The Shotgun Blog
Friday, January 15, 2010
"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress.... Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America."
James Madison, speaking on the General Welfare Clause of the US Constitution
Posted by Richard Anderson on January 15, 2010 | Permalink
The Real Churchill
On February 4th, President Bush eulogized the life of Winston Churchill. The president described Winston Churchill as a "great man" and quickly zeroed in on the mistress that both Bush and Churchill share: war. "He was a prisoner in the Boer War, a controversial strategist in the Great War. He was the rallying voice of the Second World War, and a prophet of the Cold War." Indeed, there doesn't seem to have been a war—or an opportunity for war—that Churchill wasn't associated with during his long career.
Bush also recited Churchill's famous retort that "History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it" adding that "history has been kind to Winston Churchill, as it usually is to those who help save the world," surely hoping that history will be kind to George W. Bush.
Except this history is a myth. The truth about the real Churchill—the Churchill that few know—is that he was "a man of the state: of the welfare state and of the warfare state" in Professor Ralph Raico's turn-of-phrase. The truth about Winston Churchill is that he was a menace to liberty, and a disaster for Britain, for Europe, for the United States of America, and for Western Civilization itself.
Not since fictional personages like Hercules and Zeus, have so many myths been attached to one man. As we will see, the Winston Churchill we're told about is not the Churchill known to honest history, but rather a fictional version of the man and his actions. And these words and actions have produced our mainstream "patriotic political myths" as John Denson calls them, which are merely the victor's wartime lies and propaganda scripted into the 'Official History.' The Churchill mythology is challenged by honest history, and the reality about Churchill involves hard, but necessary truths.
Churchill the Opportunist
Of course, central to the neocon mythology built up around their almost deified idealization of Churchill is that he fought for (in Bush's words comparing Tony Blair to Churchill), "the right thing, and not the easy thing," right over popularity, principle over opportunism.
Except that isn't true. Churchill was above all a man who craved power, and a man who craves power, craves opportunity to advance himself no matter what the cost.
When Churchill entered politics, many took note of his unique rhetorical talents, which gave him power over men, but it also came with a powerful failing of its own. During WWII, Robert Menzies, the Prime Minister of Australia, noted of Churchill "His real tyrant is the glittering phrase so attractive to his mind that awkward facts have to give way."
However, Churchill had other failings as well. The Spectator newspaper said of Churchill upon his appointment as First Lord of the Admiralty in 1911: "We cannot detect in his career any principles or even any constant outlook upon public affairs; his ear is always to the ground; he is the true demagogue. . . ."
The great English classical liberal John Morley, after working with Churchill, passed a succinct appraisal of him, "Winston," he said, "has no principles."
Entering politics in 1900, Churchill (the grandson of a Duke and son of a prominent Tory) naturally joined the governing Conservative party. Then in 1904, he left the Conservatives and joined the Liberal party, and when they were in decline Churchill dumped them and rejoined the Conservatives, uttering his famous quote "It's one thing to rat, it's another to re-rat." Churchill allegedly made his move to the Liberals on the issue of free trade. However, Robert Rhodes James, a Churchill admirer, wrote: "It was believed [at the time], probably rightly, that if Arthur Balfour had given him office in 1902, Churchill would not have developed such a burning interest in free trade and joined the Liberals." Clive Ponting also notes that ". . .he had already admitted to Rosebery, he was looking for an excuse to defect from a party that seemed reluctant to recognize his talents." Since the Liberals would not accept a protectionist, Churchill had to change his tune.
It's not a surprise that this neoconservative administration and its apologists in the tamed media laud and venerate Churchill, for he was as President Bush described him; a man who was synonymous with war. Churchill loved war. In 1925, he wrote, "The story of the human race is war." This is untrue, but Churchill lacked any grasp of the fundamentals of true, classical liberalism. The story of the human race is increasing peaceful cooperation and the efforts by some to stop it through war. However, for Churchill, periods without war offered nothing but "the bland skies of peace and platitude."
Without principles or scruples, Churchill as a prominent member of the Liberal party government naturally played a role in the hijacking of liberalism from its roots in individualism, laissez-faire, free trade and bourgeois morality, to its transformation into the "New Liberalism" as a proxy for socialism and the omnipotent state in Britain and in America.
Churchill was also a famous opponent of Communism and of Bolshevism in particular. One of the reasons why Churchill admired Italian Fascism was Churchill believed that Mussolini had found a formula that would neutralize the appeal of communism, namely super-nationalism with a social welfarist appeal. This is a domestic formula for power that still appeals today, if the Bush Administration is any indication. Churchill went so far as to say that Fascism "proved the necessary antidote to the Communist poison."
Then came 1941. Churchill made his peace with Communism. Temporarily, of course. Churchill gave unconditional support to Stalin, welcoming him as an ally, even embracing him as a friend, and calling the Breaker of Nations, "Uncle Joe." In his single-minded obsession with destroying German National Socialism (while establishing his own British national socialism) and carrying on his pre-World War I British Imperialist vendetta to destroy Germany, Churchill completely failed to consider the danger of inviting Soviet power and communism into the heart of Europe.
Of course, his self-created mythology--chiefly through his own books--states that he sensed the danger and tried to warn Roosevelt about Stalin, but the records of the time do not prove this out. In fact, Churchill's infatuation with Stalin reached the point where at the Tehran conference in November 1943, Churchill presented Stalin with a Crusader's sword; Stalin, who had murdered millions of Christians, was now presented by Churchill as a defender of the Christian West.
But if one was to sum up Churchill's passion, his overall reason for entering politics, it was the empire. The British Empire was Churchill's abiding love. He fought to expand it, he defended it, and he created his decades-long hatred of Germany because of it. The Empire was at the center of his view of the world. Even as late as 1947, Churchill opposed Indian independence. When Lord Irwin urged him to bring his views on India up-to-date by talking to some Indians Churchill replied "I am quite satisfied with my views on India, and I don't want them disturbed by any bloody Indians." So much for democracy.
Churchill the Socialist
Churchill made a name for himself as an opponent of socialism both before and after the First World War, except during the war when he was a staunch promoter of war socialism, declaring in a speech: "Our whole nation must be organized, must be socialized if you like the word." Of course, such rank hypocrisy was by now Churchill's stock-in-trade, and not surprisingly, during the 1945 election, Churchill described his partners in the national unity government, the Labour Party, as totalitarians, when it was Churchill himself who had accepted the infamous Beveridge Report that laid the foundations for the post-war welfare state and Keynesian (mis)management of the economy.
As Mises wrote in 1950, "It is noteworthy to remember that British socialism was not an achievement of Mr. Attlee's Labor Government, but of the war cabinet of Mr. Winston Churchill."
