By News Desk | 7 Comments | 
Print
Patrick Buchanan on Churchill and the Decline of the West
“Churchill Spurred the Decline of the West”
from Antiwar.com, September 5, 2009
On September 3, 2009, a debate sponsored by Intelligence Squared, at the Methodist Central Hall Westminster, in London, considered the question: “Resolved: Churchill was more a liability than an asset to the free world.”
Speakers for the motion: Pat Buchanan, Nigel Knight, political scientist and economist at Churchill College, Cambridge, and Norman Stone, historian and professor of International Relations at Bilkent University, Ankara.
Speakers against the motion: Antony Beevor, historian and author of the best-selling book Stalingrad; professor Richard Overy, historian, author of many books and articles on the Second World War and the Nazi regime; and Andrew Roberts, historian, who has spent 20 years writing, researching, and broadcasting about Churchill and the Second World War.
We publish below Pat Buchanan’s opening statement:
To borrow from Mark Antony’s funeral oration, we of the affirmative are not here to praise Mr. Churchill — but to bury him.
But, first, let us concede the greatness of the man.
In that finest hour of the British nation, 1940, Winston Churchill was indomitable, an inspiration to men everywhere. He was the Lion who gave Britain’s roar of defiance in the face of Hitler’s Germany. For that, he will be honored by peoples everywhere — and forever.
And if we judged him on that year alone, there would be no debate. There would be unanimity.
But Churchill’s career did not last a single year. It lasted half a century. And, over that half century, no other career of a Western statesman was more calamitous for his country and his civilization than that of Winston Spencer Churchill.
More than any other British leader, in 1914 and 1939, Churchill lusted for war and pushed his country to turn two European wars into world wars, so Germany might be destroyed.
Both times, he succeeded.
And history records that those wars, that together took the lives of perhaps a hundred million Europeans, were the mortal blows that advanced the death of the West.
And it was Winston Churchill who led the West in its advance to barbarism. . . . Read the whole article.
News Desk
Please contact the Editor if you have news items that you think are relevant to TOQ readers.
Buchanan is absolutely right about Churchill. He was a warmonger both in 1914 and 1940; he was also an alcoholic incompetent who was in the pay of Jewish interests. As David Irving has shown, Churchill was in the pay of a group called the Anti-Nazi League, later renamed “The Focus”, headed by the chief of British Shell, Sir Bernard Whaley-Cohen. It was Churchill who persuaded the British Cabinet to defy Hitler in June 1940 when they were ready to accept Hitler’s peace terms.
Churchill was undoubtedly a war criminal. As First Lord of the Admiralty during WW1, he was responsible for the naval blockade that led to widespread starvation in Germany. He was also responsible for the terror bombing of German cities and the insane firebombing over Hamburg and Dresden, in particular. Churchill’s generals, as both David Irving and now Max Hastings have shown, regarded their glorious leader as a complete amateur at military affairs. These facts have been withheld from the public for many years but are now coming out.
One aspect of Churchill that even Buchanan has been reluctant to comment on is Winston’s lifelong service to Zionism. Churchill was a booster of Zionism from very early in his political career. He opposed the Aliens Acts of 1904-1905 which were aimed against the hordes of Jewish Marxist immigrants to London’s East end. He insisted on the sanctity of Lord Balfour’s famous declaration when he was Colonial Secretary in the early 1920′s. Not once did he stand up for the rights of the Arabs of Palestine. Even when the Zionists assassinated his friend, Lord Walter Moyne, the British High Commissioner in Egypt in 1944, did Churchill abandon his commitment to Zionism.
