Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill was a white supremacist leading an empire “worse than the Nazis” – claimed an academic panel at a Cambridge college named in honor of wartime Prime Minister and established with his help in 1958.
According to the London Telegraph this statement was proclaimed during the discussion titled “Racial Consequences of Mr. Churchill”. The panelists argued that Churchill was “the perfect embodiment of white supremacy”, while the British Empire was “poorer than the Third Reich”, adding that the fact Britain was ‘virtuous’ in comparison to the Nazis was a “problematic narrative”.
Churchill was labeled “The perfect embodiment of white supremacy”, and accused of racism and complicity in the Bengal Famine which killed three million Indians.
Professor Kehinde Andrews stated that “The British Empire far worse than the Nazis and lasted far longer,” implying that the white supremacist views dominate in the post-Imperial Britain so far.
Britain’s contribution to defeating the Nazis in World War II has been questioned.
According to The Telegraph, fellow panelist Dr Onyeka Nubia noted that Churchill’s “History of the English Speaking Peoples” made use of the language of white supremacy through the veiled terms “English Speaking Peoples” and “Anglo-Saxon”.
The claims by Cambridge panel of scientists were condemned by a number of specialists, who argued that their aim was only to “vilify” Churchill, who did his best to eliminate Bengal Famine and fight slavery.
Andrew Roberts, author of “Churchill: Walking with Destiny”: “A white supremacist wants bad things to happen to non-whites… Churchill fought to protect the hundreds of millions of non-whites in the Empire.”
“In his political career he fought again and again against slavery and for the rights of non-whites within the British Empire. Churchill was moreover instrumental in destroying the worst racist in history, Adolf Hitler.”
Prof. Priyamvada Gopala
The Cambridge discussion was chaired by Professor Priyamvada Gopala. In 2020, she tweeted that “white lives don’t matter… as white lives”, which brought her notoriety. Her claim was deleted under ‘hate speech’ rules, but she was defended and even promoted by Cambridge University.
Cambridge was also among the world leading Universities named by education focused think tank Civitas in its study that unveiled that free speech in higher educational institution is being eroded due to the grow of ‘cancel culture’.
The ‘cancel culture’ that is actively spreading in Universities is pushing the race activists in mostly Western countries and supports revisionist history. The revisionists push emotional speech that can be easily accepted by the masses, but they are biased and are often accused in gerrymanding.
Guys, three points:
1) Churchill was openly in favour of using chlorine gas on ‘primitive tribes’ to keep them under control of the British Empire.
2) The British Empire, of which he was a vociferous proponent, killed more people in India and East Africa than the USSR did its avoidable famines and labour camps.
3) Churchill was instrumental in delaying the opening of the second front as agreed with the USSR. He and his administration were more than happy to see tens of millions of Soviets get killed by the Nazis in the hope that communism would fall.
We don’t have to shriek declamations of such figures, but I wouldn’t look for any heroes among the leaders of the US or UK ever. The history of this cultural sphere is pure Rapaciousness and hypocrisy, unmatched by the old world continental empires of Vienna, Istanbul or Petersburg, or the USSR.
“happy to see tens of millions of Soviets get killed by the Nazis in the hope that communism would fall”
Yes, not only because they were communists but because they were Russians in majority also.
Yet in the same time he was helping Tito and his communists in Yugoslavia to prevail only because Tito was his man.
Yeah, Tito was not Warsaw Pact and under anglo control through debt. Churchill’s support for the Yugoslav partisans came well after the battles of Moscow and Stalingrad, when it became clear that the Nazis would not win on the Eastern Front.
They were supporting ( Serb ) Yugoslav royalist forces before switching to Tito.
I don’t think if it was possible to predict in 1943 that Stalin will liberate more of the Europe than “allays” (To explain that move as anticipation in positioning of the British in the Balkans).
I don’t think that Tito was under “Anglo control through debt” only.
I think he was their agent.
yeah chetniks not partisans
???!
vhat kind of comment is that.?
I was expecting to hear comment of what I have answered not stupid names “chetniks not partisans”
this is not history class for 7 year old children to make comment like that..
of course they vere not effing “partisans” since I have used word “switched”
Well, what was the point of this: “They were supporting ( Serb ) Yugoslav royalist forces before switching to Tito.” What did that add?
Before we are lost in insignificant details rather answer (my answer to your comment ):
“I don’t think it was possible to predict in 1943 that Stalin will liberate more of the Europe than “allays” (To explain that move (supporting Tito) as anticipation in positioning of the British in the Balkans).”
They didn’t know that communism will be in Balkans in 1943.
