This article was originally published in Danish on March 24, 2017.

---

Given England’s current tragic state, a look back at history seems appropriate. I wonder what the good Churchill would have said to England in 2017 and to the politicians responsible for the misery?

***

In our unenlightened and historyless age, Sir. Winston Churchill is often held up as the classic example of a true humanist and anti-racist. Churchill was one of Hitler’s very first and fiercest opponents. Thus, Churchill bears much of the responsibility for the eventual defeat of Nazism. Based on these facts, the uninformed will almost automatically deduce that Churchill must have held views that were diametrically opposed to anything remotely resembling racism. The historical truth, however, is quite different. The available evidence shows that many of Churchill’s views today would have gotten him banned forever from politically correct society.

It is a little publicized fact that Churchill was a vigorous advocate of eugenics, popularly known as racial hygiene. He was the sponsoring vice-president of the first International Eugenics Conference, which took place in London in 1912. Churchill’s personal papers from this period show that he was seriously concerned that “moral degenerates” and people of low intelligence were breeding out the educated social classes. Therefore, he proposed that the “mentally defective” should be interned and the insane should be forcibly sterilized. In his capacity as Home Secretary, Churchill reportedly told his colleagues: “The unnatural and rapidly increasing growth of the feeble-minded, coupled with a persistent restriction of reproduction among all the enterprising, energetic, and superior classes, constitutes a racial danger. I feel that the source of this current of madness must be closed and sealed before another year has passed.” [1] There can be little doubt how a person making such a statement would be labeled and treated in all Western European countries today.

However, it gets even ‘worse’ when you examine Churchill’s attitude towards non-European peoples. He was a great supporter of the British Empire and in no way expressed the view that the British colonial power owed anything to the subjugated countries or their peoples. On the contrary, he was convinced of the rightness and justification of subjugating ‘inferior’ peoples. In a speech delivered on March 18, 1931 at the Royal Albert Hall, he said: “We gave India a civilization far beyond what they themselves could have created or been able to preserve.” [2].  In relation to the subjugation, deportation and to some extent extermination of the American Indians and the Australian Aborigines by Europeans, he stated in 1937 that: “I do not agree that an injustice has been done to these people, the fact is that a stronger race, a more worldly race, a race of a higher order has come and taken their place.” [3]

Given these views, it’s no wonder Churchill was one of the very first British politicians to try to stop England’s insane immigration policy. Churchill vehemently rejected the nebulous talk of liberals and academics about the benefits of transforming a homogeneous England into a multi-ethnic and multicultural society. This opposition was based on his extensive knowledge of non-European peoples and the attitudes towards them discussed above, as well as his pronounced patriotism. In 1936, in a tribute speech to the Royal Marines, he described England as a valuable gift that had been handed down from generation to generation. He stated in this context that; “Those who do not think of the future are unworthy of their ancestors.” [4]

With his extensive knowledge of foreign countries and peoples, he was aware of the utopian nature of the multicultural vision of society. Early in his life he had made personal acquaintance with foreign peoples, and his general impression of them and their culture can hardly be said to have been positive. In 1899 he wrote The River War: An Account of the Re-Conquest of the Sudan about Lord Kitchener’s campaign in the Sudan. In it, he expressed views that would no doubt have earned him a charge of racism in present-day England. He writes thus:

“The qualities of bastards are seldom admirable, and the mixture of Arab and Negroid types has produced a lowly and cruel race, which is more shocking because it is more intelligent than primitive barbarians. The stronger race soon began to exploit the simple (black) natives […] to the great slave market at Jeddah there has for centuries been a continuous stream of Negroid captives. The invention of gunpowder and the introduction of firearms by the Arabs facilitated this traffic by placing the ignorant Negroes in an even worse position. The situation in the Sudan over several centuries can be summarized as follows: the dominant race of Arab invaders continuously spread its blood, religion, customs and language among the native black population, while at the same time plundering and subjugating them.” [5]

Some might argue that the above should simply be regarded as an expression of a kind of youthful ignorance. It should be noted that, as far as can be documented, Churchill never changed his views on non-European peoples. As late as 1955, the year he retired from political life, he asked his doctor whether “blacks could get measles?” When he was told that not only could blacks get measles, but that there was a very high mortality rate among blacks from this disease, he muttered: “Well… There’s plenty left. They have a high reproduction rate.”[6]

As can already be seen from the two quotes above, Churchill’s love and respect for both Negroes and Arabs was very small. Churchill’s characterization of Islam is also particularly interesting for today’s Danes. This is documented by the following thought-provoking and very topical quote about the nature and social effect of the Islamic religion:

“How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays upon its adherents! Besides the fanatical madness, which is as dangerous in a human being as rabies is in a dog, there is this horrible fatalistic apathy. The effects are evident in many countries. Reckless habits, sloppy agricultural systems, slow trading systems, and insecurity of property rights exist wherever followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degrading sensualism that robs life first of its grace and refinement and then of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that, according to Mohammedan law, every woman must belong to a man as his absolute property either as child, wife or concubine, postpones the final end of slavery until the Islamic faith ceases to be a great force among men. Individual Mohammedans may possess excellent qualities, but the influence of religion paralyzes the social development of those who follow it. No stronger destructive force exists in the world. Far from dying, Mohammedanism is a militant and recruiting religion. It has already spread through Central Africa, creating fearless warriors everywhere in its path. And if Christianity were not well protected by the strong arms of science, the science against which it fought in vain, modern European civilization might fall, just as Roman civilization did.” [7]

This should give today’s ‘conservative’ politicians something to think about. Churchill’s description of Islam is excellent, and unlike the fairytale that almost all European politicians today would like to paint for the people who have been naive enough to vote for them, Churchill’s description is based on personal first-hand knowledge of Islam.

