Thursday, June 18, 2015

What Would Churchill Say?

Depressing. Now I know what Israelis must have felt like when one of their citizens opened fire in a mosque in 1994, murdering 29 Palestinians. The difference is that in America there is no us and them, except in the sense that the left wishes to force us to think in this debased and destructive way, instead of just thinking in terms of good and evil, decent and indecent. No doubt doing so would be considered an offensive microaggression toward indecent people who can't help doing evil.

Not to politicize the matter... In fact, not doing so is my whole point, because any decent person recognizes that nine of ours have been senselessly murdered, not nine of theirs. And not to in any way excuse the murderer -- indeed, I would like to see the monster hanged tomorrow after a thorough trial lasting for at least 15 minutes -- but I'm afraid such despicable actions are a mirror image of six years of relentless us-them thinking toward law enforcement and toward racial matters more generally.

Here again, the difference is that none of "us" will condone the actions of this depraved assoul, whereas the entire media-academic complex both condones and encourages race-motivated violence in the other direction. But once race wars are underway, I have been given to understand that they are difficult to stop.

Like I said, depressing. I need a lighthearted subject. Must everything be of cosmic significance, Bob? Why so serious?

One thing that comes through in reading this compendious compendium of Churchillania is his largeness of soul. Magnanimity. Broadmindedness. Not to mention incredible courage. As I mentioned in a comment yesterday, he makes me suspect we are well past Peak Leadership.

As an aside, I am also noticing an odd resonance with one of our favorite authors, P.G. Wodehouse. They were born within seven years of each other, and it is as if they draw upon the identical sources and deploy the same rhythms of speech, except of course in very different ways.

But interestingly, while Churchill was known to be a world-class wit in public, Wodehouse was said to have been utterly boring. Fans who bumped into him expected a stream of lively conversation and sparkling witticisms, but he was a bit of a flatliner.


When Churchill declares war on Japan, he cites their "wanton acts of unprovoked aggression, committed in violation of international law."

But then he signs off the communique with I have the honour to be, with high consideration, Sir, Your most obedient servant, Winston S. Churchill. While some questioned the appropriateness of his gracious manner, he explained that "after all when you have to kill a man it costs nothing to be polite."

Wodehouse was able to take such high-flown rhetoric, and by tweaking it slightly, turn it to comedic effect. But in order to tweak it, he had to be totally familiar with, and comfortable in, that domain. Like Churchill he could effortlessly quote Shakespeare and other lumiaries. Both had huge literary accounts to draw upon.

One thing the Arab-Muslim world excels in is outlandish rhetoric about the enemy -- i.e., Jews and infidels -- that is so over-the-top, it's funny. But thanks to political correctness, we are not even permitted to name our enemy, much less describe him. Churchill was under no such restrictions, so his descriptions of the enemy provide a torrent of fine insultainment.

Remember how the left wetted itself over Reagan's crack about the "evil empire," or Bush's about the "axis of evil"? Churchill would never be so restrained. Rather, we were at war "against a monstrous tyranny, never surpassed in the dark, lamentable catalogue of human crime." Our task was to "rescue mankind from the foulest and most soul-destroying tyranny which has ever darkened and stained the pages of history."

And not only was he permitted to name and describe the enemy, but name what we were defending and why: "Upon this battle depends the survival of Christian civilisation." Should we fail, "then the whole world... will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science."

He just described Iran.

You can't mention Christian civilization because CRUSADES. Besides, the left supports the enemy of its enemy, since they share the common enemy of Christian civilization. Leftism and Islamism are both motivated by hatred of precisely what Churchill so courageously defended. Now we have to apologize for it, which again goes to the symbolism of Obama exorcising the White House of that bust of Churchill. Al Sharpton? Bueno. Winston Churchill? Adios.

This would be fun. Take some of Churchill's statements about Germans or Japanese or communists, and insert "Islamists" or "jihadis" or "mullahs."

"We shall never descend to the [Islamist] level, but if anybody likes to play rough, we can play rough too. [Al qaeda and ISIS] gangs have sown the wind: let them reap the whirlwind."

"In spite of all their brains and courage, they worship Power..." "They do not value freedom themselves, and the spectacle of it in others is hateful to them. Whenever they become strong they seek their prey, and they will follow with an iron discipline anyone who will lead them to it."

Let's be fair: "All [the mullahs] ask for is the right to live and to be let alone to conquer and kill the weak."

