An “aspiring freelance journalist”, one Spencer Folkins, “decided to conduct a series of interviews with authors on what his victory means to them and writing as a whole.” Here are the questions and my answers.
1) Over 450 other authors signed a petition launched by authors Mark Slouka and Andrew Altschul back in May opposing Trumps candidacy. What were your thoughts once you became of this petition?
Never heard of it or them. (But then, I’m unknown, too.)
2) Do you feel it was appropriate for writers to get involved in politics in this way? Why or why not?
In a Democracy (we used to be a Republic), everything turns or is political. Democracy is politics—by definition. Writers are no different than other citizens. They’re forced to have an opinion, informed or not.
3) Trump’s track record with media over the course of his campaign was anything but pretty. Do you think the media was fair in their portrayal of him? Why or why not?
Fair? Certainly not. The media did its best to torpedo him and to downplay the horrors of Hillary. Many in the media openly admitted as such (you ought to get these quotes to do a complete job). Trump supporters were routinely painted as ‘racist’, ‘sexist’, ‘angry whites’, etc., etc. It’s no wonder the stuffed-diaper crowd hyperventilated after the election and ran to safe spaces to have cry-ins. They believed the media. They thought Trump was ‘literally’ (so much for English education) Hitler, because that’s the image that was painted of the man.
That the media was itself torpedoed is the best thing about the election. The media had grown far too powerful. Take that the Raddatz chicky at the debate, to name but one of a legion of incidents. (Obama was at her wedding?) After all, in a Democracy, he who controls the information controls much, nearly all. Heretofore, being a reporter meant never having to say you were sorry. It was nothing but a pleasure to watch their comeuppance.
4) How do you think this predominantly negative media attention affected voters?
It touched them deeply. Propaganda works. That’s why there’s so much of it. For example: There were citizens who answered when asked about the Project Veritas exposé, “Those videos were faked”, which is, of course, absurd, until you recall that’s what the media told them to say. These people never bothered to watch the videos themselves. And the same is true in many, many other examples. Most people believe what they’re told, not having the time, inclination, or capacity to investigate for themselves. That’s why having a media aligned towards a common goal, such as installing Hillary, can be particularly dangerous.
5) What was your response when you learned Trump had won the election?
6) Over the course of his campaign, Donald Trump once mocked New York Times journalist Serge Kovaleski – who lives with arthrogryposis, a congenital joint condition which limits the movement of joints – and more recently threatened to sue The New York Times over a well-researched article they published regarding the sexual assault allegations against him. He also said he would not be providing media credentials for The Washington Post to attend his events after they wrote something about him that he did not like. Historically he has been hostile towards anyone who has been even slightly critical of him, even if it is only to the extent of asking him questions or accurately quoting him. As a Trump supporter and writer, how do you justify or dismiss these actions?
I don’t justify or dismiss (though anybody suing the NYT gets my support: remember how they published his partial tax returns? Would you like yours put out? How often does the NYT front-page apologize when they get it wrong? How many of Trump’s accusers turned out to be fake?). Anyway, my, and your, support and vote came to a choice, Hillary or Trump. And Trump’s infractions were minor, trivial next to Hillary’s (and Bill’s) life of crime. Inappropriately making fun of somebody is nothing next to selling the office of Secretary of State to the highest bidder. A vote is not an indicator of moral purity, but a choice, and in this case it wasn’t even close. Did we really want to see Spirit Cooking dinners in the White House? I notice, for instance, you ask no questions about Hillary’s multitudinous failings. Why is that?
7) What do you think an imminent Trump presidency means for the free press?
It will, to some small extent, put the ‘free’ back in ‘free press’. It will rein in some of the worse excesses so that, perhaps, and in some limited cases, reporters can start doing their jobs again. Could you, under Obama or an imagined Hillary, imagine the NYT going after the nonsense at the EPA? Or the Clinton Foundation? No, you cannot. Most journalists are progressives, as everybody knows, so that bias will still be inherent. It’s not as if reporters will have had a change of heart. They’ll still be progressives. But maybe they will have learned some respect.
This cheered me:
You forgot to ask about how the citizenry will react to the media’s defeat. Hard-core leftists will remain the same, and will continue trusting comedy shows and the standard press to tell them what they want to hear. The hard-core right will still distrust the media. But there’s hope the folks in the center see that the beast has been weakened. Some of these people, maybe even many, will now second guess the news. They will discover the many alternate sources for information. This is a great benefit of the election.
Of course, it won’t last. Trump is a respite, not a solution.
8) With the influence politics has on art, what do you predict the next 4 years will look like for writers and American literature with Trump as president?
Increased freedom from fretting about political correctness can only be a good, not just for writers, but for everybody. Self-censorship has only been applied by the right, not the left. The only thing that will change is that writers not attached to universities won’t have to look over their shoulders as much. Those on campus are still lost. I’d be willing to bet that we’ll see plenty of pieces, maybe even a novel or two, where the left paints itself as imaginary victims of the Trumpocalypse.
9) Young people are going to grow up listening to what Donald Trump has to say. He now has the highest platform in the country and one of the highest in the world. What should young people know about the importance of political correctness and respect in free speech?
‘What you just said wasn’t factually correct, komrade.’
‘No, but it was politically correct, komrade.’
I’m hoping it’s clear to all, not just the young, that we don’t have to bend over and take it. We can fight back, and win. If a man wants to say, ‘Marriage means one man plus one woman for life’, he can say it, and not be chased beyond the gates by baying hounds of the ‘outraged’.
The advice to the young is this: when you’re right, be not afraid; and never, ever apologize. The Truth can stand for itself and needs no apology. The media lies to you: they tell you they are winning, that they have won, that resistance is futile. Never believe it. Even if you are an Army of one, you still possess what the enemy does not. The Truth.
As the man said, never give up, never surrender!
“Never believe it. Even if you are an Army of one, you still possess what the enemy does not. The Truth.
As the man said, never give up, never surrender!”
Not many will have difficulty with ‘never apologise’ because they think they’re never wrong even when they clearly are.
The full Churchill quote goes:
“except in matters of honour and good sense.”
Hard to see how a defeatist attitude such as we’re doomed anyway whoever wins and even Trump is just respite is consistent with Churchill’s approach.
Certain doom is a statement of finality without question or chance of deviation.
So I say the doomsaying is pessimistic grumpy old man talk.
The fortunes of man are always in flux. America isn’t old enough although it’s political commentators would have you think the country is as old as their attitudes..
When Trump gets fed up, then you will see what grumpy man really means.
Go Trump! ignore the doubters! They’re blushing in private.
When Trump awards your medal for work in climate change and offers you a role as science advisor with executive power will you be mentioning the respite part?
The doom saying?
I believe it’s irony.
In good times and bad “This too shall pass”
(for any one unfamiliar with the above,
No I’m not referring to Gandalf’s “You shall not pass!)
