Challenging Thabiti Anyabwile’s Marxist Narrative


“What we’re getting here is a “both sides” view of history that suggests all parties are equally guilty of racism. Now, I agree that something like racism, ethnic bigotry, and other species of alienation and animus and idolatry of self exists among all people. But I was talking about 1950-’60s America. I was making a comment about a particular setting in which it cannot be said that both sides were equally guilty in the animus. African Americans have never carried out lynchings. African Americans have never passed “Jim Brown laws” to retaliate for Jim Crow laws. We have never systematically ostracized and oppressed white people as a group. The sin of the period was unilaterally and systematically directed from whites toward blacks.

One of the amazing things about African Americans is that we have survived for so long without giving fully into the racial animosity that could exist given how we’ve been treated. It’s a wonderful providence and humanly speaking we have millions of mothers and fathers and the likes of the Dr. Kings of the world to thank for teaching us not to give in to hate.

Until we get these basic points of history correct we’re not having the same conversation. And when we appear to equivocate about where the guilt and responsibility actually lie, we make it far too easy for strains of that former behavior, attitude, and complicity to continue unchecked.”

 Thabiti Anyabwile

We are dealing with a different fact set in this discussion and so the good Rev. is quite correct about not having the same conversation. The good Rev. is embracing a particular Marxist history because of the influence of Marxism on his worldview. In Marxist history, the leverage point is the conflict between in groups and out groups. In classical Marxists history, the bourgeoisie is oppressing the proletariat. In classical Marxist feminist history, males are oppressing females. In recent Marxist history of gender, heteronormativity oppresses LGBTQ normativity. In classical Marxist racial history, whites are oppressing minorities. Elsewhere Rev. TA has said,

“For a long time, I’ve just let the phrase (Marxist) and its variants go. But it seems like it’s not dying, and no one seems to be producing any actual writing or research to substantiate the term. “

However, the term is substantiated if only by the history that TA is appealing to. The Worldview that is pushing TA’s history is Marxism. Secondly, observations that TA is practicing a kind of Marxism narrative is seen in his recent support for the candidate Bernie Sanders who is an avowed Socialist (Marxist).  Third, that TA is pushing a racial Marxist narrative is seen in the fact that his facts are disputed. Consider the following,

Myth #1 –African Americans never carried out any lynchings

In this link below, there are all kinds of examples of African-Americans carrying out lynching along with photos. Most of the information below is cut and pasted from this link.

There was without question a determined effort in the South among White people to have the Black race live separately. However, there was, prior to 1964, nothing illegal or even immoral in this desire. Nor was it an act of racism. One distinct people living separate from another distinct people was not just the norm in American history (up until 1964) but human history as well. Regarding lynching… When a White person was attacked (rape or murder) and the perpetrator was Black, this was seen as an attack on “the group” and White people responded more often than not with uncharacteristic ferocity. Blacks were rarely ever assaulted (rape or murder) by a White person in the South. 99.9% of the cases I have found where violence crossed racial lines, it was Black- on-White … and the result was a raging and maddened mob out for revenge. These were the times in which they lived. The vast number of attacks by Blacks on innocent southern White people, including rape, in this type of atmosphere, boggles my mind.

Myth #2 — Blacks didn’t give into hate in a systemic fashion

Again, this is just not true as seen in just the Whitman’s sampler below. See link provided above for active links.

. Atlanta, GA. – 1900: Black male bully sat on a white male’s lap while riding a on street car, deliberately trying to humiliate and antagonize him. A fight ensued and the black male pulled a concealed gun and gunned down the young white male. Oh, and in the state of Georgia in 1900, the color-line mandate was not being enforced, so blacks could sit where they pleased.

2.Shreveport, La. – 1901: Black Supremacist organization advocated violence against white people. One white male was murdered. Link

3. Columbus, Ga. – 1900: Negro crawled into the bedroom of young white girl thru an open window and attempted to rape her. Link

4. Columbus, Mo. 1901 – Negro raped his employer’s wife…then shot her in the head
Brother-in-law of murder victim:  “I want to speak to him, how many times we cared for him and how kind Mary was to him, and ask him why he killed her. Then, when he has answered that, I want to see him burned.”  Link

5. Tuscumbia, Ala. – 1901:  It’s a MASSACRE – Negro petty criminal ambushed sheriff and deputy and murdered both – he then gunned down seven more white males – four dead.  Link (note: the death count was later revised)

6. Dublin, Ga. -1908: Two Negro employees invaded the home of their [white] employer, beat him senseless with an ax, gang raped his wife … then slashed her to pieces demanding to know the whereabouts of household money  Link

