Plenty of cults exist - every cult has its 'religious dogma', its idols, its 'prophets', its 'science', its 'proof' and its intolerant liturgy of demands. Cults everywhere: Islam, the State, the cult of Gay and Queer, Marxism, Darwin and Evolution, 'Science', Globaloneywarming, Changing Climate, Abortion....a nice variety for the human-hater, amoral, anti-rationalist to choose from. It is so much fun mocking them isn't it ?
Tempus Fugit Memento Mori - Time Flies Remember Death
Paul Weston, a politician who leads the rather small Liberty Great Britain party will be going to jail for criticizing the moon cult of Mecca. Weston made the mistake in quoting Churchill's description of the Meccan Jihadic-Fascist cult from a public place, and will likely be imprisoned for 2 years. [Source]
“He [Weston] spent several hours in a cell at Winchester Police Station, after which the original charge of breaching a Section 27 Dispersal Notice was dropped and Mr Weston was “re-arrested” for a Racially Aggravated Crime, under Section 4 of the Public Order Act, which carries a potential prison sentence of 2 years.”
His crime ? He criticized Islam, quoting from Churchill from the steps of Guildhall in central Londonistan, using a loud speaker [see here]. So much for free speech. And what of Koranic racism, supremacism and hate speech, or the gangs of Moslems who roam Little Britain chanting hate-speech death threats against Jews and Christians, you might wonder? That is all cool. Just part of the multicultural nirvana.
Weston quoted from Churchill's book the River War, which details the struggle by British Civilizationists in the Sudan against Islamic superstition and the Shia's mythological rise of the 'Mahdi'. This book and Churchill's writing on the British struggle against the Moslem Jihad in the Sudan is something I have detailed here. His description of Islam is just as accurate today as it was in 1898.
'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. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities - but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world....'
All true. But disregarded in today's upside-down world of gibberish and mental confusion. As I wrote before, in modern-Little Britain Churchill would be in jail joining Weston, if he offered a written, or spoken version of the above.
“So if Churchill were around today what would he say about Islam and the threat faced by civilization? Would he be allowed to say anything at all ? Probably not. His political advisers would cry that he was not sensitive and ‘nuanced’ enough to speak on the ‘great religion’ of Islam. If Churchill did speak and say the obvious, how many organizations which support Islam would file a lawsuit ? How many newspapers and journals would label him a racist ? I would guess dozens of groups would sue Churchill, and all the mainstream media would label him a racist [even though Islam does not constitute a race but a political ideology]. If you declaim against any of the great causes of our time; Gays, Islam, Self-esteem, Relativity, the United Nations, the rise of China, etc. you are of course just a racist.”
Churchill is now officially disowned by the country he saved. How morbidly ironic.
Churchill had a few blind spots. Rhodes-James in his excellent book on Churchill's 'failures', highlights some of the problems with Churchill. Respecting and appreciating Churchill is not the same as veneration. Rhodes outlines the great man's failures – most of them due to defects in personality and psychology, and a too intense romanticism, which obscured common-sense and good judgement. Churchill's noisy critics, a rather shrill, excessive and mean lot; were right in their core critique of the British lion. Churchill was indeed unsteady, unpredictable, and prone to severe errors of judgement and muddified thinking.
A clear case of Churchillian romanticism and misguided ideals was the creation of the United Nations. While the original intent of the organization in the post-war world, was lofty and elevated, the mutation of the utopian charter into the current morass of corruption, fraud, anti-Western sentiment and Marxist madness was all too easy to forecast even in 1946. The UN is now a force if not of evil; at least of irrationality and anti-civilizational mores. It needs to be dissolved.
Another example of Churchill's defective thinking is on Napoleon. In a recent issue of Finest Hour Magazine, there is an article on Winston's obsession with Napoleon veneration. It is written by Mr. Packwood of the Churchill archives centre. He tries to defend Churchill's preoccupation with one of Europe's most atrocious manifestations of despotism. There is however no defence of admiration for Napoleon. Anyone who prays at that altar suffers from serious issues of judgement and perspective.
As Packwood relates Churchill kept a bust of the mad Emperor on his desk. Churchill dismissed Wellington as inferior [certainly a remarkably nescient claim], and aspired it would appear, to imitate in part his great hero, the butcher of Europe. Churchill defended Napoleon claiming that he was not another Hitler, and a man of 'greatness'. But what greatness did Napoleon effect ? 10 million dead. The treasures of Europe plundered for his and his family's benefit. Retarding European development by 30 years thanks to war and wealth destruction. The erection of a despotism and centralized control. So much for the 'values' of the French Revolution.