Churchill was converted to the Bismarckian model of social insurance following a visit to Germany. As Churchill told his constituents: "My heart was filled with admiration of the patient genius which had added these social bulwarks to the many glories of the German race." He set out, in his words, to "thrust a big slice of Bismarckianism over the whole underside of our industrial system." In 1908, Churchill announced in a speech in Dundee: "I am on the side of those who think that a greater collective sentiment should be introduced into the State and the municipalities. I should like to see the State undertaking new functions." Churchill even said: "I go farther; I should like to see the State embark on various novel and adventurous experiments."
Churchill claimed that "the cause of the Liberal Party is the cause of the left-out millions," and attacked the Conservatives as "the Party of the rich against the poor, the classes and their dependents against the masses, of the lucky, the wealthy, the happy, and the strong, against the left-out and the shut-out millions of the weak and poor." Churchill berated the Conservatives for lacking even a "single plan of social reform or reconstruction," while boasting that his "New Liberalism" offered "a wide, comprehensive, interdependent scheme of social organisation," incorporating "a massive series of legislative proposals and administrative acts."
Churchill had fallen under the spell of the Fabian Society, and its leaders Beatrice and Sidney Webb, who more than any other group, are responsible for the decline of British society. Here he was introduced to William, later Lord Beveridge, who Churchill brought into the Board of Trade as his advisor on social questions. Besides pushing for a variety of social insurance schemes, Churchill created the system of national labor exchanges, stating the need to "spread . . . a sort of Germanized network of state intervention and regulation" over the British labor market. Churchill even entertained a more ambitious goal for the Board of Trade. He proposed a plan whereby the Board of Trade would act as the economic "intelligence department" of the Government, forecasting trade and employment in Britain so that the Government could spend money in the most deserving areas. Controlling this pork would be a Committee of National Organisation to plan the economy.
Churchill was well aware of the electoral potential of organized labor, so naturally Churchill became a champion of the labor unions. He was a leading supporter of the Trades Disputes Act of 1906 which reversed the judicial decisions which had held unions responsible for property damage and injuries committed by their agents on the unions behalf, in effect granting unions a privileged position exempting them from the ordinary law of the land. It is ironic that the immense power of the British labor unions that made Britain the "Sick Man of Europe" for two generations and became the foil of Margaret Thatcher, originated with the enthusiastic help of her hero, Winston Churchill.
We can only conclude by Churchill's actions that personal freedom was the furthest thing from his mind.
Churchill and the First World War
The Great War destroyed European culture and the commitment to truths. In their place, generations embraced relativism, nihilism and socialism, and from the ashes arose Lenin, Stalin and Hitler and their evil doctrines that infect contemporary culture. In the words of the British historian, Niall Ferguson, the First World War "was nothing less than the greatest error in modern history."
In 1911, Churchill became First Lord of the Admiralty, and, during the crises that followed, used every opportunity to fan the flames of war. When the final crisis came, in 1914, Churchill was all smiles and was the only cabinet member who backed war from the start. Asquith, his own Prime Minister, wrote: "Winston very bellicose and demanding immediate mobilization . . . has got all his war paint on."
Churchill was instrumental in establishing the illegal starvation blockade of Germany. The blockade depended on scattering mines, and classified as contraband food for civilians. But, throughout his career, international law and the conventions created to limit the horrors of war meant nothing to Churchill. One of the consequences of the hunger blockade was that, while it killed 750,000 German civilians by hunger and malnutrition, the youth who survived went on to become the most fanatical Nazis.
Whether Churchill actually arranged for the sinking of the Lusitania on May 7, 1915, is still unclear, but it is clear that he did everything possible to ensure that innocent Americans would be killed by German attempts to break the hunger blockade.
A week before the disaster, Churchill wrote to Walter Runciman, President of the Board of Trade that it was "most important to attract neutral shipping to our shores, in the hopes especially of embroiling the United States with Germany."
The Lusitania was a civilian passenger liner loaded with munitions. Earlier, Churchill had ordered the captains of merchant ships, including liners, to ram German submarines, and the Germans were aware of this. The German government even took out newspaper ads in New York warning Americans not to board the ship.
Churchill, by helping engineer the entry of the United States into the Great War, set in motion the transformation of the war into a Democratic Jihad. Wilsonianism lead to the eventual destruction of the Austrian Empire, and the creation of a vast power vacuum on Germany's southeastern border that would provide fruitful opportunities and allies for Hitler's effort to overturn the Versailles Treaty.
But Churchill was not a strategist. All he cared for, as he told a visitor after his Gallipoli disaster, was "the waging of war, the defeat of the Germans."
Churchill Between the Wars
Churchill, who had been appointed Colonial Secretary, invented two client kingdoms, Transjordan and Iraq, both artificial and unstable states. Churchill's aim of course was not liberty for oppressed peoples, as his admirers like to claim for him, but for Britain to dominate the Middle East to ensure that the oil wells of Iraq and the Persian Gulf were securely in British hands.
The Crash of 1929
In 1924, Churchill rejoined the Conservative party and was made Chancellor of the Exchequer, where he returned Britain to the gold standard but didn't account for the British governments wartime inflation, which consequently severely damaged exports and ruined the good name of gold. But, of course, Churchill cared nothing for economic ideas. What interested him was only that the pound would be as strong as in the days of Queen Victoria, that once more the pound would "look the dollar in the face." The consequences of this decision had a far-reaching and disastrous impact on western civilization and the consequent appeal of socialism, Nazism and communism: the Crash of 1929.
It was Churchill's unrealistic exchange ratio that caused the Bank of England and the U.S. Federal Reserve to collude to prop up the pound by inflating the U.S. dollar, which in turn fueled the speculative boom during the 1920's that collapsed when the inflating slowed.
Churchill's fame—and his mythology—originates during the period of the 30's, especially for neoconservatives, for whom it is always 1938. However, Churchill's hard line against Hitler was little different from his usual warnings about pre-war Imperial Germany, and his hard line against inter-war Weimar Germany. For Churchill saw Germany at all times and in all ways as a threat to the British Empire. A threat that had to be destroyed and forever kept under heel. For instance, Churchill denounced all calls for Allied disarmament even before Hitler came to power. Churchill, like Clemenceau, Wilson and other Allied leaders, held the unrealistic belief that a defeated Germany would submit forever to the shackles of Versailles.
And what the neocons forget, or don't know, is that Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin acknowledged in the House of Commons that, had they told the people the truth, the Conservatives could never have won the 1936 election. "Supposing that I had gone to the country and said that Germany was rearming and that we must be armed, does anyone think that our pacific democracy would have rallied to that cry?" It was Neville Chamberlain who began the rearmament of Britain after the Munich Crisis, the arms which Churchill would not have had during the Battle of Britain, including the first deployment of radar, which Churchill mocked while in opposition in the 1930s.
