Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Anelka's quenelle

phildwyer said:
It's not a "quote," it's an article Churchill wrote for the Sunday Illustrated Herald. Wikipedia cites it too:

"In the same decade, future wartime Prime Minister Winston Churchill penned an editorial entitled "Zionism versus Bolshevism," which was published in the Illustrated Sunday Herald. In the article, which asserted that Zionism and Bolshevism were engaged in a "struggle for the soul of the Jewish people", he called on Jews to repudiate "the Bolshevik conspiracy" and make clear that "the Bolshevik movement is not a Jewish movement" but stated that:
[Bolshevism] among the Jews is nothing new. From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxemburg (Germany), and Emma Goldman (United States), this world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilisation and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing.[40]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Bolshevism
Click to expand...
i think what you're saying here is you haven't found anything to suit your purpose in reputable sources like martin gilbert's 2007 book 'churchill and the jews'. btw, the sub-title to the book is 'a lifelong friendship'.

you and the truth rarely meet, phil.
 
MellySingsDoom said:
But the quotes listed certainly don't look to provide the "smoking gun" to prove Churchill's anti-Semitism.
Click to expand...

The interesting thing is that, by today's standards, anyone who wrote what Churchill did would immediately be branded an obvious anti-semite.

And yet Churchill's policies and actions were not anti-semitic at all, quite the reverse in fact.

This shows how silly it is to obssess about how people use language.
 
phildwyer said:
The interesting thing is that, by today's standards, anyone who wrote what Churchill did would immediately be branded an obvious anti-semite.

And yet Churchill's policies and actions were not anti-semitic at all, quite the reverse in fact.

This shows how silly it is to obssess about how people use language.
Click to expand...
as i've said (post 2461) you're ignoring reputable sources from competent historians who have actually done some work in the area.
 
phildwyer - I've just read the entirity of the "Zionism vs Bolshevism" article (it's on the Wikisource site), and my view? Whilst Churchill is yet again banging on about Bolshevism and Communism, and certainly talks about the Jewish "influence" of Bolshevism, at no point does he actually go down the road of outright anti-Semitism. Indeed, he concludes the article with this point:

It is particularly important in these circumstances that the national Jews in every country who are loyal to the land of their adoption should come forward on every occasion, as many of them in England have already done, and take a prominent part in every measure for combating the Bolshevik conspiracy. In this way they will be able to vindicate the honour of the Jewish name and make it clear to all the world that the Bolshevik movement is not a Jewish movement, but is repudiated vehemently by the great mass of the Jewish race.
Click to expand...

So again, for me, there's no "smoking gun" that links Churchill to outright anti-Semitism.
 
MellySingsDoom said:
phildwyer - I've just read the entirity of the "Zionism vs Bolshevism" article (it's on the Wikisource site), and my view? Whilst Churchill is yet again banging on about Bolshevism and Communism, and certainly talks about the Jewish "influence" of Bolshevism, at no point does he actually go down the road of outright anti-Semitism. Indeed, he concludes the article with this point:



So again, for me, there's no "smoking gun" that links Churchill to outright anti-Semitism.
Click to expand...
dwyer's
a liar
 
MellySingsDoom said:
I take your point on board, Pickman's. I need to go off and do some thinking on this one.
Click to expand...
it's not like dwyer's rarely caught out talking shit. it's a frequent occurrence. and it's not like many people here like churchill so he's an easy target for dwyer to smear. only the bollocks he's posting once again doesn't stand up to even cursory scrutiny.
 
[quote="phildwyer, post: 12885395, member: 14741"[Bolshevism] among the Jews is nothing new. From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxemburg (Germany), and Emma Goldman (United States), this world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilisation and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing.[/quote]

Well I'm certainly no fan of Churchill, but I'm not sure that this quote demonstrates his anti-semitism as clearly as you're suggesting. The world-wide conspiracy referred to is Bolshevism, not Judaism, and it's no surprise to most of us that Churchill was anti-Bolshevik.
 
phildwyer said:
The interesting thing is that, by today's standards, anyone who wrote what Churchill did would immediately be branded an obvious anti-semite.

And yet Churchill's policies and actions were not anti-semitic at all, quite the reverse in fact.

This shows how silly it is to obssess about how people use language.
Click to expand...

im not sure what your point is here :confused: who's obsessing over how people use language?
 
by the way churchill may well have been anti-semitic, who knows,it wouldn't be the first time when personal views get overriden by pragmatic considerations in politics. i mean he was willing to team up with stalin to get rid of hitler. it's a bit suspicious that people like david irving would make such a big deal of it tho.
 
phildwyer said:
The interesting thing is that, by today's standards, anyone who wrote what Churchill did would immediately be branded an obvious anti-semite.

