduce their world view down to “Duh, Jews” even after Hunter has provided a moral history they could use to make their arguments. Similarly, when it comes to him discussing his experience with the various political provocetuers, who’ve all been Papists, but who continue to make Anti-American, Anti-WASP, Anti-Southern talking points long after he called out their b.s. 

            Therefore, it is clear to me that there are a number of commenters here, and actors in the Movement, who are or were not being sincere actors. They are here merely to provoke, antagonize, honey trap, and smear by association on behalf of whatever outfits they are working with. I happen to know most of these are Papists and the rest Leftist outfits and make a point of calling them out. Hunter not triangulating against it doesnt make him insincere. But, you accusing him because he doesn’t do so, is suspicious. I think you should give him a break from trying to box him into a category for a predicate. If he should fall from grace it will be obvious then. For now? Not so much.

  10. “Winston Churchill loved the British Empire.”

    Yes, I agree but that points to the major difference between Churchill and Hitler. Hitler first and foremost loved the German people. While Churchill loved the Empire he didn’t give a rat’s a$$ about the average Brit. It’s well known that he was more than happy to sacrifice his own people early in the war. Probably a product of the British two tier class system which has today morphed into a three tier system – the upper class nobility, colored immigrants and the working class Brit with the latter at the bottom of the totem pole.

    • @Caspar Koch,

      “Hitler first and foremost loved the German people. While Churchill loved the Empire he didn’t give a rat’s a$$ about the average Brit.”

      So fundamentally the opposite of reality. Hitler constantly berated the Germans for failing to live up to his demands. He berated, imprisoned, and shot German Generals who arguably were among the most patriotic and best military captains of European history, simply because they failed to his standards. In the end, he said the Germans had failed and deserved to be obliterated. Then he shot himself. Thats the guy you say loved his people.

      Churchill didnt do this to his comrades, subordinates, and people. Churchill loved the British people and wrote about them and their fears of hustory eloquently in books, speeches, and pamphlets. He served them throughout a lifetime of service and remembered his fellow soldiers and subordinates as comrades and friends long afterward. When one of his plans in WWI failed, he didnt shoot the commanders. He resigned his position and went to serve and die in the trenches of the Western Front.

      Churchill wanted to protect the British Empire because it was created to serve the British people. It did a pretty good job of doing that until the 20th century. One can see the difference of London under the Empire and without it. The British people made more money and lived comparatively better than they did without the Empire. The loss of Empire was a positively damaging event in British history.

      Aside from the British people, the Empire was also a force for European Christianity on the world stage. The Christian Britannic crown’s servants have encyclopedias of sagas recounting their fights againsy Anti-Christians, savages, heathens, and wicked devils. The world was full of satanic terror organizations East of Suez and South of Gibraltar before the Empire and even worse than now. Whether it was the Thuggees, the Tongs, the South Sea Pirates, the Mahdis of Sudan, the Devilmen of West Africa, the Arab slavers of East Africa, etc the British Empire faced down these evil secret societies and destroyed them. They stopped Hindu self emulation, Moslem genital mutilation, Ottoman eunichization, American Indian savagery, Zulu barbarism, and Chinese Boxerism, and helped make the world a better place.

      But for German arrogant imperialism damaging the world system so thoroughly in two world wars, the British Empire and its European counterparts at the center of the old world order would’ve continued. Assuredly, it either would’ve reformed itself to greater heights are slowly fallen to natural old age. Instead, it was crippled by fellow Europeans, the Germans, whp were angered with envy and arrogance. But, keep larping at promoting the destruction caused by these Papist backed German imperialism wars. It only proves you are brainwashed by leftist progoganda.

  11. FrankC: Bottom line: If Hitler had won the war, the White Race wouldn’t be in the existential situation it finds itself in. Interesting sidenote: After the war Churchill, upon surveying the situation in Europe with the Soviet Union occupying Eastern Europe and threatening Western Europe, remarked: “We killed the wrong pig.”