Moreover, Churchill's Cassandra-like role during the '30s emerged largely because Churchill moved from one impending threat to the next: Bolshevik Russia, the General Strike of 1926, the dangers of Indian independence, the abdication crisis in 1936. During the '30s Churchill was the proverbial Boy Who Cried Wolf. Maybe his neocon admirers could have learned that lesson about Iraq.
But as in all things, even with this Churchill reversed himself. In the fall of 1937, he stated:
"Three or four years ago I was myself a loud alarmist. . . . In spite of the risks which wait on prophecy, I declare my belief that a major war is not imminent, and I still believe that there is a good chance of no major war taking place in our lifetime. . . . I will not pretend that, if I had to choose between Communism and Nazism, I would choose Communism."
And in his book Step By Step written in 1937, Churchill had this to say about the Mortal Enemy: ". . .one may dislike Hitler's system and yet admire his patriotic achievement. If our country were defeated, I hope we should find a champion as indomitable to restore our courage and lead us back to our place among the nations." One has to wonder if Churchill was referring to himself in his hypothetical example.
The common mythology is so far from historical truth that even an ardent Churchill sympathizer, Gordon Craig, felt obliged to write:
It is reasonably well-known today that Churchill was often ill-informed, that his claims about German strength were exaggerated and his prescriptions impractical, that his emphasis on air power was misplaced.
Moreover, as a British historian noted: "For the record, it is worth recalling that in the 1930s Churchill did not oppose the appeasement of either Italy or Japan."
Churchill and the Second World War
After Munich, Chamberlain was determined that Hitler would have no more easy victories, and when Germany invaded Poland in September 1939, Britain declared war on Germany, and Churchill was recalled to his old place as First Lord of the Admiralty. An astonishing thing then happened: the President of the United States by-passed all the ordinary diplomatic channels and initiated a personal correspondence, not with the Prime Minister, but with Churchill. These messages were surrounded by a frantic secrecy, and culminated in the imprisonment of Tyler Kent, the American cipher clerk at the U.S. embassy in London. Some of these messages contained allusions to FDR's agreement prior to the war to an alliance with Britain, contrary to his public statements and American law.
Three months prior to the war, Roosevelt told King George VI that he intended to set up a zone in the Atlantic to be patrolled by the U.S. Navy, and, according to the King's notes, the President stated that "if he saw a U boat he would sink her at once & wait for the consequences." The biographer of George VI, John W. Wheeler-Bennett, considered that these conversations "contained the germ of the future Bases-for-Destroyers deal, and also of the Lend-Lease Agreement itself."
In 1940, Churchill at last became Prime Minister, ironically enough when the Chamberlain government resigned over Churchill's aborted plan to pre-emptively invade Norway. After France's armed forces were destroyed by the Blitzkrieg, and the British army fled towards the Channel, Churchill the conservative, the "anti-socialist," defiled the common law by passing totalitarian legislation placing "all persons, their services and their property at the disposal of the Crown," i.e., into the hands of Churchill himself.
During the Battle of Britain, Churchill gave perhaps his most famous speech, in which he plagiarized the French Premier Georges Clemenceau, and where he uttered his famous phrase "If the British Empire and its Commonwealth lasts for a thousand years, men will say, "This was their finest hour!" This calls to mind another man's boast about a thousand year Reich. Churchill also hinted at his plot to drag America into the war: ". . .we shall never surrender, and even if . . . this island . . . were subjugated . . . then our empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the Old." But like Marxist Revolutionaries, Christian Millennialists and other assorted cranks, Churchill was not at all interested in "God's good time" or any other presumed unearthly schedule, and he worked night and day to collude with Roosevelt to get America into the war.
As PM, Churchill continued his policy to refuse any negotiated peace. Even after the Fall of France, Churchill rejected Hitler's renewed peace overtures. This, however, more than anything else, is supposed to be the foundation of his greatness. Yet what opportunities were lost to a free France and Britain and the Low Countries before 1940 to re-arm and negotiate military defense strategies? What of the time lost that could have been used to study the Blitzkrieg method of warfare before it crashed through France? The British historian John Charmley made the crucial point that Churchill's adamant refusal even to listen to peace proposals in 1940 doomed what he claimed was most dear to him: the Empire and a Britain that was nonsocialist and independent in world affairs. One could add that by allowing Germany to overrun its weaker neighbors when peace was possible it probably also doomed European Jewry as well. How many more millions of Jews and other Europeans were murdered because of Churchill's stupidity? But it is politically incorrect, and even possibly a hate crime to suggest that better alternatives were available during World War II than those made by the Allies. Just because something turned out one way does not mean that was the only way it could have turned out or was the best result. Somehow, it is controversial to say this.
The peace camp realized something that escaped Churchill the empire romanticist: even the British Empire and her vast resources alone could not defeat the concentrated power that Germany possessed in Europe. And even more after the Fall of France, Churchill's war aim of total victory could be realized only by embroiling the United States in another world war.
As an aside to the French-haters, what they forget is that, if the U.S. army had met the Wehrmacht in 1940, it would have fared considerably worse than the French Army. National chauvinists, however, prefer their petty hatreds.
Involving America was Churchill's policy in World War II, just as it was Churchill's policy in World War I, and would be his policy again in the Cold War. Churchill put his heart and soul into ensuring Roosevelt came through.
In 1940, Churchill sent British agent "Intrepid" to the United States, where he set up shop in Rockefeller Center, where, with the full knowledge and cooperation of Roosevelt and the collaboration of federal agencies, "Intrepid" and his 300 agents "intercepted mail, tapped wires, cracked safes, kidnapped, . . . rumor mongered" and incessantly smeared their favorite targets, the "isolationists" (i.e., Jeffersonians) as nazis and fascists.
In June 1941, Churchill, looking for a chance to bring America into the war, wrote regarding the German warship, Prinz Eugen: "It would be better for instance that she should be located by a U.S. ship as this might tempt her to fire on that ship, thus providing the incident for which the U.S. government would be so grateful."
Churchill also instructed the British ambassador to Tokyo, Sir Robert Craigie, "the entry of the United States into war either with Germany and Italy or with Japan, is fully conformable with British interests. Nothing in the munitions sphere can compare with the importance of the British Empire and the United States being co-belligerent."
In August 1941, Roosevelt and Churchill met at the Atlantic conference. Churchill told his Cabinet "The President had said he would wage war but not declare it and that he would become more and more provocative. If the Germans did not like it, they could attack American forces. . . . Everything was to be done to force an incident."
After the U.S. had officially entered the war, on February 15, 1942, in the House of Commons, Churchill declared, of America's entry into the war: "This is what I have dreamed of, aimed at, worked for, and now it has come to pass."
