Neocon Hero Churchill Was Twice as Evil as Kissinger Only Dumber and Into “Aryan Stock” Talk

Eugenics and the “Aryan” stuff was all the rage in the day and considered the cutting edge of science

A baleful silence attends one of the most talked-about figures in British history. You may enthuse endlessly about Winston Churchill “single-handedly” defeating Hitler. But mention his views on race or his colonial policies, and you’ll be instantly drowned in ferocious and orchestrated vitriol.

In a sea of fawningly reverential Churchill biographies, hardly any books seriously examine his documented racism. Nothing, it seems, can be allowed to complicate, let alone tarnish, the national myth of a flawless hero: an idol who “saved our civilisation”, as Boris Johnson claims, or “humanity as a whole”, as David Cameron did. Make an uncomfortable observation about his views on white supremacy and the likes of Piers Morgan will ask: “Why do you live in this country?

Not everyone is content to be told to be quiet because they would be “speaking German” if not for Churchill. Many people want to know more about the historical figures they are required to admire uncritically. The Black Lives Matter protests last June – during which the word “racist” was sprayed in red letters on Churchill’s statue in Parliament Square, were accompanied by demands for more education on race, empire and the figures whose statues dot our landscapes.

Yet providing a fuller picture is made difficult. Scholars who explore less illustrious sides of Churchill are treated dismissively. Take the example of Churchill College, Cambridge, where I am a teaching fellow. In response to calls for fuller information about its founder, the college set up a series of events on Churchill, Empire and Race. I recently chaired the second of these, a panel discussion on “The Racial Consequences of Mr Churchill”.

Even before it took place, the discussion was repeatedly denounced in the tabloids and on social media as “idiotic”, a “character assassination” aimed at “trashing” the great man. Outraged letters to the college said this was academic freedom gone too far, and that the event should be cancelled. The speakers and I, all scholars and people of colour, were subjected to vicious hate mail, racist slurs and threats. We were accused of treason and slander. One correspondent warned that my name was being forwarded to the commanding officer of an RAF base near my home.

The college is now under heavy pressure to stop doing these events. After the recent panel, the rightwing thinktank Policy Exchange, which is influential in government circles – and claims to champion free speech and controversial views on campus – published a “review” of the event. The foreword, written by Churchill’s grandson Nicholas Soames, stated that he hoped the review would “prevent such an intellectually dishonest event from being organised at Churchill College in the future – and, one might hope, elsewhere”.

It’s ironic. We’re told by government and media that “cancel culture” is an imposition of the academic left. Yet here it is in reality, the actual “cancel culture” that prevents a truthful engagement with British history. Churchill was an admired wartime leader who recognised the threat of Hitler in time and played a pivotal role in the allied victory. It should be possible to recognise this without glossing over his less benign side. The scholars at the Cambridge event – Madhusree Mukerjee, Onyeka Nubia and Kehinde Andrews – drew attention to Churchill’s dogged advocacy of British colonial rule; his contributing role in the disastrous 1943 Bengal famine, in which millions of people died unnecessarily; his interest in eugenics; and his views, deeply retrograde even for his time, on race.

Churchill is on record as praising “Aryan stock” and insisting it was right for “a stronger race, a higher-grade race” to take the place of indigenous peoples. He reportedly did not think “black people were as capable or as efficient as white people”. In 1911, Churchill banned interracial boxing matches so white fighters would not be seen losing to black ones. He insisted that Britain and the US shared “Anglo-Saxon superiority”. He described anticolonial campaigners as “savages armed with ideas”.

Even his contemporaries found his views on race shocking. In the context of Churchill’s hard line against providing famine relief to Bengal, the colonial secretary, Leo Amery, remarked: “On the subject of India, Winston is not quite sane … I didn’t see much difference between his outlook and Hitler’s.”

Just because Hitler was a racist does not mean Churchill could not have been one. Britain entered the war, after all, because it faced an existential threat – and not primarily because it disagreed with Nazi ideology. Noting affinities between colonial and Nazi race-thinking, African and Asian leaders queried Churchill’s double standards in firmly rejecting self-determination for colonial subjects who were also fighting Hitler.