7. Satton, W.Va. – 1908: Home Invasion By Negroes – White male homeowner was tied to a tree then whipped — negroes then gang raped his wife (no, I’m not kidding) Link

8. Hot Springs Ark. – 1908: Negro cook decides he gonna have a little fun with hungry young white male – taunts him with food offer – makes him work in the blazing heat until he can’t work any longer… Negro then guns him down. Link 

9.Eufala, Ala. 1911: Prominent American woman was stalked by a negro sexual predator as she walked from a neighbor’s home to her home. The negro finally grabbed her and wrestled her to the ground. As the negro started to tear her clothes off … to rape her… her desperate screams for help saved her.  White males quickly came to her rescue. Link

10. Stephensport, Ky. – 1904: Negroes “Lynch” Young White Male – If Emmit Till murder was a “lynching” than this one should also be judged a lynching as well. Two negro brothers went after a young white male who , their sister claimed, “insulted her”. When they found the young white male … they slit his throat from ear to ear. source  

Let us consider the 86 years of American segregation (1882 – 1968). During that time period, there were 4,743 lynchings in America according to the black founded and run Tuskegee Institute. Of those, 1,297 (27%) lynchings were of white people. Why was this? Contra Hollywood and modern history textbooks, the purpose of lynchings was not “racism”, but the public and guaranteed punishment of crime. That is why 695 (14%) of lynchings took place in one of the 33 non-segregated states. Lynching was a method of criminal justice when a particularly grievous crime had been committed and/or the citizens were unsure if they would get justice through the courts.

We are not speaking about if we *agree* with the practice, we are speaking about the historical realities of it. Lynching was about punishing criminals, not “uppity blacks who were getting out of hand” as [ as many put it]. This is seen in the reasons the Tuskegee Institute lists for the lynchings: homicide 41%, felony assault 4%, rape 19%, attempted rape 6%, robbery/theft 5%. Only 85 lynchings (less than 2% of total) over the entire course of those 86 years in the entire country are listed as “insult to white person” as the reason.

The average law-abiding Southern black had nothing to worry about, the noose was for rapists and murderers. The fact that only 3,446 blacks were lynched out of the millions of blacks living in the South during that time period puts to rest the stereotype of a noose on every tree. To put this in perspective, there are currently 7,000 blacks murdered by other blacks every year in America. So every year blacks kill twice as many blacks as were lynched in total over a 86 year time period.

Rev. Anyabwile is correct when he says that “until we get these basic points of history correct we’re not having the same conversation.” If the facts were what TA says they were then, of course, his point would stand but those “facts” that he is citing are disputable and the worldview he is using as his interpretation of facts is likewise more than disputable.  TA is playing an old and dangerous game right now and the success of his endeavors is likely to continue since most of the people he is speaking to, ignorant of other historical narratives, just accept his version and worldview of the facts.

Let it be clearly noted that I’m not denying that there were white people who did shameful things to black people. However, I am denying that it was uniformly happening in the way TA places it in his Marxist narrative.

That blacks were not the innocents that TA suggests is dismissed by any reading of the Reconstruction period from 1865-1877, as well as by considering what was provided above.


A Short Consideration on Conspiracy Theory and History

John 11:53 — “So from that day on they plotted to kill Him.”

Again, we are forced to consider from this text the reality of two very popular notions that are increasingly coming to the fore in our times; the deep state and the reality of conspiracy.

Those who plotted against Jesus would be what we call the deep state. The Pharisees, Scribes, and Sadducees were the power brokers of that time. They were moving behind the scenes in order to, in many respects, create the reality which Jesus had to face. They were the ones that worked on the arrest. They were the ones who bribed Judas for their plotting purposes. They were the ones that manipulated Pilate- i.e. — “If you release this man you are no friend of Caesar”.  They were the ones who ginned up the crowds to cry out “crucify Him… crucify him.” The idea of a deep state manipulating the perception of reality has been with us forever. And of course, all this speaks of conspiracy. There was a conspiracy to put Jesus Christ on the Cross. The recognition of that conspiracy or the pointing out of conspiracies, in general, does not necessarily mean that we think conspiracies are sovereign over God. We can point out conspiracies realizing that God is conspiring to overturn the conspiracy of wicked men. The fact that conspiracies exist doesn’t mean that those who understand those conspiracies do not believe God is not sovereign. It merely means that they recognize that God often governs the affairs of men through the conspiring of men. To recognize conspiracy does not mean that we think those who conspire are sovereign. Even in their conspiring, they act according to God’s predestined purposes, which is exactly what God points out in the book of Acts,

26 The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord and against His Christ.’ 27 For truly against Thy holy child Jesus, whom Thou hast anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, had gathered together 28 to do whatsoever Thy hand and Thy counsel determined before to be done.