And yet Churchill's policies and actions were not anti-semitic at all, quite the reverse in fact.

This shows how silly it is to obssess about how people use language.
Click to expand...
What a load of crap. Churchill was racist by today's standards. And the language he used betrays the sense of innate superiority of the empire-building British. He had prejudices that were sadly typical of his time and class. There's no need to shirk that, but also no need to attempt to make him out as equivalent to Hitler because of it.
 
frogwoman said:
by the way churchill may well have been anti-semitic, who knows,it wouldn't be the first time when personal views get overriden by pragmatic considerations in politics. it's a bit suspicious that people like david irving would make such a big deal of it tho.
Click to expand...

Well, you have Irving and then the BUF bloke making claims about Churchill's anti-Semitism - seems to me like they're projecting their own anti-Semitic prejudices onto Churchill, really.
 
frogwoman said:
by the way churchill may well have been anti-semitic, who knows,it wouldn't be the first time when personal views get overriden by pragmatic considerations in politics. i mean he was willing to team up with stalin to get rid of hitler. it's a bit suspicious that people like david irving would make such a big deal of it tho.
Click to expand...
more research needs to be done on the subject but it's easy enough to demonstrate that once again dywer's talking bollocks.
 
MellySingsDoom said:
Well, you have Irving and then the BUF bloke making claims about Churchill's anti-Semitism - seems to me like they're projecting their own anti-Semitic prejudices onto Churchill, really.
Click to expand...

well irving's entire career has been to try and make out hitler wasn't that bad so by sying churchill was anti-semitic he can go "look, churchill also hated the jews so it wasn't just hitler" and at the same time he can say "well churchill hated the jews as well that means there's got to be something in this racism thing"
 
frogwoman said:
well irving's entire career has been to try and make out hitler wasn't that bad so by sying churchill was anti-semitic he can go "look, churchill also hated the jews so it wasn't just hitler" and at the same time he can say "well churchill hated the jews as well that means there's got to be something in this racism thing"
Click to expand...

Indeed so - of course, his "research" got completely hammered out of the ball park during the Irving/Lipstadt libel trial, and these days of course he conducts horrible "tours" of concentration/extermination camp sites to "prove" his Holocaust revisionism. Isn't he the imbecile who repeatedly bangs on about Chuchill being a traitor or somesuch as well?
 
frogwoman said:
well irving's entire career has been to try and make out hitler wasn't that bad so by sying churchill was anti-semitic he can go "look, churchill also hated the jews so it wasn't just hitler" and at the same time he can say "well churchill hated the jews as well that means there's got to be something in this racism thing"
Click to expand...
You're on far stronger ground with Churchill if you talk about his antipathy towards Hindus. He did think of humans along racial terms, and appears to have had some regard for the Jewish 'race', while he held the Hindu 'race' in contempt.
 
littlebabyjesus said:
You're on far stronger ground with Churchill if you talk about his antipathy towards Hindus. He did think of humans along racial terms, and appears to have had some regard for the Jewish 'race', while he held the Hindu 'race' in contempt.
Click to expand...

yeah, don't get me wrong i'm not the greatest fan of his.
 
kraepelin said:
If this guy isn't anti-semitic. Then hitler just kind of disliked jews.

This guy seems like he has lost the plot. His material seems weak, the pineapple stuff seemed more like the work of a just screaming i hate the jews till hes blue in the face.
Click to expand...

He's catering to an audience, so the weakness of his material is...well...immaterial, IYSWIM!
 
I suppose that Dwyer would welcome this sort of 'analysis' that takes us beyond left & right and posits anti-capitalists as fascist?

A hyper-wealthy billionaire venture capitalist has faced ridicule after comparing the treatment of super-rich Americans to the Holocaust.
Thomas Perkins, who is thought to be worth around $8bn, made the startling comparison in a letter to The Wall Street Journal in which he wrote of 'parallels' between the treatment of Jews in Nazi Germany and what he describes as the "progressive war on the American one percent".

The letter, which was published by the WSJ earlier this week, begins: "Writing from the epicenter of progressive thought, San Francisco, I would call attention to the parallels of fascist Nazi Germany to its war on its "one percent," namely its Jews, to the progressive war on the American one percent, namely the "rich...."Kristallnacht was unthinkable in 1930; is its descendent 'progressive' radicalism unthinkable now?"

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-rich-americans-to-the-holocaust-9086096.html
​
:facepalm:
​
 
brogdale said:
I suppose that Dwyer would welcome this sort of 'analysis' that takes us beyond left & right and posits anti-capitalists as fascist?
Click to expand...

He has already welcomed it, on this very thread (do keep up by the way)

But it comes as no surprise, given his insistance that all that matters is whether one claims to be anti-capitalist - by that logic even fascists are welcome in Phil's big tent
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom