I find it amusing how some of the world’s historically most fearsome cruel warrior raiding tribes in history have now joined the social justice bandwagon and are playing innocent victims of persecution by their agrarian neighbors who they predated on for centuries.

Given that Chamberlain was already terminally ill if you replaced Churchill with any of his Tory or Labour competitors they wouldn’t have ran the war any different. The only exception being Edward Wood Viscount Halifax who was in favour of an armistice with Germany.

Best not to answer the cantankerous old Wizard. It just goes on and on. Easiest to not read his asinine posts.

Best not to answer the Jewish Wizard. It just goes on and on. It’s easier to ignore him if you don read his posts.

I’ve never read a David Irving book. Mostly I read the hagiographies of Churchill . Being a cynic, I read between the lines and came to the same conclusions the old labor left socialists. Lady Astor and the Cliveden set and David Irving did. He was a destructive war monger.

During WW2 he plotted with Stalin to divide the oil rich nation of Iran between Russia and Britain after the war. Also deposed the Shah of Iran during WW2 because the Shah dared to oppose the Churchill/Stalin plan.

At least he didn’t leave a dynasty as the Kennedy’s did.

So, no exemptions for men with dependent wives and 5 children in WW1. And Churchill’s genius tactic of attacking Germany from 800 miles away in Gallipoli.

He and his parents were despicable.

So David Irving doesn’t doesn’t ring your bell, you don’t work for “British Intelligence” by any chance?

A bright boy he may be, but that only makes him more of problem.

Yes, most of the wars the US waged in the last 50 years were for Israel’s benefit

not to mention our participation in both World Wars.

Most of these wars were actually detrimental for the US national interests.

And Western civ.

Yes, most mega-thieves stealing USSR state assets in the 1990s, both foreign and domestic, were Jewish. Most, but not all. The same is true for the US and Europe.

I agree.

Personally, I don’t care which of them is Jewish and which is not: they are all thieves and should be in jail or, better yet, should be hanged on lampposts.

There again, I agree. In fact I harbor much more antipathy and loathing for the Gentile remoras feasting off the carcass of our civilization far more than the Jewish ones, who at least are following their own evolutionary strategy, rather than the opportunistic traitors among our own selling us all down the river for a few shekels more.

Akhmetov in Ukraine is Tatar, as well as Usmanov in Russia, should not protect them from gallows, where they should hang next to their Jewish “colleagues”.

For centuries Tartars were known raid villages to sell ethnic Russians to the Muslims as slaves. Millions suffered a fate worse than death, because of that slave trade.

Tartars and J- supremacists are like peas in a pod.

One of the few actually good things the Soviets did was cleanse Crimea of that menace.

Yea, there are “scholars” claiming that Earth is flat and evolution never happened. Quacks are there to confuse us, not to enlighten us.

You make some valid points, but I think you are oversimplifying it. You are conflating two different things.

Yes, most of the wars the US waged in the last 50 years were for Israel’s benefit. Most of these wars were actually detrimental for the US national interests. Yes, most mega-thieves stealing USSR state assets in the 1990s, both foreign and domestic, were Jewish. Most, but not all. The same is true for the US and Europe. Personally, I don’t care which of them is Jewish and which is not: they are all thieves and should be in jail or, better yet, should be hanged on lampposts. That applies to Saudi, Ukrainian, and Georgian oligarchs. Say, the fact that Akhmetov in Ukraine is Tatar, as well as Usmanov in Russia, should not protect them from gallows, where they should hang next to their Jewish “colleagues”.

[1853] .. was the last time anyone showed aggression against Japan.

There are scholars that might argue Russia was aggressive towards Japan’s reasonable petitions leading to the Russo-Japanese war 1904/05.

That’s one explanation. Smacks of paranoia, though

I just wrote a comment that included the fate of the Kulaks.

Or consider the Palestinians in 1947, I wonder if some of them were called ‘paranoid’ too?

Or David Koresh or Randy and Vicky Weaver. They too felt they understood the nature of their enemies, and no doubt many called them paranoid.

Thing is, not all mega-thieves that robbed Russia in the 1990s and are robbing Russia (less blatantly under Putin, but still robbing), the US and Europeans now are Jews.

Of course not. But were it not for Jewish supremacists, (exactly as Churchill pointed out) utterly in control of Russia after the revolution, then the Red Terror would never have been.

All you have to do is look around today. Look at all the wars and suffering and destroyed nations, millions of people murdered and maimed and displaced, and all of it a direct consequence of Jewish supremacist$ in total control of the governments of ZUS, England, France, Germany, Belgium, Canada, Sweden, and so on..

Most of the “Russian” oligarchs were agents of Rothschild.

Some are even Muslims.

How much success would Muslims be having with their incursions into the West were it not for the corrosive cultural and spiritual poisons emanating out of the West’s ((media)), and corrupted governments and courts and other institutions, eh?

Just consider the troubles created in Chechnya by John McCain and his ((neocon)) buddies. (the same people who created the deadly strife in Georgia and Ukraine).

How many acts of terror or financial rapine would Muslims be committing in the West were it not for the (((demand))) that Europe open its gates to unlimited invasions from the Third World?

Japan made enemies by its own aggression and total lack of repentance for the atrocities Japanese troops committed in WWII.