This deceptive alliance illustrates another of Churchill's faults. His subordination of political aims to military planning. Churchill made war for the sake of making war, with little regard for the political results that follow. He once even told Asquith that his life's ambition was "to command great victorious armies in battle." And World War II was his opportunity. Churchill and Roosevelt were both willing to do anything to destroy the menace of Nazi Germany, at a time when Hitler had killed perhaps several hundred thousand, and to do so they would ally with Hitler's former ally in the invasion of Poland, Joseph Stalin (the Soviet Union had even been invited to join the Axis in 1940), who had already murdered tens of millions. But why is it conventional wisdom that compromise with one dictator at a vital period would have been immoral while collaboration with an even greater dictator with genuine global ambitions was the mark of greatness?
The truth is Churchill cared for nothing but Britain. The lives, homes and cultures of non-Britons he took and destroyed without a care or second thought. What sort of 'conservatism' requires the murder of millions of defenseless innocents? Winston Churchill was a man who along with Roosevelt, Hitler and Stalin, probed just how far Western Civilization could fall in just six short years of time.
Churchill threw British support to the Communist Partisan leader Tito. What a victory for Tito would mean was no secret to Churchill. When an aide pointed out that Tito intended to transform Yugoslavia into a Communist dictatorship on the Stalinist model, Churchill retorted: "Do you intend to live there?" What a humanitarian.
Of course, in Stalin, Churchill and Roosevelt were confronted with a man who had an overall political aim for the war. Stalin knew what he wanted to achieve from the destruction of Germany. For Churchill, his only aim was to beat Hitler, and then he would start thinking of the future of Britain and Europe. Churchill said it in so many words: "It was to be the defeat, ruin, and slaughter of Hitler, to the exclusion of all other purposes, loyalties and aims."
Churchill's aim was in his words, the "indefinite prevention of their [the Germans'] rising again as an Armed Power." Not surprisingly, instead of making every effort to encourage and assist the anti-Nazi resistance groups in Germany, Churchill responded to the feelers sent out by the German resistance with silence, thus helping to prolong the war and the killing. Even more shockingly, Churchill had nothing but scorn for the heroic officers after their failed assassination attempt on Hitler in July 1944, even as Hitler was enjoying their filmed executions.
In the place of help, Churchill only offered Germans the slogan of unconditional surrender, which only prolonged the war further. And instead of promoting the overthrow of Hitler by anti-Nazi Germans, Churchill's policy was all-out support of Stalin. Returning from Yalta, Churchill told the House of Commons on February 27, 1945 that he did not know any government that kept its obligations as faithfully as did the Soviet Union, even to its disadvantage.
The War Crimes
That Churchill committed war crimes—planned them, aided and abetted them, and defended them—is beyond doubt. Churchill was the prime subverter through two world wars of the rules of warfare that had evolved in the West over centuries.
At the Quebec conference, Roosevelt and Churchill adopted the Morgenthau Plan, which if implemented would have killed tens of millions of Germans, giving the Germans a terrifying picture of what "unconditional surrender" would mean in practice. Churchill was convinced of the plans benefits, as it "would save Britain from bankruptcy by eliminating a dangerous competitor." That the Morgenthau Plan was analogous to Hitler's post-conquest plans for western Russia and the Ukraine was lost on Churchill, who according to Morgenthau, drafted the wording of the scheme.
Churchill even brainstormed dropping tens of thousands of anthrax "super bombs" on the civilian population of Germany, and ordered detailed planning for a chemical attack on six major cities, estimating that millions would die immediately "by inhalation," with millions more succumbing later.
But Churchill's greatest war crimes involved the terror bombing of German cities that killed 600,000 civilians and left some 800,000 injured. Arthur Harris ("Bomber Harris"), the head of Bomber Command, stated "In Bomber Command we have always worked on the assumption that bombing anything in Germany is better than bombing nothing."
Churchill brazenly lied to the House of Commons and the public, claiming that only military and industrial installations were targeted. In fact, the aim was to kill as many civilians as possible. Hence the application of "carpet" bombing in an attempt to terrorize the Germans into surrendering.
Professor Raico described the effect of Churchillian statesmanship: "The campaign of murder from the air leveled Germany. A thousand-year-old urban culture was annihilated, as great cities, famed in the annals of science and art, were reduced to heaps of smoldering ruins. . . ." No wonder that, learning of this, a civilized European man like Joseph Schumpeter, at Harvard, was driven to telling "anyone who would listen" "that Churchill and Roosevelt were destroying more than Genghis Khan."
According to the official history of the Royal Air Force: "The destruction of Germany was by then on a scale which might have appalled Attila or Genghis Khan." Dresden was filled with masses of helpless refugees running for their lives ahead of the advancing Red Army. The war was practically over, but for three days and nights, from February 13 to 15, 1945, British bombs pounded Dresden, killing as many as 135,000 people or more in three days. After the massacre, Churchill attempted to disclaim responsibility; even casually saying "I thought the Americans did it."
The terror bombing of Germany and the killing of civilians continued as late as the middle of April, 1945. It only stopped, as Bomber Harris noted, because there were essentially no more targets left to be bombed in Germany.
In order to kill a maximum number of Germans, Winston Churchill dismissed politics or policy as a 'secondary consideration,' and on at least two occasions said that there were "no lengths of violence to which we would not go" in order to achieve his objective. In fact he said this publicly in a speech given on September 31, 1943, and again in the House of Commons, on February 27, 1945, when unbelievable lengths of violence had already taken place. If Hitler had uttered this phrase, we would all cite it as more evidence of his barbarism. Yet, when Churchill utters it, his apologists palm it off as the resoluteness required of a great statesman, rather than describing it as an urge for mass, indiscriminate murder.
Of course, Churchill supported the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which resulted in the deaths of another 200,000 civilians. When Truman fabricated the myth of the "500,000 American lives saved" to justify his mass murder, Churchill felt the need to top his lie: the atomic bombings had saved 1,200,000 lives, including 1,000,000 Americans. It was all just another of Churchill's fantasies.
Yet, after all this slaughter, Churchill would write: "The goal of World War II [was] to revive the status of man."
Churchill and the Cold War
Among Churchill's many war crimes, there are also those crimes and atrocities for which he is culpable that occurred following the war.
These include the forced repatriation of some two million old people, men, women, and children to the Soviet Union to their deaths. Then there were the massacres carried out by Churchill's protégé, Tito: tens of thousands of Croats, Slovenes and other "class-enemies" and anti-Communists were killed.
In the wake of the armies of Churchill's friend and ally, the mass deportations began. But Churchill was unmoved. In January 1945 he said: "Why are we making a fuss about the Russian deportations in Rumania of Saxons [Germans] and others? . . . I cannot see the Russians are wrong in making 100 or 150 thousand of these people work their passage. . . . I cannot myself consider that it is wrong of the Russians to take Rumanians of any origin they like to work in the Russian coal-fields." Here Churchill, the great friend of liberty as Bush described him, approves of slavery. About 500,000 German civilians were enslaved to work in Soviet Russia, in accordance with the Yalta agreement where Churchill and Roosevelt agreed that slave labor constituted a proper form of "reparations."
