Unteachability of Mankind?

JGeropoulas said:
2) Churchill's place in any parallels between anti-war/government protestors and their respective governments, according to Olbermann.
Douglas Reed gives valuable information about Winston Churchill and the role he played during and after WWII.

If you didn't read it yet, you might want to have a look at "The Controversy Of Zion". A very interesting book that you can download at this address : http://knud.eriksen.adr.dk/Controversybook/
 
Axel_Dunor said:
JGeropoulas said:
2) Churchill's place in any parallels between anti-war/government protestors and their respective governments, according to Olbermann.
Douglas Reed gives valuable information about Winston Churchill and the role he played during and after WWII.

If you didn't read it yet, you might want to have a look at "The Controversy Of Zion". A very interesting book that you can download at this address : http://knud.eriksen.adr.dk/Controversybook/
Yes, I'm familiar with that excellent resource. I've read most of it, but apparently, not those chapters.
Thanks for the suggestion.
 
Well they do say "no 'sacred cows' " around here quite often. As a Brit, reading Reed's account of Churchill's involvement was quite a shock. As a figure that is often held up here as a 'good and true' the 'backbone of the nation' and all that, we are pretty much indoctrinated into thinking his record unblemished, but, sad to say, Churchill made huge errors of judgment on this. Perhaps he never saw the true implications, or didn't care, or was aware but thought it all 'manageable' as long as he got what he wanted out of it first? I don't know either way but I think you have to review your estimation of the man based on some of the things he said and did then re. Zionism.
 
After reading CoZ, my feeling about Churchill was that he probably felt deep down what he did politically during WWII was wrong, but that he had no choice. There's one part where he can't even describe why he signed a certain political document (name escapes me) which favored the Soviets. It's like he was operating mechanically due to knowing the only reason he was in power was because of the Zionists. Reed shows how almost instantly his thoughts and feelings about creating the state of Israel changed.

Bought and paid for.
 
beau said:
After reading CoZ, my feeling about Churchill was that he probably felt deep down what he did politically during WWII was wrong, but that he had no choice. There's one part where he can't even describe why he signed a certain political document (name escapes me) which favored the Soviets. It's like he was operating mechanically due to knowing the only reason he was in power was because of the Zionists. Reed shows how almost instantly his thoughts and feelings about creating the state of Israel changed.

Bought and paid for.
I don't think Churchill really liked Stalin much - perhaps he saw him for the monster he was? I've just finished watching this series from the UK. Very interesting. Told by Churchill's bodyguard (Walter Thomson).
hxxp://uktv.co.uk/history/item/aid/536290

To me (and I may be wrong) Churchill was the only reason why the British people are not speaking German now. He was a part of the 'testing of the will' that the C's mentioned. Also a relative of Arafat (according to the C's - albeit a distant one =) )
 
beau said:
It's like he was operating mechanically due to knowing the only reason he was in power was because of the Zionists. Reed shows how almost instantly his thoughts and feelings about creating the state of Israel changed.

Bought and paid for.
I think that this says it all for the very few politicians that may start out thinking that they are going to change things for the better, but then learn that if they want to play ball, they have to use the one the Zionists bring to the game. And it's their ball and their rules.

Of course, there's only 2 or 3 of those kinds of politicians around anyway. :/

And, yes, Controversy of Zion was quite an eye-opener for me, also. I never had a clue about how controlled the presidents of this country were back then. And that it was Edward House who really ruled the United States (behind the scenes). That whole book was just one big shock after another, no doubt.

And I find it very interesting how by the end of their terms the presidents were either sickly or just plain wore out. Like they had all of their energy sucked out of them and were left as empty husks. Then you look at Bush now and he seems to be the one sucking the energy out of everyone else.
 
beau said:
After reading CoZ, my feeling about Churchill was that he probably felt deep down what he did politically during WWII was wrong, but that he had no choice. There's one part where he can't even describe why he signed a certain political document (name escapes me) which favored the Soviets. It's like he was operating mechanically due to knowing the only reason he was in power was because of the Zionists. Reed shows how almost instantly his thoughts and feelings about creating the state of Israel changed.

Bought and paid for.
Reminds me of this lament by President Woodrow Wilson, who signed the 1913 Federal Reserve Act into law:

"I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is now controlled by its system of credit [i.e. Zionist money masters]. We are no longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men."
I wonder what the context of this remark was. It seems many powerful men have made remorseful comments--after the damage was done. They have claimed to "feel our pain," but alas, they don't really DO anything other than "paramoralize".

