• 738


You can tell what Churchill was about from a visit he made to North America in the late 1920s: in Canada, he complained that it was a bloody shame that majestic trees were cut down to make tawdry newspapers; later, when his son noted that newly-minted Canadian millionaires were “uncultured”, Churchill said that culture was “the scum” that floats on top of productivity; finally, when he arrived a Hearst’s vast mansion—his “Xanadu” in California—he compared Hearst to “a Mormon elder” and ridiculed his gauche taste. What these remarks tell us about Churchill is that he had no consistent view—the opinions expressed are contradictory. In one breath he laments industrialism, in another he lauds industrial productivity and gritty entrepreneurship as superior to effete culture—then, finally, he sneers at an entrepreneur because he has no taste and is uncultured.

The reason Churchill had no consistency was that he was a narcissist—almost everything he said was a “sick burn” to get one over on the person he was with at the time. Basically, Churchill would have loved Twitter—and he is very much still known, as far as he is known, for his witty and acerbic comments; although, really, I think these have been so used over the years that they have worn down like my old Grafter boots (currently holes in both boots, with an exposed metal plate inserted in the intermediate layer by unknown Chinese hands for some reason)—nobody really laughs at a Churchill quip anymore, it is just something Telegraph or American Spectator journalists whip out, almost as a reflexive genuflection to an ancient cult, because it is expected to deploy and laugh at a Churchill bon mot in conservative culture. “Good old Winnie, common sense all the way. Don’t make ‘em like that anymore etc & etc.”

As with many narcissists, Churchill was often dogged by severe depression; perhaps that was in his constitution anyway, but whatever constitutional disposition he had to melancholy was not helped by the fact he lied all the time—just as people who spend all their time engaged in an act they-do-not-know-is-an-act on Twitter become miserable; people like that end up empty, because they spend all their time getting one over on someone else yet they have no real convictions. From an early age, Churchill was not inclined to tell you what he really thought or felt about a topic; he decided he was going to be a celebrity early on—and his early military career, though very adventurous, was conducted with an eye to a future in the popular press and mass literature from the start. Churchill was not a war hero who turned into a journalist and writer; he was a journalist and writer who joined the army to make his career in journalism and literature—an important distinction.

You may have noticed that many people, especially before the Second World War, used to say that Churchill was unstable, unreliable, and untrustworthy—well, they were right. He was a labile narcissist and a fantasist with few principles and a desire for self-importance and self-aggrandisement. Actually, not a warmonger—he himself denied he was—but someone who would happily start a war if it made him look good; if it was a sick burn inflicted on his opponents. Churchill’s unreliability—his dishonourable approach to life—started early: when he escaped from Boer captivity in the early 1900s, he was meant to go with two other men—somehow they were “left behind” while Churchill undertook his heroic escape. Hmmm.

Contrary to popular belief, Churchill was not some arch-reactionary “racist” and “imperialist”; he initially wanted to join the Liberal Party, but his father was a Conservative and so to the Conservatives he went—although he was eventually to swap around parties to facilitate his narcissistic whims. Churchill billed himself as a “Tory democrat” and completely abominated the man who was really the last Prime Minister who really governed—Lord Salisbury—because, as Churchill himself said, he saw himself as a democrat first and a Tory second; an assertion that is truly an oxymoron. The term “Tory democrat” was coined by Disraeli, with his “one nation Conservatives”—and really Churchill was always following Disraeli, in various ways.

So Churchill was for mass enfranchisement—for one man, one vote—and, indeed, sought to make his money from the then-new penny press, the mass market tabloids like the Daily Mail. Churchill was no stuffy elitist; he was a media event—a self-conscious celebrity, with about as much substance as any celebrity. Hence if you examine his positions on India—supposedly ferociously “racist” and “imperialist”—you find that among his chief complaints as regards the move to Indian independence was that India still had “untouchables” (i.e. a racial caste system) and that what was really required was for British administrators to be given more time to break this system down—he explicitly spoke for “human rights”.

Similarly, in his youthful adventures in the Sudan Churchill deplored the fact that General Kitchener had the skull of the defeated Mahdi (the original “Mad Mullah”) made into a drinking cup—barbaric and inhumane! In other words, Churchill’s position was what post-Marxists castigate as “liberal imperialism”; he was not some loot ‘n’ plunder East Indiaman—he was much more like a Washington journalist today who despairs that the US left Afghanistan, even though the women there are still “unliberated”.

Churchill noted, correctly, that the administration of India was less corrupt and more impartial when operated by the British than it would be in Indian hands; yet his point was only that British administrators would be sounder social engineers to extirpate the caste system and India’s spiritual heritage, to make the Indians suitably deracinated worker units—just like the readers of the Daily Mail. He also correctly noted that Indian independence would lead to war between the Hindus and Muslims—still in progress as I write—and yet this was all in the context that eventually there would be no more Hindus and Muslims; eventually, the Indians would become “modern”, just like the British—they would embrace Enlightenment values.

In general, in his comments on India, Churchill always stressed his non-racial stance—his hostility to Hinduism precisely because it had a racial component; and his hatred of the Brahmins, of the priests—the descendants of the Aryans. Of course, as with all conservative liberals, Churchill’s liberal individualism leaves him nowhere today—he is considered an out-and-out racist. Churchill was always very much for progress—for levelling, for atheism, for bland uniformity; it did him no good, he fed the resentful masses—eventually they ate him.

So Churchill the “racist monster” slowly evaporates, although it must be understood that contemporary post-Marxists conceptualise liberal imperialism as racist—to spread universal Enlightenment values is racist and Eurocentric; hence the sterile debate between the conservative defenders of “Enlightenment values” and the progressive “postmodernists”—essentially, two lefts that completely exclude genuine scientific investigation, spirituality, and reactionary outlooks.