Then there was the great atrocity of the expulsion of 15 million Germans from their ancestral homelands in East and West Prussia, Silesia, Pomerania, and the Sudetenland, pursuant to Churchill's mad plan to violently uproot the entire polish population and move Poland westward, which he demonstrated with a set of matchsticks, and to Churchill's acceptance of the Czech leader Eduard Benes's plan for the ethnic cleansing of Bohemia and Moravia. Around two million German civilians died in this process. An entire ancient culture was obliterated. This sort of cultural jihad used to be something conservatives opposed. Today's neoconservatives instead, who evidently embrace the Marxist doctrine of sweeping away the past, would surely argue that in order to create, one must first destroy, or in that old Stalinist phrase, to make an omelet, you must first break a few eggs.
A large factor in the litany of Churchill's war crimes was his racism. Churchill was an English chauvinist, a British racist, and like Wilson, loathed the so-called "dirty whites," the French, Italians and other Latin’s, and Slavs like the Serbs, Poles, Russians, etc.... Churchill professed Darwinism, and particularly disliked the Catholic Church and Christian missions. He became, in his own words, "a materialist to the tips of my fingers," and fervently upheld the worldview that human life is a struggle for existence, with the outcome the survival of the fittest.
In 1919, as Colonial Secretary Churchill advocated the use of chemical weapons on the "uncooperative Arabs" in the puppet state of Iraq. "I do not understand the squeamishness about the use of gas," he declared. "I am strongly in favor of using poison gas against uncivilized tribes." Some year’s later, gassing human beings to death would make other men infamous.
An example of Churchill's racial views are his comments made in 1937: "I do not admit that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race, has come in and taken their place."
In Churchill's single-minded decades-long obsession with preventing a single hegemonic power from arising on the European continent that would pose a threat to the British Empire, he failed to see that his alliance with Stalin produced exactly that. "As the blinkers of war were removed," John Charmley writes, "Churchill began to perceive the magnitude of the mistake which had been made." Churchill is alleged to have blurted out after finally realizing the scale of his blunder: "We have slaughtered the wrong pig!"
But it was too late. For decades Churchill worked for the destruction of Germany. Yet only after Stalin had devoured half of Europe did this "great statesman" realize that destroying the ability of Germany to act as a counterbalance to Russia left Europe ripe for invasion and conquest by a resurgent Russia.
By 1946 Churchill was complaining in a voice of outrage about the Iron Curtain of tyranny that descended on Eastern Europe. But Churchill helped to weave the fabric.
With the balance of power in Europe wrecked by his own hand, Churchill saw only one recourse: to bind America to Europe permanently. Thus Churchill returned to his tried-and-true strategy, embroiling the United States in another war. This time a "Cold War" that would entrench the military-industrial complex and change America forever.
With his lack of principles and scruples, Churchill was involved in one way or another in nearly every disaster that befell the 20th century. He helped destroy laissez-faire liberalism, he played a role in the Crash of 1929, he helped start WWI, and by bringing in America to help, prolonged the war and created the conditions for the rise of Nazism, prolonged WWII, laid the groundwork for Soviet domination, helped involve America in a cold war with Russia, and pioneered in the development of total war and undermining western civilized standards.
Chris Matthews described Churchill as the "man who save[d] the honor of the 20th century." Rather than this great accolade, Winston Churchill must be ranked with Karl Marx, Woodrow Wilson, Vladimir Lenin, Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Herbert Hoover and Franklin Roosevelt as one of the destroyers of the values and greatness of Western civilization.
And it is fitting that the Library of Congress exhibition is entitled "Churchill and the Great Republic" because few men have done more to overthrow the American Republic(s) and institute the great centralized global war machine that has taken its place.
Posted by: Pubilius is a censor | 2010-01-15 8:20:02 AM
Liberty Quotes posted by a man who makes it clear he is not for liberty at all by definition of the word.
What an elaborate ruse Pubilius lives, writng emancipation non sense all day long, when actually he is not at all a proponent of liberty and what is affords.
Publius exposed his dark side yet again and this is consistent with a pattern where he decides arbitrarily the fate of debate he encouraged on the grounds of nothing other than narrow understanding.
These kinds of shananigans only harms those who truly believe in liberty, which I am guessing is many of you who write and discuss it here do.
Publiuis closed the thread because he could not bear to hear the truth and his short comings once again has affected any and all site free speech proponents adversely. Churchill is what he is, what does it matter if you have to now reverse how you feel about him, its for the better, and somebody brave , needed to tell you this.
Only a hypocrite would lock yesterdays "liberty quote" thread and start another thread under the guise that he is in some way for liberty, what a walking contradiction Pubi is.
Pubi wants his version of liberty to have many liberty contradictory "parameters" this again should make clear he is a Charliton.
This should be a lesson to you all, that everyone has an agenda, especially fake liberty types who pretend they are evolved, but are actually not evolved in any measurable way, and are just part of the circle of everything radical, posing as something virtuous.
Liberty in Pubilius's heart only exists for those who want to accept his narrow version of vision, is this what you all need, an ideological bankrupt faker imposing his pseudo misinterpreted views on liberty?
The man is an abomination regarding liberty or anything associated with it, he made that perfectly clear today by choosing to use the thread as a weapon and no one should forget you cannot have it both ways, you are for LIBERTY or you are a faker.
Posted by: Pubilius is a censor and not for freedom of expression he has proven he is your enemy | 2010-01-15 9:19:59 AM
George Orwell's book "1984" reflects what James Madison was worried about.
Freedom-loving persons should be wary of governments and others claiming to want power for the welfare of populations and individuals. We all know from first hand experience - historically and in the immediate present - what happens when too much power rests in the hands and finger tips of those who would impose their will upon us. They would become corrupt if not corrupt to begin with. Their's would be a road to Hell paved with good or even bad intentions. Worse would be to have an individual ignoramus have the power to do damage to a wide population without members of that population able to take effective action to put that monkey in its place. Perhaps like a spoiled, brat child with power over its parents and neighbours.
Posted by: Agha Ali Arkhan | 2010-01-15 10:07:10 AM
Agha, your perception is seriously flawed if you think i am anything other than " the voice of reason".
Now do your toe touches Winston.
Posted by: Pubilius is a censor and not for freedom of expression he has proven he is your enemy | 2010-01-15 10:19:59 AM
Vegan: You might try MUSTEROLE as a cure for your ailment. Just rub about half a jar on your brain. Then you will see clearly. I tried it years ago. It works wonders. It really stinks though. But once you get by the stink....
