user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
Voted : Yes
Posted this on a previous ballot, it seems fitting here too.
It seems US delagates on both sides endorse anything Israel does, right or wrong, at the expenxe of lives in both Palistine and Israel. If you ask me, I think if America took a neutral stance and dealt evenly with both sides, we might see some significant steps towards a lasting peace, but the more we support Israel, the more they push the envelope against their neighbors, esculating the tension. Perhaps I'm wrong but it really appears that the US isn't interested in mid east peace. Doh!
Voted : No
if people only stop pigeonholing themselves into race, nationality, and religious backgrounds, none of these problems would have taken place.
if people just accepted human beings as human beings, then it's going to be really easy to spot those who are going the way of Hitlers, when they start classifying people.
Mark my words, in a thousand years, we'll get there - if we don't exterminate ourselves before then.
by LCD on Fri Mar 23, 07 10:57am
[+]
Voted : No
So let me get this straight because Jews act,think and live like jews they are contributing to antisemitism?LOL that's a good one Churchy way to blame the victim and project your European guilt over antisemitism.
Voted : Yes
^You know what,it's SO ridiculously obvious that Jews have been partly to blame for their troubles yet people like you want us to believe otherwise.F*ck the sacred cow.Your position is both extremist and supremacist.Your denial is typical of the discontent between differing peoples because you refuse to accept any responsibility for anything.It is *exactly* this stubborn unwillingness to concede any responsibility that is one root of the problem.Fortunately for you there are objective and rational "self hating Jews" making amends ...however I fear,as history has demonstrated,their voices usually fail to register above the clamor.
Let's hope that more of OUR soldiers(loyalty to Israel = TREASON to OUR USA) don't wind up dying in a war compliments of the AIPAC and the "New York money people".
Voted : No
No. Not all the things he said about jews were bad, but there was an unfortunate degree of anti-semitism among even the best back then. Dostoevsky, Dickens, Grant and Shakespeare had a little bit of it, which is a shame.
And some moderns have a bit of it as well.
He must think that Jews are really great people if he thinks they are only partly responsible for their problems. Everyone else is completely responsible for their problems.
robotthinker from you're comment I take you think I'm a jew,well sir I'm not.Anyway why don't you elaborate and explain why the jews are partially responsible for their own persecution throughout history, especially in Europe.
What more do you and Churchill want from the jews in order for you to say that they have fully "absorded" into European soceity?They keep their religion to themselves,contribute mightly to European society,obey the laws and social mores and even changed their names; yet you still say they keep themselves at a distance and refuse to take responsiblity for the hostility between them and European society in general?
"Anyway why don't you elaborate and explain why the jews are partially responsible for their own persecution throughout history, especially in Europe."
Ok,addressing all conflict through Jewish history is WAY too broad and time consuming.Jewish suffering in WW2 is also a can of worms for me since I don't ascribe to the US textbook account and I don't want to waste time drifting from the core topic.It's tempting but I suspect we won't agree on some major tenets of that conflict so ...
I'll address the broad Jewish support of Bolshevism.We know of the horrors that followed.
That Jewish people were mistreated under the Tsar is acknowledged(FE Jewish people were barred from residing outside the Pale of Settlement).I acknowledge the mistreatment,however what transpired, from the murder of the Czar to the horrors of the Gulags,amounts to much more than a justified response.
Jewish people,domestically and internationally(including financiers such as Jacob Schiff and Olaf Ashberg,...)largely threw their weight behind Bolshevism.Outside of Lenin(who was likely 1/4 Jewish himself) most of the leading Communists in control of Russia, between 1917 and 1920,were Jews.This includes members of the Council of the People's Commissars,the Central Executive Committee,the Extraordinary Commission of Moscow,...I have the names and can support this.That the Jewish role in the top leadership of the Soviet state diminished ~ 1928 and after does not negate the concerted effort directed by Jews largely against ethnic Russians and their enemies.It has not been forgotten and as cause and effect dictates,is still resented today in Russia among other issues.
Here's another quote by Churchill..
"There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution by these international and for the most part atheistical Jews. It is certainly a very great one; it probably outweighs all others. With the notable exception of Lenin, the majority of the leading figures are Jews. Moreover, the principal inspiration and driving power comes from the Jewish leaders. Thus Tchitcherin, a pure Russian, is eclipsed by his nominal subordinate, Litvinoff, and the influence of Russians like Bukharin or Lunacharski cannot be compared with the power of Trotsky, or of Zinovieff, the Dictator of the Red Citadel (Petrograd), or of Krassin or Radek -- all Jews. In the Soviet institutions the predominance of Jews is even more astonishing. And the prominent, if not indeed the principal, part in the system of terrorism applied by the Extraordinary Commissions for Combatting Counter-Revolution has been taken by Jews, and in some notable cases by Jewesses.
Needless to say, the most intense passions of revenge have been excited in the breasts of the Russian people."
Is the entire world irrationally rabid towards Jews?Why are they continually at odds with the host populations wherever they go???Why is worldly peace so pivotal around this miniscule Jewish population?It's pathetic when people try to deny the existence of and power beheld by Jewish interest groups.Jews have ENORMOUS sway politically,financially,in the field of media...ENORMOUS.For that alone I do not fault them.I fault them for same abuses of power that ALL people have been guilty of.
