Winston Churchill: Greatest British Hero or Genocidal War Criminal?

Author Unknown,

sourced from The Week.

Abridged by Lasha Darkmoon
with added commentary and an extended endnote,
“Winston Churchill: Zionist Puppet”

“To achieve the extirpation of Nazi tyranny
there are no lengths of violence to which we will not go.”
— Winston Churchill, September 1943

British shadow chancellor John McDonnell, an avowed Communist,  has come under fire for calling Winston Churchill a ‘villain’.  Responding to quick-fire questions at the end of a live video interview with Politico, McDonnell was asked if Churchill was a hero or a villain, to which he replied: “Tonypandy — villain.” (See picture)
McDonnell was referring to a series of violent confrontations between striking coal miners and the police in the Welsh town of Tonypandy in 1910. One miner was killed and hundreds injured in the clashes. Churchill’s decision, as then-home secretary, to send the Army to reinforce police “caused considerable ill-feeling towards him in south Wales and with some in the trade union and Labour movement”, says Politico.
However, it “has been long disputed whether Churchill personally sanctioned the decision” to deploy troops, reports The Guardian.
The response to McDonnell’s comments has been swift and severe, with Churchill’s grandson Nicholas Soames telling the Daily Telegraph: “Frankly, it’s a very foolish and stupid thing to say.”
British Tory MP Soames added: “I think my grandfather’s reputation can withstand a publicity seeking assault from a third-rate, Poundland Lenin.”
Former foreign secretary Boris Johnson, who has written a Churchill biography, told the newspaper that the wartime prime minister “saved this country and the whole of Europe from a barbaric fascist and racist tyranny, and our debt to him is incalculable. McDonnell should be utterly ashamed of his remarks, and should withdraw them forthwith”.
But some commentators have echoed McDonnell’s views.
The Guardian’s Owen Jones tweeted a list of major indiscretions by Churchill, who worked as a soldier and a journalist before entering politics. Labour MP Steve Reed also weighed in with criticism of the late leader. “My grandad hated him,” he said, and wouldn’t hear his name spoken because he sent in troops to shoot striking miners.”