The beginning of putting Jesus to death was the conspiring against Him.

History in its large moments doesn’t typically happen by random chance. It happens often at its significant points (like the crucifixion of Christ) in the context of wicked men conspiring. But behind those who conspire is the God who conspires against the wicked and their conspiracies by His predestinating word. So we have wheels within wheels. Men conspire, but the conspiracies of men are the result of God conspiring against the very same men so that even the conspiracies of men both reveal and serve the purposes of God for those with eyes to see.

Consequently, we would be foolish to not take into consideration the reality of conspiracy theory as a penultimate and secondary means for how God moves history forward to His destination. The idea that the first history we get in journalist accounts, or the history we read by the official court historians or the history we learn in our History 101 course in college is anything but some kind of humanist historicism to be accepted on face value is not wise.

Having said all this it is well recognized that conspiracies are not easily sniffed out and identified. Understanding historical events is often a matter of conjecture and probability and then seeing how matters conveniently fit together in a pattern that is other than what the court historians offer. One particularly well known American believed much the same,

 But when we see a lot of framed timbers (sub-events of the same historical event), different portions of which we know have been gotten out at different times and places and by different workmen — Stephen, Franklin, Roger, and James, for instance — and when we see these timbers joined together, and see they exactly make the frame of a house or a mill, all the tenons and mortices exactly fitting, and all the lengths and proportions of the different pieces exactly adapted to their respective places, and not a piece too many or too few — not omitting even scaffolding — or, if a single piece be lacking, we can see the place in the frame exactly fitted and prepared to yet bring such piece in — in such a case, we find it impossible not to believe that Stephen and Franklin and Roger and James all understood one another from the beginning, and all worked upon a common plan or draft drawn up before the first lick was struck.

In this paragraph, Abraham Lincoln is representing the Dredd Scott decision as the consequence of a long series of conspiring by prominent men to arrive at a long predetermined decision. The point here isn’t that Lincoln was right on this point. The point is that Lincoln saw history here as a conspiracy.  We agree and we agree that we likewise must look at the timbers (the individual historical exigencies)  to see if they were framed by plotters to exactly fit.

People who believe that large historical events happen randomly or by chance or “they just happened” are beyond incredulous. People who believe that the court historians give the unvarnished truth are likewise beyond incredulous. As men as power broker did so with the crucifixion of Jesus, men as power brokers continue to do so today to plot and conspire and then to cover up the truth. Here those who believe in the conspiracy theory of history invoke, “It is the glory of those who think they are Gods to conceal a thing: but the honor of God’s people is to search out a matter.”

Men are seldom going to be unified on any one account of a historical happening or the kind of conspiracy that might or might not have driven the event.  At the very least though, men might begin to agree that wicked men do plot and conspire and that at the very least God’s people should closely examine all official accounts that come to us by wicked men who have a vested interest to bend reality in their direction.

Reflections on Passchendaele


During August 1917, when the battle of Passchendaele was raging, 127 mm of rain fell in Flanders which was double the normal average for that month. Combine this with the reality that Ypres, where Passchendaele was fought, was a region largely made up of flat, low ground that was kept dry only with the help of an intricate series of dikes and ditches which had been broken and shattered by the heavy shelling that Ypres had seen both with the onslaught preparing the Passchendaele assault and with the heavy shelling in the first two battles fought at Ypres. All of this meant that the terrain on which the soldiers fighting the battle of Passchendaele on was mud-hell. Some soldiers later wrote that it was like fighting on a bottomless bowl of porridge.

The mud was so gooey … so thick … so bad that many of the soldiers were drowning in mud. The trauma of this was doubled by the fact that this was a comparatively slow process. A soldier would get stuck and eventually three more soldiers would be on the scene trying to pull their comrade out of the porridge mud but with no success. It became so bad that eventually, stuck soldiers having heard of the mud drownings would beg, once a certain point was reached in their sinking, for their comrades to shoot them so that they would not suffocate beneath the mud. Many obliged their comrades. One Lieutenant became so maddened that he began hacking with his sword a soldier who was stuck up to his armpits in the goo. The Lieutenant was not being cruel, he had just flipped out at his inability to keep his men from dying in this way.

The water was pooled everywhere. However, that same water was fetid as the holes the water was filling when not filled with rotting corpses were being used as latrines. Also, the heavy poisonous gas that was part of the shelling would find the low spots as a natural residing place. The irony in all this is that the supply lines had not been able to provide fresh potable water to the front lines so that on one hand the soldiers were drenched with water while on the other hand many were languishing from dehydration.