When Churchill’s bust was removed from the White House early in the Obama administration the move must be understood in this context: the leftist Obama repudiated the “white liberal racist imperialist”—his administration would promote “indigenous values” such as LGBT rights, for verily it is written in the anthropological journals that Arabs and Africans did partake freely in the butt sex before white Eurocentric Christian colonisers arrived. Personally, I feel certain vital perspectives—such as those adumbrated by my best mate, Osama bin Laden (PBUH)—are excluded from this dialectic.

So Churchill was a superficial guy. Sure, he won the Nobel Prize but that was just a “thank-you” for the war—his colleagues would congratulate him in a back-handed way about the fact he had completed yet another magisterial tome on history; yet their compliments were back-handed because they knew Churchill had bright graduates from Oxford to help him winkle out all the documents. In other words, Churchill had assistants do the hard part and then he read what they had turned up and dictated his “hot takes” to his secretary. If you do it this way, then it is really no achievement—Churchill had no deep mastery of his topic; Churchill the pseudo-scholar.

Although he was an aristocrat by birth, Churchill was not an aristocrat as Nietzsche imagined. He was a man of the people to the last—hence his career in the popular press, his career in sentimental delusions. What was his vice? You know it yourself, it is obvious from his figure: greed. Churchill was greedy, hence corpulent—and also greedy for $$$s. From an early age, he conceived an idea—an idea that sounds laughable to relate—that he risked “poverty”; now, he meant relative poverty obviously—and yet I am not sure, given his neurotic and narcissistic nature, that he experienced it that way. Churchill probably always thought himself to be in desperate straits, even when he cruised about in a Daimler—he was that kind of self-dramatiser and narcissist. “Things are dark now…Very grim,” he says, as he steps from his Rolls-Royce into Claridge’s with a cigar in hand—total delusion.

Hence Churchill made sure that he rattled off article after article for the popular press for a handsome fee—indeed, he was among the best-paid writers on the block, and always for mass piggy newspapers; given his remark about trees and newspapers, he must have held this work in contempt really. When he was in America the Wall Street crash hit—he lost considerable funds, yet made it back within two years (doubtless he thought himself poor the whole time).

Given the above information, do you think Churchill was a stable man who made responsible decisions in accordance with reality? I think he was an emotionally labile narcissist, a greedy man—for food and money—who was never told “no” as a child; a democrat with no honour; a man with persecutory fantasies that he was “poor”, when he was loaded—and an insincere man who was depressed because he spent all his time trying to “own” people in silly non-debates over non-issues.

When will he mention it—he already alluded to it, will he say it? So, yes, the Jews—given his obsession with money and “money problems” Churchill was quite biddable, he was particularly associated with the New York financier Baruch—he also had a German scientific advisor, Lindemann (later Viscount Cherwell), who was his constant companion at home; now, they say Lindemann was not Jewish—yet my intuition says otherwise. Naturally, Churchill was also a Freemason—as his family had been for centuries. In short, Churchill’s naturally labile constitution, his desire for money, his egalitarianism, and his close association with the Jews was bound to make him very hostile to Hitler’s Germany.

Curiously, Churchill condemned Hitler’s “paganism” although he himself was no Christian and had adopted an attitude similar to Gibbon as regards religion—i.e. Churchill held to Enlightenment values; he was pagan like Aurelius, a Stoic rationalist who thought the gods were useful but mostly a fiction to govern the credulous readers of the Daily Mail—Hitler was too much like a genuine pagan. Similarly, Churchill held to a late Victorian view that interpreted Darwin’s theory of evolution to mean more “moral”, hence “evolved”, states won in the end; i.e. it amputated the actuality of what natural selection is, its bloody ruthlessness, and favoured a bien pensant “evolution”. Again, Hitler was more correct as regards what Darwin meant.

Taken together, Churchill was precisely the type—particularly with his Hitler-like ability to tap into the British collective unconscious—to mobilise for “war to the end” against Hitler when it would have been possible to make peace; he was very strident as regards “unconditional surrender” for Germany—when conditional terms would have ended the war much earlier; and this stridency can probably be partly attributed to his narcissistic character.

Churchill had three political objectives: first, maintain the British Empire; second, maintain a non-socialist Britain; and third, maintain British independence and sovereignty. Immediately after his premiership ended, the British Empire finally collapsed and Britain had ceded her sovereignty to the United States—a socialist government had been elected. If we judge Churchill by his own standards, his political career can only be seen as a failure.

My view is that the “Churchill cult” is now dead; it was already almost dead when I was a child in the 1990s; and I suspect that in the next two decades there will be concerted move by “the woke” to take down Churchill statues and rename buildings associated with him; as is often the fate with people who are conservative leftists, Churchill is hated more by the left’s vanguard than the same cadres hate the radical rightists—they hate Churchill more than Oswald Mosley—because nobody likes someone who is almost on-message but not quite.

The once-common somewhat smug Conservative, often a working-class Conservative, who used to say, “If it wasn’t for Winston, we’d all be speaking German,” has vanished—and, of course, he seems risible now; the concern is not so much whether or not the British are “speaking German” but whether or not we will survive as a people in a system that is bent on our extermination and in a context where our major cities resemble Nairobi, Islamabad, and Mogadishu. In short, we should have made peace with Hitler—and even if Hitler had invaded us, it would have been a less worse fate by far.

Churchill’s defenders will endlessly raise his support for progress, democratic parliamentarianism, and non-racial politics; and will be steamrollered, with Churchill considered a “white supremacist” almost as bad as Hitler—despite their divergent views. This is the final price paid for attempts to negotiate with perversion, with the general trend mislabelled “progress”.

196 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All