Yes, Japanese MIC was out of luck, Japan did not waste as much treasure on “defense” as the US. They are catching up, though.

As for the sister analogy, the last person I’d want her live with is her rapist.

Well you may not be aware that Japan’s Constitution still places restrictions on its armed forces and it was able to get away with spending practically nothing on defence for many years by posing as reborn pacifists who would leave it all to the Americans. Also, you overlook the fact that Japan had made quite a few enemies who remind it from time to time that they haven’t forgotten. China claims islands that Japan occupies, North Korea sends missiles in its direction and kidnaps Japanese. Would you rather your sister living in a bad neighbourhood lived alone or with a big bruiser of a partner?

Now I remembered: the US threatened Japan with military force in 1853 and made it sign an unfavorable for it treaty. That was the last time anyone showed aggression against Japan. Thus, Japan asking US for protection makes about as much sense as committing suicide out of fear of death.

That’s one explanation. Smacks of paranoia, though. Thing is, not all mega-thieves that robbed Russia in the 1990s and are robbing Russia (less blatantly under Putin, but still robbing), the US and Europeans now are Jews. Some are definitely not Jews. Some are even Muslims. They are still ruthless greedy thieves, and that’s their defining characteristic.

having America’s protection

Protect from whom? Who attacked Japan in the last couple of hundred years? Protection racket is a time-honored business of all mafias. The US is involved in it in many places, including Japan and Germany.

And you are a bit smarter than might appear from some if your posts.

Oh C’mon. Have you caught stupidity from living in the dumber parts of America? Sure the Japanese might prefer that the US didn’t station blacks on their soil even in Okinawa but you don’t need to give much thought or do much reading to understand where the balance of advantage has been for Japan as compared with not having America’s protection.

A Government of Grovelling Goys: Boris Johnson, Friends of Israel and the Second Coming of Cummings
Any questions?
https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2019/08/02/a-government-of-grovelling-goys-boris-johnson-friends-of-israel-and-the-second-coming-of-cummings/

Soviet occupation of Germany and Eastern Europe ended in 1991

the wall came down because it wasn’t needed anymore.

The Bolsheviks were now fully in control of the West.

Russia and Eastern Europe were hemorrhaging their J-supremacists over here since the early part of the 20th century. When they finally reached critical mass, there was no more point to any wall or divide.

who is a more fiendish fiend, pray?

Well, that’s easy. Who is today’s drooling golem murdering and raining terror and horrors all over the planet? The ZUSA, that’s who.

Putin wrested Russia away from the fiend. That’s why all the sabre rattling at Russia.

Pitiable Germany has been crushed between the forces of evil that emanated out of Russia and England for the entirety of the last century.

It boils down to this..

Who controls the money. Who controls the nation’s credit. Who controls the issuance of its currency.

When all those things are being monopolized by the world’s most sinister cabal of tribal supremacists, hell-bent on genocide and global slavery, then we’ve all got problems..

Russians, Yanks, Brits, Germans, French, Palestinians, Syrians, Libyans, Yemenis, Lebanese, Iranians, Afghans, Egyptians, Jordanians, Ukrainians, and on and on and on.

Because all of those people are hated with an Old Testament, Talmudic ferocity, and Woodrow Wilson handed them our collective destiny.

Thanks Woody, you POS.

Speaking of occupation: Soviet occupation of Germany and Eastern Europe ended in 1991, 46 years after WWII. American occupation of Germany and Japan continues to this day, 74 years after the end of WWII. Now, who is a more fiendish fiend, pray?

FDR’s unstated deep project was to take down the British Empire in Wall Street’s favor, and he succeeded…As a result of the war, the British Empire was kaput..

On the surface in 1945 it indeed looked mighty bad for the British Empire.

Things might not be as they appear, however, as there are indications that this post WWII shift of power from the British Empire to the United States had in reality long been planned and agreed upon.

As some have pointed out, many events in the world of politics are not in reality as spontaneous as they might seem, but are rather quite deliberate.

There was for instance the remarkable US published 1853 geo-political book The New Rome which indicated that the 1776 Revolution had been a planned ‘temporary’ strategic false split between the US and UK from the very beginning, that in the future the US and UK would reunite, and when they did the center of power of the British Empire would move from England to the United States, the US then taking the lead.

Filling out the details The New Rome book doesn’t have, the present day US writer Fon Belcher explores this very same subject. Belcher is apparently a distant relation of the prominent British royal governor and ‘first native born’ North American Freemason Jonathan Belcher (1682 – 1757).

According to Belcher, decades prior to 1776, powerful elements of the Whig party in Britain had been studying for various ideological (and apparently strategic) reasons the idea of moving the center of power of the Empire from England to British North America, and making the North American colonies the ‘peripheral center’ of the Empire.

The British Board of Trade as well as other imperial officials had played a role in this too.

The North American colonies and colonists were to be a ‘reserve force’ to fight wars for the Empire in it’s times of need, it’s ‘ace in the hole’. In time, the British North American colonies were to take England’s position as the Empire’s center of power, and England would become the outlier.

Anyhow, I seriously doubt the British Empire in reality ever had any intention of letting it’s rich North American colonies (or it’s colonists for that matter) go.