Regarding the epithets, sexist and racist: these are, in the current venacular, the equivalent of the — what now sounds quaint — more colorful term used not too long ago (hint: begins with an A, followed by an S, ending in an E).
What justifies that claim? Something near one-half of Clinton supporters actually favored a privileged white guy from Up East and cackled at any thought of a Palin, Bauchman, or Carson president.
Always keep that in mind when you are falsely accused.
I should have included Fiorina as well.
John B ()
No! you’re kicking over the traces!
Doom over and over, week after week, twitted and tweated, a five part miniseries!
Satire saturated saying of serious supurating sores of something else beginning with s?
Nah, he meant it……that’s irony.
“Time and the hour runs through the roughest day.”
I think the press, and most people, still don’t comprehend the election results. To the question, “How do you think this predominantly negative media attention affected voters?” Came this response, “It touched them deeply. Propaganda works.”
Bah humbug, partly: It only touched deeply those that wanted to believe the Trump-bashing blather, and those that did so did so on less than even flimsy evidence.
The facts are, first, most eligible voters didn’t vote — a lot of indifference out there. Of the minority that did vote, they were/are pretty nearly split evenly down the middle (raw numbers). With that crude and nearly pointless intro, consider Scott Alexander’s somewhat lengthy analysis at this link:
If you read that, think about it, and fact-check any & everything you might not be sure about/agree with, you will have done more objective analysis than probably 98+ percent of the population that’s given the topic more than five minutes of consideration.
That’s what everyone says.
Are you telling me he’s actually the guy in his banner picture.
And not the dapper rakish gadfly with the disarming charm and smile from his youtube videos?
“The full Churchill quote goes:
“except in matters of honour and good sense.””
He’s not quoting Churchill. He’s quoting ‘Galaxy Quest’.
Oh no, John B, I wouldn’t want to give the wrong impression.
Swoon, the one in the videos isn’t the real one. He’s that one who pretends to be a statistician. What a sweetie though.
The one in the picture is the real Briggs….
BUY THE BOOK!
Great article. My prediction is a re-doubling of efforts to brainwash. Broadcast media (papers, radio, and TV) is in a fight for survival.
Considering Trump won with:
– Less than 60% of eligible voters voting
– A minority (by a few million) of the popular vote; a win due to the quirk of the Electoral College
– (ballots are still being counted — at this time only eight of 50 states have certified their results)
– Slightly greater turnout by Trump voters in key states concurrent with below-average Democrat turnout, and very slightly more votes for Trump; per current data:
— 138K in N. Carolina (greater turnout)
— 0.9M ballots in FL (greater turnout); 113K margin for Trump
— 100K in Michigan (greater turnout); 12K margin for Trump
— 3K vote margin between Trump & Clinton in N. Hampshire
— 27K margin in Wisconsin
— 68K margin in Pennsylvania
Consider those near-final numbers — Trump won due to roughly 115,000 more voters turning out for him in key states.
Considering the pre-election polls measured voter sentiment much more accurately than how turnout would turn out (if they even measured turn out vs just extrapolating from recent past elections, which is not the same thing); the polls had Clinton winning by a small margin — and she DID win the popular vote by a small margin (and as the vote count progresses, that margin appears to be increasing still).
The polls, in other words, were a fair estimation of a conditional probability — Clinton’s overall margin based on precedent turnout. To almost nobody’s surprise, this uninspiring candidate didn’t bring out the voters — and that only a a tiny bit worse than expected (some 115K voters worse in a handful of states; or about double that including also FL — 115K/230K votes out of a few 10Ms cast).
Undoubtedly Trump understands some of this, and is adapting — we’ve already seen him back-peddle on prosecuting Clinton, etc.
But he has attacked the press, perhaps a bit harshly as the real numbers tally becomes final, we may well expect the press to respond in kind via a coordinated effort. And if Trump overplays his authority vis a vis freedom of the press an impeachment, of similar backlash is not that far-fetched (some current reporting suggests he’s perhaps considering defying conflict of interests between his businesses and his pending office…such things add up to both the public’s & the Congress’ willingness to tolerate).
the quirk of the Electoral College
I think that ‘quirk’ is called the US Constitution. The federal nature of the union is a bit upsetting to those who wish California and New York could rule the rest of the country and we needn’t bother our pretty little heads about the needs and concerns of Iowa or Pennsylvania or Utah, but that’s the way it is.
In the popular vote, at the time I checked it, Mrs. Clinton had received a nationwide margin of 1,341,642 votes, but in California, her margin was 3,168,486 votes. This means that in the rest of the country outside California, Mr. Trump had a majority of 1,826,844 popular votes. A correspondent commented that Mr. Trump had a majority if one removed only Los Angeles Co., CA, and Cook Co. IL, but I have not checked this.
Slightly greater turnout by Trump voters in key states concurrent with below-average Democrat turnout
That is usually how one wins an election. See Obama 2008, Obama 2004, et al. We are sure Ken also pointed out the thin nature of the margin of victory in those instances, too.
68K margin in Pennsylvania
Significantly, Erie, Northampton, Luzerne, and other reliably blue counties came up red this time around. “It’s the economy, stupid,” as a much wider politician once said. And to people in the old union, blue-collar strongholds saw it, their own party’s candidate wasn’t talking about jobs and re-industrialization but about transgender bathrooms and glass ceilings. All very well and good, we suppose, but it don’t put the potatoes on the table. You could see it coming for several elections. Trump’s margins did not appear among the allegedly angry whites. He beat Romney in that category by a mere 1%-point. But he did harvest a significantly higher percentage of women and minorities than had Romney.
Considering the pre-election polls measured voter sentiment much more accurately
But how would anyone know? Elections are based on valid ballots cast, not on sentiments. Many a choice has faltered when faced with the prospect of actually pulling this lever instead of that one.
But he has attacked the press, perhaps a bit harshly as the real numbers tally becomes final, we may well expect the press to respond in kind via a coordinated effort.
Coordinated effort? No foolin.
And if Trump overplays his authority vis a vis freedom of the press an impeachment, of similar backlash is not that far-fetched
Unlikely. There must be a simple majority of the House to start impeachment proceedings. The total after Jan 3, 2017 is (194 Dem; 240 Rep) meaning that 24 Republicans would have to vote for it and all of the Democrats.
The Democrats seem to be doing some soul-searching recently. Having ALL of them vote for impeachment is iffy. The Republicans seem to have gotten back together again so defection to be seems off the table.
What the popular vote (of which there is technically no such thing and where the polls went wrong) has to do with this is questionable. It’s the number of congressional seats that matter.
Look in the mirror, Briggs. Say, “Donald Trump is President of the United States.” If that doesn’t make you wince, you have no class. I’m not talking about political correctness, or left/right anything. I’m not talking about how educated you are, or refined. I mean class, like that ol’ definition of the term, the way Bogart would use it. Class. If you don’t wince when you say that – you have no class. You should be ashamed of yourself and your country.
Do believe your picture exudes class, in the Bogart way? Just askin’.
