Reflections on “Darkest Hour”

Darkest Hour centers around the conflict of whether Winston Churchill, at the low point of the war from his perspective in May of 1940, should negotiate/capitulate to Hitler, or fight on against all odds.  We all know the basic contours of this history.  While the expected dramatic liberties are taken, the essential thrust of the debate within the Churchill cabinet presented in the film is more or less historically accurate, and thus is food for thought.

We know that Neville Chamberlain was the “appeaser,” but perhaps less known is that he and Foreign Secretary Halifax were in the process of putting out peace feelers shortly before the Dunkirk evacuation, and that Churchill himself almost resigned himself to that path—at least, according to the film.  Indeed, as portrayed in the film, Churchill did make some ambiguous statements indicating he might be willing to “consider” some terms for peace with Germany.  But ultimately he thought that could only be done from a position of strength; i.e., a military victory.  This interesting conflict, the inner conflict with which Churchill grappled, is the focus of the film.

The event which averted that eventuality, if we are to take the film’s version of events, is Churchill’s speech to Parliament (“We shall fight them in the air…”)  which rallied the support of those who were skeptical of his hawkish attitude towards Germany, many of whom were in his own Conservative party.  In fact, the reception of this now famous speech was more lukewarm in Parliament and was not broadcast on the radio as portrayed in the film (Churchill recorded it after the fact, hence the version of this audio we hear today was not recorded live during the speech).

If we are to compare this to the film Dunkirk, just in the sense that they are both in the World  War II genre and both received lots of buzz, the Darkest Hour is more enjoyable and substantive.  Whereas Dunkirk was a hodgepodge of mindless action scenes with quick-cuts which made one unsure what exactly was happening, Darkest Hour has a more deliberate pace and will be of interest to a more high-brow audience.

Also in Dunkirk there was a notable absence of any reference to those mysterious people fighting on the other side of the war.  In Darkest Hour we have a more interesting decision, which is to intersperse the film with speeches from Hitler, playing on a radio in the background, as a kind of ominous menace for Churchill.  The Führer’s staccato, guttural German so contrasted with the sensibility of the English that it certainly added to the dramatic tension of the film.  A motif of WWII films, also seen in Stalingrad, is a radio playing the speech of a Nazi leader, only to be abruptly turned off in disgust, symbolically representing how we, the audience, are also meant to “shut off” their message, lest we reinterpret that message in the context of modern times.

We’re all well aware that Hollywood focuses its considerable powers in lionizing and demonizing historical figures according to the political agenda of the elites who run Hollywood and the rest of the media.  Churchill, portrayed masterfully by Gary Oldman, continues to be a quirky and endearing figure—his motivations are certainly much criticized in Alt-Right circles, while his racialist beliefs are coming under increasing fire from the left.  Yet Churchill is a rare alpha White male who is lionized in pop-culture.

The artistic details of the movie (acting, cinematograph) are frankly less interesting here than the place which World War II holds in the consciousness of the West, and the extent to which Darkest Hour reinforces that consciousness.  Because 1945 is a kind of crossroads for Western Civilization, we must always be vigilant in monitoring the public perception of “the road not taken,” and consider “what if.”  Darkest Hour is especially provocative in that it shows how close the Churchill government was to reaching terms with Hitler’s Germany, as France was about to do.  The British Empire would have been secure, so promised Hitler, who was otherwise positively disposed to the English.  Churchill certainly doubted Hitler’s sincerity; yet at the time reaching a settlement seemed like an eminently reasonable course of action, and one cannot let 20/20 hindsight obscure the fact that the conclusion of the war was not at all foregone.

The takeaway from my experience of viewing the film in the theater is that we apparently never tire of patting ourselves on the back for being “on the right side.”   Yet is it fair to consider “the road not taken” in light of the consequences of the road we have taken? It’s an Alt-Right trope and meme that the road taken ultimately ended up in catastrophe. Darkest Hour makes us consider once again how we can get from point A — a homogeneous Britain proud of its past circa 1940 … to point B — the disaster that the U.K. is now: a police state of the multicultural, anti-White left. Although the present dire straits of the Britain and the West are certainly not an inevitable result of the road taken, it is very unlikely that the road not taken would have led ultimately to similar results.

The theater in which I saw the film was populated by mostly baby boomers and some elderly Americans who had to be helped into their seats.  I could wax sentimental to share a patriotic, cultural moment with older generations; taking in a film which speaks to our shared heritage, and pays homage to the socially approved heroes of our civilization.  I too can appreciate the grandiosity of Churchill as a historical figure, an eloquent, larger-than-life man.

Yet I also felt that the theater audience sought to experience the dopamine rush in affirming their moral paradigm: “We’re the good guys, and we won.”  At the end of the film, a text read that five years later Germany would surrender, and the audience broke into applause.  How much longer will we affirm ourselves with these pieties?  Have they not noticed that we have bigger problems now than the problem than “Nazis”—whether these are historical National Socialists, or the new type routinely called Nazis (anyone who disagrees with liberals).

Regardless, WWII is itself a kind of poetic history. It cannot be changed, and hopefully we can yet overcome our present challenges.  In that spirit, Darkest Hour is an enjoyable film.

Follow Malcolm Jaggers @malcolmjaggers

 

131 replies
  1. Carolyn Yeager
    Carolyn Yeager says:

    Absolutely disgusting final paragraph. WWII is “poetic history?” And “hopefully …”. Sorry, there is no hope. Britain is ruined for good, and it was ruined by the pampered Winston Churchill and his pacts with Jews. Don’t believe in a movie, for god’s sake.

    All this continued lionizing of Churchill by the British – their need to comfort themselves with movies and monuments. Where is the grit that they believe WC showed them they have? WC was totally counting on America’s Roosevelt to save him, and Roosie forbade WC from making any deals with Hitler. What Jaggers knows but is only willing to suggest, is that Britain *should* have made a peace with Germany. But I don’t believe WC was ever truly considering it. Once again, it’s a Hollywood movie, for god’s sake.

    • JRM
      JRM says:

      Well said, Carolyn! The pyrrhic “victory” of “the West” against “the forces of evil” was sold to the public via relentless propaganda that convinced most that a German victory would mean slave labor and the despoliation of womanhood. The fact that Churchill is still revered by many White intellectuals is a testimony to gullibility and our weakness for flattery by Jewish media moguls.

    • Captain John Charity Spring MA
      Captain John Charity Spring MA says:

      Some historically accurate details in the film blow a hole in the thesis that the British Establishment wanted to have the war.

      The Generals briefing the war cabinet certainly were defeatists and didn’t think they could stop the Germans in any case.

      Chamberlain the old Tory PM representing the Imperialists and Bussiness wanted to end it.

      Halifax representing the minor nobles and many high ranking nobles wanted it over.

      The King wanted no part of Churchill’s
      premiership.

      The people barking to keep the British in the war were mentioned in the sequence on the no confidence vote. Labour’s Attlee was given a moment when he demanded Chamberlain step down. Arthur Greenwood, Attlee’s sidekick also in the war cabinet wasn’t mentioned.

      In the five man war cabinet Churchill, Attlee and Greenwood voted to keep fighting.

      Halifax and Chamberlain wanted to seek terms.

      The film utterly ignored Greenwood and Attlee in their decisive war cabinet role. Why were these two so confident Britain would prevail? Were they gambling or were they privately assured in private by other actors?

      The conservative establishment wanted no war. They knew it would ruin them.

    • RoyAlbrecht
      RoyAlbrecht says:

      Thanks Carolyn. I suffer reading through reviews of Jewlywood Filth but cannot bring myself to comment on the milk-toast and sugar anal injections of some of these writers. I sure hope TOO does not pay guys for this kind of pabulum.
      The Jews were sucking the life out of Germany, Hitler got rid of them and the UK took them in. Now the UK, most of Europe and North America are done for.
      There are no “…What ifs…”.

  2. Franklin Ryckaert
    Franklin Ryckaert says:

    For an alternative view on “war hero” Winston Churchill, see the article by Theodore J. O’Keefe : Irving on Churchill, Dismantling Churchillian Mythology, here : http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v07/v07p498_Okeefe.html

    The Jews had formed a pressure group around Churchill, called “The Focus” , that bribed him and coached him in their desired direction. In above mentioned article Irving describes The Focus :

    The Focus was financed by a slush fund set up by some of London’s wealthiest businessmen — principally, businessmen organized by the Board of Jewish Deputies in England, whose chairman was a man called Sir Bernard Waley Cohen. Sir Bernard Waley Cohen held a private dinner party at his apartment on July 29, 1936. This is in Waley Cohen’s memoirs … The 29th of July, 1936, Waley Cohen set up a slush fund of 50,000 pounds for The Focus, the Churchill pressure group. Now, 50,000 pounds in 1936, multiply that by ten, at least, to get today’s figures. By another three or four to multiply that into Canadian dollars. So, 40 times 50,000 pounds — about $2 million in Canadian terms — was given by Bernard Waley Cohen to this secret pressure group of Churchill in July 1936. The purpose was — the tune that Churchill had to play was — fight Germany. Start warning the world about Germany, about Nazi Germany. Churchill, of course, one of our most brilliant orators, a magnificent writer, did precisely that.

    For more exposure of the real Churchill, see video The Real Churchill, by David Irving, here : https://youtu.be/1evJDRhnWH0

    • cm miller
      cm miller says:

      Just when I think there is not much more to learn about the Jewish part in Hitler’s successful rise, IHR adds something. However, my thoughts turn to a game I play: if a friend is beginning to wake from the slumber of massive propaganda about WWII, then what simple piece of information can I give them to make them question their brainwashing?
      * Images of coins commemorating the cooperation between Zionists and Hitler in the Haavara Agreement available on the Internet?
      * A video detailing Jews & 6 million in newspapers some as early as 1899?
      * The 1933 Declaration of War on Germany by the Jews documented in newspapers?

      Any suggestions?

      • Graham Booth
        Graham Booth says:

        You name three, and all are excellent. Yet there is a book waiting to be written on a related and surely massively intriguing subject. Commenter John Charity Spring alludes above to the reluctance of the Conservative Establishment to wage war on Germany. He specifically mentions King George VI’s role, in that, as he puts it, ‘The King wanted no part of Churchill’s
        premiership’. But what of the events that brought him to the throne in the first place? The abdication crisis of 1936 is universally thought to have been the result of King Edward VIII’s dalliance with the twice-divorced American socialite Wallis Simpson. I have come to believe that this was a convenient hook upon which to hang the looming abdication caused by Edward’s refusal to go along with a war on Germany that had been planned since 1933, or at the latest 1935. The French Ambassador to the Court of St James at the time is on record (in correspondence in French) as declaring that he had been told by an informant from the British Cabinet that the king had told Prime Minister Baldwin that “I will abdicate if I am asked to declare war on Germany”. It is perhaps not so well known as it should be that King Edward had Nazi symapathies, and there is a famous photograph of him in the garden at Buckingham Palace with her present Majesty, then Princess ELizabeth, and her sister the late Princess Margaret, taken in about 1935. All are giving the Roman (i.e. Hitler) salute.

