The British ruling class was rotten. The British Prime Ministers of that era were dull-witted and feckless. Traumatized by the first World War and frightened of Bolshevism, they came up with an endless list of excuses not to confront Hitler. The role played by the media during this period was dreadful — covering for Hitler and suppressing the views of Churchill until very late in the game.
Churchill was, in many ways, more out of touch with the twentieth century than were other members of the ruling class. However, he had the strength and intelligence that the leading politicians lacked. And unlike most others of his class, he saw Hitler with clarity.
Between the time he wrote that and posted it, an Islamist terrorist attacked and killed multiple American service members in Tennessee:
A casual reader of the Washington Post could be forgiven for blaming the attack on conservatives and the National Rifle Association. The lead Post story said that this was “the latest eruption of gun violence in the United States.” The print newspaper also provides a second front-page story, headlined “Shooter grew up in conservative family.” [The online version says “middle-class Muslim family.”]
I read every word of the second story, looking for the basis for terming the family “conservative.” Did they have a Romney bumper sticker on their car? A subscription to National Review? Perhaps they flew a Confederate flag? Were active in the Tea Party?
[...]
I would love to know how the Post determined on the basis of the content of the story that the best adjective to describe the family was “conservative.” Getting back to the 1930s comparisons, I do not want to equate Muslim radicals with Nazis, because I think that there are important differences. What I am getting at here are the similarities between the British media in the 1930s and what we find in the U.S. today.
As for the American educated in class in general, consider Harry Painter’s analysis of summer reading lists for college students.
Upon browsing the list, one might conclude that all of humanity’s best books are about minorities fighting and ultimately overcoming the oppressive constrictions of Western, male-dominated society.
The mainstream view of the 1930s and appeasement seems to me way out of whack. Here’s a take that seems far more realistic and well grounded (to me at least).
The Great War was bad enough, but WWII was the suicide of Europe. Look at the TFR’s for all the indigenous peoples of Europe, the median ages for those populations, and the racially alien immigration that has already occurred and all that’s on the way. The Polish blank check was batsh*t insane.
If you saw the reading list of my high school English class in 1967, you would also “conclude that all of humanity’s best books are about minorities fighting and ultimately overcoming the oppressive constrictions of Western, male-dominated society.” This has been going on for a long time.
There exists a hostile anti-Christian elite in the USA, which advocates baby-part trading, transgenderism or sodomy, and a political economy of global usury at gunpoint, while importing a new people to replace the native white Christians.
Given this internal political reality, which is worse in a dying Europe and Japan, it might be time to ally with Christian and Muslim Arabs and Russians against the dispossessing Zionist hostile elite.
They are indeed conservative on every social-conservative issue, including usury. They stray off course from cuckservatism on the notion of sending wide-eyed hicks to die for Israel. That’s a deal breaker for some.
All Muslim families by definition are conservative.
Would it not have been better to let the Soviets and the National Socialists destroy each other?
Factoring in Gallipoli, Dresden Winnie was capable of a lot of stupid.