It is true that Churchill did make many comments blaming Jews for Communism in Russia. The most famous was his infamous newspaper article in the Illustrated Sunday Herald of February 8, 1920 entitled; “Zionism Versus Bolshevism: A Struggle For The Soul Of The Jewish People”. But even in the final volume of his study the First World War, The Aftermath, Churchill made many similar statements. He stated that an international force such as the world had not hitherto seen, had gripped the Russian people “by the hair of their heads.” He was, of course, referring to the “Chosen People.” Churchill further recommended that Germany and Great Britain should jointly invade Russia to free it from the Bolsheviks. This was his formula for reconciliation between Germany and England. How ironic that this same Churchill went to war on behalf of Russia when Hitler invaded twenty years later.
Patrick Buchanan has written most eloquently on the myth of Winston Churchill. But there are dark secrets of Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill where even the fearless Mr. Buchanan hesitates to delve.
Churchill wrote on Jewish Bolshevism not as a white man looking out for the interests of his people, but as a Zionist concerned with the interests of Jews.
Churchill did oppose further Third World immigration into Britain.
Although I’m almost certain that the reason for doing this had nothing to do with race or even culture, but the narrow economic interests of his class.
We really are ruled by bastards.
It is true that Churchill, in line with many people of the WW1 era, proposed Zionism, a Jewish state in Palestine, as an alternative to Communism for Jews. The idea was to wean Jews away from Communism by offering them a Jewish state. This same approach was employed by Chaim Weizmann, the Zionist leader, as well as by Lord Curzon, Arthur James Balfour and other prominent Englishmen. This idee fixe of the times is discussed in Sharman Kadish’s book, Bolshevism and British Jews.
“It is true that Churchill, in line with many people of the WW1 era, proposed Zionism, a Jewish state in Palestine, as an alternative to Communism for Jews. The idea was to wean Jews away from Communism by offering them a Jewish state. . . .”
Well, it was still a false dichotomy nonetheless . . . a ‘good cop, bad cop’ act of the Jews manipulating the ‘goyim’ into following and serving Zionist interests by using the ‘spectre of communism’ as a foil.
As history as shown, this duplicitous strategy strengthened BOTH communism and Zionism.
KULAKS NEVER LEARN.
Kulaks Never Learn is correct. Planting Jewish Marxists in Palestine did not wean Jews away from communism. Similarly, the present idea that Israel’s “war on terror” is America’s “war on terror” will lead to equally disastrous results.
Whites are always falling victim to clever Jewish sophistries. Back in the 1946-1948 period, the right wing revisionist Zionists put out an enormous propaganda that the Jewish settlers in Palestine were “freedom fighters” just like the American colonials fighting the British in 1776. Zionist journals, such as “New Palestine”, featured Jewish settlers in Palestine dressed like Americans in their 18th century hats. Walter Winchell alleged that the British were now “the Brutish” because of their anti-Zionist measures.
The present sophistries have long antecedents. It wasn’t any better back then.
TALMUDIC TWIST THINK HISTORY
The Israeli historian, Yehuda Bauer, has written an upside down think analysis of Nazism and Communism. Bauer begins by asserting that Nazism was a repudiation of the principles of western civilization with its atavistic reversion to primitive racism and aggressive foreign policy while Soviet Communism was a product of the Enlightenment with a forward looking, “progressive” outlook based on equality, freedom of the individual, etc. Unfortunately, Communism went bad and it did, in fact, slaughter far more than the “six million” supposedly exterminated by the National Socialism. But Communism is at least theoretically good; whereas Nazism is just well, demonic. There is much to argue with in this analysis. Nazism was actually far more consistent with the principles of western civilization than Mr. Bauer is willing to concede. For one thing, its anti-Jewish policies were consistent with the traditional practices of the Catholic Church and European monarchies. One European country after another expelled the Jews during the Middle Ages and treated Jews as antisocial parasites. In that sense, Nazi teaching was consistent with the teaching of the Catholic Church. Yehuda Bauer can hardly argue that that the Catholic Church was not part of western civilization. The social welfare policies of the Nazis were also consistent with Christian teaching. After all, was not the Nazi slogan “the common good before the individual good”? Did not the Germans take care of their own just like the Church took care of the poor?