        • Captain John Charity Spring MA
          Captain John Charity Spring MA says:

          The film touches on some of the personalities who couped Chamberlain. Clement Attlee and Arthur Greenwood were the mouthpieces of the coup but some Conservatove backbencher s like (((Leo Amery))) were glossed over. Churchill was imposed by a combination of Labour leaders and Jewish-Con back benchers. Over the objections of Halifax and other aristocrats who were probably National Socialists by inclination.

          • Graham Booth
            Graham Booth says:

            I note that you put Leo Amery in echo brackets. Curious that one of his sons- John- was hanged by Pierrepoint as a traitor because of his trenchant support of Hitler.

          • Captain John Charity Spring MA
            Captain John Charity Spring MA says:

            Amery was very very Jewish.

            His son paradoxically joined the SS and tried to create a British manned unit in the German Orbat.

  3. Trenchant
    Trenchant says:

    Unlike Hitler, I know of no instance where Churchill demonstrated personal bravery in the danger. (The risk of corked claret seems about the extent of it). α♂!

    • Ronald Blake
      Ronald Blake says:

      As a lieutenant attached to the 21st Lancers, Churchill accompanied Kitchener on his Sudan campaign, participating in one of the last cavalry charges in history, at the Battle of Omdurman in 1898. Additionally, he worked as a war correspondent in Cuba, following Spanish combat operations in the 1890s, and in South Africa during the Boer War.

      • Captain John Charity Spring MA
        Captain John Charity Spring MA says:

        He was also a batallion commander in the British Army on the ww1 Western Front after he lost his appointment as First Sea Lord.

      • PaleoAtlantid
        PaleoAtlantid says:

        Most people forget that Churchill’s official status during his time in South Africa was as a ‘war correspondent’, and as such very close to espionage. When captured the Boer commander considered having him shot as a spy, but the officer relented and thought Churchill could be a useful pawn. Had the Boer officer been more of a military man and less a politician, how many millions of men and women would not have died in WWI and WWII? We don’t know, but it is a sobering thought.

        • Sheila
          Sheila says:

          In the movie, WINSTON (which as I understand is based on his autobiography) there is certainly a very positive account of his bravery in service in various areas…interesting reading the various comments on Churchill.

    • Captain John Charity Spring MA
      Captain John Charity Spring MA says:

      He was a physically heroic man.

      However, the decision to continue the war was a grave mistake teleologically.

      What did Roosevelt have on him after all? Why did Atlee and Greenwood want him to be premier and force the no confidence vote.

  4. Lynda
    Lynda says:

    The dopamine paradigm is fatal. The Communist powers of WWII were not the good guys and Nazi Germany was controlled opposition set up by The City in London/Wall St axis of evil for the destruction of the German nation and the delivery of Europe to the Soviet Block. The Great Puppetmasters of WWII was the Judaic Supremacy and its banking cartel. For its own objectives it ordered its ZOG commanders to ignite World War and this was the greatest European fratricide and kinslaying to date. Churchill was a Zionist warlord who knew all about this.

    • Curmudgeon
      Curmudgeon says:

      I keep reading this theory about the NS Germany being controlled opposition. The question I keep asking myself is for what purpose were they controlled?
      The Communist Party (there was more than one) had more support than the NSDAP. In the 1928 election, it had 4 times the number of seats than the NSDAP. The German National People’s Party had half again as many seats as the Communists, despite losing 30 from the 1924 election. The Social Democrats were on top.
      In 1930, the NSDAP gained 95 seats and the Communists gained 23 seats, making them the 2nd and 3rd in Reichstag seats. The National Peoples Party lost 32 seats, The SDP was still on top.
      In July 1932, the NSDAP gained 123 seats to become the largest, the SDP, in 2nd, lost 10 seats while the Communists remained 3rd by gaining 12. In November 1932, the NSDAP lost 34 seats, and the SDP lost 12 but remained first and second. The Communists gained 12 seats to remain 3rd and the Nationalist party gained 14 to move into 5th behind the Centre Party.
      There is a trend there. The nationalist parties were becoming stronger as were the communists. The SDP was always a party of “the Left”. The idea that the NSDAP, with its internal dissent, was controlled, just doesn’t wash.
      Other than the physical destruction of Germany and its people, what was there to gain by the controllers? It would have been easier for the Wall Street communists that supported the Bolsheviks to support the communist parties. If they wanted a nationalist party, they already had one. The Communists already had their people in place in Czechoslovakia, and for the most part “owned” many in high positions in France and the UK.
      What point would there be to controlling the NSDAP in order to have it present dozens of proposals on disarmament and settling conflicts peacefully, risking that others might agree? What point would there be in supporting a party that exposed the international banking system for what it was, risking that others might catch on?
      The NSDAP were far from perfect, but controlled? I can’t see it.

      • Carolyn Yeager
        Carolyn Yeager says:

        I think Lynda probably learns her conspiratorial view of history from videos, so many of which sluff over the evidentiary basis for their claims. Many Youtube addicts are already primed to believe these things, so it doesn’t take much. Has she ever read a book telling her this?

        Good for you for opposing her on her impressions.

        • Captain John Charity Spring MA
          Captain John Charity Spring MA says:

          Hitler rose to power with the firm backing of certain German industrial concerns. in much as that is conspiratorial it’s a conspiracy.

          It’s interesting to see Konrad Adenauer’s career path as a comparison. He was a native of the Ruhr and got Germany back to business and cemented good relations with France.

          • Carolyn Yeager
            Carolyn Yeager says:

            Certain German industrial concerns backed Hitler because he opposed the communists and red labor unions, which they DIDN”T want. Perfectly legitimate reasons.

            Adenauer cooperated with the U.S. Army Occupation government, so based on that he got the new, denazified, American-controlled Germany back to business. That’s what you like, Mr. Captain John.

          • Captain John Charity Spring MA
            Captain John Charity Spring MA says:

            Adenauer did more long term good for the Germans than either Bismarck or Hitler. And he had a very bad hand dealt to him.

          • Carolyn Yeager
            Carolyn Yeager says:

            I am not anti-Adenauer. He did the best he could. However, you are British (sounds like) and you don’t know what’s good for Germans. I take offense at people like you who think you do.

            The “good” that Adenauer did for Germans was after Germans had been stripped of all their rights, privileges, self-rule, history, dignity. It appears you think that Germans today are doing just great. It took two generations of absolute indoctrination AGAINST their own ancestors to make them think so themselves. Germans don’t have enough children now and have to bring in Turks, Syrians and black Africans to have children for them. You think that’s good?

          • Captain John Charity Spring MA
            Captain John Charity Spring MA says:

            Adenauer’s career speaks for itself. He saw the limits of his own nation’s power better than either Hitler (boxed in by great powers) or Churchill (inability to see war would crush his Empire) for that matter.

            Adenauer’s desire
            to be on excellent terms with France for example. A stroke of political genius that he advocated for both before and after ww1.

        • Captain John Charity Spring MA
          Captain John Charity Spring MA says:

          It’s an interesting discussion as Adenauer has a career during ww1, interwar years and post ww2.

          Menachim Begin tried to have him assassinated with a bomb too.

          From an outsiders perspective Adenauer looks like a very good leader. The Rhinelander Germans might agree.

          Yes I’m ethnic English and Irish.

          • Carolyn Yeager
            Carolyn Yeager says:

            People like you and Lynda throw around general statements that you cannot ultimately defend. You don’t even try.

            “Adenauer did more long term good for the Germans than either Bismarck or Hitler,” you wrote. But you can’t give any underlying reasons for that statement; you’re left with an empty bag, saying “It’s an interesting discussion.”

            Adenauer couldn’t see any way other than to get along with the Jews. He was more anti-Prussian in his early years, a typical British position. Hitler succeeded in freeing Germans from Jews until people like you fought in overwhelming numbers FOR the Jews. Can you deny your advice is to get along with Jews because you cannot justify it morally to do otherwise?

            Anyone who is anti-Hitler is pro-Jew. Hitler is history’s greatest jew-fighter. All the baseless talk about Hitler being financed by Jews, which you indulge in, is only an effort to cover up one’s own cowardice in the face of Jews … “Hitler was no hero, was corrupt, so I don’t have to follow his example. He was wrong.”

          • Franklin Ryckaert
            Franklin Ryckaert says:

            @Carolyn Yeager

            “…Anyone who is anti-Hitler is pro-Jew…”

            That is too black-and-white. I am “anti-Hitler” only with regard to his anti-Slavic policies. I am also “anti-Jew” but not in a genocidal sense.

            “…Hitler is history’s greatest Jew-fighter…”

            Indeed he was, but because he was anti-Jew in such a Manichaean way, he aroused the total hostility of world Jewry, which led to his defeat. Putin is also “anti-Jew”, but in a more subtle way. He frustrates Jewish policies without declaring himself to be an enemy of the Jews, while even befriending Jews where that is advantageous to him. A far more successful approach.

          • Carolyn Yeager
            Carolyn Yeager says:

            From Adenauer’s Wikipedia page:
            Adenauer believed that Prussianism was the root cause of National Socialism, and that only by driving out Prussianism could Germany become a democracy. [29 – Maria Mitchell,(2012). “The Origins of Christian Democracy: Politics and Confession in Modern Germany”. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press]
            In a December 1946 letter, Adenauer wrote that the Prussian state in the early 19th century had become an “almost God-like entity” that valued state power over the rights of individuals.
            [29]

            We all know that Democracy is the best form of government and the one preferred by the Jewish new world order.

          • Captain John Charity Spring MA
            Captain John Charity Spring MA says:

            I understand that you are essentially Anglophobic.

            Fair enough.

            One argument you recently made transferred blame for ww2 onto the actual British establishment from general Jewish culpability. Seems like you happily switch back n forth as you wish on culpability.

            Jews, British, Jews, back n forth as it suits.

            I’m just pointing out that Adenauer had a career that spanned pre-1914 to the 1950s. He had a lot of good instincts. He certainly shaped the Cold War and he shaped the EEC. Had he been appointed Chancellor in 1930 perhaps he may have found a settlement between France and Germany. He had all the right ideas and motivations.

          • Carolyn Yeager
            Carolyn Yeager says:

            FR: “That is too black-and-white. I am “anti-Hitler” only with regard to his anti-Slavic policies. I am also “anti-Jew” but not in a genocidal sense.”

            In what sense are you “anti-Jew”? You think we can convince enough Whites to reject everything Jewish, and conquer the Jews that way while they stay in our societies? It will never happen. White people in general are too weak in character and too unintelligent in general to stand up to Jews. That’s why I look only to Germans and to those others who can appreciate and love Adolf Hitler, and not feel the need to denounce him for any reason. Hitler had courage, and also honesty; he was a unique genius for our times. But most are willing to trash him because the Jews tell them to do so.

