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.