In that light I compare the everyday US citizen’s historic relationship to the British Empire since 1776 to the plight of Number 6 and his relationship with his unseen island handlers in the famous 1960’s British TV series The Prisoner.

From the bottom of page 87 and top of pg. 88 of The New Rome; or, the United States of the World..

‘The stupendous greatness of England is factitious, and will only become natural when that empire shall have found its real centre. That centre is in the United States..’

The New Rome (1853) – pg 87 – 88

The stupendous greatness of England is factitious, and will only become natural when that empire shall have found its real centre. That centre is in the United States. The Anglican empire is essentially oceanic. Its dominions extend along the coasts of the Atlantic and the Pacific, the lesser and the greater ocean. America, lying in the midst of the ocean, is therefore its natural point of gravitation…

..The realization of an idea higher than could be developed in the mother island, that of the republican democracy, required a temporary segregation of the centre; that task accomplished, it is time to call for a re-union ; but the former adjunct being now no longer merely the geographical centre, but the political and social focus, must take the lead…

https://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/the_new_rome_or_the_united_states_of_the_world_1853

http://www.belcherfoundation.org/camerica.htm

http://www.belcherfoundation.org/trilateral_governor.htm

a pretty good way of indicating lack of interest in pursuing some arguments or lines of discourse.

kudos wiz

you’re not as doddering as you seem

I think you knew that my “trillion” wasn’t meant to be literal. You did, didn’t you? Actually I don’t think there is a technical expression for that usage that I have come across but I think I could label it as a pretty good way of indicating lack of interest in pursuing some arguments or lines of discourse.

the sanctions on Iraq which (on Saddam Hussein’s watch it is true) led to the deaths of 5 trillion babies.

no wiz, it was an estimated 500,000 children who died for lack of medicine and clean water.

But not to worry, since their cruel deaths were “worth it”, when considering the greater goal of doing what’s “good for the Jews”.

Just as all the wars since 9/11 have been waged so slaughter innocent people who’re considered inconvenient to that metric. What’s “good for the Jews” = death and misery and suffering for everyone else. Huh?

Including of course the hundreds of millions of innocent people who died in the Jew’s wars (and gulags and terrors and genocides…) of the 20th century alone.

Well Jews would have been better off.

you’re the ((ones)) who insist on the ‘us against them all’ mentality, so it should come as no surprise that what’s good for the people of the planet isn’t considered ‘good for the Jews’, since that is the paradigm that ‘the Jews’ have set up and live by.

Oh, I forgot, you’re not Jewish.

Come on out of whatever closet you are in and give us more than the last Chinese whispers your fading hearing has picked up while helping down another round of port. Given some of the crap Stinnett served up as overwhelmingly convincing documentation that you applied no critical eye to your subjective reasoning and “so I understand” personal assertions of belief are not enough.

Another lazy obsessive bullshitting. Here’s what I got while looking up Revisionist Zionism in Wikipedia (which had to play the story pretty straight for obvious reasons).

“In the Churchill White Paper of 1922, the British Government had made clear that the intent expressed by the Balfour Declaration was that a Jewish National Home should be created ‘in’ Palestine, not that the whole of Palestine would become a Jewish National Home. All three Revisionist streams, including Centrists who advocated a British-style liberal democracy, and the two more militant streams, which would become Irgun and Lehi, supported Jewish settlement on both sides of the Jordan River; in most cases, they differed only on how this should be achieved.”

#97 was meant as a reply to this. And it’s correction of the date is sound. But I was led to click on “J. Alfred Powell” and have found the mysterious J.A.P commenting on several threads so, though it still seems that his life is brief he may not yet be dead. I may follow up though my read on for returning to this thread is to toss in a confounding quote for those who blather about Churchill as a Zionist.

However, as I said to Dan Hayes

“Thank you. Indeed the Comment to which I was replying had very little right. The advertisement in no way substantiates the Commenter’s allegation that German intelligence knew about the cargo but – own goal – make a it clear that German U boats might sink British passenger liners in what the Germans had decided was the wrong place – just like the bombing of cities where factories might be making war material. And of course, far from showing that American Jews buried or disallowed the warning it shows that he German Imperial Embassy would not pay for an ad on the front page or p.3 which might have saved a lot of American lives.”

It is actually a valuable discovery inasmuch as the terms of the advertisement should make all the haters of [choose your 20th centiry war leader] who blather about war crimes by bombing pause to stop and think. Otherwise their tender consciences will let them slip into criticising the sanctions on Iraq which (on Saddam Hussein’s watch it is true) led to the deaths of 5 trillion babies.

Thank you. Indeed the Comment to which I was replying had very little right. The advertisement in no way substantiates the Commenter’s allegation that German intelligence knew about the cargo but – own goal – make a it clear that German U boats might sink British passenger liners in what the Germans had decided was the wrong place – just like the bombing of cities where factories might be making war material. And of course, far from showing that American Jews buried or disallowed the warning it shows that he German Imperial Embassy would not pay for an ad on the front page or p.3 which might have saved a lot of American lives.

Actually Hitler’s madness and ill judged actions were the biggest reason much of Europe was subjected to Soviet Communism for 45 years. How does his two years of killing Reds in the Soviet Union stack up against that for a result you might approve? If he hadn’t broken his word and invaded Czechoslovakia in March 1939 he might indeed have done something useful against the Bolsheviks.

