I came across these interesting links on Churchill today at the BBC website. I'd like to share them with you.
Sir Winston Churchill (1874 - 1965)Mark Alexander
The Gathering Storm
Defender of Democracy
Churchill and the Holocaust
The Allies at War
Secrets of Leadership: Hitler and Churchill
9 comments:
Yes bld, but it would upset all the poor dears on the left, for they have spent the better part of 42 years trying to denigrate the national memory of the great man, only to have their abject failure rubbed in their collective faces; for the last few years have seen a resurgence of that memory.
One blast of Winny's laughing wit, sends them into paroxysms of despair. I LOVE IT! heheheha!
bld, did you see that the haters on the left even had to bring out their biggest 'popgun' the gnarly gnome of MIT, the arch hater himself, old Naom Chompsky, to smear Churhill's memory a few years back. He assured his adoring fans that Winston, was responsible for a famine in Bengal in 1942/43 which reputedly took the lives of 3 million souls. Deliberately done as a policy of state repression to maintain control of the populace during a time of war. Just as bold as brass, stated with all the assurance of a high priest whose word is sacred and therefore beyound reproach. Now, that there was a famine in Bengal at that time is true, but the fetid bloviator of MIT displays so many linguistic and sophistic tricks, is so transparent as to be labelled a real 'comedy of errors', while trying to lay blame at Winston's feet. From ignoring the context of time and events, to writing out of the script, some of it's central charcters. It becomes an exercise in that old academic trick ... how to hide a lie ... why in plain sight of course!
Sadly, I do not recall anyone of any note coming to Winston's defense. But then again, when you have the media in your pocket, I guess you get to set the tone and terms of the debate. See what 80 odd years of Marxist / Postmodernist drivel, running rampant through the institutions gets you!
I think we should start to consider what we should do with all the social engineers, self haters and wannbe deities, with all their sharp intellects, maybe we can exercise the Vlad Teppes option with them; for the outright betrayal is quite simply staggering.
"As a medium, what do you think of destiny? Answer in 500 words or less! Just kidding." - bld
You toy with my ability to indulge in prolixity. LOL One of these days I'll get so bound up in my own words that I'll come to a complete standstill.
Actually bld, Have you noticed that these dry academics have an innate ability to promulgate huge tomes of prolix, upon their chosen targets, but the end product of all that venom is a meaningless diatribe, which as you say, is nothing but a means to impress all their adoring acolytes, for to precis all that turgid prose (That's stretching it, the prose I mean), it just boils down to .... "He bad, me no like, he's a liar, nah, nah nah, nah, nah nah. Simple really, for the trick is in the verbosity, say enough, with sufficient conviction, and all those lost souls, who have not bothered to learn a few facts for themselves, but searching for meaning and understanding will indeed, "lend you an ear".
Watch this space, I'm working on a refutation to Chompsky's smear. It's a long one, so I guess I'd better put up a warning notice for those who can only ingest their information in 30 seconds or less, so that they may skip by.
Garden gnome casts aspersion on great man
Noam Chompsky smeared Winston Churchill’s reputation long after this great man is no longer able to bury this scurrilous wizard of left wing theatre. Bury him, however, he would have, for Chompsky would be no match for Winston.
†
As I recall, the accusation went as follows…
†
In 1942/43 in the northern part of India known as Bengal, there was a famine, with the consequent loss of some 3 million souls. It is the MIT professor’s claim that this was as a direct consequence of British government policy, in order to maintain control of the province during a time of war, India being part of the British empire at that time. The claim went on to say that the British instituted this famine by means of an inflation of the costs of basic foodstuffs, beyond the means of the local populace’s ability to pay. As stated by the professor, this was a cold, cruel, calculated policy instituted on the orders of Winston Churchill; if it was not done directly on his orders, then the events which unfolded were taken advantage of by the local administration. The only possible piece of evidence is a letter dating back to 1943, from Winston to Franklin D Roosevelt, mentioning in brief the tragic events of the famine. This letter does not indicate any malicious intent or even callous disregard for those events. It is, in fact, very neutral and uninformative. But then when did the left let anything like facts get in the way of a good hatchet job?
.