Speaking of faked videos, I read a couple of months ago that the video of Trump allegedly mocking Serge Kovaleski was a cut-and-paste job: he never did any such thing (according to the article). Unfortunately, I didn’t save it; maybe someone here, or WMB himself, saw it?
But the whole point of that faked video is that the fifth column media’s role in this election was the character assassination of Trump, pure and simple. To which I reply, Trump is certainly no saint – in fact, he’s not even a choir boy – but at least he has a character to assassinate. Hillary, on the other hand, has no character whatsoever. She is a two-dimensional media prop, and a career criminal.
Johnny, I found it with a DuckDuckGo search: https://www.catholics4trump.com/the-true-story-donald-trump-did-not-mock-a-reporters-disability/
Yeah, actually Jim, I do. A little on the dramatic-rough side, but yeah! Never looked at it that way! Thanks! Granted, I was much heavier then. And I normally don’t walk around with that sort of angry intensity! Makes me feel a little classier about myself being slimmer, you know, showing personal responsibility for my weight and working hard to keep it right. Not smoking or drinking anymore is important too. But you look me in the eye, you’re still going to remember it. My friends always tell me I should get work as an extra as mafia guy, lol! I’m a total pacifistic, hippy kinda guy! But yeah, can’t shake that look.
Do you think Trump does?
I mean, really. Let’s be serious. Think about this. Donald Trump is President Elect. We are a joke, Jim. America is now, officially, a joke. A classless, tasteless, cultureless, crass joke. It’s nothing personal about Trump. He’s just what he is. I kinda feel for him. He was never accepted by the cool crowd in NYC. Never one of the those guys. He only fit in on Page Six, and with the tabloid types and Howard Stern and that. Then he makes this Phileas Fogg wager, and bango, the guy’s President. He did it! You have to give him that! I mean, wow! But class? Was their anything classy about the way he did that? The fact the he was able to do it, the way he did it… I’m not casting aspersions on Trump. I’m casting it on you guys. How could any self-respecting intelligent classy man who loves his country, not be deeply disturbed by all this? And what does it say about the substance, the fiber, the class of conservatism today? Really?
Regardless of your current appearance, it is how you choose to present yourself (via photo on this blog). And I see no Bogart, nor any attempt to approximate Bogart.
“Do you think Trump does?”
As far as Trump being presidential, your question begs the question. You have implicitly asserted that to be a president implies class. That is unproven. You may appeal to history, but I see nothing classy in winning what has to be the dirtiest of contests in the US (no man of class would subject his wife and children to the political process).
I come from the Hayekian perspective that the most evil rise to the top in politics.
Think about it: the fun and funny host of The Apprentice will soon be the one to droning wedding parties and hospitals in lands unknown by 99.99% of Americans. That he is able to countenance such actions proves he is as vile as Clinton, Obama, Bush, etc.
I may be wrong; he may move toward peace. And if I am wrong, he will be a class act regardless of his public appearance (similar to you being a class act in spite of your photo).
I would much rather have a clown pushing peace and less government than some Bogart-esque, class act like (say) Romney pushing wars and regulations.
Oh, yeah, Happy Thanksgiving!
The US didn’t need class this time around. They need a clean up crew. Hopefully Trump can cut through the DC corruption like a dose of salts, but I suspect the grime is caked and baked on too thick. You don’t bring a feather duster to a job like that… it ain’t time fer classy.
I think the way to look at Trump is that he sees everything as a negotiation. When he says something, one has to look at it as an initial offer, or perhaps a counter-offer. And he’s always looking ahead to the next round of the negotiation.
For example, when he says he won’t prosecute Clinton, does that mean he is going to call off the ongoing FBI investigation into the Clinton Global Initiative? If the FBI eventually has the goods on her & Bubba, is he going to instruct the AG to ignore it?
Perhaps in saying that he won’t prosecute Clinton, he is trying to head off an Obama pardon for her?
Did you notice during the campaign that many (but certainly not all) of Trumps attacks on others were childish, easily dismissed? And maybe that was his intent? He seemed to avoid really substantive wounding criticism of those with whom he would later want to repair his relationship.
As far as the Electoral College and the popular vote, it’s pointless to play the what-if game. Trump clearly out-campaigned Hillary, keeping a very close eye on the ground rules. If the rules were different (i.e., if the election was determined by the popular vote), Trump would certainly have campaigned differently, and it’s easy to believe he still would have won.
Dear Obama and Washington comrades:
About The Churchill’s bust?
he BP oil spill?
Britain’s EU vote?
and… ‘the back of the queue’ remark? to name a few:
“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy .”
“You can always rely on America to do the right thing. After they’ve tried everything else.”
Are those quotes from the Devil of Dresden and the Goose of Gallipoli, to name a few?
You’re showing your ignorance, that’s all Jim.
Ignorance? Right. I forgot he is a saint to some (especially in the UK) whose agenda cannot be questioned
How could any self-respecting intelligent classy man who loves his country, not be deeply disturbed by all this?
I ain’t no “intelligent classy man” ? I’m just a simple country boy. But I am self-respecting, and I do love my country (but not the government). My goal in this election was to do my small part to prevent the Wicked Witch from winning my state’s electoral votes. So I voted for the Buffoon. I’m not thrilled that the Buffoon won, but I’m thoroughly pleased that the Wicked Witch lost.
Somehow, a dash got turned into a question mark.
Jim, Unrealistic idealistic pacifism posing is always at the expense of someone else’s bravery and or sacrifice of the population.
If a nation wishes to succeed and survive the threat from a truly evil enemy or an invader it must learn from history. That history must be as close to the naked truth as possible as to what happened and what was said and done.
It is the same with endeavour discovery dealing with the unknown.
Churchill was a historian and it was his knowledge of history which made him a good politician and Prime Minister at war (amongst his many strengths.)
Read Roy Jenkins biography of Churchill for a left wing view.
He was a rival of Churchill’s being a labour politician.
You will get a genuine take on Churchill The Man.
For Churchill Pre war The Gathering Storm.
Read Churchill’s book The History Of The British People.
You can be sure that Putin and Merkel’s advisors have read these if not them themselves. So know your enemy Jim.
His body guard and secretaries wrote about him, General Alan Brooke later field marshal first viscount Alanbrooke who, in Whitehall was in command of all military forces by title all wrote of Churchill.
“The destruction of Dresden remains a serious queery against the conduct of allied bombing.”
“The policy was no more reprehensible than the use of The Bomb at Hiroshima six months later.”
Hitler’s forces bombed every sizeable city and many towns in England, Great Britain the entire area, with death everywhere. He was bombing Polish civilians Warsaw and various unpronounceable places in 1939. Dresden was a military target as it was a major railway junction for thousands of German soldiers. Bomber Harris was fulfilling the wishes of many over here at the time. War is messy.
Churchill was a man who liked his drink: Paul Roger black label and whiskey. He smoked. He suffered from depression and was self reflective. There is a reason why he is considered so highly and was voted ‘The greatest ever Briton’… not for reasons that only have to do with his pithy sayings and cheekiness with grumpy women. He is a man worth studying very closely, particularly if you find that you dislike him.