Posted by: Agha Ali Arkhan | 2010-01-15 10:32:42 AM
I see Corkey is still here
Posted by: Meat Eater | 2010-01-15 10:39:13 AM
What would remedy someone like you who is afraid to face reality and the truth on a daily basis? prozac? paxill? Mandrax? unlike you and your boyfriends here I am not ever afraid to face the truth and this is why my understanding of reality is light years ahead of yours.
Put that musterole up your hopefully cancerous ass, ya blockhead.
Posted by: Pubilius is a censor and not for freedom of expression he has proven he is your enemy | 2010-01-15 10:39:57 AM
I see Corkey is still here
Posted by: Meat Eater | 2010-01-15 10:39:13 AM
Meateater is homsexual slang, are you saying you are a meat-eater brainiac?
Posted by: Pubilius is a censor and not for freedom of expression he has proven he is your enemy | 2010-01-15 10:41:35 AM
Anyone care to ... I dunno ... discuss the quote Publius has posted?
Posted by: Charles | 2010-01-15 1:05:42 PM
Anyone care to ... I dunno ... discuss the quote Publius has posted?
Posted by: Charles | 2010-01-15 1:05:42 PM
Why he doesn't believe in liberty. For christ sake Charles you claim to be intelligent, and yet I have to tell you what you are not willing to see which is right in front of your blind eyes.
You could not be a person who advises anyone on anything, its not possible with that lack of perception.
Posted by: Pubilius is a censor and not for freedom of expression he has proven he is your enemy | 2010-01-15 1:10:42 PM
I don't discuss or debate issues with people who post things like this:
"pencil neck, after a good night sleep with your boyfriends dick in your mouth, your comment is the best you could cum up with, cum breath?"
"maybe you can put your boyfriend pubilius's boner in that big fat round mouth. bone sucker!"
And your treat of Arkhan has been truly despicable.
Have a great weekend!
Posted by: Charles | 2010-01-15 1:30:27 PM
you may not approve of the tactic but its effective, the useless jabs cease after a good mock.
You stopped LOL ing after that mock, you were LOL ing when you should have been cheering on the fearless champion of his opinion.
I may not be able to discuss the finer points of beliefs that were built on false premise like most of you, and that is because it is pointless to possess knowledge that amounts to fantasy.
What should alarm you is how all of you are subjects of mind control of a type where you have preprogrammed rhetoric about someone the opposite of what is the truth, its no mistake you all beleive exactly the same thing.
Posted by: Vegan Philosopher | 2010-01-15 2:15:50 PM
What should alarm you is how all of you are subjects of mind control of a type where you have preprogrammed rhetoric about someone the opposite of what is the truth, its no mistake you all believe(sic) exactly the same thing.
You are a 9/11 conspiracy theorist aren’t you?
Do you understand that it IS possible for people to just differ in opinion from you with out being mentally challenged or under some sort of mind control? If you do not, and I don't mean this as just a cheap internet jab, then you really seriously do need to see a psychiatrist because there is something wrong with you.
Posted by: Everyone is laughing at you Vegan. | 2010-01-15 2:41:09 PM
The unmarried, unemployable, minimum-wage-earning (welfare receving), ex-alcoholic, homosexual, mommie's-basement-dwelling, medicated sociopath has just slipped another cog.
This has to be the most power the noodle-armed nancy boy has ever had.
Lap it up vegan-poopy-pants, bask in the glow of your own delusions.
You are a sorry excuse.
Posted by: carnivore | 2010-01-15 4:01:11 PM
Everybody is laughing at Vegan?
What you all thought was a Winston Churchill rhetoric filled speech about liberty is actually cleverly disgusied warmongering by a historical master of manipulation.
Pubilius presented this as a liberty speech. You all should be mad at him for making an effort to deceive you by presenting this speech as something other than what it was intended to be.
Just to be clear, something is likely more wrong with all of you, rather than me, I am not stumers like you.
Don't lump me in with anybody living other than Noam Chomsky, everybody else is a stupid douche, more or less.
Posted by: Vegan Philosopher | 2010-01-15 4:02:41 PM
Do you understand that it IS possible for people to just differ in opinion
Posted by: Everyone is laughing at you Vegan. | 2010-01-15 2:41:09 PM
You don't differ in opinion though, you all have basically the same opinion more or less, that is no accident. Please if you cannot grasp the concept don't reply.
Posted by: Vegan Philosopher | 2010-01-15 4:41:17 PM
PUBLIUS, excellent quote. Ironic how it has become even more than Madson declared when he said it would "subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America."
Posted by: TM | 2010-01-15 4:45:22 PM
Vegan: "You don't differ in opinion though, you all have basically the same opinion more or less, that is no accident."
How do you know this to be true?
You haven't asked anyone their opinion, nor has anyone proffered much in the way either.
Yet you have stated this "fact" repeatedly that everybody thinks alike but you.
Posted by: Ed Ellison | 2010-01-15 5:27:33 PM
We're dealing with either an immature teenager or an extremely immature 20-something.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2010-01-15 5:39:29 PM
Or a white Ontarian of any age.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2010-01-15 5:41:04 PM
How do you know this to be true?
because you think the same thing as everybody else of your ilk Ed, be honest with yourself for once, you all think alike. its no accident.
You all share your opinions all the time ed are your purposely ignoring this fact and trying to split hairs to make it appear you have an opinion that differs.
"Yet you have stated this "fact" repeatedly that everybody thinks alike but you."
Posted by: Ed Ellison | 2010-01-15 5:27:33 PM
Are you blind Ed, I am the only one who is willing to say the emperor has no clothes, the only one. You all repeat hogwash endlessly to prop up notions of failed policies and unfounded beliefs.
I cannot help you understand what are in no way willing too, you are the narrow visioned man you are and lets leave it at that.
Posted by: Vegan Philosopher | 2010-01-15 6:03:11 PM
Vegan: "Are you blind Ed"
No I am not. However, I cannot see how you arrived at this point though, without asking anyone's opinion before you made all these outlandish statements of "failed policies and unfounded beliefs".
You seem to have jumped to a lot of conclusions, with no basis.
Are you a mindreader?
Posted by: Ed Ellison | 2010-01-15 6:46:36 PM
You shared your opinions earlier ed along with everybody else about the churchill thread. Because of your staunch defense of him and the fantasy fallacy you and others relayed about him, any reasonable person would be able to deduce your position. Therefore because your opinion differed from nobody but mine, i can make the claim I did, and support it.
The failed policies is referring to your beliefs in failed bush and churchill doctrine, are you clear now or do you want to try and back peddle out of your original position?
Unfounded beliefs refers to your belief in churhill history like the trashy movie just recently made about him, where a person like you might sit and idolize hime on the big screen.
I stand proud in front of all my convictions and regardless of how you see me, I am more often right than wrong.