    • General Patton expressed a similar conclusion at the end of the war as well, shortly before the freak car accident that took his life.

    • @FrankC,

      “Bottom line: If Hitler had won the war, the White Race wouldn’t be in the existential situation it finds itself in.”

      What? We are in the situation we are in because of Hitler. He wiped out the last Great European powers in his wars of Nazi German self aggrandizement. In turn their empires were damaged or crippled. In the face of American and Soviet competition they couldn’t be maintained tuereby releasing the food of Color upon the world. No, we are here today because of Hitler.

  13. Churchill, a useful pawn, moved by the same claw behind the curtain that moves most international events.

  14. The British Empire was White Christians serving as hired guns for Jewish Bankers situated in the City of London. It was a Jewish Racket, just like Ezra Pound said. And that’s why the Jew Churchill liked the Empire. The Jews got richer while the White Christians got killed off in the wars.

    Those Jews know they can mislead white normies ever so easily with deceitful words, whether spoken or written. You will always care about what they say, not what they do. Two cases in point, Churchill and Trump. The Jew Eisenhower a third.

    Thankfully, London never had direct control over the American Colonies. The Jews in London wrote charters for the colonies, but once they got here the Colonists simply ignored the Jewish written charters.

    After the English Civil War London never had the slightest possibility of controlling or even taxing the colonies. Yet still, Parliament tried beginning in 1768, and the Colonies just separated in 1776. It was a fool’s errand. There was no possibility of subjugating the colonies

    Canada was a different matter. Canada is still subjugated. That is why Canada will wind up entirely like Southern Africa while the Southland and Texas will re-emerge as sovereign nations. We rejected the Jewish Empire from the beginning, in 1607, while the Canadians have always embraced their Jewish Overseers in London.

    • England has always been fighting off invasions and murder from the European continent. Since like 800AD. I’m not getting into petty insults and tirades here, we had no choice but to take over the world.

      Hitler had limited but existent avenues to avoid war. Unfortunately, he didn’t take them. He was given Anschluss, Sudeten, Elsatz-Lothringen but he just kept going.

      Not trying to sound condescending, but read more. Alfred the Great, Harold Godwinson, Oliver Cromwell are good places to start.

      In the spirit of understanding and curiosity, I’m open to recommendations on German history. The more you know, the better you do.

    • Ive said it before, Germans I’ve met are generally very similar to us in terms of their worldview and even appearance. Canadians/Brits are not the bad guy here. Civic nationalism is just as stupid whether it comes from the right side or the left.

    • > Southland and Texas will re-emerge as sovereign nations. We rejected the Jewish Empire from the beginning, in 1607, while the Canadians have always embraced their Jewish Overseers in London.

      That was true until the usual suspects arranged a civil war in the US. Andrew Jackson defeated the third City of London attempt to take over – referred to as the ‘Bank War’ (1832-36) led by Rothschild stooge Nicholas Biddle. The Rothschild war on Jackson included two assassination attempts (1833, 1835 – the second by a London operative), the Nat Turner revolt and censure by congress (already bought and paid for in part). Jackson paid off the national debt in 1835 and the usual suspects reacted to their loss by creating the 1837 financial panic. According to Otto Bismarck – who was definitely in a position to know, team Red-Shield then set up the plan to create massive division over slavery, which was well on its way to being solved legislatively (as it had been in nearly every other country in the western hemisphere).