Packwood quotes Paul Johnson on the real historical legacy of Hitler's precursor [sans the Jew hate]:
“The First World War itself was total warfare of the type Bonaparte's methods adumbrated, and in the political anarchy that emerged from it, a new brand of ideological dictator took Bonaparte's methods of government as a model, first in Russia, then in Italy, and finally in Germany, with many smaller countries following suit. The totalitarian state of the 20th century was the ultimate progeny of the Napoleonic reality and myth.”
Indeed. All true. Totalitarianism was Bonapartism. Apparently Churchill stood for democracy, freedom, a division of powers and civilization. There is no defence for his love for the mad Corsican, a man who like Lenin and Hitler undoubtedly suffered from mental derangement and extreme psycho-pathological illness. It is another example of Churchill's lack of judgement, perspective, and application of intelligence that he venerated such a blood-soaked criminal thug as Napoleon. He should have known better.
Churchill toured the British protectorates of East Africa, from Mombasa in modern day Kenya, to Cairo and all along the Great Lakes and the Nile basin in 1908. In 1909 he published his diary writings from that trip. As with most self-produced Churchilliana, the work is very well written, lucid, apposite, full of charming details, vivid scenes of the African hinterland and burgeoning urban development, spiced with stories, anecdotes and as one would expect from Churchill, opinions on the political-economy, race relations and the future of East Africa.
It does come as a surprise, that Churchill who in 1908 was in the midst of his 'Liberal', 'social reform' phase of career development, advocated state socialism to develop British possessions in Africa. He rejects outright the 'criminality' of capital, big firms and Western oriented investors who in his words, will only take capital and profits out of Africa, and leave the Africans mired in neglected oppression.
“...Uganda. And even if the country is more rapidly developed by these agencies [private business], the profits will not go to the Government and people of Uganda, to be used in fostering new industries, but to divers persons across the sea, who have no concern, other than purely commercial, in its fortunes. This is not to advocate the arbitrary exclusion of private capital and enterprise from Uganda. Carefully directed and narrowly controlled opportunities for their activities will no doubt occur. But the natural resources of the country should, as far as possible, be developed by the Government itself, even though that may involve the assumption of many new functions.” [p. 123]
This sounds like the gibberish one would expect from protectionists, and anti-capitalist zealots. It is hard to know why Churchill would support state-directed socialism in 1908. Certainly Britain's rise to world dominance highlights the benefits and profits in human development and in society, of a free political-economy and trade. But he persists:
“Indeed, it would be hard to find a country where the conditions were more favourable than in Uganda to a practical experiment in State Socialism. The land is rich; the people pacific and industrious. There are no great differences between class and class.” [ibid]
So Winston how has state socialism worked out in the past 100 years ? I wonder if anyone who has toured the Great Lakes area today and viewed the unvarnished power of the state, and the depressing lack of economic growth, political plurality, sanitation, education and human freedom, would find much which is accurate in Churchill's declarations that government must manage East Africa's development. State socialism, corruption, nepotism, along with inter-tribal war, Islamic non-culture, and Jihad; have destroyed much of Africa's potential. This says nothing about the $2 Trillion wasted by Western agencies on 'foreign aid', useless World Bank projects and UN distortions in all manner of markets and politics.
Churchill gets closer to what Africa needed and what is sorely missing today – Western private capital, charity, and the teaching to Africans of how to build a pluralist, capitalist-based, freedom-guaranteed society:
“They [Christian agencies and the British] have built many excellent schools and thousands of young Baganda [Uganda's main tribe] are being taught to read and write in their own language. The whole country is dotted with subsidiary mission stations, each one a center of philanthropic and Christian effort. There are good hospitals, with skillful doctors and nurses....Technical education is now being added to these services...” [p. 115]
“More than two hundred thousand natives are able to read and write. More than one hundred thousand have embraced the Christian faith. There is a Court, there are Regents and Ministers and nobles, there is a regular system of native law and tribunals; there is discipline, there is industry, there is culture, there is peace.” [p. 87]
For the modern sneering Marxist and multi-cultural post -modern, and in the cult of Obama worship who lied about his parents and grandparents being tortured by the British; 'colonial' rule was a program dedicated to greed, rape, slaughter and mineral extraction - odious, racist, oppressive, and without any redeeming features whatsoever. The facts of history tell another story.
Churchill travelled along a private railway; in a private carriage; surrounded by privately funded aides and help; ushered into private boats, which glided along privately funded river and lake systems, bordered by privately developed and owned farms, leading to urbanizing centres financed by private capital and industry which connected the supply of agro-products and other manufactures with consumer markets. It is surely quite odd that Churchill the supposed advocate of 'markets', airily surmised as he wandered around in an East Africa increasingly built on private efforts, that the 'state' must manage all affairs of political-economic formation and evolution. Maybe it was all due to the 'reforming' zeal and zeitgeist of the times. Good intentions which usually go horribly wrong.