Posted by: Vegan Philosopher | 2010-01-15 6:58:44 PM
I defended him in the light of your extremely lightweight and poorly thought out attack. Many people who have studied Churchill are aware that he had a darker side to his brilliance.
He also fucked up, as noted both by his biographers and his enemies.
His accomplishments are many, however.
You have made your position extremely clear. You prefer to believe the more radical negative view of his importance. Good on you.
Vegan: "Unfounded beliefs refers to your belief in churhill history like the trashy movie just recently made about him, where a person like you might sit and idolize hime on the big screen."
How do you know what I know about Churchill, or that he is my idol?
More mindreading, eh?
You are guilty of a serious blunder: you jump to too many conclusions to be considered intelligent. And you can never be considered an "intellectual" after the shit you pulled on this site today.
Posted by: Ed Ellison | 2010-01-15 7:25:28 PM
"He also fucked up"
Posted by: Ed Ellison | 2010-01-15 7:25:28 PM
There you go under acknowledging the damage he is respoonsible for so as not to have to change your position on a jack ass.
That is truly mentally weak of you, shame on you old man brain unaccepting of any change.
Posted by: Vegan Philosopher | 2010-01-15 8:01:20 PM
"Don't lump me in with anybody living other than Noam Chomsky, everybody else is a stupid douche, more or less."
Whatever one may think of Chomsky he is not to be compared to you. He thinks before he speaks and is intelligent enough to understand the positions of people before he criticises them (even if he does often present them unfairly).
Posted by: Everyone is laughing at you Vegan. | 2010-01-15 8:05:43 PM
"Whatever one may think of Chomsky he is not to be compared to you"
Posted by: Everyone is laughing at you Vegan. | 2010-01-15 8:05:43 PM
nice strawman douche.
Posted by: Vegan Philosopher | 2010-01-15 8:36:45 PM
For example he would know how to properly use the term straw man.
Posted by: Everyone is laughing at you Vegan. | 2010-01-15 8:41:43 PM
Vegan: "That is truly mentally weak of you, shame on you old man brain unaccepting of any change."
Better my old brain, than the non-functioning deluded one you have.
More projection from the oracle.
Posted by: Ed Ellison | 2010-01-15 9:05:23 PM
I know this string of posts have nothing to do with the original article, but I agree with Vegan. How brainwashed do you have to be to think that all that is written of history is in anyway correct? Where you there? Churchill could have been a total lunatic. How would you know any different? Because a bunch of sycophants wrote it down so it must be true? I'm not saying he was evil, or good. I don't know, I wasn't there. And neither were you. So really, invoking his speeches as a tool of liberty is wrong, in so many ways. No one who encourages war is for liberty, for there is no liberty in war. Here's a thought Pub, instead of quoting dead people, find some living ones to quote from, or better yet, create your own.
Posted by: Steve Bottrell | 2010-01-15 9:25:41 PM
Better my old brain, than the non-functioning deluded one you have.
More projection from the oracle.
Posted by: Ed Ellison | 2010-01-15 9:05:23 PM
Ed you are the deluded one, you believe what is false and then call me deluded, do ya follow Ed........ you are deluded
Posted by: Vegan Philosopher | 2010-01-15 9:47:46 PM
Thank you Steve, Thank you so much for restoring my hope in this part of humanity, much appreciated.
Posted by: Vegan Philosopher | 2010-01-15 9:52:13 PM
It is not that we even necessarily disagree with him about that. I for the most part agree with that. But the tactics used by him, which amounted to little more than trying to yell louder than everyone else (in someone else's voices most of the time) were stupid, cowardly, and added nothing to the conversation. Sprinkling this with claims of victory and intellectual superiority made this downright laughable. It was clearly the work of someone who was either drunk, retarded, or mentally disturbed in some way.
Posted by: Fact provider | 2010-01-15 9:55:57 PM
"How brainwashed do you have to be to think that all that is written of history is in anyway(sic) correct?"
Not one person here said it was. Basic reading comprehension is required in order to partake in these threads in any meaningful way.
Posted by: Fact provider | 2010-01-15 9:59:00 PM
Vegan, please read Fact provider's comments.
Thank you, and have a pleasant evening.
Posted by: Ed Ellison | 2010-01-15 10:44:48 PM
Your right Fact, no one said anything of the sort, and I didn't point fingers at anyone. It was just a rhetorical question. If anyone felt singled out, accept my apologies, it wasn't intended to be aimed at anyone. Just saying don't believe everything your told, I suppose.
About Vegan, sorry Vegan, but I see what you mean. How come its so personal to you Vegan? I like your input into the conversations but fail to understand the constant barrage. I lose it once in awhile as well, (Shane, Zeb, you out there?), but man, chill out. Its not like Charles beat your dog. He is just offering what he knows, if you have a different view, I want to hear what you know. With out all the chest thumping and insults would be better tho.
You may now break out the weapons and beat the peacekeeper.
Posted by: Steve Bottrell | 2010-01-16 2:35:29 AM
@ ED @retard
First off Ed the "fact provider" is anything but.
His "slant" on the whole thing is incorrect and his reasoning is that of a selective memeory.
I am not going to take what he wrote a part piece by piece, because his perspective and assumption are flawed, so how can one repsond to his foolish opinion of what he did not perceive properly.
if I yelled , it was because none of you would listen to me when i was 100% correct.
If I called anyone less than itellectual i think I have good reason when you all think exactly the same thing and it happens to be wrong and that fine with you.
I yell louder because I was right and you were all telling me I was wrong when it was there in plain text for you to read. You all(except Steve) live under a life of Inducive fallcy, where if something is written then it has to be so, wrong again!
Anyways the "fact provider" is more of a opinionated liar than a real fact provider, so i consider the source when he writes.
Ed you need to learn to understand something or anything, because if you point to people like the fact provider that constantly make shit up so as take the argument in another direction, then you are still avoiding seeing or understanding the truth.
Posted by: Vegan Philosopher | 2010-01-16 7:39:16 AM
My tactic works, I would get mowed under if I didn't stand tall, and learned this early on here. Nobody here (other than you Steve) listens or believes anything that isn't in a book, this makes it hard to have an actual differing opinion when everyone else has indoctrinated beliefs.
You all call me names or challenge my intellect first on everything i write and by the time I have won my battle against numerous opponents they change their tune and say I didn't fight fair, well boo hoo.
All is fair, in for a penny, in for a pound, challenge my brain, call me stupid and the regulator no longer exists, all is fair which means I can continue the name calling all the way through the campaign.
I can't be bothered to go back and point out how nobody respected me first, just realize this in the future.
Posted by: Vegan Philosopher | 2010-01-16 7:53:26 AM
charles does beat me dog, and by beat my dog i mean his sheer stupidty grinds my gears to no end.
I am only about the truth, and Charles is for anything but the truth, so an inch for him is out of the question, uless of course he grabs a brain then i will reconsider.
