Sunday 21st of July 2024

there is no smoke without a cigar….

AS WE CELEBRATE SOMETHING CALLED ANZAC, TO REMEMBER THE MEN AND WOMEN OF Australian & New Zealand Army Corps WHO FOUGHT IN OUR WORLD WARS, WE STILL NEED TO THINK ABOUT WHY.

 

WHY, WHY, WHY, THESE PEOPLE HAD TO FIGHT? SURE WE KNOW: HITLER, NAPOLEON, THE DUKE FERDINAND, THE COMMUNISTS, THE TURKS, THE ARABS, THE SPANISH, THE CHINESE, THE AMERICAN INDIANS, THE INDIANS FROM INDIA, THE BLACKS, THE ABORIGINES, THE FRENCH, GENGHIS KHAN, SATAN, AN AXIS OF EVIL, THE GREEKS, THE ROMANS, THE SLAVIC HORDES, THE BOERS, THE PIRATES, THE MEXICANS, ETC, WITH THE LATESTS ON THE LONG LIST OF WHAT/WHO WE HATE, BEING XI JINPING AND VLADIMIR PUTIN…

 

ONE COULD WONDER WHAT DRUG WE’RE ON OR WHAT GENETIC MUTATION TURNED ALL OF US INTO PSYCHOPATHS — OR WARRIORS — OR GOOD DOGS FOLLOWING ORDERS TO FIGHT ON THE BEHALF OF GOVERNING PSYCHOS…

 

HITLER WAS A PSYCHOPATH AND ONE NEEDED ANOTHER PSYCHOPATH TO DEFEAT HIM…. THIS IS WHAT IS TROUBLING — AND YOU ARE GOING TO HATE ME FOR SAYING THIS — IS THAT XI AND PUTIN ARE NOT PSYCHOPATHS NOR ARE THEY SOCIOPATHS, BUT WE NEED TO DEFINE THEM AS SUCH IN ORDER TO JUSTIFY OUR OWN WESTERN SOCIOPATHY, DEFINED AS THE RULES-BASED ORDER OF THE AMERICAN EMPIRE DESIGNED TO CONQUER THE WORLD WITH OUR SUPERIORITY AND EXCEPTIONALISM. 

 

WE HATE THE OTHERS…

 

WINSTON CHURCHILL WANTED TO BOMB (NUKE) RUSSIA. WINSTON CHURCHILL WANTED TO BOMB (NUKE) CHINA — ALL MOSTLY BECAUSE THEY EXISTED. RUSSIA AND CHINA DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO EXIST, EXCEPT IF THEY KISS OUR BIG WESTERN ARSE.

 

THIS IS OUR TROUBLE. WE INVENT THEIR DESIRES… WE DO NOT LISTEN. AND THIS IS BORN FROM AN ANGLO/SAXON  — ENGLISH GERMANIC ARYAN LINE OF SADISTS, RACISTS AND PSEUDO-INTELLIGENT WHITE SHINNED, BLUE-EYED POWERFUL MORONS.

 

IT’S TIME TO TAKE A BREAK FROM OUR FOLLIES.

 

G.L.

 

 

Why can't Britain handle the truth about Winston Churchill?

This article is more than 3 years old

Priyamvada Gopal

 

Nothing, it seems, can be allowed to tarnish the national myth – as I found when hosting a Cambridge debate about his murkier side

 

baleful silence attends one of the most talked-about figures in British history. You may enthuse endlessly about Winston Churchill “single-handedly” defeating Hitler. But mention his views on race or his colonial policies, and you’ll be instantly drowned in ferocious and orchestrated vitriol.

In a sea of fawningly reverential Churchill biographies, hardly any books seriously examine his documented racism. Nothing, it seems, can be allowed to complicate, let alone tarnish, the national myth of a flawless hero: an idol who “saved our civilisation”, as Boris Johnson claims, or “humanity as a whole”, as David Cameron did. Make an uncomfortable observation about his views on white supremacy and the likes of Piers Morgan will ask: “Why do you live in this country?

 

Not everyone is content to be told to be quiet because they would be “speaking German” if not for Churchill. Many people want to know more about the historical figures they are required to admire uncritically. The Black Lives Matter protests last June – during which the word “racist” was sprayed in red letters on Churchill’s statue in Parliament Square, were accompanied by demands for more education on race, empire and the figures whose statues dot our landscapes.

