Rethinking Churchill


A well-documented and thorough crushing of the myth.

There goes another icon.

(H/t SLL)

45 responses to “Rethinking Churchill

  1. Churchill destroyed England and its Empire by involving them in two completely unnecessary wars. His egomania knew no limits…As we see in The Crown, England was still on food rationing in 1953, eight years after WW2 ended. Nuff said….

    • Churchill had no sweeping power in the 1900’s and he was out of power in the 1930’s as well as from 1946 onward

      • 1.Churchill was a major force for Britain’s entry into WW1, and had no interest in peace.2. When Churchill reached power after Munich, his approach was bellicose, and Britain’s entire survival was predicated on somehow getting America into the war, which Roosevelt eventually managed. 3.Contrary to your statement, Churchill returned to power in the early 1950s, was clueless, and ended up being forced to resign due to his lying about his health to the Queen, amongst other disasters.

        • “Professor (((Harry Jaffa)))”. Yes, the Zionists/neo-conz and other Judeo-globalists loves them their Churchill for good and sufficient reason: no Churchill, no 20th century Word War….no “holocaust”…no Israel…no destruction of White Western Civilization. He was a brilliant Rothschild property from the beginning and, as the years passed, the warmongering Zioni$t spider$ wove around him an ever tighter web of debt…just as they do with entire nations. David Lough’s NO MORE CHAMPAGNE – CHURCHILL AND HIS MONEY (NY, 2015) is a particularly enlightening read in this connection.

  2. One man’s re-imagining of history does not a Bible make

  3. Re: “A well-documented and thorough crushing of the myth.”

    Hardly – it will take more than the work of one obscure revisionist historian to tear down the life and accomplishments of the statesman most-responsible for saving western civilization from the scourge of 20th-century fascism.

    Those who undertake in-depth study of the life of Winston Spencer Churchill are well-aware of the many flaws of the man; countless articles, journals, monographs and books have been written about them. Those who focus on the man’s flaws refuse to see the forest for the trees.

    Professor Raico, like so many professional contrarians, cannot bear the thought of anyone – no matter how great – escaping his criticism, and so sets out to belittle the name of a man far-greater than himself. Churchill knew how to handle such critics – in life, Raico would have been no match for Churchill’s famous wit or his acid tongued rejoinders. Of course, it is so much easier to attack the reputation of the dead, isn’t it?

    Not only was Churchill presciently-correct, years before anyone else, about
    the dangers of Nazism and fascism – he was also far-sighted enough to see the hazard that a resurgent Islam would eventually pose to western civilization. If that isn’t enough, Churchill possessed such insights as a young man who had not yet turned thirty. He was but twenty-five when “The River Wars” was published in 1899.

    It is perhaps difficult for unimaginative and small-minded critics (like Professor Raico) to understand, but the voice and words of Winston Churchill helped keep occupied Europe alive during its darkest hours. Those in Nazi-occupied lands risked their very lives to listen in secret to the pugnacious British Prime Minister in his BBC broadcasts – but they did so willingly for the message of hope his message conveyed to conquered peoples that not all was lost. This isn’t mere hyperbole; I have a number of elderly relatives and friends who survived the occupation of Europe who have said as much. Ask any survivor of that the time from the Allied side and you’ll get much the same story. Edward R. Murrow famously said, “He mobilized the English language and sent it into battle,” and he was utterly correct.

    For two years, Great Britain stood nearly alone against the Nazis, and the voice of the great man was all the hope those in occupied Europe could cling to. Churchill’s magnificence arose not from his perfection; he’d have laughed at such a characterization. Rather, it arose out of his greatness, which was expressed in spite of his petty flaws, vanities, and vices at the just the time and place it was needed the most. His critics ought to give humble thanks to God that Churchill came along when he did – for who knows what fate the West would have suffered in his absence.