It is worth recalling that the uncritical Churchill-worship that is so dominant today was not shared by many British people in 1945, when they voted him out of office before the war was even completely over. Many working-class communities in Britain, from Dundee to south Wales, felt strong animosity towards Churchill for his willingness to mobilise military force during industrial disputes. As recently as 2010, Llanmaes community council opposed the renaming of a military base to Churchill Lines.

Critical assessment is not “character assassination”. Thanks to the groupthink of “the cult of Churchill”, the late prime minister has become a mythological figure rather than a historical one. To play down the implications of Churchill’s views on race – or suggest absurdly, as Policy Exchange does, that his racist words meant “something other than their conventional definition” – speaks to me of a profound lack of honesty and courage.

This failure of courage is tied to a wider aversion to examining the British empire truthfully, perhaps for fear of what it might say about Britain today. A necessary national conversation about Churchill and the empire he was so committed to is one necessary way to break this unacceptable silence.

Source: The Guardian

History
Comments (14)
Add Comment
  • STeveK9

    For an honest appraisal read David Irving, except you can’t because he also gave an honest appraisal of the holocaust.

  • ken

    “Eugenics and the “Aryan” stuff was all the rage in the day and considered the cutting edge of science”

    It wouldn’t take much looking to see that “in the day” includes today.

    • Mr Reynard

      Yupp.. Those Aryans which were wearing a small head cover IMO …

      • mothman777

        I agree, Natty Rothschild and Churchill, who were both members of a secretive cabal of the said so-called ‘Aryan Anglo-Saxons’ with small head covers naturally chose this ostensible purpose as a mickey-taking cover to fool people about what their true purpose was, which was most definitely not one truly intent on furthering progress and relations between the UK and American Anglo-Saxon peoples. These deceptive ‘political’ people always say the opposite of what they really mean to do.

        The book ‘Hidden History: The Secret Origins of the First World War’ by Gerry Docherty and James MacGregor tells how this secretive group instigated WWI and the Bolshevik revolution in Russia, that pitted the UK and America against Germany and slaughtered 66 million Christians in Russia.

        30% of all the Anglo-Saxon white people in America originally came from Germany, and most in the UK did as well, as the Germans are Anglo-Saxon, so Churchill’s pretense of intending to benefit the Anglo-Saxon peoples was a clever way of disguising what he and his group, funded by Rothschild, were actually going to do, to get scores of millions of Anglo-Saxons to slaughter each other in WWI, as in Isaiah 19:2, and slaughter 66 million white Christians in Russia to make way for the race (of souls) that they really considered better.

        Churchill’s friend and principal scientific advisor in WWII, the small headcover-wearing Lindemann, stated that this age would be noted for one thing, ‘the abdication of the white man’, and here we are, Churchill’s dream come true.

  • joey_n

    Others elsewhere have (also?) said that Churchill declared war on Germany because her industrious population would be a threat to British Empire hegemony. For a believer in the “superiority” of the “Aryan” race, Churchill also wanted post-war Germany broken up. Both this and the Morgenthau Plan were opposed by Joseph Stalin, which IMO doesn’t seem ironic considering the amount of support Hitler received from the Anglosphere in his attacks on Russia, to say nothing of pre-WWI Britain’s efforts to prevent something of the Russian-German alliance that Otto von Bismarck wanted.

    • freddie Toor

      Churchill gave the Rothschilds their WWll to accomplish a few goals. Provide a holohoax to create sympathy to justify the genocide of Palestine and the theft of Palestinian’s land. Crush Germany for escaping the Rothschild’s shackles created after WWl. Those were the primary ones. Regarding WWl that was done primarily to force Germany into their banking system and total control which the Kaiser and the CZAR had refused to allow. USA, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand had joined on Dec 23, 1913 at 2:00 AM when there was no one in the houses to object.