"What more do you and Churchill want from the jews in order for you to say that they have fully "absorded" into European soceity?"
Absorbed?Few are fully and only to varying degrees by others.There are still MANY with split and skewed loyalties.
"They keep their religion to themselves"
The nature of Judaism isn't the same as with other religions.Many Jews view themselves as a separate people ethnically and that position is one more one of ethnocentrism.When white gentiles do that it's labeled "racism".
"contribute mightly to European society"
I agree absolutely.Ashkenazi Jews are extremely studious people.Perhaps they *are* a master race of sorts.My gripe is that too many people have see them in this light ONLY,such as you.That and victims.On with the cycle ...
"obey the laws"
I suspect you are correct,it is to their credit.They also write allot of those laws,for the rest of us.
"even changed their names"
I disagree with your point.I think they do that with security in mind,not to be one of us.
"yet you still say they keep themselves at a distance"
I didn't say that however that is often true.I have lived among Jews and I'm here to tell you that that is certainly the case with enough of them.Different comments I heard in my HS years,not meaning much then,make allot more sense to me now.There is less of that now,especially in the US,but it is still to be found.
"refuse to take responsiblity for the hostility between them and European society in general"
Actually I already stated that there are "self hating Jews" making amends.Aside from that I know that many are just as brainwashed as the rest of us.My point was to point out their abuses of power and that they will continue so long as criticism of Jewish power is met with such fierce reprisal and willed ignorance.The problem is too real.
^racist spam. Quote isn't by Winston Churchill. It was written by a speechwriter. Churhill totally rejected it. Source: Churchill Centre
Source for cranky... his usual anti-semitism.
Of course this story was picked up by the media but it isn't true. Here is the link. www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=1107
Churchill Accused of Anti-Semitism
Conclusion: Nonsense
1. THE ACCUSATION
A lifelong supporter of Zionism and the Jewish people, Winston Churchill is now being accused of anti-semitism on the strength of an alleged article of his, making the rounds of the internet.
Informed of a 1937 article draft in the Churchill Archives, accusers say it proves Churchill's lifelong sympathy for the Jews was hypocrisy—that Churchill was, ipso facto, a closet anti-semite.
The allegations began with an article in Britain's The Independent: "Uncovered: Churchill's Warnings About the 'Hebrew Bloodsuckers'" on 11 March 2007.
The 1937 document, 'How the Jews Can Combat Persecution,' was unearthed by Dr. Richard Toye, a Cambridge University historian," The Independent states. "Written three years before Churchill became Prime Minister, the article has apparently lain unnoticed in the Churchill Archives at Cambridge since the early months of the Second World War.
"Churchill criticised the 'aloofness' of Jewish people from wider society and urged them to make the effort to integrate themselves....Churchill says: 'The central fact which dominates the relations of Jew and non-Jew is that the Jew is "different." He looks different. He thinks differently. He has a different tradition and background.' He then goes on to criticise Jewish moneylenders: 'Every Jewish moneylender recalls Shylock and the idea of the Jews as usurers. And you cannot reasonably expect a struggling clerk or shopkeeper, paying 40 or 50 per cent interest on borrowed money to a "Hebrew Bloodsucker," to reflect that almost every other way of life was closed to the Jewish people.'"
"Dr Toye said: 'I nearly fell off my chair when I found the article. It appears to have been overlooked....It was certainly quite a shock to read some of these things and it is obviously at odds with the traditional idea we have of Churchill.'"
We at The Churchill Centre would have fallen off our chairs too—if Churchill had written such words. But Churchill did not write them. Nor did he publish them. Nor did he approve of them.
The author of "How the Jews Can Combat Persecution" was Adam Marshall Diston (1893-1956), whom Gilbert's volume identifies on page 190: "Born in Scotland. Served in a Highland Regiment, 1914-18. Joined the Staff of Amalgamated Press after the war; subsequently Assistant Editor of Answers, and acting Editor (1934).... A Socialist, he joined Sir Oswald Mosley's New Party in 1931. Unsuccessful New Party Candidate for Wandsworth Central in the 1931 election (where he polled only 424 votes out of a total of 11,647, and lost his deposit); he never stood for Parliament again."
2. THE FACTS
"How the Jews Can Combat Persecution" has not "lain unnoticed since the Second World War." It was "unearthed" nearly thirty years ago by Oxford historian and Churchill biographer Sir Martin Gilbert, poring through the million documents in the Churchill Archives Centre. Twenty-six years ago, Gilbert actually reprinted the letter conveying the draft of this article to Churchill, in WinstonS.Churchill, Companion Volume V, Part 3, The Coming of War: Documents 1936-1939 (London: Heinemann, 1982), page 670.