Posted by: Vegan Philosopher | 2010-01-16 7:57:32 AM
Maybe I am a little paranoid, but I have no idea who writes on this site, or what they are capable of doing . Some seem to support free use of drugs. Most appear to post sincere, thoughtful comments. In the interests of not stroking the painful depths of my paranoia, I am careful in my comments to try not to provoke any unknown element of vigilantism no matter how remote the possibility. Perhaps that's why I do not comment often.
Posted by: dewp | 2010-01-16 10:10:42 AM
This might help those who post and debate.
Posted by: B | 2010-01-16 2:13:50 PM
:) Yup, your paranoid dewp. I doubt anyone is gonna hunt you down for your opinion. Its all bark and no bite:)
Posted by: Steve Bottrell | 2010-01-16 2:52:37 PM
Posted by: dewp | 2010-01-16 10:10:42 AM
You should try to enjoy this site for the diversity it brings. See it as nothing more than entertainment. Remember that opinions are like assholes. Everyone has one. There are also assholes that have opinions and vegan falls into that catagory. You always need the two extremes to find the center and vegan will go to great lenghts to find the opposite view on any subject considered mainstream. That will be his truth and will be beyond question. Try to enjoy him as his type are rather rare unless they are locked up in mental institutions. Remember that your tax dollars are supporting him as someone with his childish tirades will never hold a job. So just try to enjoy the insight of the mentally challenged , delusional but still functional until his prozac or carrot sticks run out. I find him highly entertaining.
Posted by: peterj | 2010-01-16 2:55:58 PM
vegan...let's play some more.
A man, whose family was German aristocracy prior to World War II,
owned a number of large industries and estates. When asked how many
German people were true Nazis, the answer he gave can guide our
attitude toward fanaticism. 'Very few people were true Nazis,' he
said, 'but many enjoyed the return of German pride, and many more were
too busy to care. I was one of those who just thought the Nazis were a
bunch of fools. So, the majority just sat back and let it all happen.
Then, before we knew it, they owned us, and we had lost control, and
the end of the world had come. My family lost everything. I ended up
in a concentration camp and the Allies destroyed my factories.'
We are told again and again by 'experts' and 'talking heads' that
Islam is the religion of peace, and that the vast majority of Muslims
just want to live in peace. Although this unqualified assertion may be
true, it is entirely irrelevant. It is meaningless fluff, meant to
make us feel better, and meant to somehow diminish the spectre of
fanatics rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam.
The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history. It
is the fanatics who march. It is the fanatics who wage any one of 50
shooting wars worldwide. It is the fanatics who systematically
slaughter Christian or tribal groups throughout Africa and are
gradually taking over the entire continent in an Islamic wave. It is
the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder, or honor-kill. It is the
fanatics who take over mosque after mosque. It is the fanatics who
zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims and
homosexuals. It is the fanatics who teach their young to kill and to
become suicide bombers.
The hard quantifiable fact is that the peaceful majority, the 'silent
majority,' is cowed and extraneous. Communist Russia was comprised of
Russians who just wanted to live in peace, yet the Russian Communists
were responsible for the murder of about 20 million people. The
peaceful majority were irrelevant.
China's huge population was peaceful as well, but Chinese Communists
managed to kill a staggering 70 million people.
The average Japanese individual prior to World War II was not a
warmongering sadist.. Yet, Japan murdered and slaughtered its way
across South East Asia in an orgy of killing that included the
systematic murder of 12 million Chinese civilians; most killed by
sword, shovel, and bayonet.
And, who can forget Rwanda, which collapsed into butchery. Could it
not be said that the majority of Rwandans were 'peace loving'?
History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt, yet for all our
powers of reason we often miss the most basic and uncomplicated of
points: Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their
silence. Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy if they don't
speak up, because like my friend from Germany, they will awaken one
day and find that the fanatics own them, and the end of their world
will have begun. Peace-loving Germans, Japanese,Chinese,Russians,
Rwandans, Serbs, Afghans, Iraqis, Palestinians, Somalis,
Nigerians, Algerians, and many others have died because the peaceful
majority did not speak up until it was too late.
As for us who watch it all unfold, we must pay attention to the only
group that counts; the fanatics who threaten our way of life.
Since you are a complete contrarion and have such a grasp of revisionist history, i would really be interested in your "truth" on this subject.
Posted by: peterj | 2010-01-15 9:38:33 PM
Posted by: peterj | 2010-01-16 4:14:03 PM
"mainstream" equates to a mindless you idiot.
main stream menas your opinion is based on lies and twisted fallacy for one purpose or another.
peters asshole is where his mouth because every time he speaks its shit.
Just to be clear because you do not listen Peter, I am the middle, and you are the extreme. You are part circle of political stupidity with no begining and no end. I am the middle who's intellect insn't filled with useless hero wroship fluff like most of you, so the balance places me smack dab in the middle. I don't wave the flag like a brain washed idiot like you and that is because my love for what drives a nation forward in a positive aspect has to be based on the truth not delusion.
As for that vomit you posted what is it in regards too? What do want me to do with that, I understand fear mongering as well, as it goes hand in hand with war mongering, so what is it you would like from me?
Posted by: Vegan Philosopher | 2010-01-16 5:51:23 PM
No what bugs me peter? your fanatasism, you think its your right to act provocatively and that is a very misguided, dangerous belief which will proably end up destroying us. you are so delusional you think a little military force can go around and slaughter everybody into submission. It doesn't work and your not very brave for thinking this is the only way.
You be afraid of the unknown as you like but it only highlights ignorance not intelligence. According the to Shel the fem it is i no e
Posted by: Vegan Philosopher | 2010-01-16 6:13:19 PM
Peterj:"As for us who watch it all unfold, we must pay attention to the only group that counts; the fanatics who threaten our way of life."
I think nearly everyone agrees with this, they simply disagree about who the dangerous fanatics are. Could it be that the fear mongers here are the fanatics that truly threaten our way of life? If so maybe the peaceful majority should speak up before it's too late.
Posted by: DrLiberty | 2010-01-16 7:03:22 PM
you are the fanatic dr liberty the enemy of liberty.
I am the middle and you are the warmonger lunatic.
prove me wrong, be a dove :
Posted by: Vegan Philosopher | 2010-01-16 7:21:31 PM
Im sorry Dr. Liberty, truly sorry for not reading your post more clearly, obviously I was lashing out. again my apologies
Posted by: Vegan Philosopher | 2010-01-16 7:24:01 PM
"Could it be that the fear mongers here are the fanatics that truly threaten our way of life"
Could be. Please expand on that and why you think 911 was a one shot deal that we can safely put behind us.
Vegan was very civil to you as soon as you agreed with him. Just for shits and giggles...try disagreeing on something...anything.
Posted by: peterj | 2010-01-16 7:58:12 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.