You can't make nice with an Iranian tyranny "which spurns Christian ethics, which cheers its onward course by barbarous paganism, which vaunts the spirit of aggression and conquest, which derives strength and perverted pleasure from persecution, and uses... with pitiless brutality the threat of murderous force." "Never forget that the [mullahs] are crocodiles.... I cannot feel the slightest trust or confidence in them."

"There is nothing they admire so much as strength, and nothing for which they have less respect than weakness." "You can only deal with them on the following basis... by having superior force on your side on the matter in question -- and they must also be convinced that you will use -- you will not hesitate to use -- those forces, if necessary, in the most ruthless manner."

In an arresting image, Churchill characterized Nazis as sheep, but carnivorous sheep. Could the same not apply to the ravenous sheeplings of Islamo-nazism? Although they are religious robots, they've forgotten allahbout the First Law.

In any event, this "gang of bandits.... shall themselves be cast into the pit of death and shame, and only when the earth has been cleansed and purged of their crimes and their villainy shall we turn from the task they have forced upon us..."

As to our contemporary leadership, "My parents judged that the [circus] spectacle would be too revolting and demoralising for my youthful eyes, [so] I have waited 50 years to see the Boneless Wonder sitting in the [White House]."

Advice to President Jello: "To try to be safe everywhere is to be strong nowhere." "Weakness is not treason, though it may be equally disastrous."

But why should America be the policeman of the world? "I answer: 'If we left off [policing it] you would soon find out.'" For "The victory of [America] means the welfare of the world."

The left? Its philosophy "has not one single social or economic principle or concept... which has not been realised, carried into action, and enshrined in immutable laws a million years ago by the White Ant." "The strangling of it at its birth would have been an untold blessing to the human race."

"One might as well legalise sodomy..."

Or better, one might as well redefine marriage. At this point what difference does it make?


mushroom said...

Churchill had seen war up close on multiple occasions. He made mistakes and owned up to them -- something completely alien to the current members of the political class.

Gagdad Bob said...

He was a actually prisoner in the Boer War, and escaped. But before he did, he made sure to leave a very courteous note to the warden. It costs one nothing to be polite if circumstances force a gentleman to make a prison break.

mushroom said...

I've been thinking about the horrific murders in Charleston. Anti-gun legislation is a no-go at this point. I think we'll see Obama make one of his "pivots" to focus on restricting hate-speech, especially on the internet.

The murdering scum may be a Stormfront type, I don't know, but there are elements who would be nearly as happy to censor us as to disarm us. In fact, they may have figured out they need to censor so they can disarm us.

julie said...

Like I said, depressing. I need a lighthearted subject.

Yep. One reason I'm glad to have spent the day at the beach.

For "The victory of [America] means the welfare of the world."

Yes. And our defeat hardly bears consideration.


USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

""There is nothing they admire so much as strength, and nothing for which they have less respect than weakness." "You can only deal with them on the following basis... by having superior force on your side on the matter in question -- and they must also be convinced that you will use -- you will not hesitate to use -- those forces, if necessary, in the most ruthless manner."

Exactomundo. We need a General Pershing to lead the fight gainst the Islamists, not someone like Obama, who doesn't even have the courage of a Chamberlain, and who is more concerned about hurting the feelings of the jihadists than he is about destroying them.

The left always like to make a moral equivocation, as if they know what that means.
"If we are ruthless towards the terrorists we will be just like them," they will say (or something to that effect).

But will we? Hell no. Being ruthless towards barbaric terrorists to defend humanity is not anywhere remotely like the jihadists.
Jihadists target civilians. They relish the opportunity to rape and murder women and children, especially if they are Christian or Jewish.
The terrorists have nothing but contempt for life and liberty.
Only an idiot can think that our men of honor will be just like the terrorists if we actually treat the terrorists as a real threat, and destroy them with prejudice.

The murderous jihadists of the past feared General Pershing and our military. Today they laugh at Obama and are encouraged by his stupidity and weakness, as well as the implicit and sometimes explicit support they get from the leftist sheeple.
Destroying terrorists don't create more terrorists. Having empathy for them and showing weakness does.
Only raving lunatics think it's a good idea to allow these bloodthirsty monsters to have nuclear bombs and missiles.

Churchill would have made short work of the jihadists. Obama kisses their filthy asses.

Skully said...

Actually, it would be funny to see Churchill ever so politely make judicious use of pigs blood to terrify the jihadists.