      > “The division of the United States into federations of equal force was decided long before the Civil War by the high financial powers of Europe. These bankers were afraid that the United States, if they remained in one block and as one nation, would attain economic and financial independence, which would upset their financial domination over the world. The voice of the Rothschilds prevailed… Therefore they sent their emissaries into the field to exploit the question of slavery and to open an abyss between the two sections of the Union.” ~ Otto von Bismarck

      Almost simultaneously with the outbreak of the war, Rothschild-France invaded Mexico and installed a puppet Ruler, backed by the City of London. Thanks to the war, the federal government and confederate governments had to borrow vast sums of money – and they certainly weren’t borrowing it from a few wealthy plantation owners. Lincoln attempted to monetize the US debt by printing the infamous ‘greenbacks’ and the confederates simply defaulted. By war’s end 2.3 billion in debt was owed to the cartel (1.3 fed, 1 confed). Rothschild agent J. W. Booth (whose father was also an agent) paid back Lincoln for his ‘greenback’ scheme at the end of the war. The resulting 14th amendment (ratified July 1868) presented a serious problem as section 4 bluntly stated:

      > But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

      The holders of confederate debt were of course the usual suspects and their friends. The first part of section 4 guaranteed the debt owed by the federal regime but that wasn’t enough for the vampires. Payment for these debts was made in gold and other hard assets. Thus followed the 1871 Treaty of Washington, which effectively superceded the constitution. The end result was the United States was effectively abolished and replaced with a holding company to ensure the payment of the 2.3 billion plus interest – in gold and silver. The ‘neutral abitrator’ of this treaty was Kaiser Wilhelm I of Prussia, whose prime minister was Bismarck.

      The establishment of the “Federal” Reserve in 1913 merely permanently enshrined the central bank racket in place so that the former republic was reduced to a corporate plantation populated by tax slaves subjected to endless usury.

      • Mr. Cyclops that was a good comment and I agree with most of it. The one I disagree with is that the Federal Reserve is permanent. It is emphatically not. The day that the missiles fly, and that day is close, will be the final day of the Zog empire and it’s Federal Reserve Bank. Keep in mind always, Texas legally has the right to secede, and is in no way bound to the Royal Pederasty Regime in London.

    • @Rangewolf,

      “The British Empire was White Christians serving as hired guns for Jewish Bankers situated in the City of London. It was a Jewish Racket, just like Ezra Pound said. And that’s why the Jew Churchill liked the Empire. The Jews got richer while the White Christians got killed off in the wars.”

      More innumerate and illiterate statements about history from Leftists pretending to be Nazis, pretending to be Rightwingers, pretending to be Southern nationalists.

      It is a matter of fact that London was a better place with Empire than without Empire. The average British subject, especially in London was richer than anywhere else. The per capita GDP for the British in 1910 was $250,000 in 2020 dollars. It was also 99% British. One can see the remnants of that wealth even in today’s post-Empire London which ironically is only 40% British. London was still 90% British as late as 40 years after the loss of Empire. Arguably poorer though. Last, dumb dumb, Churchill wasn’t a Jew. 

      “Those Jews know they can mislead white normies ever so easily with deceitful words, whether spoken or written. You will always care about what they say, not what they do. Two cases in point, Churchill and Trump. The Jew Eisenhower a third.”

      More Nazi larping. Eisenhower wasn’t a Jew.

      “Thankfully, London never had direct control over the American Colonies. The Jews in London wrote charters for the colonies, but once they got here the Colonists simply ignored the Jewish written charters.”

      More insane b.s. The Plymouth and Virginia companies which settled the American seaboard were all eventually located in London. The charters where all written by non-Jews. How do we know this aside from not being a total moron? There were no Jews in England when the charters were written. Duh.

      “After the English Civil War London never had the slightest possibility of controlling or even taxing the colonies. Yet still, Parliament tried beginning in 1768, and the Colonies just separated in 1776. It was a fool’s errand. There was no possibility of subjugating the colonies.”

      Sounds like some sort of weird Nazi Libertarian revisionism of history. Barely entertaining.

      “Canada was a different matter. Canada is still subjugated. That is why Canada will wind up entirely like Southern Africa while the Southland and Texas will re-emerge as sovereign nations.”