    Today, Europe is again under threat of conquest – this time from the Mohammedans – and such stalwarts as Geert Wilders, the great Dutch member of parliament, as well as leaders as Viktor Orban, Robert Fico, and Miloš Zeman, carry on the twenty-fist century legacy of Churchill.

  4. It is very cute how the host of this blog is only now slowly coming around to admitting certain realities. The bad guys won World War II. There is no question about that now. The axis powers were on the side of white people. It is literally that simple. Just as it is again today. Hungary, Austria, Germany, people who are awake in Britain and the United States and France–we are all having to fight to protect white civilization from the Semites and invading brown hoards, same as it has been for 5000 years. The difference between Semites and white Europeans is that the Semites know that they are our enemy and have been fighting for 100 years without us even trying to fight back.

    • You might want to read up on this, but I am pretty sure the bad guys were the ones gassing Jewish children and their parents.

      • You might want to read up on all the EU revisionists locked up for questioning the Hollowhoax . Real history doesn’t need prison time to back it up , and Churchill was / is overblown . He should have been shitcanned after Galipoli.

      • or, the “bad guy” might have been Churchill and his 1942-44 Assam/East Bengal Terror Famine – which killed more people in India than the Nazis/Zionists did Jews – and which he engineered in order to put some scorched earth in front of the onrushing Japs in Burma. Can’t recall the author, but the best read on this would be the book CHURCHILL’S CHOICE.

    • HaXo is that you?

        • CA,

          Coulda fooled me. This “X” posting the same vile, lie-spewing garbage as Haxo/Stuka Pilot/(Not So) Wise Cave Owl/Mohammed/ETC/ETC/. Certainly the same modus operandi.

          This “Haxo” with his multitude of screen names is all over the Internet spewing his hatred of Jews and Gentiles. In fact good ol’ Kevin at Weaponsman “banned” him 3x “for good”. But, Haxo always managed to circumvent the banning. Kevin finally accepted him with open arms and “unbanned” the hate-filled Haxo/Whatever-His-Monicker-of-the-Day is. Haxo is extremely savvy of the Internet and is not the run-of-the-mill contributor one finds at blogs such as WRSA. He has an agenda of hatred that consumes much more time and effort and technical knowledge than the common commenter possesses.

          This clown fancies himself as some bad-ass type as his primary screen name “Haxo Angmark” is an assassin character extracted from some dime store novel. He is not some taxicab dispatcher in Milwaukee as he has alluded to.

          “Behind every blade of grass” Haxo finds a Jew. He labels those of the Jewish faith to be responsible for every wrong in the world. He is deserving of contempt for his values of hatred he spreads here and across the blogosphere. He is a sociopath.

    • Jimmy the Saint

      “The axis powers were on the side of white people.”

      Come again?
      – Zombie Hideki Tojo

      Germany killed the shit out of “white people”. The overwhelming majority of folks who died under German guns were white, and lily white at that. They got some Asians in Russia, but mostly, they whacked whites. The minor Axis nations (Finland, Hungary, Romania, and Bulgaria) did likewise.

      Italy was pretty much a non-factor, but other than some pre-war expeditions in Africa, to the extent they killed anyone, they killed whites, too.

      • Italy wasn’t a non-factor. More victors’ mythology, some of this via Churchill’s writings. Italy got a bad rap because the ill-led Italian Army got off to a poor start in Greece and N. Africa, both 1940. Brit propagandists then used this to try to drive a wedge between Italy and Germany thereafter. During 1941-42, the Italian Army fought much better. For instance, during the November-December 1941 “Crusader” battle, Italian “Ariete” armored division began by thrashing a British armored brigade, and did well throughout; during the same bloodbath, the Italian “Savona” infantry division fought on until overrun and destroyed. During the El Alemain battle a year later, the Italian “Folgore” paratroop division anchored the southern section Rommel’s defensive line; and fought on against overwhelming air, armored, and infantry attack for two weeks…until 90% KIA. Folgore is the only unit on either side in WW II to receive full battle honors – retention of colors and weapons – from the victors. And overall, the Italian Navy sank more tonnage than it lost, while the Regia Aeronautica was about even-steven in aircraft kills/losses

        the Axis powers lost the war not because of Italy, but because the military decision makers who mattered – Hitler and Yamamoto – were incompetent. Hitler fumbled away strategic victory three times, while – but for Yamamoto’s refusal to keep it simple and concentrate force – the Japanese would have won easily at Coral Sea and Midway.