1953 not 1954 but not bad for a wraith whose memory must be by entanglement.

Well Jews would have been better off.

David Irving’s Churchill’s War: The Struggle For Power (vol.1) (Veritas, Australia, 1987) and Churchill’s War: Triumph In Adversity (vol. 2) (Focal Point, London, 2001) are BASIC TEXTS for an fact-based informed view of the climactic period of Churchill’s career and of his character. They are brilliant documentary historiography, exemplary in their penetrating, ranging research and careful, meticulous documentation. British “Intelligence” (so I understand) raided Irving’s office and seized his papers, preventing — probably forever — publication of the third and concluding volume of this masterpiece. This is, itself, a stark and resounding testimony to the penetrating candor and terrible truth of this work. It is also a permanent toweringly-evil crime against historiography on the part of the British “Authorities” who have c0llaborated to suppress it. History will long remember and despise them for it.

FDR’s unstated deep project was to take down the British Empire in Wall Street’s favor, and he succeeded. A veracious history of US-British relations from 1919-1945 and after shows far more covert antagonism than otherwise. The US and Britain were world trade rivals through the inter-war period and from the beginning FDR used US “aid” to Britain and US war strategy to US advantage and British disadvantage. As a result of the war, the British Empire was kaput — goodbye India, Pakistan, and the rest, and the US replaced Britain as the dominant figure in the Middle East of Oil, where the contest continued through the 1954 Iran coup and beyond. The grand “alliance” summed up to the end of Imperial Britain and the confirmation of Imperial Wall Street (don’t call it America because it isn’t America any more than the British ruling 1% was or is England).

Yes, Churchill was as vile as you have provided the instances thereof.

Barf indeed, Big Daddy! Barf indeed. Churchill was a drunk war monger who destroyed the British Empire because he could not reasonably deal with Hitler who was fighting Russian Commies. Hitler saved Europe from the Russian Commie scourge for a bit and has been pilloried for it. OK we know there was anti-J, but he saved Europe from the Commies for a bit.

Hitler) who blew it:

2 – Going East

Hitler’s very raison d’etre was to slay the genocidal fiend that had gotten Russia as by the ‘hair of its head’, and threatened to do to Germany what it had done to the Kulaks.

The nature of the fiend was demonstrated at Katyn, by the Red Army rapists, and especially when the war was over, and they stayed and enslaved Eastern Europe. Proving for anyone with two synapses to rub together, that Hitler was right about ((them)) all along.

Letting the British army go at Dunkirk, was just one more of many gestures to the West that he wanted peace with England. (This was and is well-known). And that his only aim was to destroy the ((existential threat)) to Germany and the West that he rightly perceived was emanating out of the ((London and NYC banks)), which had funded the Bolsheviks in the first place.

Now that ((the offspring)) of the very fiends Hitler was fighting, are taking England down the road to humiliating genocide and homomania, perhaps a few perceptive Brits will finally understand their grandparent’s pathetic folly.

And now the Bolshevism is devouring Britain lol!

Holy cow! Pray tell all about the British Bolshevik Revolution which no-one but you have noticed. How come the Bolsheviks missed Buckingham Palace, Westminster, Whitehall, No.10, the Tower and all that and their respective occupants.

Stupidity looms huge and roams at large.

It’s not really a ruling class as such. It is a ruling elite. There’s a difference between class and cabal.

Good point – it’s important to notice the difference. Class is different from power. The current power elites in most capitalist countries are of the moneyed variety rooted in Jewish wealth and consequent control of the corrupt body politic and information outlets. Sometimes they merge as in a marriage of convenience but remain distinct social strata.

May 29, 2016 BREXIT : Dr. Paul Craig Roberts 2016 : End the EU, a CIA Covert Operation

Remain” or “Leave”? What does the UK’s EU Referendum—scheduled 23rd June—really amount to? Is it simply the opportunity for UK citizens to decide if Britain should stay in the European Union? Or is it something of greater significance, with broader and more serious implications? And just what is this thing called the EU anyway?

Sep 19, 2000 Euro-federalists financed by US spy chiefs

The documents confirm suspicions voiced at the time that America was working aggressively behind the scenes to push Britain into a European state. One memorandum, dated July 26, 1950, gives instructions for a campaign to promote a fully fledged European parliament. It is signed by Gen William J Donovan, head of the American wartime Office of Strategic Services, precursor of the CIA.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/1356047/Euro-federalists-financed-by-US-spy-chiefs.html

‘…If Sneyd-Kinnersley had treated Churchill very slightly differently—either less physically harshly or with more concern for his health—then there would have been no Churchill, or, at least, no Churchill as we know it. He’d have grown up to be a far more cooperative, altruistic character…’

That is highly unlikely. Even the most qualified acceptance of the triumph of nature in the ‘nature versus nurture’ controversy rules it out, and furthermore, while perhaps another headmaster would have beaten Winston less, someone like him would have come in for a substantial amount of physical chastisement wherever his parents had sent him in Victorian England.

I doubt if any plausible replacement for Sneyd-Kinnersley would have significantly altered Churchill’s personality. Winston would have been Winston, in any likely universe.

