What would Churchill have made of the threat of Islam?
This article by Ben Macintyre published in The Times last summer is worth reading again.
Politicians today display a cowardly approach to the problem posed by Islam. Churchill would certainly have not.
How do you think Winny would have reacted?
Mark Alexander
10 comments:
Had Churchhill been alive for the London bombings, I'm sure he'd have been outspoken about the ideology which inspired the attacks. I also suspect he wouldn't have been so eager to establish "interfaith alliances," which amount to a whitewash of Islam.
Right on, Always on Watch! Right on! Churchill had a way of calling a spade a spade. He had clear insights, and a clear vision for the future; and he wasn't afraid of stating them.
I feel sure he would have had no truck with 'interfaith alliances', since he would have seen them for what they are: a sham. He would have quickly realized that there is no compromising to be with such an uncompromising faith. He would have seen that it's either 'them' or 'us'. And naturally he would have chosen 'us'. Our survival as a civilization would have been of paramount importance to him. No compromises would have been made, as no compromises were made with Hitler.
He certainly would not have tried to fight a war with our hands tied behind our backs. I would even go as far as to say that he would have expelled all illegal immigrants of that persuasion, and interned the rest, perhaps on some barren island off the coast of Scotland.
Churchill was not given to pulling the punches. That's why he was a winner. That our leaders in the current political climate do is why we are not winners, and might well, in the long-run, become the losers.
In times of war, the enemy MUST be named, the enemy MUST be identified, and the ideology that underpins that ideology MUST be vanquished and destroyed, or at least overcome.
There is no other way to decisive victory! There is no other way to win a war!
Our leaders spend lots of time and words in worrying about not offending enemy's "sensibilities" while, at the same time, refusing to identify the enemy.
Don't they, though! Can you imagine Churchill worrying about Hitler's sensibilities? Or the sensibilities of the Nazis?
Axis of Islam:
He certainly wouldn't have. He was a man of principle.
Mark,
Thanks for the recent posts about Churchhill. I always admired the man, and it seems I've barely skimmed the surface of his character and what he stood for. I plan to read more about this fascinating man thanks to your posts.
The world is sorely in need of such leadership.
Slightly OT, but related in the larger picture of the seeming blindness of some people.
Shrinkwrapped draws the analogy with the Italian film, Giardino dei Finzi-Contini, Il (The Garden of the Finzi-Continis)1971, and today's insane pc elite.
Here's a quote from his post:
"The movie was a character study of a wealthy Italian Jewish family in the town Ferrara in 1938. The Finzi-Contini family is already destroyed but do not realize it yet. The fascist government of Mussolini was not particularly energetic in their persecution of Jews but their much more powerful ally demanded that Italy at least make some attempts to aid in the "final solution." The scourge of anti-Semitism which had been in abeyance for many years in Italy was slowly gaining force and depth in 1938. The movie is a fascinating, elegiac look at wealthy, narcissistic young people who, like insects with one wing trapped in amber, do not perceive that their world is about to end." Read the rest here:
Do We Now Return to the Garden of the Finzi-Continis?
I think the mindset of the characters in the film and the elites of today is tragically almost identical.
Heather:
Thanks for this fascinating input. Much appreciated.
Mussolini:
A pretty fair assessment; but remember that Mrs Thatcher was pretty far right too, and she was vilified by the media. She still won three elections, and is still the longest-serving prime minister this past century.
In a survey conducted recently by the BBC to find out who people thought was the greatest Briton of all time, Churchill won head and shoulders above the rest! So maybe there's still some hope.
If what you say really is true, then I am afraid to say that we are sunk as a civilization, for it is only a man such as Churchill who can really win this war. If we do not win, then, by definition, we will lose.
I think it is quite possible, though sad to say, that it might well take another atrocity of 9/11 proportions or even greater for people to wake up to the actual gravity of the situation. Under such circumstances, we might well observe a sea changein attitudes, even in the media itself - when they come to realize what is at stake.
AOI said, He wouldn't have gone to a mosque and kissed the Imams' ass like our leaders, that's for sure.
The literal imagery of cigar-smoking WC doing so was enough to make me smile.
But I stopped smiling when I thought of what our leaders do today. They are endangering all of us through verbal appeasement, which only encourages a dangerous enemy.
Mark,
E. Rice, my brave student essayist, wanted me to thank you for the kind words you left a my site. A compliment from such an excellent writer as yourself means a lot to this student! I suspect that E. Rice will be reading your book--after homework due for me is completed, that is.
I think a disaster would have to be so disruptive to the economy that it results in a recession and substantial loss of jobs. You see, America receovered quickly from 911, the economy reignited. When Islam impacts the average joe in the pocketbook, that is when the seachange will occur.
Of course, that is tragic if that is what it takes. I need no convincing, the same as you. But we are are a small and growing voice of reason and rationality. I have much greater optimism for the US and Australia, but England, Canada and Europe.
I just don't understand Blair. He presents this sophisticated, educated appearance, but clearly he is unable to see the reality.
Post a Comment