Note the extreme succinctness of the accusation; to refute this malicious smear requires much more effort than to cast it. Anyway let us begin…
†
First off, let’s clear up one misconception among our American audience: the British Empire was a mercantile empire, that is it’s whole reason to be was trade, it was not about the subjugation of foreign peoples to display a superior dominion over others. It was all about trade and money. Yes money, that dirty commodity, so despised by our modern intellectual superiors. It’s funny that they do not seem to mind too much when their personal bank accounts are bulging at the seams! Back to the point: the empire was largely accrued due to a series of trade agreements, which often ended in conflict, and not always because of perfidious Albion, for there were many pretenders to the top dog position in days gone by.
†
Now one aspect of the empire was the setting up of trade agreements between various parts of the empire so that a functioning economy could be sustained by each area under the general administrative control of the Foreign Office in London. In the case of India and the dominions to the east, this meant that Burma and Malaya, both of which were highly fertile, would ship food to India, which up to that time was highly susceptible to droughts and famine. This arrangement brought economic benefit to all three countries as well as to the British Empire. Another point to mention, is that the purchasing and selling of commodities within the empire was handled by the local indigenous peoples. It was not under the sole prerogative of the British overlords, in short the oppressed little brown people professor Chompsky keeps referring to were the actual people who bought and sold the goods that made the empire tick; they set the market prices dependant upon market forces. They were indeed little capitalists, so the good professor would not approve of them anyway, so why not make them suitable fodder for his malicious tale. By unstated insinuation, Chompsky leaves the impression that all business transactions were under the direct control of the British overlords. A bare-faced lie, and one over which he avoids confrontation by simply insinuating it, without stating it outright.
†
One of the tricks of the modern left is to portray capitalism as a purely Western invention. Now while the West has indeed perfected it - some may say too fine – the West was most definitely not the originator of the concept, for the idea of trade goes back millennia. Many societies have used trade as the engine of their prosperity, comfort, and well-being; for wealth buys security and arms, the means by which those societies were able to determine their own course, free from the dictates of outside forces. As Thucydides, the ancient Greek historian places these words in the mouths of Tisias & Cleomedes, the Greek generals during the negotiations for the surrender of the defenders of Melos, (from the Melian dialogue ): “when these matters are discussed by practical people, the standard of justice depends on the equality of power to compel and that in fact the strong do what they have the power to do and the weak accept what they have to accept.” In plain English: those with strength get to chart their own course; those without simply have to do what they are forced to do by force of circumstance and by the dictates of the stronger parties. This dynamic has been in play since man first formed societal groupings, and as recent events have shown, it will be with us for some time to come; for mans’ nature is ever unchanging, in spite of the best wishful intentions of the hippy crowd. This is, quite simply, a fundamental aspect of human interactions, all wishful thinking aside.
†
The trick here that Chompsky attaches his colours to, is to use a truth as an anchor around which to spin a lie. The argument put forward was that all these people who died did so because of the capitalist forces that priced the food out of the range of the poor to provide for themselves; simply put, the merchants out-priced the goods so that the poor had to go without. While it is true that scarcity in a market has the net effect of driving the price up; in this instance, it was not true. Yes, the price of foodstuffs increased; but the increased cost was immaterial, for there simply was not enough food to go around. That is what famine is all about. In this instance, Chompsky uses a commonly held assumption to spin a web of deceit. A simple trick when played on the unwary. By mentioning one aspect while omitting the other far more pertinent detail, he lays a trap for the less informed.
†
At what time was Winston informed of this tragic event, we simply do not know; for there is nothing on record. What we do know is that by late 1943 the death of a large number of people had occurred and steps had been taken to stem the effects of a further famine. Did the local administration react in a timely manner? Obviously not! Were they, then, totally responsible for this tragedy? Well, as evidence revealed further on in this essay will show, they weren’t. They were the victims of events as surely as those that starved. Could they have done better? Possibly. But I’m not sure that an extra round of hand-wringing really does anything more than make the self-righteous look pious, as is their wont; for events quite simply overtook all.
†
Remember, Winston was rather preoccupied with events transpiring on the other side of the globe, as well as those happening on the Asian sphere. 1942/43 was the height of the battle of the Atlantic, for whilst Winston was sure of eventual victory now that America was in the war, it still was no guarantee that everything was now plain sailing. Every available ship was requisitioned to bring supplies and material to Britain, in Britain’s desperate struggle to stay afloat. The whole focus of the war effort was to sustain Britain at all costs on this front. Nothing was to be allowed to divert from that position. If Winston knew of the famine, and at some point he obviously did, he simply did not have the resources to divert to alleviate this tragedy in time. It would have been one of those sad lonely decisions which accompany positions of power and responsibility. What would Chompsky have done? Divert critical shipping, in a grand gesture of compassion, and possibly give the enemy a huge tactical, as well as strategic, victory? Sounds like it to me!