            All those who think like you, Franklin, are giving bad advice – encouraging us to do things that won’t work. Such as pointing to Putin as though you are offering an answer; at other times you’ve pointed to the current “Visegrad” leaders with the same purpose. You have a thing for the Slavs. But look at what just happened in Slovakia. The entire Eastern Europe, including Russia, is like that. The EU looks the other way. The ONLY answer is to push back on the Jews – hard.

            The truth MIGHT set us free. But we have to use it. Not false moralism.

          • Captain John Charity Spring MA
            Captain John Charity Spring MA says:

            I’m not trashing Hitler. I do think he underestimated the Jews. He didn’t appear to understand how thoroughly Jewish the US had become by the late 1930s. He didn’t have any idea how far they were prepared to go to get a cut of the profits from German technical genius.

          • Carolyn Yeager
            Carolyn Yeager says:

            Capt; John wrote-
            “I understand that you are essentially Anglophobic.”
            “One argument you recently made transferred blame for ww2 onto the actual British establishment from general Jewish culpability. Seems like you happily switch back n forth as you wish on culpability. Jews, British, Jews, back n forth as it suits.”

            There is little daylight between British and Jews. That is not a slander, but a fact. History bears it out. Germans, on the other hand, have always put up a resistance. The Anglosphere has done terrible violence against Germany in alliance with Jewish money interests, and succeeded in bringing Germany to its knees. People like you and Franklin blame the hero Adolf Hitler for that, rather than the Anglos and the Dutch. It’s disgraceful, really.

            Yes, the British are to blame for WWII.

            The outcome, however, is that Great Britain is now on its knees as a totally sold-out nation while Germany is stronger. And you’re left with trying to prop up the big sell-out Winston Churchill as a heroic figure who stood up to “big bully” Adolf Hitler.
            Even the Royal Family is now getting a full-blown negro bride into its midst and no one has the nerve to say a word about it. Look at the photo on top of her facebook page to see just how “negro” she actually looks: https://www.facebook.com/HRHTheDuchessOfSussex/ And she’ll only get more so.

            The British are so caught up with their “Traditions” that offer them meaningless spectacles, brought to them by their Jewish media, they can’t even see what is happening to them. The Germans are also under the control of the anti-Hitler forces, enforced by that Anglosphere you defend, but there are still signs of life in Germany. An excellent article in three parts explaining the differences between Anglo-Americans and Germans can be found on my website here: http://carolynyeager.net/hostility-towards-germans
            I highly recommend it.

            This is why I don’t believe in a White movement, or that all Whites want the same thing. You and I are very far apart, and I’m not going to compromise my values to move closer to you. Neither you nor FR are really anti-Jewish because you think we just need to do something about the “worst Jews”, then the rest will be alright. You are toothless tigers.

          • Carolyn Yeager
            Carolyn Yeager says:

            More from Capt. John:
            “I’m just pointing out that Adenauer had a career that spanned pre-1914 to the 1950s. He had a lot of good instincts. He certainly shaped the Cold War and he shaped the EEC. Had he been appointed Chancellor in 1930 perhaps he may have found a settlement between France and Germany. He had all the right ideas and motivations.”

            So what? You originally made the clear statement, “Adenauer did more long term good for the Germans than either Bismarck or Hitler.” You have not shown that. Adenauer was strongly Catholic and Christian, a leader of the Centre (Cleric) party who later became a Christian Democrat. He was an appeaser who failed to pass the physical exam for being a soldier in WWI because of ‘respiratory weakness’, so sat it out. He didn’t like strength or force (Prussianism he called it); he did like Democracy and parlimentarianism. But he was totally intolerant of those in Germany who thought differently than himself. That was his problem as a politician. There was no way he would have been elected Chancellor in 1930 because of that, so you are raising a chimera,

            But if he had, he would have continued along the Weimar path with Germans remaining under the crushing Versailles Treaty. Adenauer could never possibly have created the “economic miracle” that Hitler brought about.

          • Carolyn Yeager
            Carolyn Yeager says:

            Capt. John wrote:
            “I’m not trashing Hitler. I do think he underestimated the Jews. He didn’t appear to understand how thoroughly Jewish the US had become by the late 1930s.”

            Haha. Now you’re passing the buck to the US, still trying to exempt the British from their complete cooperation with Jews in their efforts to destroy Germany as a competitor. You are so transparent.

          • Captain John Charity Spring MA
            Captain John Charity Spring MA says:

            And as I pointed out Adenauer did the basic ground work for Germany today, in a political career that spanned 50 years.

      • PaleoAtlantid
        PaleoAtlantid says:

        To the extent they were “controlled” it was as it were by wire, not directly, so even the leadership were not aware that paths were prepared for their industrial and rearmament programs.
        Professor Anthony Sutton covers this particular planning in his book ‘Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler’. The ‘globalists’ wanted another war and for that purpose Germany had to be made strong and militaristic. The Nazi warlords were only too keen to oblige. Similarly, Soviet Russia was saved from collapse by the same Capitalists. Again Professor Sutton covers this in his book ‘Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution’. Both books are meticulously researched with a wealth of irrefutable information.
        The goal of WWII, fortunately only partly achieved, was the destruction of Europe and it peoples. The remnant of which was to be sovietized. Churchill and his intimate circle knew and approved of this plan. Churchill cannot escape complicity, his words and actions damn him.
        Much the same analysis had been done concerning the conduct of WWI. And now 70 and 100 year later we see the same assemblage of malign forces working ceaselessly to destroy us in body mind and soul. These bastards never stop until they are stopped…permanently!

        • Franklin Ryckaert
          Franklin Ryckaert says:

          If the goal was the destruction of Europe and its peoples then the originators of this nefarious plan could themselves not have been people of European descent. The terms “Wall Street” and “globalists” in the works of prof. Sutton suggest the real ethnic identity of these genocidal criminals : JEWS, and that makes sense. The Jews have always hated Europeans. Europeans hating Europeans and wanting to destroy them is less likely. It is demonstrable that Jews were influential (from behind the scenes) in the events leading up to, during and after both world wars. However that the Third Reich was a creation by those same Jews is a stretch. Not all events in world history are the result of Jewish conspiracies, especially those that are definitely anti-Jewish.

          • PaleoAtlantid
            PaleoAtlantid says:

            Professor Sutton while employed by Stanford University had to tread lightly, and was careful not to be accused of antisemitism, but he knew the score.
            I agree, NS Germany was not the creation of Jews, but they eased its path in the early years as it suited their grander schemes. However, like many of their schemes it turned around and bit them on the ass, especially when their chosen instrument the USSR was brought close to defeat.

          • Sophie Johnson
            Sophie Johnson says:

            ‘If the goal was the destruction of Europe and its peoples then the originators of this nefarious plan could themselves not have been people of European descent.’

            One hopes not, Franklyn. Yet one must wonder whether the ‘originators’ of such a plan and its ‘executors’ are one and the same. The rotten thing is that the latter do look remarkably European.

            Look at article 53 of the UN Charter. That contains the ‘pre-emptive strike’ licence that does not require Security Council permission to wage war. The article lists also the states against whom pre-emptive strike is allowed. Those states are the WWII Axis powers. Article 107 confirms this.

            So you and others, Franklyn, are dismissing much too lightly the thesis to which Lynda subscribes. In view of UN Charter articles 53 and 107, I dare not dismiss it. Stay the course, Lynda.

          • David Ashton
            David Ashton says:

            @ FR & PA

            Sutton’s “Wall Street & the Bolshevik Revolution” is informative, because like his previous Hoover Institute trilogy, it is carefully based on original documents, but he plays down the “Jewish” role in an appended comment. This issue is much more complicated than some imagine; and I am reluctant to dip into it in any detail again now. But the motives for the attraction of non-observant Jews to global communism need to be analyzed in more careful detail than a simple and mistaken explanation of a single overall evil conspiracy along the lines of the “Protocols”. The now much-quoted 1920 article by Churchill actually contained considerable insight, which was ratified by the sea-change in Jewish opinion towards Russia after the establishment of Israel. “From Leon Trotsky to Leo Strauss, from Olof Aschberg to Sheldon Adelson.”

        • Curmudgeon
          Curmudgeon says:

          My point is, that there were other parties that would have been easier targets, already with numbers in the Reichstag. Germany had disarmed, almost all of it under the SDP led coalition. The NSDAP went further, and for all intents and purposes, met its obligations under the Treaty of Versailles. It was the only participant at the 1933 disarmament conference that had done so, or for that matter disarmed in any meaningful way. When the others at the conference refused to meet their obligations, and told Germany it had no say in the matter because it had disarmed, then, and only then, did Germany begin re-arming.
          To borrow a phrase from my youth, it was like bringing a knife to a gunfight. They would have been fools not to begin re-arming, irrespective of the political party.
          Churchill himself acknowledged that it had nothing to do with the NSDAP, it was a war against the German people.

        • Carolyn Yeager
          Carolyn Yeager says:

          To PaleoAtlantid –
          Anthony Sutton has been proven to be incorrect in his suppositions — which are not based on facts. His book is full of mistakes.

          Similarly, your vague statement that “the Jews eased National-Socialism’s path in the early years as it suited their grander schemes” is pure nonsense, simply something you want to put forth or believe b/c it fits your mindset, but for which you have no solid evidence. I have come to the disappointing conclusion after participating here for awhile that most, not all, of the commenters are conspiracy-fanatics and video-watchers who don’t really know much, same as everywhere. A much lower level than one would wish.

          To Sophie Johnson –
          Do you really believe that “Nazi Germany (and Adolf Hitler) was controlled opposition set up by the City of London/Wall St axis of evil for the destruction of the German nation, etc, etc.?” — based on the United Nations being openly in opposition to the Axis powers of WWII – something we’ve known all along?

          The current German government – the FRG – is not the successor government of the Third Reich. If the Third Reich should try to return, the UN could wage war on it and destroy it. It gives itself that authority. Certainly NOT because it was “controlled opposition,” a creation of the city of London.

          • Carolyn Yeager
            Carolyn Yeager says:

            Further to PaleoAtlantid re his remark that

            “Both books (by Antony Sutton, “Wall Street & the Rise of Hitler” and “Wall Street and the rise of Bolshevism”) are meticulously researched with a wealth of irrefutable information.”

            As to the first book, irrefutable only in the sense that it is contained in documents. And “meticulously researched” perhaps, but with what result?

            His first chapter begins with this: “[T]he evidence presented below STRONGLY SUGGESTS SOME DEGREE OF PREMEDITATION on the part of these American financiers … ”

            IOW, he can’t tie the loose ends together.

            His last chapter, Conclusion, ends with “We have DEMONSTRATED with documentary evidence A NUMBER OF CRITICAL ASSOCIATIONS between Wall Street international bankers and the rise of Hitler and Nazism in Germany.”