      More Papist, pretending to be Leftist, pretending to be Nazi, pretending to be Rightist, pretending to be Southern Nationalist self sabotage and innumeracy. Texas is 45% White. Canada is 75% White. Keep trying harder.

      “We rejected the Jewish Empire from the beginning, in 1607, while the Canadians have always embraced their Jewish Overseers in London.”

      Yawn. At least please drop the defamatory plug ins with the Southern nationalist tirades. This attempt at Papist neo-IRA revolutionary talking points for Southern Nationalist is unworkable. Just stop. Its embarrassing even to us Prods. 

  15. I’m sorry, but is this Aryan globalist bro an elaborate, long-running, dedicated troll? Every single article’s comments is plastered with endless schizo rants about “papists” secretly controlling everything. This is literal retardation and it seems like everyone takes him seriously. What gives?

    • “This is literal retardation and it seems like everyone takes him seriously. ”

      No, he is mostly ignored by the majority of posters and a joke to others.

      HW is very tolerant on free speech and having an open dialogue, so some junk posts and posters are inevitable.

    • I don’t think he’s taken seriously. People just don’t bother refuting his garbage as regularly as they used to. (Hunter, shit-tier moderator that he is, has a long history of allowing useless trolls to plague his blog.)

    • “I’m sorry, but is this Aryan globalist bro an elaborate, long-running, dedicated troll? Every single article’s comments is plastered with endless schizo rants about “papists” secretly controlling everything. This is literal retardation and it seems like everyone takes him seriously. What gives?”

      You know what is retarded? Its hearing Papists non-stop biatch about Jews on a Southern Nationalist e.g. British Protestant website.

      Frankly, its amazing that you think you Jews dominate the world. You Papists claim 20,000,000 people, located mostly in a tiny sliver of a besieged country in the Middle East and spread around 1,000,000,000 other European derived peoples, run everything. Yet, these super men are divided into several different ethno-sectarian groups, 1/3rd of whom are atheists, 2/3 of whom are secularists. According to you Papists, they not only totally dominate just those 1,000,000,000 European derived people but another 6,500,000,000 other human nations. Now that is retarded.

      You know whats even more retarded than that? Trying to hide the fact that in contrast to this divided tiny sliver of Jews, without any clear unifed institution and a little besieged statelet which a bunch of Jews don’t even support, there is an actual gloablist unifed institution under the Papacy.

      You Papists like to deny the existence of this this giant institution, which is heriarchial in nature, is backed by religious fanatacism and dogma, is spread around the world, holds a vast wealth of real estate, securities, commodities, gold, silver, precious metals, gems and jewels, owns huge global conglomerates and banks. You lkne to deny the existence of its elite service of 500,000 men and another 2,500,000 specialist servants, or its support by a confederation of dynasts, nobles, aristocrats, and gentry, all answering the absolute rule of one single guy. But, yet, they don’t have any influence like those 20,000,000 Jews. You are a Papist and a fake Southern sympathizer. I am not alone and we are to stop your Papists disinformation.

    • This site is being completely discredited by this ‘Aryan Globalist Bro’ moron but Wallace either doesn’t care or is willfully allowing it to happen.

  16. I generally have no opinion of those who departed years before I was born. It will affect them in no way, shape or form. They’re dead. They lived in different times. I wasn’t there. They were. My era is now.
    You’ve certainly made a name for yourself when you’re despised by people born fifteen years after your death.
    There’s a lot about contemporary Britain that Churchill likely didn’t predict or want. Given he’s dead, he can’t speak for himself or give his take on it.
    The country’s a bloody mess now. You can do a two year stretch in the can for a mean tweet about brown’s, but if you’re an actual brown and enjoy burning shops down or raping British girls…….a free pass. The pigs suddenly discover how to be real police when the “farrrrrr riiiiight” is protesting, yet stand aside without lifting a finger when brown’s and leftists are doing the same thing. Plus…..they don’t carry, making them useless in a sudden emergency.
    I was in the UK ten years ago. If the average citizen has an opinion about the direction the nation is taking, they certainly don’t make it obvious.

