The old narratives about World War 2 are fading away, and a new critical eye is being cast onto the events of those times. Will the historical record ever be the same?
Note to readers: If you are still stuck on the narratives about World War 2 that have dominated for the last 80 years or so, you might want to sit this one out. I will take no offense if you leave this page immediately to go watch cat videos on TikTok. Indeed, I recommend that everyone do so who is still in the “greatest generation” mindset.
I don’t know if any of you have noticed the controversy about
’s appearance on Tucker’s show. The two got into a discussion about World War 2 and Darryl said some things that went up certain people’s asses in a big way.
If you haven’t seen the interview, here it is in full:
I am going to let Darryl Cooper own what he said, and I recommend you watch the entire interview before making up your mind one way or another. But his comments and the reaction to them raised a larger issue: America and its vassal states obsession with Hitler and World War 2. If you live inside the empire or one of its European slave states, then you already know that anybody or anything the elites don’t like is immediately labeled “Nazi” or “Hitler.”
For example, every Republican that runs for president is “Hitler.” It’s been that way for the last 40 years or so. And the minute you disagree with one of the woke trash about anything, you are a “Nazi.” It never fails, and you can see that in the gigantic freak-out about Darryl Cooper’s comments about Churchill. The elites, their media, and the Deep State in every country simply will not tolerate any criticism of the dominant World War 2 narratives.
Well too bad for the elites, I don’t care what they think, so I am going to offer my two cents about some aspects of World War 2. I will deal with Winston Churchill shortly, but let’s begin with Britain itself.
The Britain of today is a complete train wreck of a country
Take a look at Britain today. Can you honestly suggest that Winston Churchill saved anything? It’s a depraved, woke communist, globalist hellhole. The native population of White British people is demonized and terrorized by their own government.
More than once I have come across the view that if British lads of the 1940s could have foreseen the state of their country today, they would never have bothered to fight the Second World War. Few of those who have heard that view may realize that there is empirical evidence to support it. One fascinating source is The Unknown Warriors, a 2012 book by Nicholas Pringle.
He wanted to know what the men and women who had fought, worked and sacrificed for their country now thought of what had become of Britain in the decades since. So, between 2006 and 2008 he placed notices in local newspapers across the United Kingdom inviting veterans of World War II to send him, along with brief descriptions of their wartime service, their thoughts on the postwar world. He asked: “Is it a disappointment or are you happy with how your country turned out? What do you think your fallen comrades would have made of life in 21st Century Britain?” All opinions, he said, would be welcome.
The response from dozens of men and women, by then in their eighties and nineties, exceeded his expectations, with their letters filling a volume of more than 500 pages. Mr. Pringle has done his country, and the world, a service by collecting such testimonies while it was still possible. He wrote: “Many took it as a chance to get things off their chests, remember experiences that might at some point be lost in the mists of time, and to give their views on the country they fought so bravely for. Arthritic fingers, failing eyesight, and shaky hands were not going to stop them.” While much of this book is taken up with reminiscences of wartime experiences from every theater of the conflict, sometimes in fascinating or moving detail, the focus here is on the veterans’ thoughts about postwar British life and society.
Some veterans express gratitude for modern conveniences, improved standards of living, and the softening of class snobbery. But the prevailing tone of their letters is one of bitterness over what had become of the county they once cherished. Of the four or five most often voiced complaints, the most common is over mass migration from other countries and continents, and how that has drastically changed British life, culture and society.
They are particularly bitter because, as quite a few point out, they were never consulted or asked about this profoundly transformational policy. During the war these same men and women were told that they defending “our way of life,” but it is precisely the British way of life that has been sacrificed to accommodate a flood of new arrivals and their offspring. The once common remark that the British might be “speaking German” if Hitler had not been defeated now seems ridiculous in a land filled with people speaking Punjabi, Arabic, and a cacophony of other alien languages.