The mud and water were so bad there was no way to advance. As such the military came up with the idea of laying down duckboards upon which the men could walk to advance. The problem with this military genius is that German machine guns didn’t bother with covering any of the ground except where the duckboards were laid down. Further, at night the German artillery would target the duckboards so that the duckboard laying had to start all over again the next day. So the rank and file soldier had to decide between taking his chances by dying in some muckhole that would swallow him whole or by dying by being a sitting duck for a German machine gunner while keeping to the duckboards.

You can look at old photos of horses and donkeys sunk up to their necks in mud and muck while still harnessed to the wagons they were seeking to pull.

There were 275,000 British casualties at Passchendaele while the Germans chimed in at 220,000 casualties.

From the time that warfare began to fascinate me (very young) till today I still cannot get my mind around whatever would move a young man to endure those kinds of conditions to fight for the wickedness of men in high places. At 12 I had already decided I was not going to Vietnam but was headed to Canada if they were still fighting that fool war when I hit 18.

Is there something wrong with me that I take all these deaths so personal of 20 something-year-olds that died 100 years ago?

Returning to Churchill … Book Review of M. S. King’s “The British Mad Dog”

Last night I completed M. S. King’s “The British Mad Dog; Debunking the Myth of Winston Churchill.”
It should be noted at the outset that King is not the best person to first read as a contrarian historian. King tends to be a sensationalist and to often will go too far out on a limb to affirm a questionable point. However, having admitted that, if one is already somewhat familiar with the subject matter that King is writing on, from a non-Court Historian understanding then one has the ability to read King with profit as King has the ability to bring a large amount of information together in a very simple format.
King is no fan of Churchill and for that, I give him credit. However, when King starts off his book suggesting that Churchill’s father was not Lord Randolph Churchill and that Churchill’s Father was instead the offspring of the King of Serbia due to one of his mother’s countless flings one realizes that King has an ax to grind. (King on this questionable Churchill parentage quotes from a book by Dragoslava Koprivica.) One thing that does seem indisputable on this score is that Churchill’s mother was indeed a tramp who gave birth to Winnie 8 months after her marriage to Lord Randolph Churchill. As such anything is possible.
King’s sensationalism also informs us that Churchill was quite likely a bisexual. Churchill did have five children with his wife but King insists that Churchill’s time at the British Harrow boy’s school may have introduced Churchill to sodomy. It is without question true that Churchill was surrounded by men it would later be discovered were sodomites, but of course, that does not prove that Churchill himself was a sodomite. King’s evidence on Churchill’s homosexuality is merely circumstantial. It may be true but there is nothing that proves it is true.
One matter that King establishes beyond doubt that also agrees with other sources is that Churchill spent money like Lamashtu drank blood. Because of Churchill’s spendthrift ways, he was forever in money trouble and that money trouble allowed Churchill to sell his soul to those who delivered him from his money pit. King cites the Jewish financiers who bailed Churchill out. They include names like the well known Bernard Baruch, as well as the Jewish group of wealthy businessmen called ‘the Focus.’ The ‘Focus Group’ was headed by Jewish Corporatists named Sir Robert Mond and Sir Robert Waley-Cohen but was not limited to these two men.
David Irving in a speech supports King’s work,
“‘The Focus’ was financed by a slush fund set up by some of London’s wealthiest businessmen — principally, businessmen organized by the board of Jewish deputies in England, whose chairman was a man called Sir Bernard Waley Cohen. Sir Bernard Waley Cohen held a private dinner party at his apartment on July 29, 1936. This is in the Waley Cohen memoirs… The 29th of July, 1936m Waley Cohen set up a slush fund of 50,000 pounds for The Focus, the Churchill pressure group.”
50,000 pounds in 1936 is today’s equivalent of approximately 2 million dollars. Irving goes on to insist that the 50,000 pounds was for the purpose of saber-rattling against Hitler and Germany.
King also speaks of a wealthy Jewish South African Corporatist by the name of Sir Henry Strakosch who via his involvement in the payment of the private debts of Sir Winston Churchill, in 1938, has been cited as evidence of Jewish involvement in British politics in the run-up to World War Two. Strakosch also supplied Churchill with figures on German arms expenditure during Churchill’s political campaign for rearmament against the Nazi regime. Strakosch’s financial arrangement with Churchill enabled Churchill to withdraw his home Chartwell from sale at a time of financial pressures. The financial relationship between Strakosch and Churchill can be sourced not only in David Irving’s work but also in Martin Gilbert’s work on Churchill.
King also tells the tale of Churchill’s well-known failures in the Dardanelles, Gallipoli, Antwerp, in Northern Ireland with his Black & Tans, and the invasion of Norway. King gives us a glimpse of Churchill’s alcohol problem and informs us that as an author and speechwriter Churchill was often a plagiarizer as well as a man who put his name on the work accomplished by ghost-writers. From King, we learn that the BBC Children’s voice of the Winnie the Pooh books was the man who gave some of Churchill’s speeches over the radio. That was supposed to have never been known. King reminds us that Churchill as a painter signed the name of an impressionist artist named Charles Maurin to his paintings in order to sell his painting at a greater price. King goes out of his way repeatedly to inform the reader that Churchill was a manufactured and marketed product that was packaged and sold to a gullible public. In short, Churchill excelled only in blood and mayhem but in every other respect was a phony.
King colors Churchill as black as possible. We are told Churchill was a terrible Father, a man who examined the idea to invade Russia after defeating the Nazis in WW II, the man who started bombing German civilian population with the desperate hopes that Hitler would retaliate, the man who advanced the New World Order’s agenda to create a uni-global political structure, a sock puppet pursuing the agenda of those who were paying his debts. It is possible that King paints Churchill in colors darker than he really was.
I’m not inclined to think that is possible to do.