      • mothman777

        Also, the Rothschilds desired Germany crushed in WWI to allow their slave army created in Russia now under the control of the ‘chosen’ to sweep right through Europe unhindered, as Germany was the only nation big enough and organized enough to stop the Bolsheviks taking all of Europe, and when WWI did not finish the job, they rolled it over into WWII, as Churchill actually said about the destruction of Germany not yet being completed, which accounts for the utterly insane bloodthirsty hatred towards the Germans, who had actually done nothing wrong at all, after all, we do not fire bomb or saturate bomb a bakery down the road with high explosives and slaughter most of the village in the process just because they bake better bread than we do.

        The explanation that this was merely a matter of economic jealousy as Germany had invested much more than Britain in research to better their products as given by many orthodox ‘historians’ is purposely shallow, deceptive and evasive, simply not plausible or even sane at all. This was part of the intended slaughter of the ‘Second Rome’ and that includes the Anglo-Saxons or European stock wherever they now live, Canada, Australia, America, New Zealand, England etc.

    • TenderHook

      The ONLY good Obama EVER did while he was in the WH was removing the bust of Winnie and sending it back to the Brit Embassy!!

      LilliBet’s first PM after her installation as Upstairs Maid Queen, pefect fit. Why anybody discounts Megan’s claim that she was a victim of Regal Racism should research the eternal whiteness of Buck House.

  • rm p

    USA had no valid reason to enter WWI…
    and without that questionable intervention, there would have been no reason for the German people to seek relief from lethal starvation by empowering a man who promised – and indeed returned – economic prosperity to Germany
    Without Woodrow Wilson – the ultimate racist, power-mad politician – there would have been no persecution of Catholics, Gypsys and Jews by a Hitler.

  • L Garou

    The sun never sets on the crimes of the British Empire..

  • Curmudgeon

    Churchill was an admired wartime leader who recognised the threat of Hitler in time and played a pivotal role in the allied victory. It should be possible to recognise this without glossing over his less benign side.

    That this author could write this tripe is proof that he is part of the cancel culture. Churchill was a psychopathic war monger who hated Germans. Hitler’s “threat” was destroying the international bankers, the people pouring money into Churchill’s coffers. stranglehold on international trade. These were the people, behind the horrific treachery of the Treaty of Versailles, according to Benjamin Freedman, who attended as a protege of Bernard Baruch.
    As for racial issues, does this fool actually think that Blacks and Asians don’t consider themselves superior to “Whites”? Obviously, he isn’t familiar with the observations of Sir Richard Burton on his travels.

    • Eileen Kuch

      I fully agree with you on this subject, Curmudgeon. Indeed, that this author would really write this tripe is proof that he’s part of the cancel culture. In reality, Churchill was a drunken, psychopathic warmonger who truly hated Germans. Hitler’s only “threat” was destroying the international bankers, the people pouring money into Churchill’s coffers, a stranglehold on international trade. These were exactly the people, behind the horrific treachery of the Treaty of Versailles, according to Benjamin Freedman, who attended as a protege of Bernard Barch. The truth is, Germany didn’t even start WWI, Serbia did.
      As for racial issues, does this fool really think that Blacks and Asians don’t consider themselves superior to “Whites”? Obviously, he’s not familiar with the observations of Sir Richard Burton.

  • Tarrasik

    FYI, Leo Amery was a Jew. Amery is on record as praising “Jewish stock”. He reportedly did not think “White people were as capable or as efficient as Jewish people”.

    This notion that Whites are the only ‘racist’ people on the face of the earth is utter balderdash.

  • Joe Cadwallader

    You’d think that the author would love Churchill, he did more than any other person to destroy the British Empire, he dropped 100 times as many bombs on Germany as Germay dropped on Britain. By destroying Hitler’s Germany, Churchill paved the way for Britain becoming the forced-covid-mask wearing, multicultural hellhole it is today. What’s not about Churchill for the author to love, the fact he used some (perfectly acceptable in the times), terms about non-whites in his memoirs? The author should go and kiss the feet of the Churchill statue.