…also I think Tito was their agent and not some communist dork in western debt trap.
I’m not sure I get exactly what your question is. Churchill supported Tito/the Partisans to tie down as many German forces and resources as possible in the Balkans so that the British etc could limit the extent to which the Soviets would advance West. Alexander II got to Paris in 1814. The Russians crushed the Hungarian Revolution in 1848. The Polish Soviet war was waged in anticipation of western europe falling to communism. Western elites were afraid from 1917 that their own well-organized labour movements would welcome a repeat of Oct 1917 in western europe. The spread of Soviet/Russian power, or communism west, was a fear that began much earlier than the war itself
“I’m not sure I get exactly what your question is.”
Because you forgot your own comment from the start….
I can’t copy paste everything that was said it would be mess.
…and now you make comment that contradicts your 1st comment…!
I had enough of this empty conversation, good bye!
there is no contradiction on my part nor clearly phrased question on your part, but okay.
“Churchill’s support for the Yugoslav partisans came well after the battles of Moscow and Stalingrad, when it became clear that the Nazis would not win on the Eastern Front.”
Here above copy pasted your 1st. comment to me.
MY answer:
it was NOT possible to predict in 1943 that Stalin will liberate more of the Europe (Balkans included) than Western “allays” …so why would Churchill ( hater of the communists ) support COMMUNIST Tito instead of royalist Yugoslav forces?!
Oh I answered that already. Tito and his partisans weren’t in the Warsaw Pact, rather he helped found the non-aligned movement. As I alluded to in my last comment, there is a complex interplay between soviet power and communism, both opposed by the english, but not exactly the same thing. yugoslav communism outside the warsaw pact was not a threat to the british elites and their property. In fact, introducing a split within communism was a great way to weaken the overall communist mythology. they did that again with nixon’s visit to beijing and the sino-soviet split. (but this split within communism is not the main goal here).
So, supporting the partisans at a tactical level helped achieve greater strategic goals. it kept a significant number of nazi troops tied down, giving the UK more room to pursue its strategic goals, with little cost in terms of communist expropriation of property spreading to western europe or the Uk itself. The main goal was to keep the Soviet army as far east as possible. Keeping the Nazis busy in the balkans, by whatever means necessary, helped D Day be successful so that the allies could push further east and hold the soviets back.
You are like most of the knowledgeable people….instead of giving direct simple answer you bring even more details without really answering what I have asked you.
You have issue there.
I do rest my case. I don’t expect any straight answers from you… maybe in the next (life time) incarnation..
Thank you.
understanding of complex issues requires nuance.
Big communists bad. little communists useful.
” little communists useful.” and little royalists not useful?!?
he had there resistance movement that UK was already supporting = Yugoslav royalists .
why would he reject them and choose communists?
what would be the motive for doing that?
man, I answered that above, to quote: “I’m sure they would have preferred to support the chetniks, but the
chetniks were limited to serbs, rather than all yugoslavs, many
collaborated with the Nazis, and they were not well organized
hierarchically, an order from Draza didn’t necessarily get followed by
large segments of the chetnik forces”
The partisans had a way better nazi kill rate. and I’m saying that as a monarchist myself.
“chetniks were limited to serbs”
Sorry your argument was ridiculous so I didn’t take it in consideration (it still is ridiculous)
They had their effing (Serb) king in exile in London!
They were representatives of DEMOCRATIC forces !
So communist hater Churchill has rejected them capitalists because of his multi ethnic sensibilities and have chosen (better organised) communists?!?
where the hell did you study history?!?
“The partisans had a way better nazi kill rate” This is for your doctor theses
“Nazi kill rate of the Partisans calculated by Britt’s”
It sure will be one of the most ridiculous theses if not the most original one.
PS
Tito’s communist were also collaborating with the Nazi’s (when needed)
Calm down man. Who cares where their king was or whether they were democratic or whether a few partisans were collaborating? Far more chetniks were collaborating and, still, the partisans did have a better nazi kill rate, which is what mattered at the time.
yeah?…I think I had enough of your “wisdom”man.
I don’t get your attitude, but ok. Interviews with the British officers on the ground in yugoslavia at the time, organizing the effort show that this is the reason they switched from supporting Chetniks to supporting Partisans. It’s not ‘my wisdom’, it’s the historical record.
Politics and war are not about ‘democracy’, principles, values or ideals, they are about the machiavellian pursuit of percieved self-interest of those with the means to do so.