It would appear then that Nazism had something in common with previous European history. Bauer next argues that the Nazis were intellectual primitives. Yet Adolf Hitler, Nazi number one, was a very gifted architect and painter. The Jews of Vienna must have thought so too, as they were among the purchasers of his drawings and paintings during his lean years, as proved by the card index of his agent, the Jew Morgenstern. Hitler’s speeches reveal a remarkably lucid mind, not the raving lunatic of war-time propaganda. Hitler thought a lot of modern art very degenerate but so did a lot of even his critics. Der Fuehrer actually had a great appreciation for music and a very good ear. He planned to build opera houses all over Germany to bring the masterworks of western music to the masses. Strange behavior indeed for a man who was outside the scope of western civilization. Mr. Bauer is offended by the Nazi pursuit of Lebensraum. But if conquest is outside the scope of western civilization, then what was the Roman Empire doing? Or even the British Empire which conquered far more extensively than Hitler ever did? Yehuda Bauer makes the well-known claim that the Jews created western civilization through the incorporation of the Jewish Old Testament and New Testament in Christian theology. Yet he does not mention that Jews and Christians interpret the books in completely different ways. Thus, Yehuda Bauer does not claim that Christianity bases its Biblical interpretations on the Talmud. But the Jews do — and thereby “reinterpret” the meaning of the Biblical Passages the same way the Supreme Court “reinterprets” the Constitution. Bauer also fails to mention that much of western civilization descends from Greece and Rome — and surely Yehuda Bauer knows what the relations of the Jews were with Rome in the first and second centuries A.D.
Yehuda Bauer has a love affair with Marxism. That is not remarkable, as the Ostjuden like Bauer were the creators of Marxism. Nor can this idea be blamed on Nazis, as anti-Nazis like Winston Churchill and the American State Department had the same idea in the early 1920s. There was also a remarkable similarity between Mussolini’s Italy, Roosevelt’s New Deal, and National Socialism, as all three were employing the same methods of deficit financing and public works projects and opposition to the gold standard in their economies. If, therefore, National Socialism was outside the scope of western civilization, then so were Roosevelt and Mussolini. Yehuda Bauer does not claim that the Khazars were outside the scope of western civilization. He had better not, because his favorite country where he lives is populated precisely by the descendants of these Khazars after they converted en masse to Judaism in the 8th – 9th centuries A.D. The medieval Jews in their ghettos deliberately isolated themselves from the despised Christian world because they did not want to be part of it. That was also the reason they set up their separate Jewish courts ratified by the surrounding Christian authorities.
Yehuda Bauer does not like revisionist history. Thus, he asserts that WW2 was caused exclusively by that mythical Nazi desire to conquer the world. The Treaty of Versailles, the mutilation of Central Europe by absurd peace treaties and the British desire to prevent a resurgent Germany had nothing to do with it. It was all the fault of a demon called Adolf Hitler. Joseph Stalin was, of course, perfectly innocent as his own attack plans in 1941 had nothing to do with Operation Barbarossa. Mr. Bauer also defines freedom for the individual as freedom to be taken care of by the state. Perfectly understandable, one supposes, for a Marxist who thinks that Voltaire, Diderot and D’Holbach were economic redistributionists rather than the flaming anti-Semites they were. One can almost see Yehuda Bauer hissing at the sight of Patrick Buchanan like the vampire hisses at the sign of the cross. Yehuda Bauer claims that something called “Islamo-Fascism” now threatens the world the same way that Nazism supposedly did. Maybe Mr. Bauer picked this up from the old Arab-Khazar wars of antiquity. More probably he invented it with his fellow Zionists to get the U.S. to fight Israel’s next war against Iran. Yehuda Bauer is an expert in politicized history. He twists facts to make them allies of present day objectives. As such, he is extremely entertaining. But he is hardly to be taken seriously.