Winston Churchill… The Man Behind the Propaganda Mask

“In their own countries, FDR and Churchill are honored as embodiments of 
Statesman-like wisdom. To us, in our Russian prison conversations, their consistent shortsightedness and stupidity stood out as astonishingly obvious.”

Alexander Solzhenitsyn

During the 2018 Academy awards, Gary Oldman was given an Oscar for “Best Actor” for his portrayal of Winston Churchill in the film “Darkest Hour.” “Darkest Hour’ was also nominated for Best Picture and so must be considered one of the top flight films of the year.  Just a couple years prior to the release of “Darkest Hour,” the putative conservative President of Hillsdale College released “Churchill’s Trial: Winston Churchill and the Salvation of Free Government.” Very few  manage to  mention Churchill’s appetites,

“Once the American Philanthropist (Bernard Baruch) had ordered up three redheads from the local cat house for the virile English politician  (Churchill): before delivering them that Thursday the Madam had to concoct one with dye; fortunately her color remained until the return to the base on Monday.”

David Irving 
Churchill‘s War — Vol. 1, pg. 117

It is my contention that both the film and Arn’s work is but the continuation of the Churchill propaganda and mythos that has been so characteristic of the last 80 years. Both the film and Arn’s fiction continue the hagiography and balderdash mysticism that surrounds not only Sir Winston Churchill but the whole era between 1914 and 1945. This short post intends to expose the propaganda, blow away the mystic aura and put the lie to the constant hagiography surrounding Churchill.

The fact that Hollywood so championed “Darkest Hour” may suggest that the mask is slipping and so yet another Mickey must be slipped to the grazers in order to keep them in line. Arn’s book is just embarrassing as it steps around the most obvious of facts in order to keep Sir Winnie afloat.

Recently, the same President Arn of putatively conservative Hillsdale college wrote me letting me know how pleased he was over an interview he had done with Oscar Winning Gary Oldman.

Dear Mr. McAtee,

I want to let you know that my friend Gary Oldman recently won the Academy Award for “Best Actor in a Leading Role.” His portrayal of Winston Churchill in the film Darkest Hour is one of the best I have seen.

Last December, Gary Oldman and producer Douglas Urbanski visited Hillsdale College for a screening and panel discussion about the film’s production and significance. One of Gary’s memorable lines—“If Winston Churchill could take on Adolf Hitler at 65, I could sit in a makeup chair for three and a half hours.”

Warm regards,

Larry P. Arnn
President, Hillsdale College

I, of course, responded to Dr. Arn,

Dear Larry,

Winston Churchill was one of the greatest villains of the 20th century. A man truly to be despised by anybody with merely a scintilla of a Christian ethos. However, he did have the advantage of living at a time when he could be compared to Stalin, Roosevelt, and Hitler.

Remember Yalta. Remember the forced repatriation of the White Russians.

Rev. Bret McAtee

In this column, I want to give the reasons why I wrote to Larry in such a fashion. I want to give just a brief insight into the Winston Churchill whom the hagiography fails to honestly present. I believe history bears out that Churchill, along with Roosevelt, Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, and Tojo was a figure that was to be despised. I believe history bears out Churchill has a cautionary tale that proves that “power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

The fact that anyone can believe that Winston Churchill was one of the greatest men of the 20th century is proof positive of the effectiveness of propaganda. Churchill was an absolute beast who in his 50 years in public office was the man most responsible for the loss of the British Empire and the decline of England.