†
Remember that Day of Infamy? December 7th 1941!? It should remind you of Pearl Harbor. By December 25th 1941, Hong Kong had fallen. By January10th 1942 Lieutenant-General Homma, commander of the Japanese 14th army sent a message to MacArthur, advising him to surrender at Corregidor and Bataan. By April 9th 1942, the US forces did surrender. On February 15th Lieutenant-General Percival surrendered to Lieutenant-General Tomoyuki Yamashita, and the Japanese 25th army at Singapore, thereby surrendering Malaya. Remember Malaya was one of the fertile areas of the empire, feeding large numbers to the west in India. This was barely over 2 months after Pearl Harbor. By April, the Japanese 15th army under Lieutenant-General Iida were moving through Burma, which was a source of tin, rubber and oil, as well as foodstuffs for the empire in the east. By the end of May - early June, they were up on the Burma/India border, and stopping the flow of all goods and produce from all points east of the India/Burma border. So in 5 short months, almost all the British possessions in the East had fallen to the Japanese. These territories contained all the fertile productive areas which fed much of the Indian subcontinent, and was now closed to all trade with the British and Indians. Such is the nature of war, but it spellt absolute disaster for those people of India, who always did live on the margins. The British were simply unable to get a viable source of replacement foodstuffs in any quantity, or within any reasonable time frame. Vast markets on that scale were not something that could be accomplished overnight. All resources were already allocated elsewhere. So here is where Chompsky’s greatest lie comes in, for he simply brushes over these events, never mentioning the names of Yamashita, or Iida, for they are an inconvenience to his argument. The fact of the matter is he hides a big lie in plain sight, by simply omitting it. The real culprit for the famine of Bengal is the advancing Japanese army and its conquests. Not even a whiff of a suggestion within Chompsky’s narrative, just totally air-brushed out. By alluding very briefly to the war against Japan, as in ‘the British used famine as an instrument of state policy in order to repress the indigenous population in a time of war’, then, not ever mentioning it again, Chompsky delivers a very slick trick; for while the listener is aware of the conflict, his direction of focus has been shifted away from the actuality of events and deftly, redirected towards the goal of the wizard. A lie, but a lie that lays near the truth, for as long as it is stated with enough conviction, as long as the acolytes will sing for the choir, then so long shall this mendacity gain ears among the unknowing.
†
Professor Chompsky‘s, spurious smear does not stand, but instead reveals him for what he is: a sophist and a malignant narcissist. What a piece of moral turpitude that man is, a corrupt parasite, seated in his ivory tower: a maggot feasting on the backside of the body politic of a great nation.
†
Not until October / November of 1942 were the allies able to inflict the first defeat on the axis powers at El Alamein in North Africa. Up to that point, the axis powers had been triumphant, totally unstoppable. That was the beginning of the turning of the tide, but still, only a small beginning.
Just Another Richard:
Great piece here! Very enlightening.
bld & Mark
Thanks for the compliments guys. Old Winny is a hero of mine, as I am sure he is with many others. That such a self serving piece of human garbage as Chompsky would dare cast such a cynical aspersion upon his memory, is taunt I for one will not endure in silence, even though my voice be that of a lone individual of no consequence.
I have just realized that I have been guilty of a little slight of psychological deception upon my own self, for by spelling Chompsky with a 'P', I have indulged a childish whim, as I used to refer to him as Chumpsky. When I corrected this I accidently left the 'P' in ... oh well, the failings of an undisciplined mind, I guess. Still, it does one good to laugh at our own follies.
Just Another Richard:
How dare 'Chumpsky' cast aspersions on our Winny?
"How dare 'Chumpsky' cast aspersions on our Winny?" - Mark
Well, if he must, he'd better stick with ones based in actual facts, not this bogus nonesense of Post Modernist, wishful thinking. Go hug a tree Chumpsky.
I'm tempted to use an analogy I've used before, but I already know your negative opinions on crudity, so I shall refrain.(Sorry folks, an in joke between Mark and I, having to do with the birds and the bees and adult missbehaviour). Smack! Down boy, down.
Best left to the imagination, dear friend! We all know what you mean. :-)
Post a Comment