John said...

On the other hand, Churchill aligned himself with possibly the most evil dictator the world has ever known, so he knew a bit about moral equivocation. That's not to mention Stalin.

mushroom said...

True, but we elected the evil SOB, FOUR times. Churchill didn't have much choice. There was a war to win, and we had the big industrial juice.

Gagdad Bob said...

John is no doubt the product of a modern education, so he has earned his moral retardation.

Gagdad Bob said...

Brings to mind an aphorism: "Authentic superiority is intolerable to the fool. Its simulacra, on the other hand, fascinate him."

Winston S. Colacho said...

The inferior man is always right in an argument, because the superior man has condescended to argue.

Dolf Schicklgruber said...

John is absolutely correct. The nerve of this monstrous hypocrite Churchill!

Gagdad Bob said...

It is actually an interesting counterfactual to wonder if it might have been preferable to temporarily ally with Hitler in order to deal the death blow to communism before turning on Nazism, rather than vice versa.

Gagdad Bob said...

Certainly communism is the more pernicious and destructive ideology, since it seems to relate to a permanent defect in man, and continues to animate the left, whereas Nazism is more garden-variety hatred without a coherent ideology. But who knew at the time? It's very difficult to plan for insanity, for the very reason that it is insane and thus unpredictable -- like contemporary Islamists.

julie said...

That really is an interesting question. I don't think I've seen anyone posit that version of alternative history before.

John said...

The sad fact of history is that without the Soviet military machine, all of Europe would be speaking German. We lent them a hand, not the other way round.
Many at the time, including the Pope, believed the Soviets to be a far worse menace than the Nazis.

Gagdad Bob said...

The sad fact of history is that the Soviet Union was allied with the Nazis for nearly a third of the war.

Anonymous said...

nine of ours have been senselessly murdered, not nine of theirs.

You want to explain for the unintiated what "ours" and "theirs" refers to? The murdered preacher and Congressman was a Democrat, and probably most of the other victims were also. That is, they are the kind of people you've dedicated your life to abusing and slandering -- so, not "yours" by any stretch of the imagination.

julie said...

So? You're an asshole. I say that with all sincerity. Nevertheless, I do not wish for you to be gunned down, tortured, slaughtered, nor abused. In fact, I don't wish for anything bad to happen to you at all; quite the opposite, I would pray that God would bless you with everything good, and in particular with wisdom and understanding. Were you so blessed, I would not need to make this distinction.

There is a cosmos of difference between "get off my lawn, ya hippie, and stop trying to ruin my life!" and wishing said hippie's demise or harm, not to mention the unknowable and unbearable amount of suffering and devastation it would cause.

Van Harvey said...

aninnymouse said " so, not "yours" by any stretch of the imagination."

lol, only a leftist troll would equate Identification with slander and being expelled to the 'other' (for good reason of course, such calculations are necessary for retaining the tar-baby they like to refer to as their 'sanity').

We're going camping next weekend with a bunch of friends, several of which are leftists, and one extreme leftist, and over camping, rafting and significant beverage consumption we will engage in mucho rounds of explicit identification, but if anyone were to attack any one of us, they'd quickly discover how solid and formidable our us is.

Gagdad Bob said...

It's called projection. Leftists can't help imagining conservatives harbor the same murderous rage they do.

Anonymous said...

None of those replies managed to explain just what was meant by "nine of ours have been senselessly murdered, not nine of theirs." Perhaps I'm slow, could you please state explicitly what "ours" and "theirs" designate? Thanks for the clarification.

Gagdad Bob said...


Gagdad Bob said...

Reading the murderer's deranged manifesto, it is clear that his motives were just as I suspected, and that he took seriously the left's obsessive and destructive us/them racial rhetoric:

"The event that truly awakened me was the Trayvon Martin case. I kept hearing and seeing his name, and eventually I decided to look him up. I read the Wikipedia article and right away I was unable to understand what the big deal was. It was obvious that Zimmerman was in the right.... At this moment I realized that something was very wrong. How could the news be blowing up the Trayvon Martin case while hundreds of these black on White murders got ignored?"

"Black people are racially aware almost from birth, but White people on average don't think about race in their daily lives."

He's clearly wrong about that: white liberals are also obsessed with race. It's conservatives who hold to the liberal idea of racial neutrality -- a belief that is now considered Hate Speech in the California university system. My state now compels students to think in us/them racial terms.