            Associations! Yes, like the fictional “Sidney Warburg” book hoax. A whole chapter devoted to trying to prop that up, without success. I wonder how many people who praise that book have actually looked into it, because it is extremely boring to read – the reason being that it doesn’t ever come to any solid confirmation.

        • T
          T says:

          Similarly, Soviet Russia was saved from collapse by the same Capitalists. Again Professor Sutton covers this in his book ‘Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution’.

          Kind of fits in with this what this fellow I’d read about, whom might of been Sutton, that testified in front of a congressional committee during the Vietnam War that almost every weapon’s system the Soviets had or were developing with few exceptions was a direct copy of US weapons systems and platforms. The takeaway was that either US counter espionage efforts against Soviet theft of US secrets was bordering on worthless or powerful personages were practically giving them US technology by way of deliberately lax safeguards. Possibly, it was a combination of both. (ie Don’t fall too far behind Soviets; here, we’ll help you so you can keep up.)

          Though not a weapon’s system, and smaller in scale, the Soviet Union’s space shuttle, the Borat, was perhaps an example of this unorthodox technology transfer as it’s a dead ringer for the US shuttle. It never flew ultimately as it was developed around the time of the Soviet collapse.

          Of course, too, there were the Chinese campaign contributions to Clinton IIRC for alleged missile technology secrets.

          And, I’ve heard it said that had a collapse of the Soviet lines taken place during WWII that the Capitalist orientated United States was fully prepared to fill in those broken lines with its own troops. That is something I can easily believe.

        • T
          T says:

          Professor Anthony Sutton covers this particular planning in his book ‘Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler’. The ‘globalists’ wanted another war and for that purpose Germany had to be made strong and militaristic. The Nazi warlords were only too keen to oblige.

          If it hadn’t been for the possible exhaustion of the Allied powers resulting in the Armistice with Germany along with the Polish halting the Bolshevik invasion of Europe we might have seen the ‘Cold War’ scenario of a split Europe starting in the early 1920’s rather than 1945.

          Germany, though greatly damaged, had not been thouroughly crushed, so, in time they likely would have attempted to rise again and fully restore themselves. I could see how someone, just in case the Weimar Republic and its red elements did not suceed in completely demoralizing and breaking the German people, might to cover all bases finance a nascant nationalism. So as to aid and quicken this rise, some very large sums might have been made available. The idea being ultimately to finish the job of WWI and crush a resurgent Germany by way of war while doing the same to the identity of as many other European peoples in the process as well. That’s basically the idea of the book Conjuring Hitler; How Britain and America Made the Third Reich whose writer claims it was US and British banks, in particular the Bank of England, which came to dominate the Weimar Republic, and largely financed Hitler’s movement thru 1933.

          The 1853 book The New Rome by Poesche and Goepp outlined the geo-politics driving this in detail. Poesche, after fleeing the 1848 Revolution in Germany resided in London for a year or so before going on to the US and writing the book and having it published. Germany is descibed as being the center of power upon continental Europe which the US and Britain are to conquer. Russia being a contender with the US, is according to the writers to be attacked and overcome by the United States. The US, the planned direct continuation of the British Empire, will therefore have acquired for itself ‘the empire of the world’, the ‘New Rome’.

          The Anglo-Saxon elites whom know of these plans refer to the resulting global empire as the ‘New Rome’. I wonder what those powerful elements of the elites of the Jewish people call it, the ‘New Jerusalem’, or the ‘New Israel’?

          My strong suspicion is that while Poesche was in London he was introduced to the representatives of some very powerful personages there who ‘filled him in’ on already well developed plans for the world and ‘commissioned’ him to write and publish this book.

          https://www.amazon.com/Conjuring-Hitler-Britain-America-Third/dp/074532181X#productDescription_secondary_view_div_1521087785599

          https://archive.org/details/newrome00poes

          https://archive.org/details/politicalprophec00goeb

  5. Robert Henderson
    Robert Henderson says:

    The idea that Hitler would have let the UK continue as an imperial power doesn’t stand up. Hitler had already shown by 1940 that treaties and promises made in speeches meant nothing to him. He had begun by moving into the Rhineland in 1934 despite this being forbidden by the Treaty of Versailes in 1919. The Anschluss which joined Germany and Austria occurred in 1938 despite this being forbidden by the 1919 Treaty of Saint-Germain; the Munich Agreement of 1938 which restricted Germany to the Sudetenland was a dead letter after Hitler took possession of all of Czechoslovakia in 1939 and also in in 1939 Germany overturned the 10-year non-aggression pact between Germany and Poland signed in 1934 by invading Poland, an act which sounded the starting gun for WW2. All of that happened before Churchill became PM. In addition 1941 saw Germany break the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact ( signed in 1939) by invading Russia. The revisionist case that Britain should have stood aside and allowed Hitler free rein to attack Russia and thus retained both the Empire and global significance goes against all we know of Hitler’s mentality and actual behaviour . The best the UK could have hoped for was to be a vassal state of Nazi Germany and the worst would have been to be militarily occupied as Hitler broke whatever Vichy-style agreement he had made with the UK.

    Similarly the idea that Hitler allowed much of the British and French armies to escape from Dunkirk is bizarre. Consider this:

    Dunkirk ended on 4 June 1940.
    The Battle of Britain began on 10 July 1940
    The Blitz began on 7 Sept 1940

    Why on Earth would Hitler have allowed much of the British Army and a large part of the French Army to escape when he was willing to begin the Battle of Britain a mere 5 weeks after Dunkirk ended, start the Blitz a bare 9 weeks after Dunkirk and had Operation Sea Lion worked out before the Battle of Britain? ? If he had wanted a deal with Britain his obvious course of action would have been to capture the British troops in Dunkirk and use them either as a bargaining chip or simply hold them as POWs while Operation Sea Lion was enacted.

    It is also worth bearing in mind that the German Army in 1940 was inexperienced in war and its drive into France had only begun on 10 May. Hence, Germany may have had more immediately pressing objectives other than attacking British and French troops around Dunkirk or even have been uncertain what the outcome would have been if they had attacked Dunkirk full on with an inexperienced army.

    • Prof. Woland
      Prof. Woland says:

      Somewhere I was told that the German High Command did not realize that the British were evacuating until it was too late. Hitler thought the British would fight and that they were just regrouping. Churchill had ordered his Generals to not tell the French and instead gave the order to “Attack towards the Beaches”. We now know what he meant.

        • Captain John Charity Spring MA
          Captain John Charity Spring MA says:

          Well, they didn’t know the British could evacuate more than 70,000 men. The British Royal Navy estimated they would only be able to evacuate 60,000-70,000 men at all given the resources they could bring to Dunkirk.

          So even the British didn’t realize they could evacuate their entire force. Given the German General Staff had similar expertise, they probably estimated that the British could get no more than that 70,000 extracted from France.

          They expected something similar to what later happened to the British forces in Singapore where the Japs captured 200,000 Imperial Troops.

          Why rush in when a surrounded (and cut off from supplies) BEF would happily surrender?

      • Captain John Charity Spring MA
        Captain John Charity Spring MA says:

        The BEF left 10s of thousands of trucks, tracked carriers, artillery, 100s of thousands rifles, machine guns and millions of rounds of ammunition intact in France. The Germans put it all to good use against the USSR but came up short. 😉

    • Floda
      Floda says:

      My late father-in-law was a 21 year old British soldier at Dunkirk in 1940. He often told me it was a complete rout, every man for himself. When he finally arrived on the beach he had no rifle, no grenades, nothing, everything discarded. He said the British Army abandoned everything, all vehicles, artillery pieces etc. When he finally arrived in Dover a huge number of men were assembled and warned not to discuss what had happened with anyone, not even their family. They were told doing so would result in their imprisonment.

      • Franklin Ryckaert
        Franklin Ryckaert says:

        The question is not whether the British fled or not, but whether Hitler allowed them to flee or not. It is supposed that Hitler still wanted peace with Britain and allowing the British soldiers to flee was a gesture of good will of his.

        • Captain John Charity Spring MA
          Captain John Charity Spring MA says:

          They miscalculated the carry capacity of the Royal Navy, even the RN miscalculated their ability to extract so many men. They advised Churchill that they couldn’t salvage more than 60-70 thousand men.

    • Peter
      Peter says:

      “He had begun by moving into the Rhineland in 1934 despite this being forbidden by the Treaty of Versailes in 1919. The Anschluss which joined Germany and Austria occurred in 1938 despite this being forbidden by the 1919 Treaty of Saint-Germain…”

      The Rhineland was German territory and Germany’s sovereignty was repeatedly violated by France, Poland, Lithuania and other countries between 1919 and 1939. Germans and Austrians both overwhelmingly supported the Anschluss. Both of these instances were Germany’s business and no one elses. If a treaty gave the allies the right to starve Germans, you would defend that too. Czechoslovakia…, more of the same Germany’s business, not Britain, France or the USA. What would the reaction be of England or France if Germany made a treaty with India demanding the English abandon their colony, or France abandon Algeria?

      • Captain John Charity Spring MA
        Captain John Charity Spring MA says:

        You should look at Adenauer’s role in stymying French incursion into the Ruhr.

    • Vehmgericht
      Vehmgericht says:

      The terms of the 1940 armistice permitted France, a defeated power, to retain her colonies. Return of German colonies annexed to the British Empire after the Great War (such as Namibia) may have formed part of a hypothetical post-Dunkirk Anglo-German peace deal. But there is no evidence that dismemberment of the British Empire was a German war objective per se (though it was for Japan).

      We should remember that by the nineteen forties British rule in India was crumbling: it could not have been sustained without unacceptable levels of physical force. That point was made again and again in the nineteen fifties and sixties as one colony after another rebelled, the British invariably beating a face-saving retreat. (There is a wonderful documentary series “End of Empire” covering this period: highly recommended viewing).

      So to claim that the Second World War cost Britain her Empire is fanciful. Waging war under the terms of the US Lend-Lease lifeline, and the subsequent postwar Marshal Plan, certainly did leave Britain economically prostrate until the late nineteen fifties. And so the expense of administering the restive Empire became unsustainable. But who can blame the US, having expended so much blood and treasure in Western Europe, for financing the reconstruction on American terms?

      • David Ashton
        David Ashton says:

        WW2 was not the only reason for the loss of British Empire, but it was a decisive factor. Once world war took place in earnest, of course, German propaganda and military operations switched necessarily to an offensive against an enemy “commonwealth” which Hitler had previously respected and unfortunately in technical alliance with Imperial Japan and various anti-colonial persons “of color”. The anti-racist ideology animating the Allied cause undermined the will to hang onto India and later the African colonies. For our loss of treasure as well as blood in that Bruderkrieg, Correlli Barnett’s books remain a good place to start.