“You’re drunk, Mr Churchill, ”
“Yes, and in the morning I will be sober and you will still be ugly.”
I love him just the way he was.
Did you ever hear the truism said to children, “Two wrongs do not make a right”?
But you did provide more defense of the proposition that the Allies were no saints. Sort of like the slaughter of the Zulus at Ulundi. Isn’t that still a source of pride for many in the UK?
Of course, Churchill was born too late for that saintly action. Instead, he regaled in anti-passivism, like pressing his boot hard on the necks of freedom loving Indians while enforcing colonial rule as a young army officer.
All justified by King and country, I suppose.
For those that think Trump is a really “bad person” — chances are your reasons (some/many/most anyway) are horridly skewed/incorrect. Please read & ponder Scott Alexander’s, “You Are Still Crying Wolf”:
He’s no Trump fan by any stretch, but he still points out why most of the most common gripes are not only exaggerated, but outright wrong. The real flaws/issues get negligible mainstream media discussion.
The same analysis Scott Alexander did re Trump, applied to Trump’s pick Steve Bannon shows that pretty much every mainstream media concern & accusation there is similarly more or less totally unfounded. The reader is left to conduct their own analysis in that regard…at least for the time-being.
RE: ‘quirk of the Electoral College’ — The number of electors are based on a state’s house & senate representative tally…and those are adjusted based on decennial census results. By 2016 U.S. population growth may have sufficiently changed that the distribution of representatives is flawed enough to constitute a distortion sufficient to skew the Presidential election (though we’ll never know if or how close this might have been/almost was/n’t) — study the “APPORTIONMENT PARADOX” …etc. …
California invariably gets demeaned as a single state with a lopsided influence on the electoral vote (invariably voting Democrat, with occasional rare exceptions in recent history) — bear in mind that its population and economy dominate all others (any two or three or more combined) in the U.S. … and … ranks about sixth in the world tallied against other countries. In economic/population perspective, its a force to be reckoned with…and has been for generations a leading trend indictor…something else to plan on dealing with….
Churchill was just as much a lackey of the racist plutocracy as any Yank statesman who hasn’t been assassinated (including the Clinton cartel). He even said that he was a “supporter” of the (racist plutocracy) but maybe his conscience bothered him a little. Anyhow, that didn’t stop him from being a rat gnawing at the fundamentals of (Christian) civilisation.
Ever since the Protestant revolt when Henry handed the Kingdom to the money-lenders Britain’s success has been a “reward” from the “owners” for doing what is convenient to the “owners”. And that “success” has been largely concentrated in the hands of a compliant and morally bankrupt aristocracy. Just ask the ordinary man of industrial and Victorian Inglin who had to work himself, his donkey and his children cruel hours and conditions just to get enough to eat without any hope of ever realising a lasting material reward for his effort.
What the Protestant Revolt destroyed in Inglin (and the entire “Western World”) has been sacrilegiously replaced by the privilege of a depraved aristocracy.
Now, if you like you can get me going on the differences between so called Church-centered wealth and megalomaniac individual centered wealth.
Oh yair! I don’t much like Pommy Protestant mores… or the related Masonic “liberty, equality and fraternity” that spawned the “New Republic” and the U.S.A.
that rather a slimy response. War is War. You forget.
Since your own ‘proposition’ was that Churchill was a devil you must concede that the quote from both Churchill and Roy Jenkins show that your judgement is not correct and not even shared by other contemporary rivals of the man. However you changed the proposition to ‘the allies were no saints’.
Show me where the saints live Jim.
The war went on for five months.
January 11th 1879 The battle of Isandlwana resulted in the slaughter of British main column, defeated by 20,000 Zulus a week after they reached Zululand. (1800, colonial AND native troops a AND 400 civilians.) So it wasn’t all roses and daisies before the Brits arrived. There was civil unrest. Martial rule, one would say.
The battle at Rorke’s Drift was on January 22nd 1879:
139 British fought 4500 zulus.
They were surrounded, did not have the benefit of bombers or drones or radios.
The Welsh Guards, Royal Engineers Orderlies and others, (not all trained infantry.) prevailed.
It is unarguably a brave victory by any standard. Clever strategy bravery and grit of the type that is rare. If you are still too churlish to concede this point I can’t help you any further.
The Zulus were brought up in a previous discussion about men at arms and you “missed the point then but now you want to discuss the Zulus? Why? Because Churchill was too young to fight them?
This strikes me as anything but a sensible or straight forward way to argue effectively.
Churchill was in South Africa at the time of the Boer war.
He joined the army in 1893 as a war correspondent for the morning post. He covered the Anglo Boer war in South Africa. He was captured as a prisoner of war, (like Obama’s grandfather) escaped and then joined the army on the march on Mafikeng….a Great Great Uncle of mine was there and they ended up eating rats. Hence the saying “it was the relief of Mafiking.”
Britain was a colonial Empirical power. It was on balance absolutely a force for good. You will never concede this judgement so all one can do is show you the facts.
Jesus Christ was born into the Roman Empire. He lived under their rule and nobody in America complains about the Romans, which is rich when i’ve noticed it is often the same ones moaning about Britain. It is all about sectarianism when you boil it down. That’s what it’s all about. It has been a revelation to me on returning to this site but I remember wondering last time why some in the US ignore their actual, real, genuine, British routes as like a horse with blinkers. It is politics and pride but rather than in a nation it is in a special section of the church. It’s not more noble than pride in a nation. It’s pride in a headspace.
In every example the ex colonies are friends with Britain, India being a particularly prime example. South Africa left the Commonwealth in a display of ‘independence’ and rejoined because the Commonwealth is not the Empire. There are many South Africans of all classified colour types: Black, white and colour as the South Africans themselves refer to them who enjoy dual citizenship, who travel back and forth and many South Africans fight in the British Army. It is a country now struggling to find it’s way back to exactly where it was before the madness of throwing the baby out with the bathwater which happened when Nelson Mandela was in charge.
The Gurkhas who are known and recognised for their bravery and outstanding sense of duty and skill as fighters also still fight with the British Army.
Tribes, Armies, wars, like death and taxes. They are here to stay. To obviate read history that is honestly put together.
When a nation is weak and rich it is at risk of invasion. When a nation is rich and strong it is powerful. That IS the world and you won’t change this. Is it inconceivable today that a nation would invade, old world’ style? I don’t think so probably this is only a matter of time and the less people know about history, the more likely it is. Know your enemy from your friend. Learn what side your bread’s buttered. Appearances can be deceptive.
Currently, invasions and warfare are preferably carried out industrially, commercially and via international trade. The other method is simply walking across the border and not going home. A nation sends their villains, murderers, rapists and wanted men to go and bother someone else. The rest just go of their own accord because they believe that the world is free to roam unchecked.