  5. This piece, as well as the lengthy & accurate piece on the Bolsheviks, are good illustrations of “he who wins” gets to write the public record of it. Generalizations about an individual’s perceived place in history will continue; these “myths” or generalizations won’t go away in anything like the current secondary education model. One has only to look at a rudimentary record of Lincoln’s actions to save “the Union” at all costs and the despotic steps taken, blinded by his own rhetoric to achieve that salvation (as well as those of Jefferson Davis whose own actions in the name of “our Country” were decried by his own constituency), and – gasp – ask school-age children to be subjected to an objective look at FDR. The un-maskings always come a couple of generations later but, regardless of the Richter-scale effect on shaking the puppy’s dish, are seldom used in decision making with regard to predicting human conduct. Kids are who they will be, largely upon their exit from the public education mill – it falls to no one else but parents to present different facets of the prism that might foster anything that can be learned from and applied. Get on it.

    • Tx for that pdf book in your link re FDR. Saves a trip to town to check it out again at some point.

      Boomers like me got indocrinated on how great FDR was when we went to college. Flynn, author of the pdf file linked by Badger, was there on the ground at the time. That time, when the Great Leader was having his breakfast in bed and a couple of unfiltered Humps, he would just “decide” where to peg the price of gold that day.

  6. “He handles great subjects in rhythmical language, and becomes quickly enslaved to his own phrases. He deceives himself into the belief that he takes broad views, when his mind is fixed upon one comparatively small aspect of the question.[16]”

    In other words, he thought and argued like a Jew. The Jew as a lawyer creates a tricky argument that does not upon first consideration past the sniff test. Then the Jew sticks to it until eventually in its Jew mind he forgets that his original argument was knowingly bullshit. In the end, neurotic psychopaths like Churchhill and Jews truly believe that their ridiculous beliefs are correct.

  7. AnonForOpsec

    Opinions vary. Narratives and history are written by the victors; I suppose it’s up to the rest of us to glean anything of value that will enable us to also become victors. In this age of information, you now have an advantage people such as W.C.did not. Exploit that advantage.

  8. Churchill was a towering intellect and brilliant rhetorician but a collectivist monster who bumbled many opportunities during his long career as a government supremacist.

    Raico does a great job summarizing the charge sheet against Winston the statist monster.

    David Reynolds did a great job examining his” storytelling” when he crafted his six volume history of the War to Save Josef Stalin, “In Command of History”.

    His treatment of India during WWII was monstrous.

    An interview with the book’s author:

    Like some politicians in the twentieth century, he was a brilliant writer and speaker. I think his greatest speech of all was his Amritsar speech from 1919. I wish someone would rerecord it for posterity.


    Bill Buppert

    • An accurate summary. Churchill was an excellent writer and speaker, and only lost his wits toward the end. But he destroyed Britain with his military adventures, and was indifferent to the fate of Britain’s middle and lower classes, who actually had to fight the wars, and pay the taxes, and endure the rationing well into the 1950s. As The Crown accurately shows, the Upper classes suffered no such restrictions.

  9. Interesting….the slack jawed author going after one of History’s towering figures of the 20th century. to educate, not deceive.

    • I wonder what Hillsdale says about another “great” figure, Abraham Lincoln, whose war to enforce the Morrill Tariff killed a million people and destroyed 20 years of GDP?

  10. One must look at their fruit. I never liked Churchill. His quotes are great but his policies led to the current socialist demise of the former Great Britain.