” I don’t get your attitude ”
You must be new here.
you have 2 morons up voting your comments
Cray Brande = Iranian bot – false account – knows jack shit on subject that we talked,
daniel
How about “corrupt communists useful”? Without the Lend-Lease Act’s billions of dollars worth of American logistical materiel (trains, trucks, cargo aircraft, etc.), what would the Soviets do? Walk everything to Berlin…? This has plenty of similarities with the American military aid currently finding its way to “useful” world oligarch proxies…
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/d463186be9dff3d5212941119d7a9eca7442c0093efcc64f5a5116552b90c9c8.jpg
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/835d19aae1ca47088c0b871110849bbb899a2e098cc5283eab109c220f9379f8.jpg
Lend-lease accounted for about 10% of tanks and 12% of aircraft. Meh. Stalin appropriating peasant output in the 30s and letting them starve to export their produce to fund the development of military industry in anticipation of the war was more significant.
On the other hand, Stozi, weapon systems like tanks and combat aircraft are not all that matters in mechanized warfare. Lend-Lease accounted for about 93% of the Soviets’ railroad equipment, about 33% of their trucks, and 30% of their cargo aircraft. Again: The difference in moving replacement parts, fuel, ammunition, infantry, etc. to the front was not going to be made up by walking, not even by “appropriating peasant output” as pack mules.
Interesting, though, that that seems to be the most significant lend lease contribution, when Russian rolling stock is wide guage, it doesn’t run on the standard guage rails between the soviet border and berlin.
After Stalingrad and through early 1943 the Germans were still strong enough of the Atlanticand occupied a large area of Russia.
It was after the battle of Kursk in the summer of 1943 that German position in Russia became perilous.
In early 1943 England was loosing the battle
of Atlantic …..after Stalingrad there was a sliver of hope on part of the allies as far as stabilizing the Russian front line.
agree
Stalingrad,Moscow = stopping the Germans completely
Kursk = reversing the tide
Yet even after the Kursk nobody could predict that Red army will enter Berlin so quickly (if at all)
You are at least more correct than the guy above. But how is Kursk the reverseing point if they had to get from Moscow to Kursk? And yes, it’s the job of high level strategists to thinking about the Soviets entering Berlin even at that point. Consider that the nazis expected the multi-national soviet union with its non-workable communist system to collapse like a house of cards immediately, and a lot of western chauvinists also believed that. the fact that it didn’t happen right at the beginning was reason enough for those strategists to consider a soviet victory more than possible.
” He and his administration were more than happy to see tens of millions of Soviets get killed by the Nazis in the hope that communism would fall. ”
Strangely the Soviets did the exact same thing to the Poles during the Battle of Warsaw. Additionally , you lack historical perspective as the US and the British pumped massive amounts of weapons and vehicles to the Soviets , without which, they would have never won the war. Smoke and mirrors my friend. You should read more.
https://ru.usembassy.gov/world-war-ii-allies-u-s-lend-lease-to-the-soviet-union-1941-1945/#:~:text=Totaling%20%2411.3%20billion%2C%20or%20%24180,common%20enemy%20—%20bloodthirsty%20Hitlerism.”
you are just too stupid to understand the game (typical for your kind of people)
UK-US support was based on intention to make Soviets strong enough and capable to resist long enough to lose the var at the end … buy existing German strength to the maximum too.
So that US-UK can come in the end and finish them off both.
and have Germany and SSSR for free
Most of the Lend-Lease Act’s military aid was transferred to the Soviets in 1944, well after it was obvious the Soviets were going to win the war. If the point was to have them “lose the war at the end,” why didn’t the aid stop? Why was General Patton’s intentions to finish off the Soviets met with him getting into a minor car “accident” and dying?
OK maybe I got carried away little bit…The point is that it was not important whether Russians or Germans or neither of them will lose the war.
The objective was simply that they in process drain as much strength as possible to each other. So that at the end they become easy pray for US-UK and “allays”.who were hoping ( intending ) to take over weakened Germany and SSSR once everything is over.
Obviously it didn’t work according to initial plan.
I do not agree about “military aid” with you. I am not historian to know exact years and types (of aid) or quantities when that aid was arriving.
But I most defiantly know that they had it. No trucks, tanks, airplanes could have been produced without that aid.
“why didn’t the aid stop?”
Good justified question.
1)Because that aid was formally agreed documents ratified
2)It took them too long to realize that they were wrong in their estimates
3)Even when situation has changed in (obvious) SSSR advantage they were still hopping for some miraculous reversal of the situation
4) They couldn’t have possibly imagine that Soviets will advance so fast and when it was obvious that SSSR might conquer Berlin and most of the Germany they have precipitated invasion of the Normandy.