Now America has a man in charge who understands this because he is a real man, he is realistic about Russia, understands power and how to keep hold of it without antagonising friends and foes willy nilly unlike his predecessor.
Simply, Donald J Trump is equipped for power. I wish him every success with it. He will be a good man for America.
The Welsh Guards, Royal Engineers Orderlies, and others were all vile invaders. Can you even recognize that? They invaded and slaughtered all who sought to throw of that yoke. Nice guys.
That they won against long odds does not justify their status of an invading army. Same holds for the boot Churchill used on the necks of Indians. For him, you cannot even rationalize his actions by saying he was conscripted — Churchill gladly used his boot to further his career.
That you cannot see any of this is revealed by, “Simply, Donald J Trump is equipped for power. I wish him every success with it. He will be a good man for America.”
You worship power, raw power.
Substitute Trump and America with any other leader and country (such as Putin and Russia, for example) and you could justify any evil.
Oh, and Trump will have success with it (power). Most presidents (Carter being the one recent exception) have had great success in their arrogation and use of power.
By the way, your ends justifies the means argument was a favorite of the Bolsheviki. Seems you have much in common with them.
Does the fact that Germany and France now have good relations (calling each other allies) justify the Nazi invasion of France? You would have to say, “Yes,” based on you view that current relations justify the past.
Joy wrote “I remember wondering last time why some in the US ignore their actual, real, genuine, British routes as like a horse with blinkers.”
I have no British routes (or roots). My ancestors are primarily Scotch and Norwegian. A bit of Swiss and a little of that.
A rather large portion of Americans are Hispanic. A similar number are African. Throw in a wide variety of Orientals and Polynesians.
Read what I wrote and see the part where I say all americans come from Britain.
Scotch?! You are having a laugh.
There is no “Scotch” but whiskey.
Say that in Glasgow and you’ll be beaten to a pulp for insulting them.
There are Scottish and they are part of Britain despite the best efforts of Washington, hollywood and the likes of the snakes who are now rearing their very ugly heads and showing true colours.
The Scotts Guards and many Scottish troops are very much part of and fight happily, bravely along with all of the others.
I Americans, of which you are self evidently one, ignore their British routs. QED.
Norway was one of our best friends in the war and it has never been forgotten.
If you want to get with your ancestors you better keep up with the programme.
Anybody who can speak of Churchill in the terms that you use doesn’t know Churchill AT ALL.
You are inventing an attitude that never existed except in your head.
A thing which you have made a habit of.
Remember the truth. Read it and weep. You were sold a pup.
The Welsh Guards, Royal Engineers Orderlies, and others were all vile invaders.
So were the Zulus. Their mfecane terrorized the Shona tribes and others in the region. The British wound up in Natal by accident: a shipwreck deposited a bunch of them on the coast, where they lived for a while before the Zulus stumbled upon them. Chaka kaSenzangakhona was at first friendly disposed, but his was not a stable personality and eventually turned hostile until he was finally assassinated by his half-brothers.
Cetshwayo kaMpande gave specific orders not to cross the river into Natal, as that was legitimately British territory, but two impis, carried away by the victory at Isandlwana (the Undi Corps, consisting of uThulwana, iNdlondo, and uDluko; and the smaller iNdluyengwe ) crossed against orders and attacked the mission station at Rorke’s Drift, where the Royal Engineers, guarded by B company, 2nd Battalion, 24th Regiment of Foot, were repairing a pontoon bridge.
The irony is that Chelmsford had invaded Zululand without authorization from his government as well.
Alas, real history seldom aligns itself into neat categories in accordance with Late Modern mythology.
Last comment was to Jim.
Sorry, Joy, I didn’t know you knew Churchill. Did he have a strong handshake? I bet your personal conversations were lengthy and expansive, with him telling you the truth behind his actions.
Yes, the imperialist justification. The US slaughtered the Philippines because … ah … because … well … ah … because they were bad people. Yeah, that’s right.
And Belgium raped the Congo because … well the Congolese were bad as well.
And the British were forced to attempt to subjugate the world since … ah … well … since everyone else was not British — duh!. And that’s just bad.
Look, things happen. I agree. But if, like Joy, you worship power, expect more wars and interventions. Always remember that the democracies started more wars in the past 150 years than any other political system.
All for the good of man, and King and country, and, well, you get the point.
“A man needs three hobbies.”
You may be right about his handshake but you’re the one telling stories.
I can vouchsafe that Churchill’s is still a very good brick wall.
Really pretty, all pinky-red and wallish.
“Anybody who can speak of Churchill in the terms that you use doesn’t know Churchill AT ALL.”
What?!? Now I find out you never met Churchill personally? Then how do you “know” him if all you have for reference is the standard hagiographies written by Churchill (and power of the state) apologists? Yet you claim those who disagree with the myth never knew the man you never knew (there must be a thread of logic in this, but I just can find it)
As far as the life of Churchill, I guess the worship of raw power justifies a life of evil in some eyes.
What you need to keep in mind is that when he gladly pressed his boot on the necks of Indians, he was not fighting against the Nazis (you need to keep things in chronological order). Instead, he was doing it to build his career and reputation. That is the essence of the man.
Arguing with you is like knitting a scarf.
If you could stick to the point it would be a good thing. I indulge one point, you ignore the truth and move onto the next which you also ignore and so it goes on. Jim, STOP! Read or listen and learn and stop repeating lies.
You have been wrong on every point and yet you still seem to think that I’m going to be convinced by what you say.
Tell the truth, Jim. The rest which is your opinion, is of no concern being based on ignorance and lies in a toxic mixture.
If the best you’ve got is a variation of ‘the man and you are evil and so is Trump.’ then you are wasting your time and mine.
“You have enemies? Good. That means you have stood up for something sometime in our life.”
Sir Winston Churchill.
You have yet to provide any defense of Churchill, other than repeating the party line.
By the way, the toxin you reference is not counteracted by more platitudes from WinstonChurchill.org.
Do you really believe it was just and right for Churchill to have defended the colonial empire for his own political gain? Did his boot really have to press on the necks of natives in their own lands? Did he need to spill their blood to provide more dye for the Union Jack? Is that markings of a good man — not a good Brit, but a good man?
No need to answer. Your response is obvious. That is why you worship power and the state.
““You have enemies? Good. That means you have stood up for something sometime in our life.”
Not to provide more proof of Godwin’s law, but Hitler could have said the very same.
Maybe the US will don its knights armor and start a new war. And maybe the UK can play squire and pretend it is “great” once again. That thought alone has just got to make you feel alive.
(Note: If I am wrong, as you claim, and Churchill was a reluctant warrior at best, forced by the state to decide life and death in India, show me the evidence.)
To put this into perspective, we do not need a Churchillian Trump. That scares me and should scare everyone who favors life, liberty, and property.
We need a Ron Paulian Trump, someone who seeks to reduce the size and scope of government (though his platform leans strongly in the other direction). However, every time I hear someone mention Churchill as the model of a good leader, I cringe. We should all cringe.