    “Britain’s never never will be slaves”
    Well, they need to work on some new lyrics or fight.

  11. The depth of the brainwashing from birth is sometimes impenetrable as evidenced by some of the comments above.

    • SemperFi, 0321

      Yup, here we go with the groupies again. Can’t fix stupid.
      Just his part in the sinking of the RMS Lusitania was a war crime, one of his many accomplishments, along with his cousin in crime FDR.

  12. I gotta second Georgiaboy’s take, by in large.

    There are more than just a few misrepresentations and glaring omissions in this essay. I’ll name just two, both concerning us.

    First, not notwithstanding the role Churchill played in getting us into the war though the backdoor,  the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki did save hundreds of thousands of American and millions of Jap lives and shortened the war by at least one year, perhaps more. Operation Downfall would have been a disaster for us. The Japs were dug in on the hills and banks overlooking the beaches, mines were everywhere, kamikaze planes were ready to go (a good number of the non-combat ready were dug into positions overlooking the beaches, fields of fire zeroed in and loaded with TNT) and every man, woman and child civie was trained with sharpened bamboo sticks and was ready to die for the god-man emperor. Their defenses were also deep inland ams well planned.  It would have been a months-long bloodbath just to establish a small measure of control. Truman knew damn well the American people would never stand for that, as well they should not have. The Japs needed a good, strong wakeup call and they got it, good and hard. I have no remorse whatsoever for them they deserved every bit of it and more. I wish we would have done the same to Tokyo, although I get why we didn’t. My Dad, for all his faults, was in the Navy on a minesweeper and the odds were he wouldn’t have come back.

    Second, the author says absolutely nothing about the deep Communist presence and influence within all layers of our government and paints that tyrant FDR as an accomplice rather than the stooge he actually was. He completely glosses over the probability that Harry Hopkins was a Soviet agent, completely ignores the Venona papers’ revelations and  Operation Keelhaul. He also dismisses, out of hand, the enormous influence the Commies had on our decision to invade France instead of the so-called “soft underbelly” of Europe, which was eminently doable. If we had done so we could have stopped them in their tracks and averted their invasion of Eastern Europe (it would have also kept the muzloids at bay, at least for a while longer). Those here who have not read Diana West’s great book “American Betrayal” should do so. She fingers Hopkins quite convincingly as a Commie agent (among many) and has FDR down pat. The Venona decrypts are also in the public domain, for anyone interested.

    As long as we were dragged into that war we should have listened to Patton and MacArthur, kicked England to the curb (and fragged that weasel Montgomery) after VE and VJ days and marched East and West, respectively, and destroyed the Soviet Union and Communist China.  But we all know what happened to Patton. Mac was more PC so was able to keep his gig a while longer but even he was politically assassinated for wanting to go after the Commies over the Yalu River. 

    Both men were born to late in time.

    • socabill,

      “….and destroyed the Soviet Union and Communist China.”

      For every war, hot and Cold, along with numerous brush-fire conflicts we engaged in in the 20th Century, Amerika has become exactly what we fought against to defend our then ideals and values.

      Today, our major, ahem, trading partner are the COMMUNIST Chinese. COMMUNIST Vietnam now provides our Pajama Boys with the panties they wear. Our textile industry surrendered to communists and moslems in foreign nations. Our trade deficit over the last 15 years with Red China is at 4 trillion dollars and growing. We have lost our sovereignty. We manufacture little if anything for citizen consumption. fUSA has become that what we despised in the 20th Century.

      More than 50% of those voting on 8 NOV voted socialist, collectivist, COMMUNIST ! For eight, long years my Amerika and yours has endured it’s economic and social values destroyed at the hands of a lying, bastard moslem Marxist who was never Constitutionally qualified to be POTUS. Our Congress allowed soetoro-obama to pass. And the voting majority of Amerikan collectivists kept the scum and his devoted Congress, in office for 2 terms.