“In fighting Hitler, Britain would quintuple her prewar debt, forfeit her world position, bring the Red Army to the Elbe, and collapse her Empire. But we know now from captured documents that despite all the saber-rattling Hitler probably never intended to invade.”

David Irving 
Churchill‘s War  Vol. 1, pg. 378

During the run-up to World War I Churchill could write his wife,

“My Darling,

Everything tends towards catastrophe and collapse. I am interested, geared up and happy. Is it not horrible to be built like that?

Winston Churchill 
Writing to his wife
On the cusp of WW I

One year later Churchill writes someone else,

“Why, I would not be out of this glorious, delicious war for anything the world could give me.”

Churchill was the man, along with Roosevelt, at Yalta, who effectively ended Christendom in Europe by turning over 100 million Eastern European Christians to the Christ-hating Bolsheviks. Indeed, Churchill with his presentation of a priceless Crusader sword to Josef Stalin at the Tehran conference in 1943 provided the definitional standard for obscene.

That he was obscene was seen throughout his career. For example, Churchill was the man who ordered the slaughter of civilians as from the air via the firebombing of civilian homes.

Churchill … was he who initiated the bombing of cities and civilians outside of battle zones. His objective was to force the Nazis to retaliate in kind and relieve pressure on the British airfields which, as legitimate war targets, were being badly hit. Actually, the bombing of German cities, reports Benjamin Colby, as attested by official British histories, began nearly four months before any bombs fell on London, and the blitz itself was deliberately encouraged Prime Minister Churchill.

One stands in horror at the callousness with which Churchill invited the suffering of the British people. For example, the second great fire-bombing of London and the disastrous losses at Coventry were permitted despite the breaking of the German code, providing foreknowledge of the raids.”

William P. Hoar
Architects of Conspiracy: An Intriguing History — pg. 242-243

Keep in mind that it was British bombing policy to bomb middle-class residential areas vis-a-vis more wealthy residential areas because middle-class homes were more densely collected and were made of material that more easily burned. One could get more bang per bomb by bombing German middle-class residential areas.

“At the same time … Sir Arthur Harris’s bomber crews were being briefed for their first major fire-raising attack on a German town, the medieval port of Lubeck on the Baltic. In every such raid, as Sir Charles Portal had directed, the aiming point would be the town’s ancient — and combustible — residential heart, and not its factories or war installations. That night, March 28, the conflagrations in Lubeck totally gutted the city centre, and killed several hundred of its citizens…. Churchill asked the air ministry to do what it could to increase the the weight of bombs actually dropped on German cities.”

David Irving
Churchill‘s War, V. II, p. 372

And we would do well to keep in mind that it was Churchill, as between Germany and England, who started the bombing of cities,

It was Winston Churchill who initiated the bombings of civilian cities outside of battle zones … long before the Nazis hit London. Indeed, Churchill‘s objective was to force the Nazis to retaliate in kind and so relieve pressure on the British airfields which, as legitimate war targets, were being badly hit.

“Actually the bombing of German cities as attested by official British histories, began nearly four months before any bombs fell on London, and the Blitz itself was deliberately encouraged by Prime Minister Churchill.” (Benjamin Colby ‘Twas a Famous Victory’)

If firebombing defenseless refugees and Germans wouldn’t do the trick (total deaths Dresden alone = 130,000)  Churchill even toyed with the idea of dropping anthrax cakes all over Germany to deindustrialize and depopulate the Hun’s Deutsch-land.

Prior to the firebombings of Dresden, and Hamburg, Kassel, etc. it was Churchill who was in charge of 142,000 Allied casualties in the slaughter of the Dardanelles and the Gallipoli campaign. Churchill’s Sea policy during WW I was to fire on white flags so as to ram German submarines which had surfaced. The German subs surfaced in order to be merciful to passengers of ships who they could have just blown out of the water. Churchill gave orders to shoot German naval personnel who were floundering in the sea after their subs had been rammed in a German act of Christian forbearance.

“Churchill’s sea policy was simply outrageous and included advocacy of firing on white flags and shooting prisoners when convenient. British merchant vessels were also instructed to ram submarines if they surfaced in a humanitarian effort to allow merchant passengers to disembark. It thus became folly for German subs to surface, lose the advantage of surprise, and endanger their own crews. In fact when one U-boat captain did just that — surfaced and allowed passengers to leave a British ship — he was approached by another British ship named Baralong, flying the U.S. flag, and sunk The Baralong crew then turned on German seamen floundering in the water and brutally shot as many as were in sight.” (Architects of Conspiracy — William P. Hoar)

So cynical was Churchill that he referred to the Lusitania as “just another 45,000 tons of live bait.” Churchill used the Lusitania as bait for German subs in hopes that the sinking of such vessels with American passengers while transporting illegal munitions would be a casus belli for American entry into World War I.