Yet providing a fuller picture is made difficult. Scholars who explore less illustrious sides of Churchill are treated dismissively. Take the example of Churchill College, Cambridge, where I am a teaching fellow. In response to calls for fuller information about its founder, the college set up a series of events on Churchill, Empire and Race. I recently chaired the second of these, a panel discussion on “The Racial Consequences of Mr Churchill”.

Even before it took place, the discussion was repeatedly denounced in the tabloids and on social media as “idiotic”, a “character assassination” aimed at “trashing” the great man. Outraged letters to the college said this was academic freedom gone too far, and that the event should be cancelled. The speakers and I, all scholars and people of colour, were subjected to vicious hate mail, racist slurs and threats. We were accused of treason and slander. One correspondent warned that my name was being forwarded to the commanding officer of an RAF base near my home.

The college is now under heavy pressure to stop doing these events. After the recent panel, the rightwing thinktank Policy Exchange, which is influential in government circles – and claims to champion free speech and controversial views on campus – published a “review” of the event. The foreword, written by Churchill’s grandson Nicholas Soames, stated that he hoped the review would “prevent such an intellectually dishonest event from being organised at Churchill College in the future – and, one might hope, elsewhere”.

It’s ironic. We’re told by government and media that “cancel culture” is an imposition of the academic left. Yet here it is in reality, the actual “cancel culture” that prevents a truthful engagement with British history. Churchill was an admired wartime leader who recognised the threat of Hitler in time and played a pivotal role in the allied victory. It should be possible to recognise this without glossing over his less benign side. The scholars at the Cambridge event – Madhusree Mukerjee, Onyeka Nubia and Kehinde Andrews – drew attention to Churchill’s dogged advocacy of British colonial rule; his contributing role in the disastrous 1943 Bengal famine, in which millions of people died unnecessarily; his interest in eugenics; and his views, deeply retrograde even for his time, on race.

Churchill is on record as praising “Aryan stock” and insisting it was right for “a stronger race, a higher-grade race” to take the place of indigenous peoples. He reportedly did not think “black people were as capable or as efficient as white people”. In 1911, Churchill banned interracial boxing matches so white fighters would not be seen losing to black ones. He insisted that Britain and the US shared “Anglo-Saxon superiority”. He described anticolonial campaigners as “savages armed with ideas”.

Even his contemporaries found his views on race shocking. In the context of Churchill’s hard line against providing famine relief to Bengal, the colonial secretary, Leo Amery, remarked: “On the subject of India, Winston is not quite sane … I didn’t see much difference between his outlook and Hitler’s.”

Just because Hitler was a racist does not mean Churchill could not have been one. Britain entered the war, after all, because it faced an existential threat – and not primarily because it disagreed with Nazi ideology. Noting affinities between colonial and Nazi race-thinking, African and Asian leaders queried Churchill’s double standards in firmly rejecting self-determination for colonial subjects who were also fighting Hitler.

It is worth recalling that the uncritical Churchill-worship that is so dominant today was not shared by many British people in 1945, when they voted him out of office before the war was even completely over. Many working-class communities in Britain, from Dundee to south Wales, felt strong animosity towards Churchill for his willingness to mobilise military force during industrial disputes. As recently as 2010, Llanmaes community council opposed the renaming of a military base to Churchill Lines.

Critical assessment is not “character assassination”. Thanks to the groupthink of “the cult of Churchill”, the late prime minister has become a mythological figure rather than a historical one. To play down the implications of Churchill’s views on race – or suggest absurdly, as Policy Exchange does, that his racist words meant “something other than their conventional definition” – speaks to me of a profound lack of honesty and courage.

This failure of courage is tied to a wider aversion to examining the British empire truthfully, perhaps for fear of what it might say about Britain today. A necessary national conversation about Churchill and the empire he was so committed to is one necessary way to break this unacceptable silence.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/mar/17/why-cant-britain-handle-the-truth-about-winston-churchill

 

As a young cavalry officer, the Old Harrovian Winston Churchill was accused of having “participated in acts of gross immorality of the Oscar Wilde type” with fellow cadets at Sandhurst; but he successfully sued his accuser for libel, and there is no evidence that, as an adult, he engaged in physical homosexual relationships. Yet he was far from being straightforwardly heterosexual. Although he worshipped his beautiful American mother, he showed a lifelong aversion to women. (In Churchill’s only novel Savrola, the obviously autobiographical hero has a purely chaste relationship with the heroine, obviously based on Churchill’s mother.) He seems to have had a low sex drive, and married rather cold-bloodedly, aged 33, for social and dynastic reasons, just after being appointed to Asquith’s cabinet. Though he came to depend on his “Clemmie” in many ways, she was often exasperated by his emotional unresponsiveness and treatment of her as a child-bearer and housekeeper, and more than once considered leaving him.