If you find my argument far fetched, than I have question for you:
why US didn’t destroy Russia in 1999 when US Jews and local Russian oligarch Jews are holding control of Yeltsin Russia in palm of their hand bankrupted, broken, conquered?
My answer is US hubris. They were too sure of themselves to be able to destroy Russia whenever they want how they want and they have underestimated Russia lot!
They did the same 1941-45 with SSSR.
I can understand wanting “to take over weakened Germany,” especially after it kicked away the Weimar Republic and its austerity measures, but why take over the SSSR? The Soviets were not an ideological threat to the “international clique” oligarchs. That’s why the Soviets lied people into war with Finland (Khrushchev copped to the Shelling of Mainila being a false flag attack), backed up the oligarchs’ dubious Holocaust claims, and remained operational until “their own” nuclear weapons could be used as the excuse for why the Orwellian frenemy relationship continued.
Today’s Ex-Soviet Russia is the exact opposite: Rather than lying people into wars or supporting the Zionists’ false flags and hoaxes, we’re getting evidence and analysis proving the opposite. Some of the biggest beneficiaries of the world oligarchs’ opposition to Putin and the United Russia Party is Russia’s second place party, the Russian Communists – the successors to the Soviets.
On your points about stopping the Lend-Lease aid, HiaNd: Have you ever heard of the book, “War is a Racket”? This was the same US which Major General Smedley Butler said he was “a high–class muscle man for Big Business” under. If today’s Big Business muscle man is terrible at “formally agreed documents,” why would it be any better back then unless it served Big Business’s interests?
And yes, the invasion of Normandy was a clue that the US-UK might have been late in learning that the Soviets had already turned the tide, but this was in the middle of 1944, not at the end. Then there is the 1945 Lend-Lease aid: It was still about half of what the Soviets received the year before, and that’s with the aid finally stopping in September.
“but why take over the SSSR?”
Very strange question.
For the same reason they have today; resources! Gas, oil, gold, diamonds, titanium, timber etc.
“The Soviets were not an ideological threat to the “international clique” oligarchs.”
Not true.
Tell that to Joseph McCarthy… Communism was always seen as potential threat in those days.
Being in politics is not about “truth” and honesty
(that is valid for communists as well ).
Politics is art of possible. Not result of empty communist slogans for masses.
No SSSR was in no friendly relations with the Western world at all. That is pure nonsense.
You are alt right sympathizer with not so much understanding for modern Russia. So you interpret things to fit your political preferences .
SSSR was fighting for their survival not for “big business” and their losses were immense.
Whatever they have received in 1945 they got it as winners (and still couldn’t be seen as military threat to Westerners.) General Patton wanted to invade SSSR.
I had enough of this useless conversation,
good bye.
Look at it this way, HiaNd: Do you want other people enacting the world oligarchs’ policies or ideologies to ask questions and think critically, be it Americans, Israelis, Brits, Ukrainians, Saudis, or whoever else? Then why aren’t you leading by example?
You mentioned gas, so consider the Nord Stream 2 pipeline. That would allow access to Russia’s resources in a win-win manner, so why would the oligarchs oppose it if all they care about are resources? More accurately, they care about how and why resources are used – power and control – so, as long as the Soviets continue the waste, fraud, and abuse policies the oligarchs support, why take over the SSSR?
Next, if you said, “being in politics is not about ‘truth’ and honesty,” why do you think McCarthy was being true and honest about Bolshevik-brand communism being an ideological threat? The same thing is being said about radical Islam and Wahhabism; do you believe Al-CIA-da is an ideological threat…?
so? Just like the US has both funded and bombed ISIS to manage the conflict in their interests. I have an MA in the history and politics of the ex-USSR from one of the world’s top 20 universities, and I definitely don’t feel the need to check my facts through a US embassy. Battle of Warsaw comment appears irrelevant.
Then with your education you should arrive at the obvious conclusion that WW2 was a theater setup to destroy Europe and its peoples, mainly Slavs and Nordics, both groups immensely hated by the Khazars. It was also designed to create an environment which would allow Europe to be flooded with ” migrant workers “, destroy its populations will to fight, to setup the US as the next great power, and to create the Soviet Union as the next world ” adversary “. Additionally, it cemented the Khazar’s control over the world with the Holohoax myth and the creation of Israhell. How fortuitous.
Additionally, which country recognized Israhell as a sovereign nation ?
” Battle of Warsaw comment appears irrelevant. ”
On the contrary, the Soviets did the same thing you accused the British of doing.