  17. The hasbara gang on here seem to have only one mission.

    To wear you down with their endless semantics and pilpul.

    Not a mission I envy in 2024.

    All the same, good luck to them.

    • That’s how they always operate. One of their longstanding tricks is the use of the half-truth. Take the Catholic Church as a good example. The RCC as it stands now is the enemy of whites and fully on board with the plans for their extermination. It’s had a lot of infiltration over the centuries going all the way back the Judeo-Merovingian dynasty in early medieval France, which ultimately led to the Great Schism of 1054.

      Still despite the many ups and downs, they were kind of a church but were in such bad shape after the series of bankster-wars led by Napoleon that they had to borrow from the Rothschild cartel by the 1830s to keep up the fraudulent “Donation of Constantine” (the Papal States in Italy) by the 1830s. That marked the beginning of the steep slide which culminated in their complete takeover by Globo-Pedo, of which they are now a mere skinsuit. How this took place is explained in some detail by NFR They actually recovered a bit after losing the Papal States to Italy in 1870 but WW I undid all of that – thanks in part to British treachery. By the lead up to WW II they were undermined from within again and were largely skinsuited by the end of the war. Vatican II finished them off altogether. The whole RCC is now just another NGO skinsuit who works for the same team as the AGB hasbara. So are all large Prot organizations. In the west, Christianity is pretty much over. Still as one of its better proponents likes to remind: All it takes is 12, so hope remains regardless of how dark it is.

      • The Jews have been infiltrating, undermining, and sowing division in Christianity since its inception. Even back in the day, St. Paul was warning about “the Judaizers.” And other apostles, like St. James, got the heebie-jeebies with Paul.

        Now, are all of you familiar with that part of the Bible where they forbid anyone adding to or taking away any part of it? Well, I discovered something interesting on the internet. The Ethiopian Bible has 88 sections (including the Book of Enoch). The Catholic Bible has 77 sections, but the King James Bible has only 66.

        The King James Bible is consider the final authority on Bibles. But by my calculations, it’s missing at least 11 sections, at most 22 sections.

        The one thing that I find fascinating is that the section about the Maccabbees and King John Hyrcanus forcibly converting the Edomites to Judaism as well as his son’s forcible conversion of Galilee to Judaism is missing.

        The King James Bible was put out by Great Britain which is still is controlled by the Bank of England which is owned by the Rothschilds. Make of that what you will.

        As far as Your Fellow “Prod,” Aryan Globalist Bro is concerned, this disaffected “Papist” – really, does anyone born in the last hundred years use THESE terms anymore?! – finds his posts a fun read. He’s very creative. Please don’t ban him. You’ll only get a replacement who will be a lot dumber, resort to repeating endless memes and thus be a lot more annoying.

  19. “I can’t fathom the appeal of wearing a uniform and genuflecting before a Duce or a Führer.”

    Both Mussolini and Hitler saved their respective nation from a (((communist))) takeover.

    Dixie will in the not too distant future also have a potential communist-marxist POC-jewish takeover, and you will pray that you had a Duce or Fuhrer to lead your people to victory.

    • Italy and Germany had homogeneous populations which helped immensely- the US(especially the South)is a toxic stew of dozens of races.

      • @Ringo,

        “Italy and Germany had homogeneous populations which helped immensely- the US(especially the South)is a toxic stew of dozens of races.”

        Your singular fixation on homogeneity as necessary for successful states and for successful strongman is not supported by the facts. Almost every single failed African state was led by a strongman running a homogenous state. Likewise in practically every state in the world.

        The few places were homogeneity and success are both present is in Nation-States run by European peoples. But even here this is not true in detail. Both Mussolini and Hitler were failed strongman of homogenous European nation-states. Both were killed by their own hands or those of others and their governments overthrown and defeated in war.