Questions surround whether or not Prime Minister Churchill knew beforehand of the planned murder of Polish Prime Minister in exile General Sikorski because Sikorski desired to expose the Soviet responsibility for the Katyn forest massacre.  The Polish leader in exile during WW II had discovered how the Soviets murdered 15K Polish officers in the Katyn forest and soon enough Eden is talking about “beating up” Sikorski since Sikorski’s complaining is threatening the British – Soviet alliance. Soon afterward Sikorski’s British flown jet goes down killing Sikorski and his daughter and his whole retinue. Only the pilot survived.

Churchill was responsible for the policy that was called “Operation Keelhaul” supporting the forced return of numerable anti-communist Cossacks, White Russians, and others whom Stalin had absolutely no rightful claim upon.

See, “The Last Secret”, by Nicholas Bethell and “The Secret Betrayal” by Nikolai Tolstoy.

Churchill was a constant and unmitigated drunkard who struggled with his “Black Dog,” and so should have been committed to an Asylum for the chemically dependent.

Churchill had failed to down more than one whiskey-and-soda before the meal began, and ‘therefore, according to the president, was morose and cross all through the dinner.’Like other chronic alcoholics deprived of their sustenance, Winston became first glum, then sullen, then downright rude ….

Irving – Churchill‘s War; V. II, pg. 684

The fact that for 80 years the International media has been able to convince you that Churchill (as well as FDR) was some kind of great man makes me wonder if the Truth will ever out.

Churchill’s praise for wretched and bloodthirsty men is well known. On Stalin, he could offer,

It was an experience of great interest to me to meet Premier Stalin … It is very fortunate for Russia in her agony to have this great rugged war chief at her head. He is a man of massive outstanding personality, suited to the somber and stormy times in which his life has been cast; a man of inexhaustible courage and will-power and a man direct and even blunt in speech… Above all, he is a man with that saving sense of humor which is of high importance to all men and all nations, but particularly to great men and great nations. Stalin also left upon me the impression of a deep, cool wisdom and a complete absence of illusions of any kind. I believe I made him feel that we were good and faithful comrades in this war …

Winston Churchill 

“Stalin is the one human being in Russia…. Stalin always kept his word.”

Winston Churchill 
Churchill‘s War – Vol. 1 — pg. vii

“Well, thank God you’ve set my mind at rest! I loathe Trotsky, and I’ve been following his activities for a long time. I considered him the evil genius of Russia. I am all for Stalin’s politics. He is creating a powerful Russia, and that’s what we need — more than anything.”

Winston Churchill

David Irving 
Churchill‘s War — Vol. 1, pg. 101

Speaking to Mussolini Churchill said,

“If I had been an Italian, I am sure I should have been whole-heartedly with you from the start to finish in your triumphant struggle against the bestial appetites and passions of Leninism.”

A younger Churchill noted that when concentration camps were built in South Africa, for white Boers, that they produced “the minimum of suffering.” The Boer women and children would doubtlessly have disagreed. 

Churchill had no problem with suffering as seen in his political starvation of a portion of the Indian subcontinent (Bengal) where estimates range he was responsible for the starvation deaths of 1-4 million people by purposely exporting grain from the region to keep that grain from falling into the hands of the Japanese. But as Churchill hated the Indians this very well could have been an easy decision.

“I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion.”

Winston Churchill

Irving; Churchill‘s War V. II, pg. 563

The suffering that Churchill was concerned about was the suffering of his popularity.

Churchill was deeply concerned about his popularity … He brought out bulging albums with all the press clippings about him. According to another newspaperman, there was even a chart displayed at No. 10 recording the levels of applause when newsreels of him were shown at cinemas.”

David Irving
“Churchill‘s War,” V. II, pg. 506

Winston Churchill as a great hero of the West is a completely fabricated myth. The man’s main principle was the glorification of his person no matter what contradictory principles had to be embraced in order to advance his name. If anything he was a Fabian Socialist per his early attachment to  Sidney and Beatrice Webb. The Webbs described Churchill as the most progressive politician of his age.  