Battle of Warsaw – There USSR had no deal with the resistance in Warsaw, unlike how the allies had a deal to open a second front which they massively delayed. They had their own plan of advance. There’s no indication that they intended to let the resistance get wiped out. This is just another Polish Russophobic sob story. Remember, the USSR tried to make alliances against the Nazis with the west before Molotov-Ribbentrop, but they all declined, leaving the latter as a last resort. The Polish diplomats worked hard to undermine those efforts, and reaped the consequences.
I’ll be happy to converse with you but spare me the Soviet cult apologist angle as I’m not going to waste my time on it. The Soviets were extremely happy to ally with the Nazis to partion Poland between themselves. You can try to explain it away all you want. Not to mention the brutality they engaged in against the Polish population under their control. Or were those tortures , rapes, and killings done out of kindness ?
Since its inception the Soviet Union invaded numerous countries including ones it had no historical connection too. I’m sure those were invasions of kindness also ? Here are just a couple photos of Soviet and Nazi troops shaking hands at the pre agreed dissection line in the middle of Poland. Some enemies right ?
https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fi.pinimg.com%2F474x%2Fc0%2F75%2F60%2Fc07560c98feb1a8c95894d06549d751e.jpg&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.pinterest.com%2Fpin%2F483644447480702722%2F&tbnid=tkhUFHAQ6K574M&vet=12ahUKEwi8qpCx6efuAhWGSawKHUcIDdAQMygjegUIARD3AQ..i&docid=CmEh9YX4VLL73M&w=301&h=383&q=german%20and%20soviet%20troops%20shaking%20hands&ved=2ahUKEwi8qpCx6efuAhWGSawKHUcIDdAQMygjegUIARD3AQ#imgrc=tkhUFHAQ6K574M&imgdii=2_4mCw4JEOfiGM
This is getting off point. my point was that the battle of warsaw issue isn’t equivalent with the delay on opening the 2nd front in motivation or effect. I’m not getting sucked into an argument beyond that. I’m well aware of these photos, but I’m also well aware of the Pole’s constant twisting of history. Putin has published a detailed article on it that you can look up. I’m not arguing black and white, but shades of grey. You think the US & UK did no rape and killings as they advanced? Poland had recently invaded the USSR too btw, with many east slavs there remembering that serfdom under the Poles was harsh, even worse than a lot of new world black slavery. you’re seriously going to say though that Nazis and Soviets weren’t enemies? what the fuck else are a few farm boys supposed to do when they fill the brief they’re given as part of some grand strategy contingency plan but smile and wave?
https://nationalinterest.org/feature/vladimir-putin-real-lessons-75th-anniversary-world-war-ii-162982
” . Putin has published a detailed article on it that you can look up. I’m not arguing black and white, but shades of grey. ”
Shades of grey coming from a man quoting Putin’ version of events while having a CCCP symbol for an avatar. Lets just stop here as I have no time for such hypocrisy.
double ad hominem is no way to make an argument.
The British Ziocorporate terrorists have been narcotrafficking and laundering the money for no less than 200 years, the worst that Soviets and Germans couldn’t keep Molotov-Ribbentrop agreements going, only to feeding the Ziocorporate bloodsuckers installed in the NY-Washington axis. Though with Stalin’s quick recognition of the Rothschild neocolony in Palestine, that was likely a plan from the get-go.
Hitler was born of incest,Churchill whilst not exactly the role model human being,far from it,atleast provided the greeks much needed firepower to ward off the fascist itlalians and albanian dogs,and remove the nazis in 221 days from their mainland,which was known to be one of the descisive factors to give the soviets that needed extra time to manufacture weapons to counter the satanic nazi genocide the whole world is aware of,either way the european union is doomed in their tyranny,the Commonwealth is back and that fugly nazi sympathising whore or satans has no future in trying to keep its rotted fascist dog in power
seens it shall be taken away from them,and no body shall have it!
So you new wave scholars may rant on all you want,however The Commonwealth runs the best democracy system,(bar russia/putins)live to tell the story through thick and thing,infact ever since the uk joined europe at demise of cccp,society slowly but surely has gone far worse including the cost of living and endless array of eu-epp buerocracy which is killing off jobs at record setting pace.there a reason for that see,use your head!
No can do present scholars are of no use in our world,they can debate all they want,
however because of their ethics pretending to care about the world,they only achieved to try to destroy it,which means the future will depend on they with the proven track records to succeed in life more than not,the greens are obvious scammers and amingst the worse kind of mass job and enviroment disaters in moder history,think i’m joking?
Who is over exxagerating this corona epidemic todays?
They can rant all want with good for nothing blm asswipes whom are no good bludgers!