  6. Nice Guy Eddie
    Nice Guy Eddie says:

    I enjoyed Darkest Hour too, as you would expect from a patriotic Englishman, but it has its faults, not least the ridiculous and unhistorical London Underground scene when Churchill asks the working class passengers if they would fight or make peace with Hitler.

    A well spoken, besuited, cheeky chappy young black man steals the scene, managing to stay in camera shot just behind Churchill as he moves around the carriage. He even finishes off Churchill’s quote from Thomas Macaulay’s Horatius . . . because, you know, London in 1940 was full of educated black men quoting ballads about ancient Rome! I wasn’t the only one who laughed out loud.

    The quote itself though is a great rallying cry, and worth repeating for inspiration in our own dark times:

    Then out spake brave Horatius,
    The Captain of the Gate:
    “To every man upon this earth
    Death cometh soon or late.
    And how can man die better
    Than facing fearful odds,
    For the ashes of his fathers,
    And the temples of his Gods.”

    • Malcolm Jaggers
      Malcolm Jaggers says:

      That scene was indeed ridiculous. I audibly sighed when Churchill started to chat with the Black passenger and thought, “Here we go!”

      • Captain John Charity Spring MA
        Captain John Charity Spring MA says:

        Well, ultimately that’s what Churchill delivered, whether he knew it or not. Blacks into London in massive numbers.

      • David Ashton
        David Ashton says:

        @ Malcolm Jaggers

        “1984!” – rewriting history for ideological reasons, UK TV is getting beyond a joke and this is no longer funny.

        Still, a “black lady” playing Beowulf is hard to beat in the chutzpah stakes.

        • Vehmgericht
          Vehmgericht says:

          It is now BBC policy that what it terms ‘visible minorities’ should be inserted into all commissioned dramas regardless of historical accuracy, congruence with source material, plausibility, acting ability, diction and so on.

          Directly counterfactual or culturally provocative castings (let’s say Richard the Lionheart presented as a burka-clad woman with a thick brummie accent) will always be lauded as ‘innovative’, ‘audacious’ or ‘a blow for equality’ by the elite media. If there is a backlash, it can be taken as evidence that ‘British theatre/tv/cinema is still deeply racist’.

          These propagandistic actions, intended of course to irritate, scold and belittle the indigenous inhabitants of our Island, have become common in what remains of our high-cultural mileau.

  7. Fred Williams
    Fred Williams says:

    Churchill wanted war, he wanted “his war”. He hated the Germans and showed it with his Dresden debacle and even after the war, favored rape, pillage, and murder of Germans citizens and dreadful treatment of prisoners along with Eisenhower. Churchill was not held in high esteem for most of his political career, his salad days were in ’40, 41. Before and after that, he was not looked upon particularly favorably. The Churchill myth is just that.

    • Bobby
      Bobby says:

      It seems your’e right. One would think that a man so admired as the savior of England would be immediately re-elected after WW 2, instead of lose in a landslide.

  8. Joe Six Pack
    Joe Six Pack says:

    Didn’t Hitler agree with his Generals at Dunkirk and gave his Army the ‘Stand Down’ order because they were tired and stretched but also because it would seem to be a gesture of magnanimity to the British and then Churchill would agree with Halifax and consider cooperating with the Germans?
    Instead Churchill, like most world egotistic world leaders wanted a war to be the go-to guy in a crisis and get his name planted in many many history books. So Churchill sits around from May 1940 to December 1941 waiting for the other egotist, FDR, to come in and be a world saver(and get HIS name in the history books too).
    The winners write the history books being very careful their names are spelled correctly.

  9. Pickle Rick
    Pickle Rick says:

    What most on the alt-right forget is that Churchill didn’t have the power to set or lead British foreign policy prior to the war or immediately after it. He was Prime Minister from 1940 to 1945. Immediately after Germany’s surrender, the Socialists won the general election. Clement Attlee, not Winston Churchill, went to Potsdam and negotiated the fate of postwar Europe, and Attlee and his party dismantled the Empire.

    • Captain John Charity Spring MA
      Captain John Charity Spring MA says:

      Attlee forced the no confidence vote on Chamberlain too. He was Churchill’s puppet master to a certain degree. Without Attlee no continuation of the war after France collapses.

  10. PaleoAtlantid
    PaleoAtlantid says:

    ‘If only’ and ‘What if’ are constant in the reflections of both individual lives and the history of nations which the passage of time often renders into sharp focus. We don’t need the passage of decades to form a sound judgment of Churchill and his actions. From his youth he was a bombastic egotist, and as such quite unsuited to high office. That he became prime minister of Britain at a critical point in that nation’s history is a disaster of millennial proportions. Any one with half a brain in 1940, more so a person with access to confidential military and economic state papers, would have no doubts who would benefit from a protracted and pointless conflict between Britain and NS Germany. The Soviet Union and FDR’s America would reap the harvest, and management of the post war world would fall to the shadowy force directing policy in both victorious powers.
    The tribunal of history will indite and condemn Churchill as a willing accessory to White genocide.

    • Captain John Charity Spring MA
      Captain John Charity Spring MA says:

      Spot on. Absolutely. This is exactly the calculus that Halifax and Chamberlain were aware of.

  11. Rob Bottom
    Rob Bottom says:

    Perhaps this is part of Oldman’s penance for defending Mel Gibson’s comments in an interview with Playboy magazine? I think I’ll skip this one and watch The Greatest Story Never Told again.

    • GeorgeKocan
      GeorgeKocan says:

      I do not read Playboy (does anyone?). So, you will have to give a brief summary of the comments.

      • T. J.
        T. J. says:

        I purchased an issue from 1980 to read the Shockley interview. Ignored the rest except for

        btw I hadn’t seen the rag for years and was taken aback by the sleaze. I can see how some could oppose the absolutism of the 1st Amendment.

      • Rob Bottom
        Rob Bottom says:

        George, just google “Oldman Playboy Jews” and you’ll find dozens of articles discussing his comments.

  12. GeorgeKocan
    GeorgeKocan says:

    Well, the “good guys” did not win. The bad guys did, with the help of the “good guys.” The war began when the German national socialists attacked Poland from the west, and the Russian commies attacked it from the east. Because of treaty obligations, Britain and France declared war on German (not Russia) to save Poland from a totalitarian regime. At the end, the Russian commies, as totalitarian as anyone can get, swallowed up Poland and Eastern Europe, with the full cooperation of the Allies.

    • Curmudgeon
      Curmudgeon says:

      No George, the war began when France invaded the Saarland on September 19, 1939, in order to help Poland.

    • Carolyn Yeager
      Carolyn Yeager says:

      GeorgeKocan,

      To make Poland the victim here, and the central point of hostilities, is a mistake. Poland was another player. Only Germany considered Poland’s welfare; England and America only used Poland while the foolish Poles thought they were using them! The British “Guarantee” was given to Poland for the purpose of starting a larger European war, not to maintain peace. Hitler believed his non-aggression pact with Stalin, only signed on Aug. 23, 1939, would make the Poles more reasonable and counter the English guarantee. But because the latter both wanted war, it did not. That’s why Hitler used force against Poland on Sept. 1st, only 8 days later. It was seen as a local, limited war to settle the troublesome issues.

      Britain did not come to the aid of Poland, but let them be crushed while it declared a “phony” war on Germany and worked to get France, America and other smaller nations to join it in a crusade against Hitler. [Hitler was willing to pull out of Poland after 3 days if England withdrew it’s declaration of war on Germany. England refused.]

      If Poland had been in touch with reality instead of being consumed with German-hatred and envy, their fate would have been much different. And so would have the fate of all Europe. I hold the Poles to be very guilty.

        • Carolyn Yeager
          Carolyn Yeager says:

          What? The media war on Polish people? That does not make any sense nor is it an answer. Poland has always gotten great press.

          It sounds to me like another Polish fable like the fable that Poland was a victim in WWII.

          • GeorgeKocan
            GeorgeKocan says:

            In a previous post, I cited this book, “Bieganski: The Brute Polak Stereotype in Polish-Jewish Relations and American Popular Culture (Jews of Poland),” by Danusha V. Goska. It discusses films such as “A Streetcar Named Desire,” wherein Marlon Brando played a brutish, woman abusing adulterer with the iconic name, “Stanley Kowalski.” The National Socialists of German invaded Poland, rounded up young people and made them into slaves. Poles did not invade Germany.

          • Carolyn Yeager
            Carolyn Yeager says:

            Ah, George, I didn’t recognize Kocan as a Polish name (thought maybe Hungarian), but it certainly is. I just looked it up. So I certainly wouldn’t expect you to think any differently. I will keep that in mind in the future. All the best to you.

          • GeorgeKocan
            GeorgeKocan says:

            The ‘Kocan’ name can be found all over Eastern Europe and even Turkey. But, my closest relative live in Poland.

  13. T
    T says:

    A person shouldn’t think the recent appearance of such films as Darkest Hour and Dunkirk was in any way, shape, or form, a ‘coincidence’. Considering the current political climate, ie Trump and the media created hysteria surrounding him, his relationship with the Russians, etc, these films can be seen as being aimed at the general public, in particular that of the Anglosphere countries, in an effort to galvanize and prepare them to fight.

    Galvanize them to fight what one might ask?

    1) Any manifestation of European identity, along with the very real possibility of fighting a second civil war in the US, a war which could potentially spread to the remnants of the British Empire (the ‘Anglosphere’ countries) along the lines of the Russian one of 1917 – 22 which followed ‘Red October’ there. The ‘White’ forces being fought by the ‘Reds’ in the case of the US would in general literally be White, as in of European extraction and comprised of those whom don’t wholly go along with the current multi-cult paradigm, which ipso facto makes one a ‘Nazi’. As the posted article alludes, under the current definition ‘anyone who disagrees with liberals’ is a ‘Nazi’ and must therefore be faught.

    2) The looming WWIII to be fought against the most high and evil Russia, Iran, N Korea, Syria, and last but not least, the resurgent Islamic identity countries (which may form into a Caliphate before or during this event) which have been deliberately created in the sense of being the expected result of the US/UK bloc’s financing and backing of the Islamic Spring. No doubt Russia and these other states will all be given the honorary title of ‘Nazis’ just for the occasion.

    A civil war in the US, if there is one, might intertwine and or be simultaneous with a WWIII. It would be hell, which is no doubt a large part of the idea behind those pushing these events.

    Every person should read Edward Bernays’ Propaganda and George Orwell’s 1984. Bernays, besides being described as the father of public relations and the nephew of Sigmund Freud, was also the man whom utilizing mass advertising conditioned women in the broad general public of the US to the positive value of cigarette smoking, though he wouldn’t let his wife touch the things.

    Orwell’s worth is of course well known.

    I’ll leave the last word to Edward Bernay from pg 155 of his 1928 book Propaganda in regards to movies.

    The American motion picture is the greatest unconscious carrier of propaganda in the world today.

    https://archive.org/stream/EdwardL.BernaysPropaganda/Edward%20L.%20Bernays%20-%20Propaganda_djvu.txt

    • T
      T says:

      I should have added China to that little list of countries to be fought by the US/UK bloc in any potential future WWIII.