 

While he never showed much interest in women other than his wife, Churchill’s life was marked by a series of close platonic relationships with attractive young men. Prominent among these were Eddie Marsh, a civil servant who served devotedly for 25 years as his private secretary, whom Churchill described as “a friend I shall cherish and hold on to all my life”; Archie Sinclair, a cavalry officer, whom he chose as his second in command on the western front in 1916, as his personal assistant as war secretary and colonial secretary in 1919-22, and finally (after Sinclair had become leader of the Liberal party) as air minister in 1940; Bob Boothby, the youngest and handsomest MP, whom Churchill, as chancellor of the exchequer in the 1920s, appointed his PPS despite the bumptious Boothby having criticised his policies; and Brendan Bracken, a young man on the make whom Churchill (to the horror of his family) effectively adopted in the 1920s and who served as his right-hand man during the 1930s, finally becoming information minister during the second world war. (Of these four, Marsh, who developed crushes on young writers and actors, and Boothby, who had a taste for “rough trade” from the criminal underworld, were certainly predominantly homosexual, and Bracken, though he cloaked his private life in impenetrable secrecy, probably, too.) 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/may/16/double-lives-a-history-of-sex-and-secrecy-at-westminster#

 

There’s been much discussion this week about Churchill’s thirsty drinking habits. My colleague Harry Wallop felt very sick after he tried replicating the great statesman's daily intake. But what is missed sometimes in accounts of famous boozers from history is how the drinking was often supported by heavy-duty prescription drugs.

This was especially true in the early days of the so-called psychopharmacological revolution of the mid-20th century. All of a sudden a clutch of different compounds emerged on to the market that for the first time offered effective treatment of wretched and intractable conditions like insomnia, anxiety and depression. At the same time, the addictive potential of amphetamines (speed) and barbiturate sedatives was poorly understood.

Churchill called his doctor Lord Moran a “vendor of nostrums” but, according to Moran’s biographer Richard Lovell, Moran was a parsimonious prescriber. Even so, Lord Moran tried out a range of different psychoactive drugs on his distinguished patient, giving many of them nicknames. (As a side-note: it was the rather quaint fashion of the time that instead of putting the real name of a medicine on its packaging, doctors often specified a vague descriptive title such as “the sleeping draught” or “for nerves".)

One of the drugs that Moran put Churchill on was known as "reds" because of the shiny, jewel-like vermilion capsules it came in. This was Seconal, a powerful, rapid-acting barbiturate that can easily kill in higher doses and is particularly lethal when mixed with alcohol. Seconal, along with Amytal, is the nuclear bomb of sleeping pills and is now considered too dangerous to be used except in special circumstances – it is both highly addictive, and deadly in higher doses. (A mixture of Seconal and Amytal was branded Tuinal - ie, Two-in-All: quick-acting Seconal to get you off to sleep, longer-acting Amytal to keep you slumbering.)

 

Majors and Minors

A lot of people found the intoxication produced by "reds" very appealing, so, not surprisingly, they leaked on to the illicit market in large numbers during the 1960s and 1970s. So did another widely abused street drug of the period, “purple hearts”. This was Drinamyl. (Drinamyl came in little blue triangular tablets, hence "purple hearts".) It was half barbiturate – to calm – and half amphetamine – to perk up the mood. Churchill took these from the time of his stroke in 1953 onwards. Moran called them “Majors” to distinguish from the weaker formulation of “Minors” – Edrisal, a mixture of painkillers and a barbiturate. Churchill himself dubbed his favourite tablets his “Morans”.

Churchill wasn’t the only statesman to take psychoactive medication, of course, just the best known. Kennedy was another: his doctor, Max Jacobson, became notorious for his “tissue regenerator” shots - active ingredient, almost certainly: speed. And Anthony Eden is thought to have relied heavily on Drinamyl (like Churchill) during the Suez crisis. And there were countless others, all the way back to Cleopatra.