Are they just dupes--or duplicitous? Cowards or crooks? I suspect many are just dupes cowardly serving the duplicitous crooks who own them.

"We the People"...depend on the Pathetic...who grovel for the Psychpathic.
 
beau said:
It's like he was operating mechanically due to knowing the only reason he was in power was because of the Zionists. Reed shows how almost instantly his thoughts and feelings about creating the state of Israel changed.

Bought and paid for.
Indeed, that seems to be Reed's diagnostic. Here are the lines where he describes how Churchill started to climb the british political ladder :

CofZ said:
The Greek drama continued. Mr. Balfour's prime-ministership ended in a fiasco for his party when in the 1906 election eight out of nine Manchester seats were lost to it. He then faded temporarily from office. At that moment another personage entered the present narrative. Among the triumphant Liberal candidates was a rising young man with a keen nose for political winds, a Mr. Winston Churchill. He also sought election in Manchester and commended himself to the Zionist headquarters there, first by attacking the Balfour government's Aliens Bill (which set a brake on large-scale immigration from such places as Russia) and next by supporting Zionism. Thereon "the Manchester Jews promptly fell into line behind him as though he were a kind of latter-day Moses; one of their leaders got up at an all-Jewish-meeting and announced that 'any Jew who votes against Churchill is a traitor to the common cause' " (Mr. R.C. Taylor). Mr. Churchill, elected, became Under Secretary for the Colonies. His public espousal of Zionism was simply a significant episode at that time; three decades later, when Mr. Balfour was dead, it was to have consequences as fateful as Mr. Balfour's own aberration.
 
beau said:
There's one part where he can't even describe why he signed a certain political document (name escapes me) which favored the Soviets.
Found it. Here's the relevant passage, from pg. 391

Reed said:
The two "premier-dictators" of the West, Messrs. Roosevelt and Churchill, took responsibility for the vengeance, for, despite their later disavowals of it, they both signed the document which was its charter: the Protocol of the Yalta Conference. Under this the Christian West joined with the barbaric East to wreak a barbaric vengeance on Europe. The aim of this chapter is to discover where the original responsibility lay (for the avowal that they acted at the promptings or under the pressure of shadowy others, or in ignorance of what they signed, occurs in the statements of both men; here the ultimate powerlessness of these seemingly all-powerful wartime potentates is shown).

In January 1943 Mr. Roosevelt, at Casablanca, first struck the note of "blind vengeance", when he "suddenly stated the principle of unconditional surrender" (Mr. Hull). The words, with their Old Testamentary ring, meant that the enemy would not be granted peace at any price whatever, and this was the absolute reversal of all "principles" previously proclaimed by the Western leaders. The responsible American Cabinet member, Mr. Hull, states that he and his department had not been informed of this somersault in policy and that "Mr. Churchill was dumbfounded"; also that the British Foreign Office appealed for the term to be avoided. Mr. Churchill (as he stated after the war in the House of Commons) nevertheless supported the use of the term "but only after it was used by the President without consultation with me". Mr. Churchill added that "if the British Cabinet had considered these words they would have advised against it" (but for, many years he continued to urge the desirability of "summit" conferences between the Moscovite dictator and the two Western leaders, despite this experience).

Thus at Casablanca in 1943 the decision to wreak vengeance was first taken. This was the background to the "Morgenthau Plan" of September 1944 (obviously first devised in Moscow, then drafted by Mr. Harry Dexter White for his superior, then forwarded by Mr. Morgenthau to Mr. Roosevelt, who with Mr. Churchill initialled it), the spirit of which pervaded the Yalta Conference and its Protocol. Mr. Roosevelt's later expression of astonishment ("he had no idea how he could have initialled this") and Mr. Churchill's words of regret ("I had not time to examine the Morgenthau Plan in detail. . . I am sorry I put my initials to it") are both voided by the fact that both then signed the Yalta document, its child and the charter of vengeance.
beau said:
It's like he was operating mechanically due to knowing the only reason he was in power was because of the Zionists.
Another passage from CoZ which is relevant to the above (pg. 423):

Reed said:
The reader will recall that in the years preceding the Second War Zionism was in collapse in Palestine; and that the British Parliament in 1939, having been forced by twenty years of experience to realize that the "Jewish National Home" was impossible to realize, had decided to abandon the unworkable "Mandate" and to withdraw after ensuring the parliamentary representation of all parties in the land, Arab, Jews and others. The reader then beheld the change which came about when Mr. Churchill became Prime Minister in 1940 and privately informed Dr. Weizmann (according to Dr. Weizmann's account, which has not been challenged) that he "quite agreed" with the Zionist ambition "after the war . . . to build up a state of three or four million Jews in Palestine".