      Getting back to Bernays and his 1928 book Propaganda

      The important thing is that it is universal and continuous

      Modern propaganda is a consistent, enduring effort to create or shape events to influence the relations of the public to an enterprise, idea or group.
      This practice of creating circumstances and of creating pictures in the minds of millions of persons is very common. Virtually no important undertaking is now carried on without it…The important thing is that it is universal and continuous; and in its sum total it is regimenting the public mind every bit as much as an army regiments the bodies of its soldiers.

      After acknowledging that due to ‘the late war’ the term ‘propaganda’ had gained for itself a ‘decidedly sinister complexion’ (ie people in the US found out they’d been suckered into the war largely on the basis of wholly manufactured German atrocity accounts that were untrue, in short they had been lied to) had the below to say in regard to the ‘alleged atrocities’ of Germany and WWI on pg 26 – 27.

      I’ll leave it up to the individual to determine for themselves how much or how little of this may have been true as it applies to Germany and Germans during and after WWII so as to produce ‘mass reactions’.

      ..the manipulators of [US] patriotic opinion made use of the mental cliches and the emotional habits of the public to produce mass reactions against the alleged atrocities, the terror and the tyranny of the [German] enemy.

      It was, of course, the astounding success of propaganda during the war that opened the eyes of the intelligent few in all departments of life to the possibilities of regimenting the public mind. The American government and numerous patriotic agencies developed a technique which, to most persons accustomed to bidding for public acceptance, was new. They not only appealed to the individual by means of every approach—visual, graphic, and auditory—to support the national endeavor, but they also secured the cooperation of the key men in every group —persons whose mere word carried authority to hundreds or thousands or hundreds of thousands of followers. They thus automatically gained the support of fraternal, religious, commercial, patriotic, social and local groups whose members took their opinions from their accustomed leaders and spokesmen, or from the periodical publications which they were accustomed to read and believe. At the same time, the manipulators of patriotic opinion made use of the mental cliches and the emotional habits of the public to produce mass reactions against the alleged atrocities, the terror and the tyranny of the enemy. It was only natural, after the war ended, that intelligent persons should ask themselves whether it was not possible to apply a similar technique to the problems of peace.

      https://archive.org/stream/EdwardL.BernaysPropaganda/Edward%20L.%20Bernays%20-%20Propaganda_djvu.txt

    • Bobby
      Bobby says:

      I don’t mean to sound trite, but ever since the revelation that Hollywood has always been used as a vehicle of propaganda against the American people, of course nothing comes out of it by coincidence.

      • T
        T says:

        A person that might contribute an entry to this site such as yourself probably does have a general awareness of the potential propaganda value of movies, but not everyone does. Someone that just visits the site on a rare occasion may even have less of an awareness.

        In other words it’s not a bad thing on occasion to remind people of the fact.

        • Bobby
          Bobby says:

          Absolutely it’s not a bad thing. It’s a good thing to remind people of important points like you made, over and over. I do agree with that.

  14. Jens
    Jens says:

    Hm, does the author think the mainstream historical account on Churchill is something that can be relied upon? That is strange for an article that is posted on a site that is highly critical of Jewish influence. I also get the impression that he thinks this Hollywood-movie’s representation of that historical account is accurate, which is even stranger.

    Churchill has been lied about immensely, just as Hitler and the “Holocaust” has been lied about. Churchill was on the payroll of the Board of Deputies of British Jews and the Focus, a group of Jewish capitalists who managed to get him into power with the obvious intent of destroying national-socialist Germany. There was absolutely no reason at all for Britain to be at war against Germany, other than a desire to put an end to national socialism.

    • Curmudgeon
      Curmudgeon says:

      According to Mark Turley in his book “From Nuremburg to Nineveh”, Churchill stated:
      “You must understand that this war is not against Hitler or National Socialism, but against the strength of the German people, which is to be smashed once and for all, regardless of whether it is in the hands of Hitler of a Jesuit priest.”
      This would be consistent with his 1936 radio broadcast:
      “We will force this war upon Hitler, if he wants it or not.” and his 1919 statement in “Times”: “Should Germany merchandise again in the next 50 years we have led this war (WW1) in vain.”
      It’s always been about genocide.

  15. T
    T says:

    yet at the time reaching a settlement [with Germany] seemed like an eminently reasonable course of action, and one cannot let 20/20 hindsight obscure the fact that the conclusion of the war was not at all foregone.

    Germany from the beginning in 1939 had almost no chance of winning the war. One has to take into account the ‘special relationship’ between the US and UK formed in about 1900, a relationship only just short of an outright political union. WT Stead, a close associate of Cecil Rhodes of British Empire fame, in his 1901 book The Americanization of the World calculated the US and UK had between them three times the wealth and economic resources of the combined French, Russian, and German Empires. Something like these economic figures probably still held in 1940 as the British Empire was then still largely intact. Hook or by crook, the US was going to join up with Britain to fight Germany in WWII just as the US had done in WWI. Both the wars resulted in devastation, not just to the Germans, but to the other European peoples as well, particularly in regards to WWII.

    The people pushing these world wars, including the likely upcoming WWIII, the powerful elements of the elites of the Anglo-Saxon and Jewish peoples, and their respective hangers on, go in with overwhelming force, already knowing they have almost no chance of losing. I liken it to the character sometimes presented in US westerns of the professional gunman whom would enter a bar, deliberately pick a fight with someone not cognizant of the fact, harass them to the point where they practically against their will draw their own gun against their antagnotist, and the gunman then calmly shoots them down, immediately declaring it a fair fight as the provoked person drew first. As is made plain in the old westerns and to anyone watching one of those today, such a thing is in effect murder.

    And that’s what in effect the US/UK bloc has been doing since its formation in 1900, though now its not single persons being murdered as in those old westerns, but entire peoples. The US wanted Germany to attack it with its undeclared naval war against Germany in the fall of 1941, just as the US is likely pushing Russia at present to attack it with its many longterm provocations. Finally, after Pearl Harbor, Germany gave in and joined the Japanese formally in its war against the US, a war which had already in certain respects been ongoing. Russia might end up being provoked to fight the US against its wishes as well, just as the Germans had, and as the US desires. What were the Germans then, and now the Russians to do though?

    Find a way to resist sucessfully that doesn’t use violence in the form of arms, ie guns, tanks, aircraft, etc., while simultaneously maintaining a people’s identity, is all I can suggest.

    What exactly that might be I don’t know.

    • PaleoAtlantid
      PaleoAtlantid says:

      Similar analysis regarding WWI is presented in “Hidden History, The Secret Origins of the First World War”, and “Prolonging the Agony”. Both books by J Macgregor and G Docherty. Many readers will find the conclusions shocking and deeply troubling, but they shouldn’t as the economic information and the logical inconsistencies in the accepted and approved narrative have been available to scrutiny for decades. The average citizen has a hard time accepting their revered historical totemic figures were a bunch of criminals and that all contemporary Western government are illegitimate.

      • T
        T says:

        Good point, PaleoAtlantid. A person doesn’t have to self-identify with every last one of their people. If a person in a certain peoples’ history was a cad, they were a cad. Best to admit it, at least to one’s self. Don’t have to wallow in it naturally.

        As a general principal, the more honest with one’s self about their people’s past history and practices, the better.

  16. David Ashton
    David Ashton says:

    Despite an attempted smear by the “Daily Mail” for daring to get some comments posted on this and other so-called “white supremacy” websites, I am tempted to add a few comments to this varied collection.

    Ifs are not facts: virtual history is no more real history than movie propaganda dramatizations.

    We no longer have alpha male statesmen in Europe, and Putin doesn’t count. Winston Churchill, Oswald Mosley, Enoch Powell and Charles de Gaulle fell into this category – whatever their personal faults and policy mistakes. “Winnie” and “Enoch” – however undeservedly – are regarded as SYMBOLIC icons of English patriotism; hence e.g. the leftist campaign against the WW2 orator as “a worse racist than Rhodes”.

    In May 1940 the British Cabinet faced a choice. Either to attempt a peace agreement with Hitler, however temporary, to keep “our People safe, our Forces undefeated, and our Empire intact” (Mosley), or risk “choking in our own blood” (Churchill) by pursuing a world war to annihilate Hitler and National Socialism for ever, at whatever cost.

    We could never “save” the Poles (or the Jews) and never did.

    On the Jewish pressures for war, I would cite the six-year International Boycott of German Goods & Services (which hit some 10% of the enclosed economy); evidence summarized by David Irving’s “Churchill’s War, Vol.1” (I came across the Focus minutes myself once by accident in a London s/h bookstore); Earl Browder, “The Jewish People & the War” [CPUSA 1940]; David Lough, “No More Champagne: Churchill & His Money” (2016); Jeffrey Herf, “The Jewish Enemy” (2008); & the intrigues of Bullitt, Belisha & Maisky, Strakosch, Mandel, Baruch, & Weizmann.

    Where I differ from many “antisemites” is that I think that from the Jewish viewpoint agitation against Hitler made some sense, because he had previously visualized a global “race” struggle between “Aryans” and “Jews”.

    However, the outcome of WW2 was communist domination of eastern Europe and China, the collapse of the British Empire, and eventually the “unarmed invasion” by millions of Afro-Asians with incompatible cultures. From triumph to tragedy – “maybe we killed the wrong pig” (Churchill).

  17. Ricky
    Ricky says:

    I knew when Gary Oldman defended Mel Gibson he would be blacklisted, and of course the only way for an actor to get back into the good graces of the Tribe is to make a Holocaust/WWII movie. Jews LOVE Churchill, and Gary was rewarded for his groveling with an Academy Award. It’s the Jews who are keeping WWII alive.

    • David Ashton
      David Ashton says:

      @ Ricky

      Oldman has the temerity to quote Neal Gabler’s “An Empire of Their Own: How the Jews Invented Hollywood” (1998). Abe Foxman’s stock response in effect was: “You mustn’t say that we tell people what they mustn’t say”.

      Meanwhile, That Man who Lost the War seems to have Won Top Ratings on TV and Silver Screen.

  18. Charlie
    Charlie says:

    Any missives created by Jews whether celluloid, electronic, printed or media should always be dismissed outright before even reviewing it for clarity. There will be no clarity in the end, only jew lies. After having working with them and for them for decades – A Jew lies, it’s what it does. A jew is a sick, loathsome, self interested, beast and nothing more.

    Palestine was the goal and the only goal. To settle once and for all a place where Jewry could run and be exempt from any court of law for it’s slaughter of mankind.

  19. Charlie
    Charlie says:

    Patton’s diaries bring much more clarity to the “jewish question” than any fictitious glorification of the pig, incestuous, homosexual, limeys.