Our only hope is based on Trump spending his pre-power years creating wealth and providing entertainment. Churchill, on the other hand, spent his early years spilling blood to satisfy his political ambitions.
However, based on Hayek, I am cautiously optimistic at best.
Jim, You are a liar. That’s all there is to it. The lies are all up there to see.
Your points have all been smashed as they usually are.
Your frustration is coming over loud and clear but you’re not making sense because you ask me to answer loaded questions which are in themselves, lies.
I didn’t read past the first few lines in any event because it’s more of the same rubbish. Made up in your head about, this time, Sir Winston Churchill. I believe you thought you were on safe ground here being in good company with other Churchill haters but it only takes one to prove you wrong.
If you consider the points aren’t made then I can’t help you you any further with your pickle.
I’m a perfectly reasonable person. If you deal with me straight forwardly then I can discuss anything with anyone. Can’t reason where there is none.
Are you a SJW who uses terms (such as liar) as a response to challenges? I asked some questions (and questions cannot be lies) which you do not want to answer. Nice game.
So, it is not fact that Churchill fought in India, regardless of whether the purpose was justified? Seems that is the statement of fact that you claim is a lie.
Is it not true he always had dreams of greatness and did what it took to achieve such?
Is it not true the British Empire spilt blood on every continent in order to achieve greatness as well?
Such lies I speak.
Enjoy your myth, but please quit pushing great men on those who want to live in peace and are not warmed by supposedly glorious pasts.
Did his boot really have to press on the necks of natives in their own lands?
Actually, the rajahs and maharajahs were the scions of mughal conquerors who had previously invaded the subcontinent, demolished their temples and replaced them with mosques, and placed their boots on the necks of the natives of the subcontinent.
Sometimes, a boot lies upon a neck because it has just kicked off another, harder, heavier boot. As a Telugu friend of mine told me in Chennai one time: “We are glad the British left. But we are also glad they came.”
Yes, the imperialist justification.
No justification; only facts. Chelmsford invaded Zululand without authority; and the Undi Corps invaded Natal against the strict orders of Cetshwayo. It has nothing to do with anyone being “bad people,” although in any large, heterogenous group there will be some bad people. I think Chelmsford was bad, and Dabulamanzi was at least rash for glory. It’s noteworthy that Chelmsford never received another command and that when he returned to England was refused an audience with Gladstone, a very public snub; not only because of his tactical blundering, but also because of his strategic machinations in fomenting the war in the first place. Neither Disraeli nor Cetshwayo had desired it.
The US slaughtered the Philippines because … ah … because … well … ah … because they were bad people. Yeah, that’s right.
No, that’s wrong. It was because Aguinaldo raised a rebellion against the Protectorate. (It was the rebels being killed, not “the Philippines.”) Unlike Cuba, which was homogeneously Spanish-speaking and possessed a well-organized government-in-waiting, the Philippines spoke 80 languages and practiced three religions (Catholic, muslim, animist). The insurrectionists were primarily urban, hispanicized, Tagalog-speakers from Luzon, opposed not only by other factions but also by others within the insurrection itself due to Aguinaldo’s coup, in which he had the original leadership shot.
Because of this, the review board determined that the insurrection would collapse into chaos, opening the door to Germany (which had actually landed troops on Luzon during the interval when Dewey was waiting for VIII Corps to arrive and which sent a flotilla into Manila Bay that outmatched Dewey’s squadron. There was genuine fear of a German-American war breaking out.) Also, the Japanese had sent volunteer army officers to join Aguinaldo — this was before he took the Spanish bribe, denounced the insurrection, and left the country. China maintains a claim on the Philippines to this day.
So the only way the Philippines could maintain its independence in the early 1900s was by becoming a protectorate of the US. Otherwise, it would be gobbled up by Germany and/or Japan. While there were many who objected to the whole thing — some because they objected to anything that smacked of imperialism, but others because they objected to polluting the white race with little brown brother — the Philippines were largely self-governing from the get-go.
Let me get this straight. The US subjugated the Philippines, making them a colony so as to stop some other country from subjugating them and making them a colony. So we slaughtered Philippians to make certain that no one else could.
“So the only way the Philippines could maintain its independence in the early 1900s was by becoming a protectorate of the US.”
We made them free by conquering them. Orwell would be proud.
That, my friend, is a classic justification of imperialism.
What you should have said is this: The US, seeking a place on the world stage, so to speak, desiring colonies to satisfy a virulent strain of mercantilism, and blinded by Manifest Destiny, subjugated the islands, justifying any actions needed.
Instead, you played a fallacy by implying the reason the US “defended” the Philippines was to keep the islanders safe from Nazism and the Sh?wa (we are so good at discerning the future).
a) It was the Kaiser’s Germany. The Nazis were well in the future; and the antics of the German warships in Manila Bay and their marines ashore on Luzon and the earlier controversy over Samoa meant that concern over German aggression was not without merit.
b) You are committing the historical sin of chronocentrism. John Lukacs used to say that we must study the Battle of Salamis “as if the Persians might still win.” Similarly, you must grasp the decisions made in 1898 in the light of what was known or believed in 1898; not what later happened in 1942.
c) Had the USA cast the Philippines adrift in 1898 and the islands fell into anarchy and mutual slaughter, the Jims of that alternate world would now be chastizing America for abandoning its people and providing no guidance toward democracy.
d) Imperialism makes no sense as a motivating force. Otherwise, why not Cuba, a far more valuable prize? And folks were actively looking for reasons to cast Puerto Rico loose, but the people there voted (and vote to this day) to maintain commonwealth status with the US.
e) The US did not make the Philippines “a colony” in any sense similar to the way Britain made Australia a colony (i.e., by sending out colonists to settle the land) or even in the sense of exploiting its raw materials for mercantile gain. There was no mercantile gain to be had in the Philippines; no plantations of Americans went to live there (as they did, for example to Hawaii).
f) We did not conquer the Philippines. We defeated the Spanish. The Spanish owned the Philippines. The original war aims did not include taking ownership of the Philippines, even at the point that negotiations began in Paris. It was only when it became obvious that, unlike Cuba, the Philippines were not yet capable of self-government that a protectorate was proposed. The Spanish couldn’t wait to get out.
g) “Manifest” means “evident” as opposed to “hidden or cloudy.” A manifest destiny is one that is obvious. That the US would one day extend from sea to sea might be thought obvious by many. That it would extend to eastern Asia is maybe no so obvious.
Speaking as a ‘Brit’ I dislike your versions of World War II but I suspect that none of you were alive during that period as I was in Britain. Your versions of history reflect those of academics who are trying for publication. The cry being “Publish or die academically.” So we get differing versions from American Universities every year and the prize is a “Best Seller” .
It’s all about money and status in the American University scene as it is in other countries. The pursuit of truth takes a back seat.
I’m sorry if that is not classy enough.
Maybe we didn’t connect.