In 2002, Churchill was voted “the greatest Britain who ever lived”, beating Shakespeare and Darwin to the top spot. However, when closely questioned, few of those voters had read a Shakespeare play or could quote a single line written by the Bard. And half of them had never heard of Darwin.  (LD)
—   §   —
“There’s a danger in Churchill gaining a purely iconic status because that actually takes away from his humanity,” Allen Packwood, director of the Churchill Archives Centre, told the BBC.
Many fellow historians agree. John Charmley argues that it is important to remember that “great men can commit great mistakes, and Churchill’s are on the same gargantuan scale as his achievements”.
Churchill was a keen supporter of eugenics, something he had in common with the leaders of Nazi Germany, where an estimated 400,000 disabled people were forcibly sterilised. He once said that “the multiplication of the feeble-minded is a very terrible danger to the race”, and drafted a highly controversial piece of legislation which mandated that those suffering from mental illness be sterilised, according to the New Statesman.
Many historians also refuse to forgive Churchill for his views on race. The Guardian reports that he once said: “I do not admit… that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia… by the fact that a stronger race, a higher grade race… has come in and taken its place.”
LD: A side note on eugenics. Many White Nationalists see nothing wrong with eugenics and point out correctly that Darwin himself would have approved of eugenics, as would (naturally) his supergenius cousin Sir Francis Galton, known as the “father of eugenics“.
Many eminent thinkers have believed in eugenics, including H.G. Wells, George Bernard Shaw, Alexander Graham Bell, Helen Keller, and DNA Nobel prizewinner Francis Crick. The fact that Hitler believed in eugenics does not make eugenics unacceptable or invalid.
Crick notes in a letter: “The main difficulty is that people have to start thinking out eugenics in a different way. The Nazis gave it a bad name and I think it is time something was done to make it respectable again.”
Crick went on to suggest that “irresponsible people” who were “poorly endowed genetically” should be stopped from having “large numbers of unnecessary children”. The best way to do this — “sterilization is the only answer” — is to bribe them by paying them cash. He points out that the Indian government had bribed its people to stop breeding like rabbits by offering them free transistor radios.
Another Nobel prizewinner, Alexis Carrel, had been even more extreme in his advocacy of eugenics, suggesting in 1935 that “deviant” human beings should be suppressed so that the “hereditary biological aristocracy” could increase.
In his book, Man, The Unknown Carrel writes: “A euthanasia establishment, equipped with a suitable gas, would allow the humanitarian and economic disposal of those who have killed, committed armed robbery, kidnapped children, robbed the poor or seriously betrayed public confidence,” 
As a result of these controversial recommendations for getting rid of criminal deviants, Carrel has been dubbed “Father of the Gas Chamber”. (LD) 
(The article continues) 
The announcement in 2013 that Churchill would feature on the new £5 note (see picture) was met with anger by Labour candidate Benjamin Whittingham, who called the late leader a “racist and white supremacist”, according to the Daily Mail.
When the Kurds rebelled against British rule in 1920, Churchill said he did not understand the “squeamishness” surrounding the use of gas as a weapon. “I am strongly in favour of using gas against uncivilised tribes,” he said. “[It] would spread a lively terror.”
“Many of the wounds Churchill inflicted have still not healed,” argues Johann Hari in The Independent. “You can find them on the front pages any day of the week.”
Hari blames Churchill for arbitrarily locking together warring ethnic groups in Iraq that “have been bleeding ever since”. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict can also be traced back to Churchill’s decision to hand over the “Over-Promised Land” to both Arabs and Jews, even though “he seems to have privately felt racist contempt for both,” says Hari.
When Barack Obama took office in the White House, he returned a bust of Churchill to Britain. “It’s not hard to guess why,” says Hari. “His Kenyan grandfather, Hussein Onyango Obama, was imprisoned without trial for two years and was tortured on Churchill’s watch, for resisting Churchill’s empire.”
As secretary of state for war, Churchill sent in the infamous Black and Tans to fight the IRA in 1920. The unit became known for vicious attacks on civilians and violent reprisals.
Historian Peter Hart described it as an “astoundingly counterproductive” move by Churchill, according to The Independent. “IRA violence only increased,” he said.
Churchill was also known for his strong anti-union sentiment. In 1910, he ordered the Army to intervene when striking miners staged riots in Wales, and again the next year in Liverpool – where soldiers fired their weapons, killing two people. Nine years later he deployed 10,000 troops to Glasgow amid strike-related unrest.
Churchill also exhibited a strong hatred for Mahatma Gandhi and his campaign of peaceful resistance, which he saw as threat to the British Empire.
He once raged that Gandhi “ought to be lain bound hand and foot at the gates of Delhi, and then trampled on by an enormous elephant with the new Viceroy seated on its back”.
LD : “I hate Indians,” Churchill remarked on one occasion. “They are a beastly people with a beastly religion.”  I’m sure the Vedic sages who gave us the Upanishads and the Bhagavad-Gita would be amused to hear that. 
Source