    • David Ashton
      David Ashton says:

      @ Charlie

      Why should this heterosexual white Englishman accept your generalization that every Jew is nothing more than “a sick, loathsome beast” than that every “Limey” is a “pig, incestuous, homosexual”? And what was Patton doing fighting the Nazi Germans, “shurely shome mishtake”?

  20. Peter
    Peter says:

    As David Irving says, WC bankrupted Great Britain and destroyed its empire (the biggest in the world in 1940) and destroyed Germany and much of Europe, even though Germany repeatedly offered peace (and an alliance with and military support for Great Britain) despite the fact it was Great Britain that declared war on Germany first and not the other way around. Britain attacked Germany supposedly because Germany attacked Poland, but the USSR also attacked Poland and Britain made an alliance with the USSR.

    While the USSR murdered over 10 million of its own citizens in the 1930’s, Germany was relatively peaceful. There were no large scale atrocities in Germany before the war. Jews were being stripped of their rights and being urged to leave Germany, and Germany worked together with Zionists that also wanted Jews to leave Germany. Germany was even giving training to those desiring to go to Palestine.

    The difference between the USSR and Germany is that Jews were a very powerful force in the USSR and Germany wanted them to leave their country. Like the Germans, millions of other Europeans also perceived the USSR as a dangerous threat to peace in Europe and a murderous regime. But the financially struggling Churchill was receiving large sums of money from Jews to encourage his hostility to Germany.

    In 1940, after France and Great Britain’s defeat in the Battle of France, Churchill was known for two things, failure in WW I at Gallipoli and failure again in the Battle of France. Churchill could have accepted Germany’s generous offer of peace, but then Churchill would have been perceived not as a hero, but closer to being a failure. So, with the Jews help he worked to pull the USA into the war on Britain’s side. He knowingly bankrupted and destroyed Germany and his own country to bolster his own reputation. If not for Churchill, Germany, Great Britain and Europe would still be great and lead the world and it’s very likely that Jews would be far less powerful than they are today. Many European countries wanted Jews out, and Palestine, Madagascar and other locations were considered to re-settle them. Also, in Hitler’s speeches he referenced Jews several times as a major force behind the war. There is very strong evidence supporting this. If tens of thousands of Germans were not being murdered often night after night, whatever suffering the Jews endured in WW II would have been far less than it was. They were leading belligerents and enemies of Germany and that is how they were treated.

    • David Ashton
      David Ashton says:

      Quite apart from “Holocaust Denial” what we do know for a fact is that Stalin killed many more Jewish Communists than did Hitler between 1933 & 1941, that he invaded six countries to Hitler’s one, that he took a larger slice of the “one”, and that during the Russo-German Pact the Communists followed a policy of discreet “revolutionary defeatism” to undermine western defenses against Germany.

    • Carolyn Yeager
      Carolyn Yeager says:

      “Jews were being stripped of their rights …”

      Peter, a bad choice of words. What ‘rights’? From E. H. Schulz and R. Frercks, “Why the Aryan Law?”, 1934 (translated by Randall Bytwerck):

      “Walter Rathenau said it most clearly as early as 1897: “How strange! In the middle of German life there is a separate, foreign tribe that stands out in every way with its hot-tempered behavior. An Asiatic horde has settled on the sands of Mark Brandenburg.”

      “On 19 May 1933 Reich Chancellor Adolf Hitler gave an interview to Bernard Ridder, an American journalist for the New York State Newspaper. Discussing the Jewish Question in Germany, he said: “Should I allow thousands of German-blooded people to be destroyed so that the Jews can live and work in luxury while millions starve, falling victim to Bolshevism out of desperation?”

      “Can the justice of his words be doubted when one recalls that, according to the Prussian census of 16 June 1925, 6.9% of all independent pharmacists, 17.9% of all independent physicians, 4.8% of all independent artists, 27% of all independent attorneys, 4.6% of editors, 11% of theater directors, 7.5% of actors, and 14.8% of all independent dentists were Jews! And these huge figures when the Jews were only 1% of the population!”

      “These figures cry out for legal limitations on Jewry, and it is surprising that former governments did not take the appropriate action to tell the Jews ‘this far and no further’.”

      • Franklin Ryckaert
        Franklin Ryckaert says:

        Success by an ethnic minority in business and the professions is not the same as subversion. You can find such percentages of ethnic success also among the Chinese minority in all countries of South East Asia. Chinese have a higher IQ and are economically more ambitious than the peoples of SEA. In a way the Jews are to Europeans what the Chinese are to South East Asians. Problems arise when some members of such a successful minority use their disproportionate wealth and influence to undermine the society of their host population, and it is here where there is a crucial difference between Chinese and Jews. Chinese are satisfied with wealth only, Jews want also power and to secure their power they try to weaken the host population. In this they are also “successful”, hence the conflict.

        • Carolyn Yeager
          Carolyn Yeager says:

          And your point, Franklin? You don’t seem to have one. I didn’t fault Jews for being “subversive.” I said they were a foreign population that had no natural ‘rights’ in Germany. Or rather, the National Socialist intellectuals of the time said so. A country based on blood and soil has the ‘right’ to determine that for itself. It is only the false notion, or liberal notion of human rights that says otherwise.

          If Europeans go into Africa and replace Africans in their employment, it is the right of the African government to prevent the Europeans from coming. I am sick of hearing about Jewish superiority. Germany did just great after most of the Jews were gone; they didn’t miss them at all.

          What the Jews excel in is pushiness; maybe the Chinese are the same.

    • Junghans
      Junghans says:

      A pretty good assessment there Peter. Churchill was indeed one of the key gravediggers of Europe, who Jewry and their programmed minions love to fawn over. Despite the concocted, current false historical narrative, Germany was in fact entrapped, pillaged, gang raped, crucified, and excoriated. The the racial, political and lethal consequences of WWII should be apparent to any self-reflecting, sentient White person. The (((inculcated))) racial death wish that is rapidly destroying the White world would obviously not be happening today if NS Germany, a la 1941, still existed.

  21. Ger Tzedek
    Ger Tzedek says:

    I took offense at how [redacted name] treated me gratuitously in a previous post [etc, etc] … I quit for good. At least the moderator will read.

    —–

    (Mod. Note: “Ger”, may I suggest that you reflect on the old phrase, “If you can’t stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.”)

    • Ger Tzedek
      Ger Tzedek says:

      I take your advice. Useless to debate at this point. And if I do debate, I am not completely out.

  22. Katherine
    Katherine says:

    White people need to get control of the mainstream media…
    How can we do it?
    They are trying to destroy us…

    • GeorgeKocan
      GeorgeKocan says:

      How to take control of the mainstream media? Become millionaires and billionaires and buy it. Start small and work your way up. For years, the Chicago papers, the Tribune and the Sun-Times were in bankruptcy. Where were the rich conservatives who could have bought these papers?

      • Floda
        Floda says:

        Rupert Murdoch worked it out in the very early 1960’s. He understood that Jews MUST control the MSM media because if they didn’t, the goyim might get wise and become revolting. He had no trouble in financing his many acquisitions.

        • GeorgeKocan
          GeorgeKocan says:

          Rupert Murdock did buy the Sun-Times in the 1980’s. The Democrats (liberals, commies, etc.) had a fit. Half the staff and the reporters quit and went over to the Tribune. Murdock then wanted to buy a local tv station. Sen. Ted Kennedy intervened and was able to pass a law which prohibited a news organization from own both a newspaper and a television station in one town. This did not affect the Tribune which had owned a tv station for decades, because of the “grandfather” clause. So, Murdock gave up and sold the Sun-Times.

      • T. J.
        T. J. says:

        Ted Turner tried to do just that, by getting rich and buying CBS.
        He was outbid by Laurence Tisch, who had buddies with unlimited money.

  23. Peter Presland
    Peter Presland says:

    …. this now famous speech was more lukewarm in Parliament and was not broadcast on the radio as portrayed in the film (Churchill recorded it after the fact, hence the version of this audio we hear today was not recorded live during the speech).

    Neither was it recorded by Churchill himself but rather by a stand-in actor who sounded more ‘Churchillian’ than Churchill himself when drunk – which was most of the time! His name was Norman Shelley and he made most of those now treasured recordings for the BBC – just one more example of the man’s disasterous overweening fraudulence

    • Captain John Charity Spring MA
      Captain John Charity Spring MA says:

      Makes me wonder if they (Labour, Pro-Jew Tories, unions, bussiness) expected to lose and he was supposed to be the failure holding the unwanted brief.

  24. Karen T
    Karen T says:

    Two world wars were necessary to first establish the Jewish homeland and second the Jewish state. Their goal is the destruction of the West and all nation states excepting of course the “holy land” and the melding of all peoples other than the “chosen” into a raceless, servile plebeian stew functioning on base material instincts. The NSDAP represented the antithesis to this goal of the bovine goy, and so the ‘evil nazi’ is embedded into bovine brains. Randolph Churchill, son of the chronically depressed alcoholic Winston, stated…”World War 3, if it comes will be coldly calculated and planned rather than accidental.” ( Associated Press, Feb.8, 1956). Israel, a false name, the Israelites having turned their backs on the tribes of Judah and Benjamin over 2000 years ago, must be secured. This is all readily apparent with research, scratching the surface. Digging much deeper which I and most people, not being privy to the inner sanctums, are incapable of, may find another hidden/occult goal beyond the obvious. Wishful thinking but one can hope.

  25. Andrea Ostrov Letania
    Andrea Ostrov Letania says:

    DUNKIRK vs INCEPTION.

    DUNKIRK is about physical invasion. The Brits don’t feel at home in France. Under threat, they flee, but once they are on the homeland, they are willing to fight to the last man. It’s about a nation under physical threat of invasion and occupation. The threat is obvious. And the means of resistance are obvious: guns, ships, planes. Everything is on the conscious level. Brits know who the Brits and who the enemy is. There is us and them. Brits even ferret out a Frenchman masquerading as a Briton.

    INCEPTION is about psychological invasion. The late rich guy’s son remains what he is. He is not physically robbed of money or beaten up. But the agents penetrate his mind and plant a seed that will grow like a virus and make him break up his father’s empire.. and he will think HE HIMSELF made the choice out of free will when, in fact, those who ‘incepted’ the idea manipulated his memory, emotions, complexes, and weak spots. (Ironically, Cobb violates another man’s soul so that he himself can gain reentry into his own home, the US.) Messing with people’s minds, like in MEMENTO, fascinates Nolan. Because the MSM controls our collective memory and because so many Americans are uninformed, it’s like they’re amnesiac and can be fooled with the same shi* over and over…. like another round of housing bubble.

    How did Homomania spread? Homos didn’t invade by tanks and bombs. Rather, the media associated a homo with sainthood in PHILADELPHIA and made people cry. They associated homos with cowboy life. So, even the American West was a land of holy buggers. And homosexuality was associated with rainbows. And then this homo-rainbow was associated with churches. So, via these psyconnections, homo fecal penetration came to be associated with the Jesus. Surely, one of the biggest Inception Operations in history, one that proved that people, even masses of people, can be made to FEEL and believe anything.