A and B: I was stating that you included an implicit argument — that we just had to keep Germany and Japan out of the Philippines because … well … because they are evil states, as shown by WWII — in your walk through history.
Of course, I recognize that one must follow events in order — as you will note above in a comment to Joy. However, for many (those who missed the intervening years between the Philippine incursion and WWII), simply referring to those two countries taints the argument.
C is a counterfactual argument and those never stand very tall.
D, E, and F: Wow! You are quite the apologist of US actions on the islands. Nothing nefarious here. Just good intentions. Seems we should have conquered and subjugated the world — ’cause none of those natives can effectively govern themselves, unlike the US and its European counterparts (think WWI, WWII, and the socialist nightmares).
Being nice guys, we only mentored the simple Filipinos for decades. I mean, there might have been some collateral damage. But what’s a few hundred thousand eggs when you are building destiny …
You seem to be one of the few who does not call the Philippines a US colony, part of the exceptionalism that drove (and drives) the US toward imperialism.
Given that 66% of trade with the Philippines was though the US (how many thousands of miles away?), my claim of mercantilism is justified.
But the best is your claim that we did not conquer the Philippines. We only reluctantly sent soldiers there to what … oh, yeah, build a democracy. Isn’t that your claim? Orwell would be proud.
G: Did I imply that manifest means clouded or hidden? Again, I think you misread. Or, as I believe is the case, you decided to use the fallacy of equivocation. It didn’t work in this instance.
M E —
OK. So what is the truth?
Jim, you can’t handle the truth.
“A lie gets half way round the world before the truth has a chance to get it’s trousers on.”
You have been told the truth and yet you want to repeat lies.
There is also an attempt by you to slip out of a point of correction or a point of fact in contradiction in favour of another irrelevance which you offer for desert. It’s all up there.
As to Chronology, this is another attempt from you to deliberately misrepresent what was written. Your very own argument about Dresden then sinking into Churchill’s youth and moving into Africa and India show that you are all over the place on this topic. This really has to do with your hatred of Churchill and nothing to do with the truth about the man, his country or what actually took place and why. My argument to you in each example was in direct response to you. If there’s a problem with chronology, which is so basic in history, it is at your end.
SJW”s? is an ad hominem, one of many from you.
There is only one other occasion where I referred to a comment as a lie. That was to someone called John and it was retracted to a lesser offence once he demonstrated his source and I made appropriate mends. I will not be doing this in your case. You are simply not telling the truth. When this is due to ignorance there is an excuse but when you are shown the truth and you still insist that what happened was different then this is lying.
As the cliche goes you’re entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.
to M E’s comment,
I wasn’t born when Churchill died let alone during the war but my Father was who is now in his eighties. My mother was only born the exact day the war ended. His father was a boy soldier in the Welsh Guards and died a Chelsea pensioner. My father lived through the blitz in London, was evacuated for a time at age six, My grandparents on both sides lived through it all. On my mother’s side my grandfather served in the British army in Egypt. My father served in the RAF. There is a lot of nonsense spoken about military and usually straight from some satirical source or movie. As to bestsellers, I wouldn’t know. There’s so much interest in Churchill that just having that title will sell books.
Every old person has tales of the war. My friend who is ninety-two, was in the land army. Much of this is also being written down so that there will be no chance of history being eradicated for a preferred version. There’s too much cross referenced material and books with provenance.
Dresden — Churchill is responsible. That, after the fact he distanced himself, does not absolve him. Remember, chronology is key.
India — Please explain and justify his actions, not in a supposed defense of King and country, by as moral actions.. Are you really claiming he did not seek action (euphemism for death) to further his career?
Lying — It appears that you are lying. Or, at the very least, covering up the man to defend the state.
Africa — You have yet to provide moral justification for the death caused by Britain to build and hold its empire. Please provide.
Your issue is a worship of power, noted by your quotes above. And power justifies all evil — hence your inability to answer the above.
My issue is the fact that the worship of power by those like you will result new wars.
we just had to keep Germany and Japan out of the Philippines because … well … because they are evil states, as shown by WWII
Actually, as much for the Filipinos’ sakes. In 1898, Germany and Japan already had a record as colonizing powers, and it did not include a great deal of autonomy for the colonized. Besides, the impending anarchy and civil war in the islands did not promise much in the way of enjoyment. No one knew WWII would one day happen; but everyone knew that the Kaiser was rattling sabers all over the place, not least of all in Samoa against the USA; and there was that flotilla he sent into Manila Bay, and the troops landed on Luzon even while Dewey was keeping station off shore. (The Germans were trying to negotiate a handover of the Philippines from Spain to Germany, but the Spanish governor-general did not trust the Germans, either!)
As for the Japanese, don’t forget that the Japan-Qing war had ended only three years before and as part of its “Southern Expansion” strategy, Japan had taken possession of Formosa (Taiwan) as its colony. (It had also taken possession of Korea as part of its “Northern Expansion” strategy.) Check the map for the location of Taiwan vis a vis the Philippines. Taiwan and the Philippines were both inhabited by Austronesians. (Han colonizing of Taiwan did not start until 17th cent., roughly the same time as Spanish colonizing of the Philippines.) Both the Chinese and Japanese had regarded the Taiwanese as savages, who often preyed upon shipwrecked travelers; so one may suspect that outside the hispanicized Tagalog-speakers of Luzon, the Austronesians of the Philippines might not have fared well.
Don’t forget that the US went to Paris proposing that Spain keep the Philippines.
Of course, the US is a large country even then, and you will find every shade of opinion among its people. There were those who wanted to cut the Philippines loose after Spain refused to take them back because they thought the purity of the white race would be diluted by consorting with Little Brown Brother. So would abandoning the islands to their fate be a mark of anti-imperialism or a mark of racism? As is so often the case, the aftermath leaves you stuck with obligations.
Of course, there were also those who reveled in having overseas colonies, but the US was never very good at it, and immediately established an autonomous government in the protectorate under US tutelage rather than ram a Tagalog regime down the throats of all the other Filipinos. Even so, the muslims in the south (whom the Spanish had subjugated only a couple of decades earlier) rebelled — and still rebel — against Christian rule.
That the huge US market was opened up to Filipino goods is no surprise. The main alternative, Japan, was not yet as big a market as it would later become. The Meiji Revolution was still a new thing, and China was still mired in the old economy. Do you suppose we should have barred Filipino goods?
Lukacs has perhaps written more of Churchill and the “Duel” than any other historian:
You are covering your arguments with lengthy history.
To summarize, you believe the US was justified in conquering (mentoring might be your term) the Philippines, with the dead covered by that justification.
You further believe the US was altruistic in its expansion of control into the Pacific — just as it is altruist in its worldwide expansion today. If anything, the US was a reluctant colonial power. Again, your justification for US actions (deaths) in the Philippines is that others might have been worse.
I ask, “Based on you views, why do you advocate for the US to mentor the world?”
Oh, wait, that is the current mission. Do you support it?