Historian Eric Keunhult Leddihn gives this description,

“Mr. Churchill, as we have pointed out, was not a genuine conservative, but a pragmatist and Deist of a certain aristocratic cast, of a terrifying cynicism and astounding ignorance concerning most countries. Nevertheless, he was very gifted by nature in many ways but a comparatively poor schooling; He never was a student of anything. His biography, Mr. Robert Sencourt, said that to him, “Christ was a socialist” and ‘men who had principles were ‘goody goodies,….’ He seized one of the greatest occasions in history and gradually turn it into a calamity for Europe and a triumph for America.”

When WWII came to an end, Great Britain was a socialist country. British socialism was not an achievement of Mr. Clement Attlee’s Labor Government, but that of the war cabinet of Sir Winston Churchill.
Consistent with the Fabianism that Churchill was attached to early on in his career Churchill was and always remained “a man of the state: of the welfare state and of the warfare state.” Churchill was a soft Socialist.

Churchill’s character also included bias against Arabs in favor Jews

“Churchill testified to the Peel Commission on March 12, 1937. His startling proposal was that all Palestine be turned over to the Jews. He spoke of their right to immigrate and Britain’s ‘good faith’ toward them.

When Peel’s deputy Sir Horace Rumbold spoke of the injustice done to the Arabs by this invasion of a ‘foreign race,’ Churchill expressed outrage at that phrase, then offered a novel concept of ‘just invasions’ of which the incumbents of Berlin’s Wilhelmstrasse might have been proud:

‘Why is there harsh injustice done if people can come in and make a livelihood for more, and make the desert into palm groves and orange groves? Why is it injustice because there is more work and wealth for everybody? There is no injustice. The injustice is when those who live in the country leave it to be desert for thousands of years.’

As for the ‘invasion,’ it was the Arabs who had come in after the Jews, he maintained, and they had allowed the Jewish hill terraces to decay. ‘Where the Arab goes’ he generalized, ‘it is often desert.’

David Irving 
Churchill‘s War — Vol. 1, pg. 84

But what was the reason for this Churchillian favor of Jewish interests that impacted more than the policy on Palestine? David Irving tells us in his work,

Churchill owed such a debt to the Anglo-Jewish community from 1936 on that Sir Samuel Hoare would describe his ‘pro-Zionist attitude’ as a black mark against his possible premiership, and another acquaintance would tell Sir Martin Gilbert, the biographer, that ‘Winston was too fond of Jews.”

David Irving 
Churchill‘s War — Vol. II, pg. xii

If one wants to follow this thread they need to look into the connection between Churchill and “the Focus,” as well as his connection to Sir Henry Strakosch.

It should be noted that Sir Winston Churchill, like a stopped clock, could be occasionally correct, and for that, he should be given credit. Churchill was correct when he wrote,

“There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution, by these international and for the most part atheistical Jews, it is certainly a very great one; it probably outweighs all others. With the notable exception of Lenin, the majority of the leading figures are Jews. Moreover, the principal inspiration and driving power comes from the Jewish leaders.”

Churchill was correct when he said,

“How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property – either as a child, a wife, or a concubine – must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the faith: all know how to die but the influence of the religion paralyzes the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith.”

We believe that Churchill, as recorded by David Irving,  was correct when he noted,

“(Churchill) added that he himself found it hard to believe in either world harmony or the deliberate mixing of the races — now known as ‘multiculturalism’; he compared the latter with the result of ‘mixing together the paints in a child’s paintbox’ as Dowding recorded.”

Irving — Churchill‘s War — V. II, pg. 152

So we gladly concede that Churchill was not always in error. There were times when Churchill could be spot on in his observations. That Churchill excelled at rhetoric (even when he had pinched and plagiarized his lines from someone else). I think it can be honestly affirmed that he threw the English Dictionary into the war effort.

But that he was a dangerous and even maniacal man was understood by
Churchill’s contemporaries as understood by the Patriarch of the Kennedy family who was then serving as US Ambassador to England,

 “US Ambassador to England Joseph Kennedy knew how desperately Churchill wanted the US in WW II on the side of Britain. Churchill had made comments hoping that the inevitable Nazi air massacres might draw the US into the war. Kennedy telegraphed his US superiors at one point saying, “it appears to me that there is a feeling that if British women and children are killed… the US will tend more towards their side.”

Sometime after this “Kennedy left from Lisbon on the Manhattan in transit to New York. Before boarding the luxury liner he pleaded with the State Department to announce that even if this vessel mysteriously blew up in the mid-Atlantic with an American ambassador on board Washington would not consider it cause for war.

‘I thought,’ wrote Kennedy in his scurrilous unpublished memoirs, ‘that would give me some protection against Churchill‘s placing a bomb on the ship.'”

David Irving 
Churchill‘s War — pg. 193, 207 

If Winston Churchill was some kind of hero then so was Jack the Ripper.