Ironically, if Germany had won, England (and France and Europe and N. America) would all be far, far better off today.

Ironically it was Germany (actually Hitler) who blew it:

1 – Saving the BEF at Dunkirk,
2 – Going East

Was he a mole planted by Perfidious Albion?

The fizz is strong with this one:

I agree totally. Even Patton said so when he came to his senses after the end of the war.

America had no business sticking its big fat nose in either European conflict.

Aug 14, 2019 Boris Johnson: Brexit opponents ‘collaborating’ with EU – BBC News

The prime minister said the EU had become less willing to compromise on a new deal with the UK because of the opposition to leaving in Parliament.

Jul 15, 2019 Brexit MEP Matthew Patten: Our voices must be heard!

GEORGE GALLOWAY GIVES THE LOWDOWN ON UK PM BORIS JOHNSON

https://www.rt.com/op-ed/464839-boris-johnson-british-problems/

You’d have to be mad to think Boris Johnson is the answer to Britain’s problems – George Galloway

Also, all Perfidious’ lies to the contrary, it was also carrying war munitions.

The Germans were right to sink it.

https://centenarynews.com/index.php/article?id=1616

America fought on the wrong side of both world wars.

Ironically, if Germany had won, England (and France and Europe and N. America) would all be far, far better off today.

It’s almost like you don’t know what you’re talking about.

what does the eye color of the boy have to do with an epidemic of British school girls being gang raped by middle aged immigrants?

Or the serial pedophiles who’re coddled by the British press?

Or the fact that England destroyed itself in a suicidal hate-fest against Germany- on behalf of Jewish supremacists, who’ve opened the gates to England for every dreg and loser and rapist the world over?

Does the boy’s particular hue, (simply culled from the Internet in a search for ‘British school kids’), alter the fact that England is engaged in a depraved hate-fest against the (white, racist, homophobic, xenophobic, sexist) British people?

Exemplified by their draconian punishment of some bloke who was simply pointing out the serial rape of England’s children by stone-age goons.

That, is what I’m talking about E.D., for the record.

How does if feel, I wonder, to have “won” that war (so that Jewish supremacists can force Brits to fund their replacements on the island they’ve lived and loved and struggled on with an amazing tapestry of gallantry and follies and heroics, for centuries).

All tossed down the drain so the British people won’t feel like ‘racists’, huh?

I guess all they really need is to go fight some more wars for Zion. What, one wonders, will be the next absurdity to plop out of Perfidious’ dank holes of treachery. Another ‘Scripal’-like idiocy?

Or perhaps another brazen provocation towards Iran, (as always, in slavish and abased fealty to Zion).

In a few generations, that ‘brown’ boy as you call him, will probably be the whitest fellow left in Merrie Olde.

Germany tried to warn the American passengers. It was the NYT that buried the warning in their paper.

Fair enough, maybe I should have used the term “Shabbos Goy”, although many of these ADMITTED Zionist are “closet Jews” who have secretly converted to Judaism.
Again, straight from the horses ass: https://jewishnews.timesofisrael.com/boris-johnson-zionist/

And again, not all Zionist are Jooish: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/zionism-is-not-judaism_b_577777

And another thing …
The high-key photography partially disguises the fact the that little fellow is brown.

tl;dr not even Welsh.
Do your homework, Ivan. It’s almost like you don’t know what you’re talking about.

Whatever they are, those cute kids don’t look English, or even native British.
Eyes, eyebrows and other things are just “off”, if not plain wrong. Only Island Gaels have those gigantic ears, for instance, but a different pattern.
Rich kids from a fee-paying school with an exotic foreign mummy? Euro-models for a school uniform catalogue?
Could be French, Italian, Spanish maybe?

Wizard of Oz:

For your information and edification, I’ve seen copies of the newspaper ad warning Lusitania passengers of dangers involved in their passage. I will admit that the notification appeared to be buried in the newspaper innards; it being more like a legal notice!

“laden with [war] matériel]? ” is a vast overstatement for a passenger liner with a full crew and complement of passengers and their luggage. That is not to say that it did not carry some war matériel but what’s your authority for saying

1. that German intelligence knew what it was carrying

2. That instructions to attack the Lusitanua had, in consequence, been communicated to the captain of the U boat which sank it?

And what is your authority for saying that the Germans tried to take out advertisements warning passengers not to travel on the Lusitanua on that, or any, voyage? Which newspapers? Owned by Jews? You seem to forget that relatively few of America’s newspapers were owned by Jews in 1915 and that German Jews still far outweighed Ostjuden amongst influential American Jews. Do try not to let your obsessions get in the way of understanding some of the real facts of history.

BTW ignorant prejudice and laziness has led you to another credibility destroying blunder. The “Neutrality Act” didn’t apply to the Lusitania (which was not American anyway, was it?) because it wasn’t passed till 1935. Take note:

On August 31, 1935, Congress passed the first Neutrality Act prohibiting the export of “arms, ammunition, and implements of war” from the United States to foreign nations at war and requiring arms manufacturers in the United States to apply for an export license.

Mad Frankie Fraser said almost every convict prefered the cat o nine tails, to being birched. The noise of the birch was “unbelievable”. Being on the bare buttocks the birch was was humiliating, and it hurt much, much worse than the cat.