        In contrast, Netherland, Belgium, France, Denmark, Norway, and United Kingdom were homogenous but not run by strong man and became victorious over their homogenous country strongman run enemies. Then there is Republic of Ireland, which was homogenous, wasn’t run by a strongman, was neutral, and generally was considered a not successful state until recent times.

        In summary, it looks like all the Nordic homogenous Protestant, representative government, often monarchial countries were more successful than their Papist run counterparts. This leads us to conclude that homogenous, strongman, countries are not sufficient for a successful state, and that Papists have a more negative history in running governments.

        Furthermore, it suggests that homogenous, Papist countries are definitely not sufficient for success. Overall, their are several more quantifiers necessary for determining success of a country. South Africa was a country which was mostly non-white, but whose government was run by a minority Protentant Anglo-Afrikaaner group. All of this suggests, that the South, as long as is a representative government led by Nordic British American Protestants will be more successful than a Strongman Papist run government. Especially a National Socialist one.

  21. HW: I am more of a Christian isolationist. I dislike warmongers. I dislike liberalism and antiracism.

    How many in the Yankee Empire (USA) actually believe the same? Incredible!

    Now, the South (former CSA) HAS BEEN invaded and had their country destroyed and have been reduced to life threatening poverty and has yet to fully recover from this vicious civilian-targeted beat down they got over 150 years ago. The only way you can stop aggressive invading warmongers is to bring war to their very homes (give them THEIR OWN civilian-targeted warfare) and either kill them or blast their surrounding environment back to the stone age like the 2 nukes these warmongers dropped on civilian cities in Japan. They can never get enough pleasure in making war on helpless people who have no power to stop them. Every weapon/munition/etc they have was made to be used in their opinion. Use it or lose it. They must have war, justified or not. I believe this empire is eventually going get the FULL MEASURE of what they have been dishing out — totally destroyed by nukes or something coming that’s even worse. And this evil Yankee Empire (USA) deserves it!

    Our way IS the Highway!

    Secede Now!

    May God Save the South!

  22. I’ve been busy lately, but I just finished reading your piece. This is one of your best articles. I know that you love history. I love history as well. I have come around to the idea that history is a great place to push against the crazy left because first, I love it. I had initially planned to be a history major in college and then teach high school. Second, I despise lying. It never occurred to me that history was written with political motivations or by the “victors” because I was young and naive and simply just honest. Third, academia is something that you can really build on through years and hard work, so you can outclass an uninformed blowhard. Fourth, and most importantly, how can anyone, as a true American, find the audacity to want to stifle free speech. Having deep discussions about history, with all sides having a chance to present their findings, is free speech. And again, it’s fun if you like history.

    The first ethnic studies course to graduate high school goes into effect next year. My daughter misses this by one year, thankfully. My wife is currently taking an ethnic studies course that I just found out about today. So I sat down and watched one of the videos today. I’m not sure why she has to take this, but it’s going to be fun as I’ve decided the mandated education curriculum is where I can make a difference regionally in my area of southern California. So I’ll be seeing ethnic studies first hand right at the time I decided to narrow my focus. What a stroke of luck. I will report some things on this blog I’m sure.

    Anyway, great article Brad.

  23. Great article. The bankers and their puppets in the so-called elite started these wars on purpose. When the police investigate joe blow murders of the proles, they immediately follow the money and deduce guilt but when major “terrorist” or financial crimes take place, the money trail is of no releavance, whether the depression of 1929, 9/11, the fincial crash of 2008, or covid. It’s a big club and we’re not in it.

  24. Well put, and another war monger air head that wanted to violently remake civilization who wasn’t mentioned was Woodrow Wilson. He had his good points too, he believed in racial segregation and that white southerners had rights. A la Joe Biden he should have resigned after he had a terrible stroke, but hung around for another year and a half.

Comments are closed.