Plenty of ordinary patients took these pills too, and barbiturates were among the most popular medicines of the 10th century, until they were discredited and plummeted out of fashion.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/11380891/Churchills-drinking-was-one-thing-but-what-about-his-drug-taking.html

 

 

SO PLEASE, YOU ENGLISH PSYCHOPATHS IN THE TROUBLED DEGRADED UK JUSTICE SYSTEM, RELEASE JULIAN...

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW.!!!!!

 

a nasty romance....

 

Anzac Day: Australia’s imperial romance with white Anglo-American global dominance    By Greg Lockhart

 

At the levels of public ritual and private observance, the ANZAC narrative is much about processing loss and assuaging grief. But let us recall here its nature as an imperial romance, and what that might mean for our place in the multi-polarity of the current world order? 

With its genesis in imperial war, the Anzac narrative was set in British colonial histories. The narrative was fixed reflexively in the British imperial expeditionary tradition in the New Zealand Wars by 1864 and at Gallipoli in 1915. By reflexively, we mean the triggering of expeditionary thought and action by implicit cultural understandings, which have been shaped by a romance of empire — as distinct from serious strategic analysis for virtually our defence history.

In the British imperial romance of 1914-18, myths of the cultural supremacy of ‘the English-speaking peoples’ and of ‘the white man’s burden’ supported the central notion of political obligation: ‘British race patriotism’. The Anglican Church implied automatic spiritual identification with the empire. The reality of the economic global order — at least since the Royal Navy weaponised the world’s financial system before World War One — was automatically assumed.

Since the large divisions of the ‘Australian Imperial Force’ projected those automatic understandings into expeditionary military action in two World Wars, the imperial frame has continued to reconfigure itself in ever new forms.

The fall of the British Empire in the 1940s, decolonisation in Asia, the Cold War, and the US alliance changed the vocabularies of the ever-re-emerging Anglo-American world order. Empire became ‘development’. Western civilisation became the ‘rules-based international order’. The relationship between white superiority and empire also changed over time. Meanwhile, Anglo-sphere alliances and older practices of informal imperialism were reimagined in a new architecture of global economic governance. These culminated in the late twentieth century neoliberalism of the International Monetary Fund and World Bank.

Anzac expeditionary understandings effortlessly adjusted. ‘Small wars’, which had been the imperial paradigm for expanding and defending the empire in the face of native rebellions, became ‘guerrilla wars’ and ‘counterinsurgencies’ post-1945. Think Malaya, Confrontation with Indonesia, and Vietnam.

In Afghanistan and Iraq, far-flung Anzac expeditions were involved in increasingly ‘virtual wars’ — ‘on terror’ — meaning those with an increasing emphasis on technology — against no rational construction of a military threat, ‘terror’. ‘Proxy wars’ are now fought, as US military jargon has it, ‘with, through and by’ — others, that is. Others, including Anzacs, supported by US air power, weapons, finance, and special forces as well as grunts in Afghanistan and the Middle East.

What, then of the empire in the Anzac nations? We are talking here, for example, about the ideal behaviours that helped fortify soldiers on their long and dangerous campaigns far from home, courage, mateship, loyalty, and perseverance. To the extent that the values are egalitarian and democratic — featuring larrikinism and disdain for class — however, it is important to remember that the Anzac tradition is uniquely Australian and New Zealand.

It can also be anti-imperial. In 1919, the Anzac nations even disappointed King George V, when, contrary to his wishes, they failed to give precedence — as Britain, France, Canada, and the United States all did — to November 11 and the end of the war, as the main day of wartime remembrance. Quite the reverse, Australia and New Zealand prioritised Anzac Day 25 April, which marks their Gallipoli landing and the beginning of their wars.

So, how does the imperial expeditionary narrative square with those distinctive national and anti-imperial characteristics? The answer is it doesn’t. What we see is the national character being ambivalently asserted in a sub-imperial, colonial, or dependent national narrative. Why dependent? Most reasonably, because the Anzac nations prize partially race-based, partly technology-based Anglo-American imperial protection above all else, including sovereignty.

Protection against what? And this is of central importance to understanding the Anzac narrative: its expeditions build, with only minor qualifications, on a deep sense of insecurity in the culture. They build on some inferred threat, which is not named, but against which the great incapacity of the Anzac countries to defend themselves is mindlessly understood.

In 1911-14, for instance, deep fear of Japan drove the government to make the secret expeditionary preparations that would enable the AIF to go to war with Britain against the Central Powers, the Turks, and the Germans, in the hope of reciprocal empire support when the Japanese inevitably attacked.