Blame the satanic fkfest on hitler incestry genocide/ideology/khazar ponzi bank schemes usa democrat biden,gates,soros,blm,anfita,clinton,bush,obummer,biden,eu-epp,lgbtq,corporate tyranny ,who and all they of todays if anything they ought to have known better(period)
Heres the acid test,did you vote for brexit or to remain in debt rorted nazi-eu-epp?
Now I’m supposed to trespect the rabid blm dog over the Queen whom atleast had the dignity to serve in ww2 ending military as the truck mechanic and test driver?
What has the present european feminazis achieved with their eu-epp tyranny?Genocide!
Sure many may try to spin it as I am the evil dud,however truth always valours in the end,
(ALL LIVES MATTER) Fk soros,cia,eu-epp,gates,nwo,skulls n bones,do’minions:
British Ziocorporate terrorists were always worse scum than anyone else. In the Palestinian case, it wasn’t the German Reich that delivered Palestine to terrorist banksters and their agents and paramilitary ISIS-style Jewhadi hordes imported from Poland to terrorise Palestinians into the grave and out of Palestine.
Then again, today’s Ziocorporate terrorists prefer to shift the blame to Churchill to avoid, as they always do, talking about Ziocorporatism’s current schemes against mankind.
Funny how the street shitter Indians are piling on against Whites with their Black brothers first opportunity they get. Why did you come to the West if its so evil and racist street shitter Gopal ?
That’s a British-educated Indian pushed to renown by a Ziocorporate terrorist established power looking to profit further from the chaos of divide and conquer. Quite successfully too.
Still waiting for your racist two ganglion brain to respond to my comment several days ago about Africans.
Any Indian that migrates to England and then proceeds to denigrate the host population, which had the kindness to let them in in the first place is a street shiter no matter how you try to justify it. Hows this for racism and cultural appropriation ?
– A black actress as Anne Boleyn? Off with the casting director’s head! In the fake news era, history should be trustworthy –
https://www.rt.com/op-ed/515434-black-actress-anne-boleyn-history/
Kindness? Did the Indians ask to be invaded and looted by the Brutish for 190 years? Did the Indians ask for their young men to be marched off to Brutain’s wars? Or to be taken as slaves to serve in Brutish colonies from Fiji to East Africa to Guyana to Malaya, and then be abandoned there?
Moron.
There isnt a Briton alive who invaded India
The effects of Brutish colonialism, which utterly destroyed Indian industry and looted it dry, have vanished then, have they? Just because the Brutish colonialists left after stealing to there was nothing left to steal?
Good to know.
Are you saying that native Britons should be collectively punished for things their country did before they were even alive? Many of whose forebears were also ruthlessly exploited by the ruling class of the UK…
If you wanna punish the UK for colonialism – specifically Britons alive today- the current descendants of it’s ruling class, would make the most culpable, not Britons as a whole.
This ruling class – bankers, duh royal fambly, the political establishment – continues to thrive while insolent immigrants focus their hate on peons, aka the British working class.
Please tell me why living Brutish expelled the Chagos Islanders, invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, bombed Libya, and created the Skripal scam. Please tell me why living Brutish therefore do not deserve the same collective punishment they help inflict on other countries.
Britons supported misadventures like Iraq by a slim majority; Libya only had around 30% support. If you wanna regress to the concept of collective punishment that’s ok, but know that it’s a double edged sword…
As for myself, I believe that cancer should be eradicated with minimal collateral damage. The ruling class – who frames the window of discourse, molds public opinion thru conditioning, and directly benefits from the outcome – is that cancer.
Of course the regime lickspittles also bear a significant amount of culpability.
The salient issue here, for me anyway, is the method employed to punish Britain. The soft genocide of population replacement is, to me, a form of biological warfare made more odious by it’s rank hypocrisy. It also does nothing to strike at Britain’s ruling class. It is, infact, congruent to their plan, since these rulers are only British in name, belonging instead to a globohomo world order aiming to dissolve ALL nations.
As for myself I have no love for modern-day Britain, patient zero of the Globohomo pox.
I could not care less about how Brutain is punished and destroyed, as long as it is punished and destroyed. It must never again be permitted to attack or enslave or loot anybody, and I don’t care whether the Brute in question is rich, poor, black, white, or blue.
You can rest assured that if events continue to unfold as they do, that Britain will infact be destroyed, replaced and subsumed by a multinational entity which is no better and likely far worse than what it is replacing. So you will be a little disappointed at the result.
Anything replacing Perfidious Albion could not possibly be worse, and in any case the end of Brutain is more than richly deserved. Spare the “warnings” for someone who gives a damn for the Brutish. I don’t.