    The Brits who withstood the might of the German military have become so helpless. Why? Their collective soul was ‘incepted’ by globalists who went deep into the core institutions(that serve as the eyes, ears, mind, and soul of the nation) and planted the idea that ‘UK is a nation of immigrants’, ‘diversity is our strength’, ‘homos are holy’, and ‘patriotism is hate’. And since these institutions spread these ideas through public education and pop culture that fill eyes and ears with PC, so many Brits now feel that their nation exists to honor the Other, to let Pakistanis and Africans take over, and for Anglos to become Junglos.

    And much the same has happened in the US. An idea was planted in the souls of white people that radically redefined what America is really about. It was done through textbooks, songs, TV, propaganda, advertising, and etc. Diversity = Future, blackness = holy, Jewishness = wisdom, homos = wonders.

    Electronic media are really extensions of our minds. It makes us see and feel things as manipulated and devised by the Power with a certain agenda. So, white minds can be incepted with an image of a mountain-sized Negro who loves a white mouse… when in fact such Negroes in jail are really ripping white boy’s behinds and terrorizing whites.
    Because watching TV and listening to stuff are So Easy, they seem natural to us… when in fact, a vast organization is feeding us certain images and sounds to gain control over us. They are entering and rearranging our souls.

    ——————

    Well, at least those could be seen as crimes against whites.

    But what happens when whites welcome invasion and humiliation?

    In the pic below, that is a British cop, that is a Anglo(now Junglo)-Saxon woman, and the onlookers love the New Britain.

    If any one pic captured the future of UK. At least whites still know that what Muslim gangs did wrong. But they see nothing wrong with Afro-conquest-of-white-women. White women go that way, and the cuck-faced dorks cheer on. They don’t defend Britain but join Antifa to beat up whites who don’t want Junglization. Enoch Powell was wrong. Rivers of Blood is not the future of UK. It’s the Rivers of Semen. UK survived Dunkirk but they won’t survive Dong-Kong.

    https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-TlRlPvbfjSo/WqcoRHYr8FI/AAAAAAAAAs0/PdNakCQsrCcg0cOvJ3LY2HdaDUAUMs7UwCLcBGAs/s1600/future%2Bof%2BUK%2Bin%2Bone%2Bpic.gif

  26. Andrea Ostrov Letania
    Andrea Ostrov Letania says:

    Bribe and Tribe.

    Jewish Tribe bribes the White elites to abandon the White Tribe and welcome the Black Tribe who take over sports and pop culture in the EU. And then white women get jungle fever and submit to ACOWW or Afro-Colonization of White Wombs.

    White Wombs, the very source of white life, will produce black life like Obama and Kapernick.

    Why do the invasive agents in INCEPTION. Why did the Nazis, so fearsome in DUNKIRK, fail?

    Physical aggression is obvious. You see the threat, and so you call for unity among your own kind and repel the outsiders. The Brits in DUNKIRK even see a French deserter as an outsider.
    So, despite German might, non-Germans resisted and fought back.

    Jews didn’t invade UK like a tiger attacking a lion. If a tiger attacks a lion, lion fights back. Jews invaded like a virus. Virus cannot be seen by the lion. But it penetrates into the lions cells and it can even mess up the DNA coding via mutations.

    Now, suppose a virus enters a lion and rewrites the DNA from within the core of the lion. Lion’s original DNA had made the lion feel, “this is my territory, and I’m a lion and I’m proud. I will fight to defend my lion-ness and lion territory from the enemy.” So whenever a lion saw a tiger, it growled. Even when it saw a cute tiger cub, it growled because the tiger cub, though cute, will eventually grow into a full-grown tiger and attack the lion.

    But suppose the virus rewrites the original DNA code. The changes in the core programming makes the lion feel, “tigers are my best friends. Tigers are Lions’ strength. We need to have more tigers. We need to hand over our territories to tigers. Tigers are the real lions.”
    Then the lion begins to invite tigers who mean harm to lions, and also, it begins to growl at other lions who say, “Wait a minute. Tigers are our enemies, not our friends. Tigersity is not our strength but our demise.” But the lion whose DNA has been re-coded growls and attacks other lions(like antifa attacks other whites) in the belief that lions exist to serve tigers.

    Now, if a lowly lion is made to feel this way, no problem. Other mightier lions can ignore him or even attack him. But suppose the virus changes the DNA of the elite lions of culture, academia, and government. And then, the New Lion Dogma will be forced on all lions.

    An idea is that important once it takes root. Just like, once a sperm fertilizes an egg, it grows into a fetus and then baby and then a man, an idea, once, it fertilizes a mind, keeps growing and growing and growing and begins to change paradigms and then everything.
    It is an idea that will make the young man in INCEPTION break up his father’s empire. Not just an idea but an idea laced with sentiment and iconic moment.

    Jews didn’t have the means to conquer the world militarily. So, they colonized the world financially and psychologically by coming up with ideas, icons, and memes to plant viral seeds into the minds of white folks.

    All these white minds that have been incepted with the Jewish virus see the Other as ‘our people’ and see their own people as ‘outsiders’. They’ve come to favor parasites over patriots.

    This is why white patriots in the UK are now the New Untouchables. The Dalit caste. Globo-Brahminism says that Jewish elites are at the top, white elites must serve Jews, and Queer & Diversity must replace Queen & Country. Since this new hierarchy has its own taboos, any expression of white identity is Taboo. Any white patriot is treated as an untouchable, the lowest of the low. They are to just lose themselves in drugs, alcohol, and Afro-debauchery and die and be replaced.

  27. Les
    Les says:

    The propaganda message from this film is that you cannot make a deal with a dictator. What the film doesn’t say is that after France surrendered Churchill wrote to Stalin asking the USSR to come into the war on Britain’s side. So in public Churchill was speaking against dictatorship and in private trying to forge an alliance with one. This repulsive hypocrite and glorified drunk is not a hero – http://www.heretical.com/miscellx/churchil.html

  28. Sixte
    Sixte says:

    WW II was really just a continuation of WW I in my view. When Bismarck unified the hundreds of German principalities in 1870 he created a German nation that would eventually challenge British economic and military supremacy. Germany acquired some colonies of its own, and it needed to import about 25% of its food. Its merchant fleet needed a navy to protect it, but the British would not tolerate a rival naval presence in the Baltic and North Seas. Britain formed a triple entente with France and Russia, hemming Germany in from both sides. When Austria – Hungary threatened to take action against Serbia for the assassination of the Hapsburg heir apparent, Serbia’s ally Russia mobilized its forces in the east. Britain saw the opportunity to go to war with Austria-Hungary’s ally Germany and took steps to clear a path for an invasion force through Belgium. The German Kaiser pleaded with Britain and Russia to back off. They gave him the cold shoulder, so he didn’t wait for troops to mass on his borders and he attacked.

    Two years later in 1916 Germany was winning against both Russia in the east, and Britain and France in the west. Britain wanted America to come into the war. American Jews promised to make that happen in return for the Balfour Declaration which would create a homeland for the Jews in Palestine if Britain won and Germany’s ally Turkey lost. America did come in. The war ended in a stalemate in the west, and victory for Germany in the east. But Germany no longer had the resources to continue fighting in the west thanks to a British naval blockade that deprived it of needed food and supplies. So the Kaiser abdicated and fled to Holland, and a new German government was formed to sue for peace.

    There was an armistice, which was to be followed by a negotiated settlement. 117 prominent Jews from all over the world descended on the peace conference at Versailles. The terms were brutally harsh and unfair to Germany. But the British kept up their blockade, starving the Germans into submission. Germany lost an eighth of its territory and ten percent of its people to surrounding countries. In the meantime, a Jewish led “revolution” in Russia became the inspiration for attempted Jewish coups in Berlin (Rosa Luxemburg) and Bavaria (Hans Eisler). Germany became a battle ground between Reds and their opponents. Gradually, it became apparent that the Jews in Russia were exterminating tens of millions of Russian Christians. Hitler rose to power because he alone articulated the Jewish-Bolshevist threat to Christian Western Europe and he alone reflected the resentment Germans felt towards the Jews for engineering America’s entry in World War 1.

    The British, French, and Americans should have seen the justice of Hitler’s position and the reasonableness of his desire to unite the dispersed German people once again into a single country, but apparently the Jews had different ideas about that. They supported their Jewish brethren in Moscow, and they controlled Washington D.C. and London. So, to make a long story short, we fought on the wrong side in WW II. As a result of this “good war” that was fought by our “greatest generation” Eastern Europe fell to the Communists, Britain lost its empire, Germany was forever discredited by Jewish propaganda, the United States became the World’s Big Bully and both Judaism and Christianity were replaced by the new religion of Holocaustianity.

    The final phase of what we might call “the 100 years war” or the “Great white brothers’ war” is now unfolding in the form of Jewish engineered genocide of white people through massive Third World population transfer into white countries. If and when the genocide becomes violent, the Jews will have Israel to escape to. From there they can watch the destruction of the white race and white Western Civilization, enjoying the revenge they have sought ever since the Romans kicked them out of the Holy Land.

    As for Churchill, I consider him a windbag and a delinquent who admitted that he only felt happy when he could create wars that others had to fight. I consider him a major war criminal for his firebombings of German cities. And of course, he was owned by the Jews. I will, however, give him credit for his article in London Sunday Illustrated Herald exposing the Jewish leadership of the Bolshevik Revolution. Apparently the Jews hadn’t bought him yet.

    • Captain John Charity Spring MA
      Captain John Charity Spring MA says:

      Two details I’d argue with.

      There was an Entente Cordiale signed between the British and French that was an open non obligation.

      There was also a formal Franco-Russian Entente.

      The Triple Entente is a Post Hoc term that came to describe the eventual pattern of alliances.

      At any point the British could have abandoned the French to German whims.

      The Central Powers Germany, Austria-Hungary, Italy (temporary), Ottoman Empire had a much more formal alliance.

    • David Ashton
      David Ashton says:

      Re Sixte, last paragraph:

      See Michael Cohen, “Churchill & the Jews, 1900-1948 (2003); Martin Gilbert, “Churchill & the Jews” (2008); Harry Defries, “Conservative Party Attitudes to Jews 1900-1950” (2001); David Irving, “Churchill’s War, Vol.1” online; Isaiah Berlin, “Mr Churchill in 1940” (1949); Patrick Buchanan, “Churchill, Hitler & the Unnecessary War” (2009); Andrew Roberts, “Eminent Churchillians” (1995); Sharman Kadish, “Bolsheviks & British Jews” (2013).

      Old Winnie – rightly or wrongly – remains a symbolic public icon of British “island race” patriotism, and this is why he is hated by the Left. He is now under broadened attack, not for WW2 and its conduct, but for “racism” in thought, speech and deed. Join the club.

Comments are closed.