Since you love to quote Churchill, defend this one:
“I think a curse should rest on me — because I love this war. I know it’s smashing and shattering the lives of thousands every moment, and yet, I can’t help it, I enjoy every second of it.”
Instead a just world, that would be considered the voice of the devil.
This is you good man.
* your, not you
By now I don’t give a fig about your haughty opinions which are:
Idealism posing as virtue.
Pacifism from the comfort of your own armchair.
hindsight flattering yourself with wisdom after the fact,
Suspicion and lies in every one of your comments to me and as yet all still unsubstantiated.
Obfuscation and dodging the actual point throughout or failing to recognise.
Now you want to go back to the start, your start, and talk about Dresden again? have you taken leave of your senses?
Dresden was a town bombed in the same way as all the other British cities and towns were bombed…totally flattened in cases like Coventry, plymouth and the East of London, Manchester, Sheffield, cities in Poland, Malta, Rotterdam,. (incidentally my friend has an ornament made from part of the three aircraft faith hope and charity that were used in Malta, I was looking at it only the other day) .
Dresden was a supposedly quiet town but was a legitimate target for preventing Hitler’s army. It had been an unwritten agreement that cities like Cambridge and Oxford and the like would be left. The bombing of cities WAS Hitler’s world war II amongst other things. Hitler wasn’t saving cities and buildings for the people. It was the architecture and infrastructure he wanted kept for ‘intellectual property’.
Just for a moment think how it would be if your nearest and dearest was to have lived in the East of London and was killed by the Germans? Would you say,
“Don’t mind us, go for it, we won’t retaliate”? Or would you be saying like the rest of the country en mass what must be done?
It’s the view point of a cowardly self hating man who would say “Let England take the bombs….yeah we’ve got it coming.“
“Don’t fight the war too hard, they might think you mean business.”
How can you claim to have an emotional care about death and killing? To be considered believable you would be saying something about all the British cities that were flattened during the same time. That you don’t see this action in the context of the war as it happened and the death and destruction that was all around really just displays your anti British attitude more than saying anything about the German military targets.
Your attitude as displayed in your comments are the product of the ‘special’ Washington hatchet job which doesn’t only extend to Churchill.
In your world we’d all be German.
No wait, if your’e Catholic we’d all be Spanish! The country of England wouldn’t exist and so on. The person who holds such views are Britain’s enemy.
Churchill and Britain’s success prior to him is self evident and still leaves a legacy today. Much of the bad argumentation, apart from being fallacy filled is forgetting in it’s chronological twist and logical gymnastics that The British Empire and Churchill are not one and the same thing. The sun still hasn’t set on the British Empire.
It never will, that’s a promise.
“The Empires of the future are the Empires of the mind.”
Sir Winston Churchill.
“Never before in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few.”
I see you dropped the liar epithet.
You worship raw power and forgive all in its creation and exercise. That is why you make — like all Churchill apologists — the counterfactual argument that without stomped necks in India, bloody trenches in Gallipoli, and firebombed refuges in Germany, the Nazis would rule the world. All unproven, especially the Dresden part.
I also see that your refutation of my example of Churchill’s bloodlust is indignation and outrage. Isn’t that the tactic of the left?
My issue, to repeat myself, is that folks like you are so blinded by power that you end up worshiping the state as the genesis that power. And have no concerns for the coming wars … like Churchill, you enjoy every second of it.
But only when it is western power:
Boh Da Thone was a warrior bold:
His sword and his rifle were bossed with gold,
And the Peacock Banner his henchmen bore
Was stiff with bullion, but stiffer with gore.
He shot at the strong and he slashed at the weak
From the Salween scrub to the Chindwin teak:
He crucified noble, he sacrificed mean,
He filled old ladies with kerosene:
While over the water the papers cried,
“The patriot fights for his countryside!”
— Ballad of Boh Da Thone
Surely you are not using “they do it as well” as your justification.
Absolutely not, you are a liar Jim and an idealist which is the cause of your need to misrepresent the truth and bear false witness.
My position is unmoved by your feeble but bitter and angry attempts to make your argument stick.
Continuing to converse on this is like giving a donkey strawberries!
Matthew 7 Verse 6:….
“Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.”
Except all the pigs I’ve met and even the dogs have been rather more friendly than that but the metaphor is clear enough.
It’s not such a fruitless exercise to correct statements of untruth for the thinking person who may only have been subjected to lies such as have been told above. That’s my purpose in fielding the false claims.
“The truth is incontrovertible, malice may attack it ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is.”
You are either an SJW or an adopter of their tactics.
You call me a liar because I disagree with you and hold a much different opinion of your beliefs than you.
However, you have yet to refute my facts (which are subject to lying).
Did I make up this quote from Churchill: “I think a curse should rest on me — because I love this war. I know it’s smashing and shattering the lives of thousands every moment, and yet, I can’t help it, I enjoy every second of it.”
Since you neither refuted not repudiated it, I assume you agree with it. Outrage and indignation justify nothing.
Then to cover yourself, you quote the Prince of Peace — as a defense for boots, bombs, and bullets, nonetheless.
Jim, Stop telling me what and who I love. You don’t know what it is.
Then Jesus said to him,
“Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword.”
No soldier takes up arms without knowing the risks.
War is real, Jim, you are overlooking reality of the world around you in preference for pacifist idealism. Who’s the hippie?
You’ve mixed politics with empire, war and history., and a man.
You mix these up and serve your own facts to support your beliefs.
Take a little time, think a little deeper and learn a bit of history. Churchill was one of the best men the world has ever seen. Many look feeble in his wake if they are given to self comparrisons, you know, the proud type and that’s a problem for them. It’s easier to think otherwise for the weaker and idealistic who would never have won the war.
I’m going to let K’s words on an open day finish this discussion for me:
(“I always wanted to be a soldier… bring peace….”)
So do you think they should join? Those cadets outside?”
“No ma’m, no way it’s hard, it’s a lot of trouble.”
“We have no place in that country. All the death and killing, it’s not a good place for a young person.”
“Oh, do you want to leave?”
Smiling broadly…“Oh no ma’m, I love it, I’m a soldier.”
Surely you are not using “they do it as well” as your justification.
Surely you are not equating the fellow who pushes an old lady in front of a bus with the fellow who pushes her out of the way on the grounds that “they both push old ladies around.”
(Again, you have used the word “justification.”)
Got to love equivocation, it’s a wonderful fallacy, if you can get away with it?
Life can be dirty, so to speak. And war is real.
However, you love it way too much. But then what is power and glory without it?
By the way, your quote at the end could have come from folks on both sides of all wars.
Sad that some love to kill. Sad that some kill for their own gain (Churchill falls under both). Sad that the state and it’s supporters, such as you, enjoy it so much that they provide cover for violence when it’s on their side. And sad some quote Jesus as justification.
“Can anything be stupider than that a man has the right to kill me because he lives on the other side of a river and his ruler has a quarrel with mine, though I have not quarreled with him?” — Blaise Pascal