Mr. Churchill always expressed great respect for parliamentary government but in this case, as a wartime potentate, he privily and arbitrarily overrode a policy approved, after full debate, by the House of Commons. After that, the reader followed Dr. Weizmann in his journeys to America and saw how Mr. Churchill's efforts "to arm the Jews" (in which he was opposed by the responsible administrators on the spot) received support from there under the "pressure" of Dr. Weizmann and his associates.

That was the point at which the reader last saw the Zionist state in gestation. Throughout 1944, as Mr. Churchill records in his war memoirs, he continued to press the Zionist ambition. "It is well known I am determined not to break the pledges of the British Government to the Zionists expressed in the Balfour Dec1aration, as modified by my subsequent statement at the Colonial Office in 1921. No change can be made in policy without full discussion in Cabinet" (June 29, 1944). The policy had been changed after full discussion in Cabinet and

424

Parliament, in 1939. Here Mr. Churchill simply ignored that major decision on policy and reverted to the earlier one
, echoing the strange words of another Colonial Secretary (Mr. Leopold Amery, earlier quoted) that this policy could not change.

Again, "There is no doubt that this" (the treatment of Jews in Hungary) "is probably the greatest and most horrible crime ever committed in the whole history of the world . . . all concerned in this crime who may fall into our hands, including the people who only obeyed orders by carrying out the butcheries, should be put to death after their association with the murders has been proved . . . Declarations should be made in public, so that everyone connected with it will be hunted down and put to death" (July 11, 1944). Here Mr. Churchill, like President Roosevelt and Mr. Eden, implicitly links the execution of captives solely with their crimes against Jews, thus relegating all other sufferers to the oblivion in to which, in fact, they fell. Incidentally, the reader saw in the last chapter that Jews were among the tormentors, as well as among the victims.

To continue: "I am anxious to reply promptly to Dr. Weizmann's request for the formation of a Jewish fighting force put forward in his letter of July 4" (July 12, 1944). "I like the idea of the Jews trying to get at the murderers of their fellow-countrymen in Central Europe and I think it would give a great deal of satisfaction in the United States. I believe it is the wish of the Jews them selves to fight the Germans everywhere. It is with the Germans they have their quarrel" (July 26,1944). If Mr. Churchill, as stated by Dr. Weizmann, had agreed to the building up "of a state of three or four million Jews in Palestine", he must have known that the Zionists had a much larger quarrel with the population of Arabia, and that any "Jewish fighting force" would be more likely to fall on these innocent third parties than on the Germans.

Mr. Churchill's last recorded allusion (as wartime prime minister) came after the fighting in Europe ended: "The whole question of Palestine must be settled at the peace table. . . I do not think we should take the responsibility upon ourselves of managing this very difficult place while the Americans sit back and criticise. Have you ever addressed yourselves to the idea that we should ask them to take it over? . . . I am not aware of the slightest advantage which has ever accrued to Great Britain from this painful and thankless task. Somebody else should have their turn now" (July 6, 1945). (?!?!?!)

This passage (considered together with President Roosevelt's jocular remark to Stalin, that the only concession he might offer King Ibn Saoud would be "to give him the six million Jews in the United States") reveal the private thoughts of these premier-dictators who so docilely did the bidding of Zion. Mr. Churchill wished he could shift the insoluble problem to the American back; Mr. Roosevelt would gladly have shifted it on to some other back. In this matter the great men, as an unwary remark in each case shows, behaved like the comedian who cannot by any exertion divest himself of the gluey flypaper. Mr. Churchill, in this inter-

425

office memorandum, ws not aware "of the slightest advantage that has ever accrued to Great Britain from this painful and thankless task". But in public, when Zion was listening, he continued (and to the moment of writing this book continues) to applaud the Zionist adventure in a boundless manner which aroused the curiosity even of Jewish critics (as will be seen).
 
Back
Top Bottom