Churchill’s fight against the Third Reich and Nazism did not change his views on non-European peoples.  When he heard during the war of a black official from one of the British colonies who had stopped to eat in an English restaurant that had been taken over by American soldiers who had then imposed segregation and therefore rejected the Negro, Churchill’s only comment was: “That’s all right. Tell him to bring a banjo. They’ll just think he’s part of the band.”[8] Thus, one must conclude that Churchill’s fervent opposition to the Third Reich was not primarily due to opposition to Hitler’s racial or “human” views, as these were in many ways similar to Churchill’s own[9]. His opposition to Nazi Germany must therefore, to a much greater extent than is usually assumed, be regarded as an expression of British realpolitik power considerations.

In the early 1950s, Britain received the first wave of non-European immigrants from their then and former colonies. Churchill’s instinctive attitude in this context was clear. In the minutes of a cabinet meeting on. November 25, 1952, it appears that Churchill inquired about the consequences of employing large numbers of foreigners in the public sector; “does the Post Office employ large numbers of colored workers? If so, there is a danger that serious social problems will arise.”[10] Later it is stated that: “He [Churchill] raised the whole question of whether colored persons from the Commonwealth and Empire should be allowed to be admitted into the country from now on.”[11] In October 1954, Churchill warned his then Home Secretary David Maxwell-Fyfe that “the problems arising from the immigration of colored people require immediate and serious consideration.”[12] While this may seem somewhat “extreme” given the number of immigrants to England at the time, it is clear from the context that Churchill’s primary concern was that by allowing relatively few immigrants into the country, he was opening the door to a future flood from the colonies. He thus predicted that “the rapid improvement in communication will certainly lead to the continual increase in the number of colored persons entering this country, and their presence in it will, sooner or later, be despised by large sections of the British population.”[13] Churchill’s dislike of non-European immigration to the English motherland continued right to the end of his political career. Shortly before Churchill retired from politics, he told the then owner and editor of the English newspaper Spectator that “it [immigration] is the most important problem facing this country, but I cannot get any of my ministers to take any notice of it.”[14]

Looking at England’s current sorry ethnic state, one must sadly conclude that Churchill’s concerns were justified. Even more tragic, however, is the fact that not only England, but the whole of European civilization, which Churchill championed, is today drowning in a flood of Third World immigrants, many of them of the particularly aggressive Muslim variety.

In relation to an assessment of Winston Churchill the person, it can be concluded that the image commonly painted of him in today’s mass media is not supported by the sources and is therefore not historically accurate. Winston Churchill was not a blathering humanistic naïve fool whose main purpose in life was to fight “racism” or “fascism.”  He was a patriotic, practical, and somewhat cynical realpolitik politician who had learned and recognized that the peoples of this world were different in their inherent qualities and cultural patterns. He also realized early on the particularly destructive nature of Islam. Based on these facts, he concluded, even as the first immigration to England began, that any notion of a harmonious “multi-ethnic” or “multi-cultural” society was an unrealistic fantasy whose practical realization would end in a nightmare. That he realized this at such an early stage makes him a visionary person.

So Winston Churchill is no real role model for so-called “anti-racists” or blathering humanists! No, if Winston Churchill is a role model for anyone, it is for those Europeans who want to preserve the ethnic and cultural homogeneity of their nations, those who are usually labeled “far-right”.

Translated by means of AI

Notes

[1] David Hamilton; Warnings From the Lion. In American Renaissance, vol. 18. No. 1, January, 2007.

[2] Colin Coote (ed.); Winston Churchill (1874-1965), British statesman, writer. Speech, March 18, 1931, Royal Albert Hall, London. On India, Maxims and Reflections, 1947.

[3] Tariq Ali; Clash of Fundamentalisms. Verso, 2002.

[4] David Hamilton; Warnings From the Lion. In American Renaissance, vol. 18. No. 1, January, 2007.

[5] Winston Churchill; The River War: An Account of the Re-Conquest of the Sudan. First edition, London: Longmans, Green & Co, 1899.

[6] Gretchen Rubin; Forty Ways to Look at Winston Churchill: A Brief Account of a Long Life. Ballantine Books; 1 edition, 2003.

[7] Winston Churchill; The River War: An Account of the Re-Conquest of the Sudan. First edition, London: Longmans, Green & Co, 1899.

[8] David Hamilton; Warnings From the Lion. In American Renaissance, vol. 18. No. 1, January, 2007.

[9] In this article I have deliberately omitted to elucidate Churchill’s views on Jews. In relation to this question, the reader is referred to Churchill’s article; Zionism versus Bolshevism. A Struggle for the Soul of the Jewish People from Illustrated Sunday Herald, February 8, 1920, page 5 and to recently discovered and previously unknown texts written by Churchill in 1937. In these, he allegedly refers to the Jews as “Hebrew bloodsuckers” and attributes part of the responsibility for anti-Semitism to the Jews themselves. A Danish translation of parts of these texts can be found at http://blog.balder.org/?p=212.

[10]  David Hamilton; Warnings From the Lion. In American Renaissance, vol. 18. No. 1, January, 2007.

[11] David Hamilton; Warnings From the Lion. In American Renaissance, vol. 18. No. 1, January, 2007.

[12] David Hamilton; Warnings From the Lion. In American Renaissance, vol. 18. No. 1, January, 2007.

[13] David Hamilton; Warnings From the Lion. In American Renaissance, vol. 18. No. 1, January, 2007.

[14] David Hamilton; Warnings From the Lion. In American Renaissance, vol. 18. No. 1, January, 2007.