Roald Dahl’s account of a supposedly sadistic teacher inflicting a vicious flogging was said to be deceptive because the offence, which Dahl omitted to mention, was a 17 year old being caught in bed with a 12 year old boy.

I think most accounts of being punished at school are exaggerate. That said, Churchill was birched which was very much of an an anachronism in schools by that time. His removal from the tender mercies of Herbert Sneyd-Kinnersley was said to have followed Chirchill’s nurse making a report on the injuries to his buttocks. Churchill was born in the only non royal palace in Britain, his father was the son of a Duke. Half American as was McMillian (Enoch Powell made a funny speech about that).
A lot of the great leaders were ethnic half outsiders A Corsican and and Austrian spring to mind but many other examples exist

Churchill was at the helm when GB was still kind of great and certainly Britain. The clown is at the helm when GB is neither great nor Britain. So, who cares?

they look alike; alcoholic psychopath

The Lusitania wasn’t neutral. It was laden with materiel, contrary to the Neutrality Act, and the Germans knew it. They tried to take out ads warning people not to sail on it, but the (((newspapers))) refused.

Before the US entry into WWII, Rosenfeld had the US navy reporting the position of German ships to the UK, also in violation of the Neutrality Act.

I disagree. The top 10 problems of every “western liberal democracy” are Zionism and its manifestations.

When I hear the name Churchill, I immediately think darkly of the following. Is that reductive? Sue me.

***Churchill visited the ship in dry dock and referred to Lusitania as “just another 45,000 tons of live bait.”

When war began, German submarine captains, to save torpedoes, would surface and permit the crews of cargo ships to scramble into lifeboats, and then they would plant bombs or use gunfire to sink the vessels.

Churchill’s response was to outfit merchant ships with hidden guns, order them to ram submarines, and put out “Q-ships,” disguised as merchant ships, which would not expose their guns until submarines surfaced.

German naval commanders began to order submarines to sink merchant ships on sight. First Sea Lord Sir John (“Jackie”) Fisher said he would have done the same.

Churchill, seeing an opportunity to bring America into Britain’s war, wrote the Board of Trade: “It is most important to attract neutral shipping to our shores, in the hope especially of embroiling the United States with Germany. … We want the traffic — the more the better — and if some of it gets into trouble, the better still.”***
–Pat Buchanan

England, like the rest of dying Europe, will only recover if or when they grow the spine and integrity necessary to admit that they were monstrously wrong in their suicidal adventures against Germany in the last century, and admit that Hitler was right.

Jewish supremacy and British well-being are mutually exclusive.

England under Rothschild is a pedophile paradise like Moorish Spain.

The spirit of Lion Heart is dead, your school girls are playthings for middle aged immigrants and your little British boys are playthings for the pedophile elites.

sell them to the highest bidder!

you “won” the war!

Churchill = Rotherham

The only question is will Boris Johnson also = Rotherham

And that will be decided when Johnson betrays England to the ((EU)) / (((ECB))), and fails to implement Brexit.

England today needs a modern day Saint Isabella and a modern-day Torquemada, because England today is like 13th century Spain, totally dominated by Jewish supremacist$ and their Muslim rapist pets. Duh.

This, is what England needs:

My father was a Churchill-hater; not for Buchananite-Duttonian reasons, but because of Dad’s experiences in World War I and generalized class antagonisms.

It wasn’t until a few years ago that I learned from my dad (a WW2 vet) that my grandfather was very anti-war in the 1920’s and 30’s because of his experience in the first war (he was wounded in France in 1918, I think.) I think my dad sort of kept this from us when we were kids in the 1960’s because being “anti-war” at that time carried a lot of negative connotations for conservatives. I don’t know that my grandfather was anti-Churchill, but had he lived long enough to read Buchanan’s book, he probably would’ve been. The reason I mention this is because it wasn’t until I found out about my grandfather that I really appreciated the pre-WW2 American anti-war sentiment that I’d read about in history books.

I wouldn’t be inclined to read Dutton’s book because after viewing some of his videos, I’m a little suspicious of his academic prowess. And, at times, his sanity. I still watch his videos now and then, and enjoy them, but mostly as entertainment.

One has to get used to lazy rubbish in UR threads but it is hard to know what to make of commenters who seem not to know that WW2 began in Europe on 1st or 3rdSeptember 1939 (when Churchill was restored to office as First Lord of the Admiralty) and that he became PM in May 1940.

In what sense do you call any of those egoists “Zionists”? Happy to accept Jewish money and votes sure, but do you really think they care[d] about Israel?

Churchill to had Jewish ancestry.
His mother Jeneen Jerome was the daughter of a wealthy Manhatten finnacier.
She came with a 50,000 pound dowery…a lot of money in those days.
Winston was controled by the Jewish FOCUS group.
The Jews declared war on Germany in 1933 and Winston was on board for that mission soon after.
Very simmilar to the situation with Trump and Iran

He might want to dump his indian dept heads willing to take the country needlessly into war to demonstrate that they are more British than the British.

Clearly you ar no historian Your anachronisms prove that. The Red Cross was founded 11 years before Churchill’s birth. Massacres occurred under the Dutch in Bali, the Germans in Namibia and AmericansAmericansNative Americans before Churchill became a minister of state. Thw Anti-Personnel Mine Ban was not adopted until September 1997 (and without the US). German cruisers shelled civilians in Scarborough in December 1914, Zepellins bombed London indiscriminately in WW1. Both sides attacked civilians by blockades and submarine warfare. You have to be joking if you think Churchill was other than a standard participant in total war in WW2 when all combatant countries that could aimed (rather inaccurately) to destroy production facilities and drive civilian workers away from their work. Bomber Harris’s rationale seems to have been “If you don’t like being bombed get out of the cities where the munitions factories are”. No doubt he would have pointed to the hundreds of thousands of children and many mothers evacuated from London and other cities, including many leaving the UK. Not nice but not perhaps in the category of lining up civilians and shooting them which the Germans did in Czechoslovakia and France as well as in the East.

Dutton has an entertaining youtube channel called “the Jolly Heretic” where he covers a variety of topics. Here he is talking about the subject of his book:

Balfour was at most Christian Zionist, actually quite anti-Semitic and pleased at the idea of Jews going to Palestune, a fairly lightly populated part of an Ottoman province. Also the terms of the Balfour Declaration give no support to the idea that anyone was handing over any territory – which anyway still had to be carved out of Ottoman territories after much negotiation of boundaries and the creation of League of Nations Mandates. And you are wasting our time with ignorant BS lazily derived from your prejudices when you neglect to notice that Churchill was out of serious political power from 28 May 1915 (and serving as an infantry officer in France for a considerable time) until he was appointed to the non-Cabinet Ministry of Munitions on 17th July 1917 well after whatever Jewish influence had been exercised brought America into the war and shortly before the already negotiated Half our Declaration was actually handed over.

What “theft” can you be talking about? The British made no attempt to give Palestinian land to Jews. There has always been very limited amounts of freehold land available in the old Ottoman territory and the first Zionist inroads were achieved largely by buying land owned by absentees who sold quite freely.

As for Boris, only someone obsessed could call him an “ardent Zionist”. As between the importance to Boris of Israel faring well and Boris’s political career faring well the ratio is surely about 1 to 100.

EXACTLY…

Poppycock….

Boris, like his hero Churchill and his supposed nationalist “brother from another mother” Trump are/were died in the wool Zionist, and that has or never will end in anything good.

They both serve their Jewish paymasters.

when PM Churchill comes to power the war had already been two years in progress.

Try this one:

Churchill and Stalin negotiated the starting of co-operation in a war of many fronts against Germany since April 1939. In July it was agreed that when Germany and the Soviet Union attack Poland, the declaration of war of the western allies would be focused only against German actions. On the 23rd of August 1939 Stalin and Hitler signed the so called Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement. Its secret extra protocol included the so-called concept of the sphere of interest that did not mean permission to conquer the Baltic states and Finland. It meant instead the right to demand strategic bases in case of war. On the 15th of October 1939 an agreement was signed between Stalin and Churchill (the allied forces). The core of it was the plan to destroy Germany both militarily and economically. Churchill’s old plan regarding the Scandinavian operation was also accepted.

From ” Finland in the eye of the storm”. But that is just one aspect of Churchills behind the secene dealings.

https://juliusmilaitis.blogspot.com/2011/05/finland-in-eye-of-storm-erkki.html?m=1

There is a difference between who has the top job and who is in power.

What is England’s “ruling class” today? That Britain hasn’t had a ruling class whose rile was competent to the the degree required by growing problems since 1911 – 14 might be inferred from Britain’s relative decline by all sorts of measures. But, even so, that could be said to depend on all sorts of unfavourable contingencies, such as the incompetence of Nicholas ll seen as the cause of most of WW1’s disastrous course and consequences. True, favourable contingencies include Hitler stopping the Wehrmacht to let Goering’s Luftwaffe finish off the British at Dunkirk, Barbarossa and Pearl Harbor….

Churchill was a Zionist stooge, gladly doing the bidding of his Jew masters when it came to handing over Palestine to the Khazars, along with Lord Balfour. Before that theft, he helped the war mongers gather great profits during the early years of the Great War with his clumsy handling of the Gallipoli tragedy.

Boris is an ardent Zionist, and maybe even Jewish, as he has that DNA.

My prediction is that nothing good will come from Boris’ tenure, unless you’re Jewish or a Zionist.

If the criterion is getting him/herself regularly into the mass media as well as selling lots of books Niall Ferguson is surely a big contender now. Perhaps not so much Andrew Roberts or A.N (Andrew) Wilson though, fwiw, I might rank them well up with Ferguson as historians I would read more of in a parallel life.

The twain are racist psychos.

Paul Robinson has known Johnson since Eton days:

https://irrussianality.wordpress.com/2019/07/23/floreat-gens-togata/

Yes, he is still an enormous hero in the UK, but if you look at it objectively he played a big role in the wrecking of the British empire in the first half of the 20th century.

If Churchill was the undertaker that buried the British Empire…. Boris will be the undertaker that buries the Union.
At least with clown Boris we get to have some laughs on the way to the funeral….I will at least, dont know if the British will find it all that funny.
Scotland and Irland are not happy!!

” . . . “then there would have been no Churchill, or, at least, no Churchill as we know it. He’d have grown up to be a far more cooperative, altruistic character. And as we will now see, if that had been the case then there would likely have been no World War II as we know it, no bankrupting of Britain, no collapse of the British Empire, and no descent into many of the problems which Britain faces today.””

I should clarify my initial reaction. It is very difficult to determine the post development of corporeal punishment. And my comments are not to make a case against it. I think it has its place and i defend a parent’s right to discipline their child accordingly.

However, if the descriptors are accurate and not mere exaggeration then concluding that someone having been subject to such treatment either was not over the top or to ill effect merely because said recipient was as PM Churchill was — noncompliant is a guess.

It is entirely possible for one to come through abuse and have the exact disposition as PM Churchill exhibited. Because there is no one definitive developmental response to such treatment.

In an odd twist, I agree with Mr Derbyshire – that’s scary.

——————–
I have not read Mr. Buchanan’s text, however, to suggest that PM Churchill is responsible for WWII and Hitler is strange in that when PM Churchill comes to power the war had already been two years in progress.

——————————-

I have no idea, How PM Johnson will fare. One hopes that it will be smooth sailing and at least successful.

God save the Queen.

Churchill was not only pro-WW1, he was in favor of confiscating the two Turkish ships built in Britain and already paid for by Turkey, resulting in Turkey changing sides

The ships were seized and instead two equal German ships were hearded to Constantinople, which brought the Turks into the war on the German side. This was needed because -Britain could not be allied with Russia and Turkey at the same time, -above all Turkey had to be put on the side of the losers because otherwise Palestine could not be handed to the Zionists. Read firstworldwarhiddenhistory.com ,”The hidden history of the first World War”.

It’s not really a ruling class as such. It is a ruling elite. There’s a difference between class and cabal. In the case of pretty much the whole of what we still think of as ‘the West’, that cabal is very largely composed of those who own the matrix of real power that resides in the ‘Financial International’ and Big Business (especially what we call the military-industrial complex), together with its attack-dog, the media-entertainment complex. These people, who to all intents and purposes can be thought of as owning the government (the leaders of which do as they are told and happily dance to their masters’ tune) are very largely composed of Jews. It’s a stark analysis, but just try proving it to be false.

Someone who farts around that he knows classical languages is a non-entity that should be kept out of politics.

He should simply be reminded that there are more people around with a bit of education who do not feel entitled by it to hold high office.
Quite the opposite: with classical education you also learn understatement. Else, you have not got the point. I would prefer an acomplished buisnessman any time as leader over a rich kid who is proud that he once went to school.

“then there would have been no Churchill, or, at least, no Churchill as we know it. He’d have grown up to be a far more cooperative, altruistic character. And as we will now see, if that had been the case then there would likely have been no World War II as we know it, no bankrupting of Britain, no collapse of the British Empire, and no descent into many of the problems which Britain faces today.”

Nonsense.

It’s hilarious how Brits imagine Brexit to be a reenactment of the Battle of Britain.
But that’s not what’s going down here.
The Brits had their chance to join the crusade against Bolshevism. Instead, they allied with the Bolshevism and backstabbed Europe. And now the Bolshevism is devouring Britain lol!
Brits could have stopped this all long ago. They had a decisive role to play, and they failed. And they haven’t stopped failing ever since. At least British ladies can enjoy a paki bull every once in a while.

He probably wants to be, but he’s not enough of a drunk to think up plans like anthrax bombing all of northern Germany, or starving the Bengalis, or gassing the Russians, or, or, or..

Man, Hitler – what a douche, all he had to do was not halt his army just before Dunkirk and this Empire would have fallen in full.

Winston Churchill was an inept, arrogant, alcoholic, psychopath who destroyed the British Empire and much of Europe. If you want to know why, watch this:

“https://archive.org/details/DavidIrvingTheManipulationOfHistory/David+Irving_+The+Manipulation+of+History+Part+2+480p.mp4”

LOL.

Some argue that the USSR was poised to invade Europe and Hitler invaded to pre-empt them: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/time-to-face-the-truth-ab_b_282379

I also have read that the Wehrmacht would have easily overcome the Red Army and taken Moscow had the US and UK not continually resupplied the USSR with food clothing and munitions in a convoy across the North Sea to Murmansk.

This book reports Churchill’s almost psychotic antipathy to Germany:

Churchill conceived a plan to incinerate the Black Forest using an early form of napalm.

The Australian Prime Minister reported shock at the depth of Churchill’s hatred for Germany.

a political figure was both a writer and a painter doesn’t preclude psychopathy. See if you can find another…

Winston was also a keen amateur bricklayer. If he’d teamed up with a certain housepainter they could have put politics aside and become a top-notch all-trades outfit. I wonder if Uncle Joe was any good at plumbing?
Instead of squabbling, would the world be a better place? I suppose poor Adolf would have had to carry the other two effort-wise, as they would have been completely ratarsed drunk all day long, regardless of occupation. He’d have been quite good at shouting at them for being lazy arses, though.

(And yes, children: There really was a time, not so very long ago, when “celebrity historian” was a thing.)

FWIW, Taylor was basically written out of polite society (particularly in the USA) for his “Origins of the Second World War” which allowed the patently insane notion that wars are sometimes fought between Conflicting Interests rather than between Good and Evil.

STFD STFU & take your meds.