Rethinking Churchill: A Passion for Death, Destruction, and Power

The System lies to us about everything, so why wouldn’t the System glorify that globalist’s globalist, Britain’s version of Hillary Clinton, the Man of the Centuries, Winston Churchill.

If you’re unfamiliar with the criticisms of Churchill, the truth will shock you.

Short excerpt from a long article at Lew Rockwell

To gain any understanding of Churchill, we must go beyond the heroic images propagated for over half a century. The conventional picture of Churchill, especially of his role in World War II, was first of all the work of Churchill himself, through the distorted histories he composed and rushed into print as soon as the war was over.[4] In more recent decades, the Churchill legend has been adopted by an internationalist establishment for which it furnishes the perfect symbol and an inexhaustible vein of high-toned blather. Churchill has become, in Christopher Hitchens’s phrase, a “totem” of the American establishment, not only the scions of the New Deal, but the neo-conservative apparatus as well — politicians like Newt Gingrich and Dan Quayle, corporate “knights” and other denizens of the Reagan and Bush Cabinets, the editors and writers of the Wall Street Journal, and a legion of “conservative” columnists led by William Safire and William Buckley. Churchill was, as Hitchens writes, “the human bridge across which the transition was made” between a noninterventionist and a globalist America.[5] In the next century, it is not impossible that his bulldog likeness will feature in the logo of the New World Order.

But while Winston had no principles, there was one constant in his life: the love of war. It began early. As a child, he had a huge collection of toy soldiers, 1500 of them, and he played with them for many years after most boys turn to other things. They were “all British,” he tells us, and he fought battles with his brother Jack, who “was only allowed to have colored troops; and they were not allowed to have artillery.”[19] He attended Sandhurst, the military academy, instead of the universities, and “from the moment that Churchill left Sandhurst … he did his utmost to get into a fight, wherever a war was going on.”[20] All his life he was most excited — on the evidence, only really excited — by war. He loved war as few modern men ever have[21] — he even “loved the bangs,” as he called them, and he was very brave under fire.

In 1925, Churchill wrote: “The story of the human race is war.”[22] This, however, is untrue; potentially, it is disastrously untrue. Churchill lacked any grasp of the fundamentals of the social philosophy of classical liberalism. In particular, he never understood that, as Ludwig von Mises explained, the true story of the human race is the extension of social cooperation and the division of labor. Peace, not war, is the father of all things.[23] For Churchill, the years without war offered nothing to him but “the bland skies of peace and platitude.” This was a man, as we shall see, who wished for more wars than actually happened.

What Churchill loved was power, and the opportunities power provided to live a life of drama and struggle and endless war.

Yet, in truth, Churchill never cared a great deal about domestic affairs, even welfarism, except as a means of attaining and keeping office. What he loved was power, and the opportunities power provided to live a life of drama and struggle and endless war.

There is a way of looking at Winston Churchill that is very tempting: that he was a deeply flawed creature, who was summoned at a critical moment to do battle with a uniquely appalling evil, and whose very flaws contributed to a glorious victory — in a way, like Merlin, in C.S. Lewis’s great Christian novel, That Hideous Strength.169 Such a judgment would, I believe, be superficial. A candid examination of his career, I suggest, yields a different conclusion: that, when all is said and done, Winston Churchill was a Man of Blood and a politico without principle, whose apotheosis serves to corrupt every standard of honesty and morality in politics and history.

2 thoughts on “Rethinking Churchill: A Passion for Death, Destruction, and Power

  1. I agree with the above article. One wonders if Hitler would have attacked Poland if Churchill had then been leader pf the UK in 1939. Nor was Churchill leader when Hitler attacked France. Only then did Churchill stab his opponents in the back and take over, partly because of the Norway fiasco where the British Navy tired to invade Norway before Hitler did, but made a mess of it and Hitler beat them to it. Churchill was in charge of this failure as usual and got promoted for making a mess of it.

    Churchill started the 45 years of Cold War with two famous speeches in 1946. Again, why not do something with or against Stalin during the war, not afterwards. As Patton said “We fought on the wrong side”.

    Roosevelt was a Commie in bed with Stalin. These two carved up Europe in Teheran and Yalta and Churchill was ignored and rebuffed by his own “friend” and ally Roosevelt.

    Churchill destroyed the British Empire almost single handed, but with help from Hitler and Roosevelt and the patsy Japs.

    Churchill lived beyond his means with a lavish lifestyle and it is said that the Jews financed him even well before WWII started.

    Churchill should have made peace with Hitler after Dunkirk, and saved the Birtish Empire and most likely sealed the fate of the Soiviet Union.

  2. Churchill was a blue-pill phony. Before I was red-pilled, I hung on his every word and quotation. I believed him to be this great and wondrous leader and philosopher. Yes, the guy was erudite, witty, and learned, but he was also full of it. He was responsible for the hundreds of thousands of casualties at Gallipoli and refused to take any responsibility for it. Discounting anything else, he was responsible for wanting Britain to go to war with Germany and wanting the U.S. to be dragged into it just as what happened in WWI. Our meddling in WWI (against our Founding Father’s admonitions to avoid other countries’ conflicts) tipped the balance to the British/French and spawned WWII. Our meddling in WWII again tipped the balance and spawned the Cold War, the creation of Israel, Communism taking half of Europe, Korea, Viet Nam, and our Middle East adventures which only support Israel to our harm. Take the red-pill and get enlightened.

Leave a Reply. Comments Policy Forbids Insulting Other Commenters.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s