—   §   —

Endnote by Lasha Darkmoon

Winston Churchill: Zionist Puppet

Conspiracy theorists sometimes like to assert that Churchill was a Jew because everything he did served Jewish interests.
They say the same about Hitler, Stalin, and Angela Merkel. They provide weird genealogical details, giving elaborate family trees,  “proving” that Frau Merkel is Hitler’s illegitimate daughter. All this, I think, must be taken with a pinch of salt.
Stalin was certainly no Jew. Still less was Hitler. If they were, then here we have two Jewish titans inflicting severe wounds on each other, wiping out in the process allegedly six million other Jews. Which is not the way the Jews work. Jews always work together, networking closely, so as to advance the Jewish agenda. This is the secret of their survival.  Jews didn’t rise to the top of the totem pole, to the peak of the power pyramid,  by tearing each other apart. That’s what the goyim do, united only in their disunity.
What would most people think if you told them that the father of England’s greatest hero of all time, Winston Churchill, was Jack the Ripper? — Yes, Jack the Ripper! — They would laugh out loud and roll their eyes in wonder. And yet, there is a sensational article to be found on the internet giving us all the gory details about Churchill’s dad carving up prostitutes in the Whitechapel district of London’s East End in the time of good Queen Victoria! (See Jack the Ripper” was Winston Churchill’s Father).
Even if this were true and if Churchill were the son of the Ripper, iconic serial killer of all time, it’s hard to see how Churchill himself can be held responsible for what his dreadful dad did under the flickering gas lamps of foggy London town in the late 19th century.
There is more than enough evidence to show that Churchill was a Zionist shill. That he was on the Jewish payroll. But this does not make him a Jew. It makes him a shabbos goy, a loyal servitor of the Jews. Churchill  has no problem praising the Jews lavishly whenever he can. (See this picture quote)
Without Churchill behind them, the Jews would have found it much harder to steal Palestine from the Arabs. Churchill’s rhetoric played right into Jewish hands. In 1920 he declared: “If, as may well happen, there should be created in our own lifetime by the banks of the Jordan a Jewish State under the protection of the British Crown, which might comprise three or four millions of Jews, an event will have occurred in the history of the world which would from every point of view be beneficial”.
Churchill thought the Arab population of Palestine was a “lower manifestation” and argued that the “dog in a manger has no final right to the manger”. Meaning that the Arabs had no automatic right to Palestine just because Palestine had been their ancestral home for centuries. Not if a superior race like the Jews managed to occupy their homelands and turf them out.
In England, where Churchill lived, the land belonged by law to the landowners; in the Middle East, where the Arabs lived, the land belonged by force of arms to the land grabbers.
Machiavelli would have chortled at this Churchillian logic.
For his services to Zionism, Churchill was to have a statue erected in Jerusalem in 2012 as a thank you gift.
Churchill, like Machiavelli before him, was all for the doctrine of Might is Right, the ius gladii (“law of the sword”) of the Ancient Romans. If you could steal something, it was yours if you managed to keep it. “Finders, keepers,” to quote the slogan all schoolboys love to chant as they nick each other’s possessions. Many Jews who arrived in Palestine in 1948, penniless, walked straight into sumptuous Arab houses and took them over, including the furniture, cutlery, crockery, bed linen, and the paintings on the walls.
No great wrong, Churchill believed, had “been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia” by the Anglo-Saxon settlers who felt like parking their wagons on someone else’s parking space. “I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people,” Churchill opined,  “by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race, has come in and taken their place”.
We now know that Churchill was a chronic alcoholic, spendaholic and gambler who ran up enormous debts and faced bankruptcy and ruin on multiple occasions. He would spend £40,000 a year in French casinos. A wine bill  once landed on his doorstep demanding £54,000, including £16,000 just for Champagne. In 1940, when he rose to become Prime Minister of Britain, he received a mysterious “gift” of £1million from a secret benefactor called Sir Henry Strakosch, a naturalised Briton born in Austria who had made his money in the South African mines.
An article in the Daily Mail, which reveals all these sensational details about Churchill, curiously forgets to mention the all-important fact that Churchill’s rescuer from ruin was a Jew — an Austrian Jew who had managed to pick up a knighthood from the British government. (For full details of Churchill’s obsessive-compulsive gambling, spendaholic and alcoholic habits, see here).
Sir Henry Strakosch’s unflagging generosity to Churchill in bailing him out and paying his extravagant debts — not once but several times — came at a high price. It seems there was a quid pro quo.  Sir Henry, the munificent Jewish financier, would pay off Churchill’s mounting debts if Churchill agreed to toe the Jewish line and did exactly what he was told to do by international Jewry.
Proof that Sir Henry Strakosch was Jewish is found in a separate article in Wikipedia on Strakosch:
Sir Henry Strakosch … was an Austrian-born British banker and businessman. His parents were the merchant Edward Strakosch and his wife Mathilde, (née Winters). He was born at Hohenau, Austria, and educated at the Wasa Gymnasium in Vienna and privately in England.
He entered banking in the City of London in 1891, then began working for the Anglo-Austrian Bank of South Africa in the 1895. Strakosch became a naturalized British citizen in 1907.
Strakosch was knighted in 1921 … He was chairman of The Economist between 1929 and 1943.
Strakosch being a Jew and his involvement in the payment of the private debts of Sir Winston Churchill, in 1938, has been cited as evidence of Jewish involvement in British politics in the run up to World War Two. Strakosch had supplied Churchill with figures on German arms expenditure during the latter’s political campaign for rearmament against the Nazi regime, and the financial arrangement enabled Churchill to withdraw his home Chartwell from sale at a time of financial pressures.
Here then was a man, Winston Churchill, who was a compulsive gambler whose monetary problems were compounded by his chronic alcoholism. He was to face financial ruin on several occasions. He was repeatedly at his wit’s end, literally tearing his hair out. With the bailiffs banging at his door.
On each occasion, it was a Jewish moneylender who came to Churchill’s rescue.
All debts paid.
No need to repay the debts!
This particular  Jewish moneylender didn’t need cash. He was rolling in it. He had enough cash to last him twenty lifetimes. What Sir Henry needed in exchange for his money was political favours.
Like, for example, a Jewish state in Palestine for his fellow Jews.

Source

Dr Lasha Darkmoon (b.1978) is an Anglo-American ex-academic with higher degrees in Classics whose political articles and poems have been translated into several languages. Most of her political essays can be found at The Occidental Observer and The TruthSeeker. Her own website, Darkmoon.me, is now within the top 1 percent of websites in the world according to the Alexa ranking system.