What makes sense of the global Turk-to-Taliban array of Anzac’s expeditionary enemies, almost none of whom have threatened Australia, is indeed the tradition’s primary support for the empire, regardless of its enemies. And this primary impulse to fight for the empire, is related to the fact that the Anzac narrative doesn’t really say what its fears are.

From the 1880s to the 1970s, of course, these is abundant evidence in the culture of anxiety about the ‘yellow peril’. The history of white Australia was built on it. Originally an aspect of that history, however, the Anzac expeditionary narrative has little to say about any threat to the nation. In fact, it can only infer, and not discuss a threat, whatever it might be.

There are two good reasons for this silence. There is no evidence, even in 1942, when we had to fight the Japanese for various reasons, that any Asian country has ever intended to invade Australia or New Zealand. And second, anti-Asia rhetoric has been officially suppressed more than once in our history for fear that it might provoke the ‘Asian invasion’ our governments most feared. For this reason, anti-Japanese commentary was indeed banned in 1914-18 and ‘yellow peril’ rhetoric was consciously replaced by that of the ‘red peril’ in 1949-1965, during the period of decolonisation.

Two points follow. The Anzac narrative can only rest on the illusion of imperial permanence because it has never really been tested by the ‘yellow peril’ — which doesn’t exist; and second, because the very romance of imperial permanence underpins something of central importance that keeps the expeditions going. This is the nation’s capacity to domesticate — which is where the public ritual kicks in — the empire’s long line of expeditionary losses, losses that have moreover had little direct relevance to the defence of the dependent nation.

Lest we forget the imperial catastrophes that have befallen the Anzac nations from the Somme to the falls of Singapore, Saigon, and Kabul. And here, finally, we come to the primary power of the Anzac narrative as a reflexive Anglo-American imperial romance. Regardless of any set back to the empire, the romance maintains its imaginary permanence because it is driven by the unthinking expectation that, in the end, the empire will always win.

The emergence of the multi-polar world now forces us to realise the problems of that history from a strategic perspective.

The historical absence of a threat of invasion from the north does not mean that, because Australasia is one of the most secure regions in the world, there will be no future threat from that direction. Neither does it mean that invasion is the only threat. Nor is there any reason why Australia should not attempt to maximise the security benefits of a prudent American alliance.

Still, a prudent alliance would be one that registers two strategic realities that run counter to the Anzac story’s identification with the spurious threat driven Anglo-American imperial romance and its tremendous losses. In fact, China, with a comparable economy to the US, is now a great global power, which dominates the part of the world we have historically feared; and second, it would be most unwise to hang the defence of Australia on the forever illusion of Anglo-American imperial permanence — as in the ‘impactful projection’ now officially attributed to AUKUS.

The remarkable unipolar moment, in which the US hegemony dominated the world between about 1991 and 2017 has passed. The US is still tremendously powerful. Yet its electoral problems at home, which are seriously threatening democracy there, are currently intersecting with its major foreign policy problems in Ukraine, the Middle East, and South China Sea. Right-wing nationalisms are stalking the world. Russia is also a great power. There is no reason to believe that the US will automatically want or be able to protect us from future threats from the north. Leading strategist Hugh White is not the only thinker who warns us further that, regardless of what the Americans say, their primacy in our region will ‘change and shrink.’

Where, then, does the current multi-polar moment, leave the Anzac story? In relation to China alone, it leaves Australia unable to relate to a large chunk of contemporary strategic reality. Since its inception, the Anzac narrative has been predicated on a reflexive understanding of the global dominance of white Anglo-American imperial powers. Now, as the configuration of the still awesome power of the US hegemon changes, we need a change in a narrative that began its career with a 70 year stint as race-based imperial romance.

In the multi-polar world, Australian defence and security thinking needs to make a shift away from the old imperial romance driven by spurious threat-construction. To focus and develop the independent nation’s interests, we need a more practical security history based on a rational calculation of strategic reality.

https://johnmenadue.com/anzac-day-2024-from-imperial-romance-to-practical-defence-history/

 

SEE ALSO: 

extinction of the british.......

 

 

READ FROM TOP

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....

belittling russia......

erasing russia from history by the western mediocre media...

https://yourdemocracy.net/drupal/node/38891

 

SEE ALSO: https://sputnikglobe.com/20240425/delegates-from-russia-belarus-banned-from-attending-mauthausen-camp-liberation-event-1118114826.html

 

READ FROM TOP

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....