So even the remaining veterans of World War 2, who served under Churchill’s government, can see what has happened to Britain since then, and they do not like it one bit. Their sacrifice did nothing to protect their way of life, and their country has become deluged with third-world colonists intent on taking over Britain and making it their own.
And let’s not forget how the United States dominates and controls Britain now, too. The vaunted British lion has become a bitch-slapped poodle that does whatever Uncle Sam tells it to do. If it doesn’t behave, Uncle Sam whips its ass until it whimpers and then falls into line. The poodle has no will of its own and no ability to separate itself from its abusive master.
Winston Churchill: A fat, mentally unstable drunk
Now let’s move on to Churchill. We all know he is mostly revered as the “hero” that “saved Western Civilization” from the Nazis. But what is the reality of Churchill versus the myth presented to us since the end of the Second World War? Who and what was he as a human being?
Churchill was a boozer, everybody knows this by now, but some prefer to downplay it or overlook it. He loved his booze, and he gobbled it down throughout the day. This is not surprising, since Churchill was mentally unstable and suffered from depression. He called it his “black dog” and had to turn to painting and other external pursuits to try to combat it. But the bottom line is that not all of Winston’s paddles were in the water at any given moment.
He was also fat and did little to nothing to keep himself healthy. Despite that, and likely because of his genetics, he lived into his early 90s. But by then, his mental faculties had more or less failed, and he had outlived himself. Not a surprise at that age, but his boozing and eating didn’t do much to help keep his mind on an even keel.
I used to buy into Churchill’s personality cult, but it starts to fade once you look into who he actually was and what he did while in power in WW 1 and WW 2. He had a very bad track record of terrible judgment, as well as some stupendously stupid ideas that backfired and got a lot of people killed.
Suffice to say, Churchill’s decisions got a lot of people killed, but it never seemed to bother him as he careened through his life, going from bottle to bottle in a never-ending haze of gluttony and booze. I wonder who ultimately had the biggest body count if you count all the years from the beginning of WW1 through WW2: Hitler, Stalin, or Churchill? 🤔
For those of you who still believe that Churchill wanted to preserve the British way of life, despite what I’ve written here, you should be aware that long ago he called for the formation of a “United States of Europe.” That entity exists today, and it is called the European Union.
Do any of you believe that that the EU cares in any way about the welfare of the native White people of its member countries? Do you believe it was a good or bad influence on Britain before BREXIT (which still hasn’t been completed and probably never will)?
In other words, Churchill was an early example of a globalist who wanted to hand Britain’s sovereignty over to people like the unelected bureaucrats of the EU.
Some hero for Britain he turned out to be, eh?
Churchill’s finances were a train wreck
Forget about his boozing for a moment. Did you know that Churchill lost a ton of money in the stock market crash of 1929? Throughout his life, he was also a gambling addict and spent money like a drunken sailor (which he sort of was, since he was Lord of the Admiralty twice). Churchill had money problems throughout most of his life and had to be bailed out again and again.
In the Thirties, when he was a married man with four dependent children and already borrowing more than £2.5 million in today’s money, he would gamble so heavily on his annual holiday in the South of France that he threw away the equivalent of on average £40,000 every year.
In my own career, advising families on tax affairs and investments, I have never encountered addiction to risk on such a scale as his.
To a biographer, one of Churchill’s most convenient characteristics is that he left his own bank statements, bills, investment records and tax demands in his archive, despite the evidence of debt and profligate gambling they reveal.
He borrowed money from his children’s trusts, and even cut down his drinking — not to curb his expenses, but to win a bet with the press baron Lord Rothermere, who wagered him £600 that Churchill would not drink any brandy or undiluted spirits for a whole year.
Churchill took the bet, reasoning to Clemmie that money won gambling was not subject to tax. But he turned down a bigger bet, £2,000 [£100,000], that he could not remain teetotal for 12 months.
‘I refused,’ he explained, ‘as I think life would not be worth living.’