These woke are bigoted idiots, however Churchill remains indefensible, a true criminal of war and peace who bombed German cities full of civilians while sparing the Nazi industrial facilities where weapons were produced, and not even touched the gigantic headquarters of IG Farber on which the bankers of the city and wall street had invested a lot of money, on the part of his life that concerns the settlers it is better to draw a merciful veil.
In four years, 1941 Wannsee Conference to 1945, Hitler allegedly killed six million Jews. The number is “set in stone”, but the World Jewish Council in 1945 put the figure as about 4 million.
In one year, 1943, Churchill verifiably starved to death 4 million Indians in the Great Bengal Famine. That’s apart from the German civilians murdered in terror bombing. Which, by the way, the so called German “left” celebrates today.
Ruskies should be grateful to Churchill as Rotschields and Rockefellers were more upset on Stalin than on Hitler(for sizing their assets in Russia).
Stalin then put those assets into service of the banksters’ rich-get-richer war and backed up their dubious Holocaust claims, so their arrangement seems to have worked out.
Hitler also seized a Rothschild’s fortune. Whats that prove ?
Rotschield family is involved in Swiss banking, where Hitler was making regular deposits of what was sized :)
Exactly smoke and mirrors.
Churchill was *much* worse than Hitler and it’s more than time these facts were recognised.
and had it not been for winston’s desire to save the world (misdirected view from start) there would not ever have been a ww2 and the jews safely tucked away in uganda,
if you think winston was a benign gent, you’re wrong. read his letters to, among others, his mother and you will realize that he was terribly prejudiced about ordinary people and found fault in everything, what they ate, quality of their clothes/shoes and what they said and thought. in addition he was a crude war-horse and took every opportunity to participate in wars here there and everywhere – cuba as spectator, afghanistan, sudan and south africa (as journalist) and then ww1 where he caused the catastrophe of gallipoli with his bfe (british expeditionary forces) and the ww2 where he again caused a catastrophe with the british expeditionary forces and which led to the dunkerque. he was a prime shitheel. and his wife was shagging anything in trousers which ain’t ever talked about.
Britain as a cohesive society is literally flushing itself down a toilet daily…
When you start rounding on your own national heroes, (whether they were right or wrong) then collapse is close. UK is failing, failing as a state. The problem appears to be rooted in four decades of laissez-faire diversity where successive UK govt has just allowed all and sundry to be label themselves as British.
brexit was due to fact that uk was not prepared to play second fiddle, or third fiddle, after germany and possibly france (what a friggin joke) thus a good reason to get out. I actually think uk was right exiting a corrupt and inefficient organization with far too many obsessions to really become a coherent and cohesive federation (which no one wants but the march there seems unstoppable)
Really? The Bank of England is a debt-based, plutocratic central bank just like the ECB is, so what exactly is Brexit supposed to change?
and what has that to do with anything – uk wanted to be free of the yoke the union placed on its members and in particular on england. second fiddle to germany never never never.
The world oligarchs from the UK are a progenitor of the Union in the first place. Who do you think helped reestablish “international clique” control over Germany…?
Churchill was a Masonic ZioNazi and in full cooperation with Rothschild bastard Hitler so that the Germans & the Russians would destroy eachother, to establish the United States of Europe, for the execution of the Balfour-Declaration (WWI) thus the creation of ISraHell and fill Palestine with European Jews who had survived the ZioNazi-Camps and were no longer welcome in their former European countries of origin…
Twas Rothschild cash that prevented Churchill going bankrupt in the late 30’s:)
“The principal effect of every war is to destroy the flower of the nation… Germany needs peace and desires peace!”
~ Adolf Hitler, 1935
“We will force this war upon Hitler, if he wants it or not.”
~ Winston Churchill, 1936
Yes, Churchill’s policies placed Europe under the banker gangsters’ heels even further, but being in “full cooperation” with the Nationalist Socialists who brought Germany out of the Great Depression and grew the middle class makes zero sense.
The Weimar Republic was to create the opportunity for Rothschild-Bastard-Hitler to rise…Rothschild-Bastard-Hitler’s Warmachine got sponsored by Henry Ford & New York Banksters…Operation Paperclip was there to transport all High-Ranked ZioNazi-Conspirators to safety after the War…
HH, Weimar already had Germany under the banksters’ control, so what was the point of Hitler? Why destroy Germany’s war machine just to rebuild it and destroy it again? And why grow the middle class, something the banksters hate? Rebuilding the war machines of the US, UK, and USSR did not grow the middle class.