His entire "philosophy" is an insane reaction to the insanity of the left, one insanity evoking another.

Gagdad Bob said...

As Sowell writes, "The left is not necessarily aiming at totalitarianism. But their know-it-all mindset leads repeatedly and pervasively in that direction, even if by small steps, each of which might be called 'micro-totalitarianism.'" Unfortunately, Roof will not be the last nut to react to the left's micro-totalitarianism with micro-violence. Leftists encourage violence toward law enforcement, but this is like encouraging a forest fire to burn only some of the trees.

julie said...

Yes. And once the inferno really gets going, who will they call upon to save themselves? The police who have abdicated their authoritative roles in order to avoid being shot or put out of a job for tackling the wrong-color perpetrator? The fire departments, filled now with more people who are unqualified, but hired to improve diversity and equality standards? The military, similarly undermined?

Gagdad Bob said...

Something like 20 blacks are murdered every day by other blacks. Not only does the left not care, but it encourages conditions that result in more murders, as in Baltimore.

Gagdad Bob said...

In other words: "True leaders do not respond to tragedy by dividing the nation along the lines of race or into the camp of those who believe in the Bill of Rights and the camp of those who do not. These divisive instincts have only helped lead to a fractured society in which violent killers filled with anger and hate proliferate."

Barry said...

White peepulz greed runs a world in need!

Gagdad Bob said...

I recently read a book by Walter Williams, who said that between about 1880 and 1960, something like 3,500 blacks were lynched (and over a thousand whites). This deplorable figure is easily surpassed every year by black-on-black murders. It reminds me of people who think there were millions of executions during the Inquisition instead of a few thousand.

Gagdad Bob said...

As Stalin might say, 3,500 lynchings is a tragedy, 8,000 annual murders a statistic.

Anonymous said...

Are you really so far gone that you are prepared to blame murdered black people for having annoyed their murderer into insanity? Seriously, that's a new low for this blog, and that's awfully low.

Gagdad Bob said...

I will stipulate that your comment is either sincere or insincere. Either way, it's pathognomonic, but at least the former would be susceptible to correction.

Gagdad Bob said...

For the benefit of regular readers, notice the pattern, because it reveals the way the leftist mind operates: conjure a malevolent fantasy about conservatives or conservatism, which then provides moral license to hate the fantasy. I'd hate conservatives too if I dwelled in their fantasy world. Which I once did and did.

Anonymous said...

What were all of the previous comments other than blaming the victim? I don't have to have any malevolent fantasies, it's right there in black and white, so to speak. Nine blacks were murdered in church by a white racist, and somehow it is the fault of liberals for making him a racist, or black-on-black violence is some kind of a justification for the white-on-black violence. Read your own words.

It's very weird that you don't seem to be able to read and comprehend your own words.

Gagdad Bob said...

At least I'm in good company.

John said...

I think the point is, that while this was a terrible tragedy, it actually pales in comparison to all the black on black murder that goes on, completely unreported by the liberal media. Where is the outrage for that? It doesn't make good news is all. No one is blaming blacks for this heinous act. They might be suggesting liberals incited it with their constant race baiting.
In any case, it all pales in comparison to the violence in say, South Africa.

Gagdad Bob said...

Doesn't advance the liberal narrative. Liberals are only too happy to use blacks, but have no use for them, as the past six years have proved.

Gagdad Bob said...

The left's strategy never changes: promote policies that damage blacks, and then offer to rescue them with more destructive policies.

Anonymous said...

So, you argument is that some blacks deserve to be murdered in church because some other blacks murdered some other blacks? And it is the liberals fault for making you think in racial categories? Makes sense to me!

You people have truly evil, twisted minds.

julie said...

Wow. There is simply no possibility of talking to some people with any hope of being understood. Bob, your comment at 4:20 yesterday was spot on.

Gagdad Bob said...

It's a mild form of psychosis: perpetually overwrought by one's own distortions of reality.

Gagdad Bob said...

Unless he's just intellectually dishonest, which is another form of pathology. It is more destructive because more widespread -- like a Clinton as opposed to a Chomsky, who is crazy but not that influential.

Gagdad Bob said...

Then there's the garden-variety lofo liberal, but that type of person wouldn't follow me year after year.

Gagdad Bob said...

Call it a sad world of make-believe dominated and bedevilled by an obsessive attempt to force into being an immensely complicated political construct which defies economic, psychological and scientific reality.