In fact, his accumulated bills for alcohol came to £900 (£54,000). His gambling was even more costly — 66,000 francs (about £50,000) in a single holiday at a casino in Cannes in 1936, for example.
But by 1938, as the European situation with Hitler and Mussolini became critical, Churchill had run out of resources. Both Chartwell and his house in London were up for sale but had attracted no buyers.
His journalism could no longer even cover his back-taxes, and he had borrowed to the limit against his life insurance policies. Creditors were clamouring on all sides.
His overdraft had reached £35,000 (more than £2million) and his brokers were demanding an immediate payment of £12,000 (£720,000). His attempts to bargain were ignored.
‘For a while,’ he admitted, ‘the dark waters of despair overwhelmed me. I watched the daylight creep slowly in through the windows and saw before me in mental gaze the vision of Death.’
Salvation came from an unexpected quarter. Churchill turned to his friend Brendan Bracken, co-owner of The Economist, to find him a rescuer. Bracken, in turn, approached his business partner, Sir Henry Strakosch, who was a fervent admirer of Churchill. He was also immensely wealthy.
Just reading the quotes I’ve included here from that article should give you an idea of how unstable Churchill was financially, and it wasn’t until later in life that his finances became less chaotic. Some would say that Churchill’s spending and gambling likely made him vulnerable to being in thrall to whoever bailed him out at the time. Perhaps that’s why he never even tried to make peace with Germany to avoid the Second World War altogether? It’s an intriguing thought, isn’t it? Who bailed him out so he could become prime minister and prevent any peace settlement with Germany? 🤔
Anyway, I parted company with Churchill’s personality cult a long time ago. I don’t buy into all the narratives about him or WW2 we’ve been told, any more than I buy into the narratives we hear about contemporary issues and events. The elites who control the government lie every chance they get, and I have no reason to believe that elites from the WW2 era were telling the complete truth about what happened during that conflict.
I will close this section on Churchill by saying that I do not judge him on the basis of his poetic prose or soaring rhetoric. Those things easily dazzle the less informed who know little about him, but they do not affect me because I have a more complete picture of who he was and what he did. I judge him by the results of his actions and by the long-term consequences of those actions.
Once again, have you looked at Britain lately? I rest my case against Winston Churchill.
Who owns and controls history?
I have not written all of this about Churchill solely to puncture the myth of his cult of personality. The larger issue is: who owns history? At one point, Churchill’s myth was vastly bigger and more accepted than it is today. Why? Because not enough time had passed for it to be reconsidered by later generations. And this point about generational turnover is extremely important when it comes to history.
One generation can, indeed, create a dominant narrative about historical events. But it never lasts because, sooner or later, that generation fades away and another takes its place. The new, younger people will, sooner or later, want to reexamine the historical record and test whether it is accurate or not. This kind of reexamination is unavoidable for human beings because nobody lives forever.
That process is now underway with the dominant narratives of World War 2. A reexamination has begun, and it will continue the farther away humanity gets from the actual events of World War 2. This does not sit well with people like Jordan Schachtel and Alex Berenson, who regard such a reexamination as an affront to their own ethnic group. They prefer that the historical narratives of World War 2 remain the same forever, as they believe it is in the interests of their group.
Unfortunately for Schactel and Berenson, time (and history) wait for no man. Change is unavoidable, and along with that change come new perspectives on old historical events. The narratives around World War 2 are changing, and that process cannot now be stopped. In fact, it will only accelerate as time goes by and the people currently living on the planet die off and are replaced by new human beings.
Who knows what new insights future generations will have on what we have long considered to be settled questions? There’s no way to know, but you can be sure that people who haven’t even been born yet are going to weigh in when their time comes, and the historical record will never be the same again.
The older I get the more I am against war, unless DIRECTLY attacked. We’ve lost many good young men in senseless, useless wars.
I think history should be continuously re-examined, and if needed, the truth should always be told.