      Rather than destroy the Soviets and the ChiComs, this once great nation has embraced their ideology. We’ve become what we once made effort to eliminate. Soetoro-obama, his supporters and his apologists are proof of that.

      I pray that Mr. Trump will “Make America Great Again”. But, he’s got a lot of un-making to do.

  13. got a small shelf of his stuff, a very complex man, In a very complex time. Surrounded by communists, socialists and nazis, his was a tough road to hoe.

    Socially awkward, the mans brilliance was as notable as his individualism, A man who noted his short comings, and a man who excepted the responsibilities for his own actions.

    a man whom recognized when his time, as council, leader was over.


  14. Internet rules: the 1st poster to compare the Object to Hitler or Jeews automatically forfeits the net for 24 HRS

  15. It’s a mediocre treatise, and a cursory reading (admittedly all I could tolerate at the end of a long night shift) shows that his fundamental flaw is trying to judge Churchill through the warped prism of American ideology.
    Churchill was only half-American by birth, and entirely British in outlook.

    Trying to apply American standards of behavior or politics to a British politician is about as useful as using the GOP platform to judge Castro. Comforting in a masturbatory way, but hardly illuminating in objective terms.

    Churchill triumphed because he had the prescience to decry German National Socialism for exactly what it turned out to be, long before anyone else saw any problem, and even when most of his countrymen saw no such problem at all, until it was literally up Britain’s ass.

    Trying to damn a man who was for nationalizing industry in his own country, when the wolf was literally at Britain’s throat, and they hung on by a thread, is revisionist twaddle beyond retarded. You can make a case against Roosevelt for doing the same thing here when nothing like was at stake, but trying to have William F. Buckley psychoanalyze Churchill’s actions as though the very survival of his nation was not a factor is simply simplistic bullshittery from an amateur, or deliberate hogwash from someone who ought to know better. There is no third way out of that swamp.

    If that’s the best one can conjure, I doubt a deeper foray will unearth any better analysis, but perhaps when I have an hour to waste, and a set of hip waders, I’ll try and wade through the rest.

    • Around 1850, Spooner sent letter mail faster and cheaper than the US post office. Did congress then improve the post office? No, congress gave the post office a monopoly and made it illegal for anyone else to carry letters. Monopolies are often granted at exactly the moment when the legislature has learned their offering is inferior. Nationalizing means the banning of alternatives and options, monopolies preserve the inferior instead of switching to the known to be better. Nationalizing anything at any time is not an improvement. Understand economics, and your political arguments will be fixed, too.

    • wrong. Hitler was an Anglophile, and Britain’s “survival” was never at issue. He, not Hitler, forced the war. Churchill had one good, honest moment, though. Around about 1948, when he looked over the ruins and admitted:

      “We killed the wrong pig”.

      IOTW, “oh, sorry…my 30 Years War against Germany has actually destroyed the British Empire, destroyed all the other White Empires, and mortally wounded both White Western Civilization and the race that created it”

      Churchill was a murderous, warmongering, all-destroying shabbatz goy.

  16. Finally a realistic assessment of this monster. Sadly to this day many americans are still feeling the echo of hollywoods pro british propoganda.


    Well. we all know the old saying: “ONE AW SHIT CANCELS OUT FIVE ATTABOYS”. Seriously, it is very hard to overcome, among other things, the forced repatriations and subsequent deaths of the countless souls at the hands of Stalin,post 1945.

  18. Alfred E. Neuman

    Reblogged this on FOR GOD AND COUNTRY.

  19. Yup, a statist monster..not a ‘great man’.

    His involvement with the sacrifice of the Lusitania and
    the sacrifice of people at Pearl Harbor says all that needs
    to be said.

    May Nemesis and Justicia preside over his evil soul for
    eternity, just as they do with fdr!

    Yours In Liberty w/o state worship!
    NorthGunner III