Then there is Ford: Why is it strange for someone who believed if more people understood “our banking and money system… there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning” to sponsor Germany? The Nationalist Socialists’ rise was largely a revolution against the “international clique” running the money system. And Operation Paperclip was the banksters picking up a couple thousand Germans after the war: How does that compare to the banksters getting millions of other Germans killed, including after the war in Eisenhower’s camps…?
The Germans were fooled by this Rothschild-Hitler-Puppet….Makebelieve in order to destroy the Germans & the Russians …Divide et Impera….it is the top of the Pyramid in almost every nation that is controlled by these Devilworshipping Khazarian ZioNazis….Centuries of Wars with One Ultimate Goal: Total World Dominance…Hitler was also a Jesuit/Knights Templar/Mason
http://themillenniumreport.com/2016/08/adolf-hitler-and-the-jesuit-order/
I agree on the potential for perpetual warfare, but how does this claim stand up against more verified perpetual wars? For example, the War on Communism: The banker gangsters kept the Bolshevik Union around for almost 70 years until it collapsed under its own corruption. Then there is the War on Terror: “Rothschild” has been keeping the Wahhabists and Al-CIA-da spin-offs around for over 30 years and counting. Both received billions of dollars worth of “Western” military to keep them going, got more Russians and Muslims, respectively, killed than anyone else, and backed up the Zionists’ dubious narratives like the Holocaust and Syrian chemical weapons use.
Conversely, the banksters crushed the Nationalist Socialists after just 12 years in power. They were vocal opponents of the “international clique” and its “policy of financial blackmail to squeeze the last ounce of substance out of its people” [Hitler’s words], their growing middle class reflected this, and they supported sending willing “Jews” to the colony in Palestine, arguably so they were less likely to do to Germany what Lenin, Trotsky, etc. did to Russia.
Think about it, HH: If Hitler supported the apartheid aggressor state that “Israel” would become, do you think he would have sympathizers in Iran and Iraq? This led to the banksters invading them, too. Do you believe that Hitler’s Germany would be shipping “Israel” nuclear-capable submarines like occupied Germany is doing now?
Churchill looked like a pig and his racist cowardly actions were even worse. That fat swine was responsible for 5 million documented Indian deaths due to famine in WW2 as this fat evil pig diverted Indian food to feed the British racist parasites.
1943 famine in Bengal, which killed up to 3-5 million people, was deliberate racism according to the researchers. Churchill has been quoted as blaming the famine on the fact Indians were “breeding like rabbits”, and asking how, if the shortages were so bad, Mahatma Gandhi was still alive and made his well known quip when asked about “western civilization” he replied “it would be a good idea” .
Some interesting reading.
https://cliffordshack-article-archive-storage.blogspot.com/2016/01/the-rothschilds-winston-churchill-and.html?view=flipcard
Thanks for the link!
Opening a can of worms is mearly nothing but a distraction to real world events of todays,
Can you imagine if Hitler won the war,what a fkd up world would be much like todays tyranny?
None of us would even exist,The world was far more ethical and developing untill the collapse of the berlin wall,Britain and france were right (don’t do it) The eu union is the blueprint for nwo,I don’t care white man’s more intelligent gifted specie,but they’re also the best in destroying all of us too!
Jimi, have you ever heard of US Major General Smedley Butler or his book, “War is a Racket”? The general said that he and the US military were “a high–class muscle man for Big Business” over 100 years ago. Wasn’t Britain an “ally” in all of that? Churchill included? Yes, some people try to claim differently, but they are the same people claiming “Putin invaded Ukraine” or “Assad gassed people.”
Typical imported British marxists, they are some of the most noxious and racist pricks in the world. They hate the very country they (or their parents) moved to, but instead of leaving they just want the natives to disappear.
second sentence, suppose you refer to the jews in palestine.
it was said that winston’s mama was the most promiscuous women in england with the possible exception of winston’s wife’s mama. it should be noted that winston was the oldest son of the second son of the duke of marlborough, born at blenheim castle, which is one of the grandest castles in the entire england. being so closely related with the duke, which ultimately was his cousin, naturally made certain that he never had a trouble with being employed and enjoyed friendship with the prince of wales, who once told him that he shouldn’t ever be late when the prince was expected to be part of the fun (after winston was more than an hour late to a dinner party where the prince of wales was one of the participants). it should be noted that he learned a trade and that is to write books about say his forefather and the wars he fought and which ultimately made him the duke of marlborough.
it should also be noted that the king after the ww2 offered churchill a dukedom, after having ascertained that winston would say no thank you. thus he was offered the dukedom and winston said no (the present royals only offer dukedoms to relatives or royals and the last non-royal dukedom is the duke of grosvenor but he was so rich it was hard to avoid (think it was queen victoria who made him duke).