The author of "How the Jews Can Combat Persecution" was Adam Marshall Diston (1893-1956), whom Gilbert's volume identifies on page 190: "Born in Scotland. Served in a Highland Regiment, 1914-18. Joined the Staff of Amalgamated Press after the war; subsequently Assistant Editor of Answers, and acting Editor (1934).... A Socialist, he joined Sir Oswald Mosley's New Party in 1931. Unsuccessful New Party Candidate for Wandsworth Central in the 1931 election (where he polled only 424 votes out of a total of 11,647, and lost his deposit); he never stood for Parliament again."
Churchill briefly employed Diston to write rough drafts for the popular press. While drafts for Churchill's weighty histories, such as Marlborough and A History of the English Speaking Peoples, were prepared by distinguished historians such as Bill Deakin and Keith Feiling, Diston drafted some of what Churchill called his "potboilers," which supplied much of his income in the 1930s. Indeed, says Sir Martin Gilbert, this article "was the only serious subject Diston was asked to tackle, in which he went over the top in the use of his language."
Diston's membership in Mosley's fascist party suggests his sentiments. Indeed, in his letter conveying the draft to Churchill, he recognized them: "Mrs. Pearman did not tell me for what paper it was wanted. If it is for a Jewish journal, it may in places be rather outspoken. Even then, however, I do not know that that is altogether a bad thing. There are quite a number of Jews who might, with advantage, reflect on the epigram: 'How odd, Of God, To choose, The Jews.'"
Diston's draft departed drastically from the article guidelines Churchill had sent him only three weeks earlier: "Obviously there are four things. The first is to be a good citizen of the country to which he belongs. The second is to avoid too exclusive an association in ordinary matters of business and daily life, and to mingle as much as possible with non-Jews everywhere, apart from race and religion. The third is to keep the Jewish movement free from Communism. The fourth is a perfectly legitimate use of their influence throughout the world to bring pressure, economic and financial, to bear upon the Governments which persecute them." (Companion Volume 5, Part 3, 654). All those sentiments are typical of Churchill. and certainly do not smack of "Shylock," or people who "look different." Winston Churchill was among the least conscious of how people looked of anyone in his generation.
Interviewed March 11th by London's The Sunday Times, Sir Martin Gilbert said Churchill refused to have Diston's article published because it was not his work and did not reflect his views. Gilbert added that Dr. Toye, the lecturer who "found" the article and includes it in a new book, Lloyd George and Churchill, must have failed to consult Companion Volume V, Part 3, which describes it: "I'm amazed. My book would have been on the same shelf in the same library. I immediately recognised the name of the article."
Not only did Churchill not write about "Hebrew Bloodsuckers." He refused even to subject Diston's draft to his usual heavy editing and revision, which he traditionally did before submitting an article to a publisher. (See footnotes on the drafting of "King George VI," Companion Volume 5, Part 3, 519.)
Subsequent correspondence in the Churchill Archives, from March 1940, has Charles Eade, then Churchill's editor for his war speeches, suggesting that Diston's "rather provocative" article be published in the Sunday Dispatch. Kathleen Hill, forwarded his proposal to Churchill with a note: "I cannot trace that this article on the Jews has ever been published. You originally wrote it for the American Magazine Liberty about June 1937....However, the article was not published as Colliers objected to any of your articles appearing in a rival magazine." (Churchill Archives, CHAR 8/660/32.)
It has been suggested that the piece was not published only because of Colliers' objections. But that opinion was Mrs. Hill's, not Churchill's. While she might have remembered Collier's objections, Churchill was never one to fail to place a good story. Yet, after reading Mrs. Hill's memo, Churchill himself wrote across the bottom: "better not." Mrs. Hill in turn informed Eade: "Mr. Churchill thinks it would be inadvisable to publish the article." (Churchill Archives, CHAR 8/660/31.)
Clearly, both in 1937 and 1940, Churchill did not want this article published. As William Manchester wrote, Churchill "always had second and third thoughts, and they usually improved as he went along. It was part of his pattern of response to any political issue that while his early reactions were often emotional, and even unworthy of him, they were usually succeeded by reason and generosity." (Manchester, The Last Lion vol. I, Boston: Little Brown, 1982, 843-44).
3. The Feet of Clay School
Not long from now, we may assume, The Independent's story or portions of the Diston draft will be dredged up out of context as proof of Churchill's hypocrisy. There is an element in modern discourse that seeks always to deconstruct time-proven institutions, societies and leaders. No matter how positive their record, their least peccadilloes are seized upon as proof that revered institutions and individuals are no better than the villains of history: that "we" are no better than "they." Call it the Feet of Clay School.
Winston Churchill is particularly susceptible to such accusations. Thanks to the massive archive he left us, ably marshaled and made available to one and all by the faithful Churchill Archives Centre in Cambridge, Churchill is in the relatively unique position of being subject to criticism not only for his most personal thoughts in his most private letters, but even for articles he never wrote.
Leave aside Churchill's lifelong support of Zionism. Forget his legion of Jewish friends, from Sir Ernest Cassel to Henry Strakosch to Bernard Baruch, who stuck by him when it took courage to do so, often bailing him out of financial misfortune. Omit the fact that his official biographer is also a leading Holocaust and Jewish historian. Churchill was a friend of the Jews because, as a moral man, his sense of justice was revolted by persecution. "How can any man be discriminated against," he once asked, "purely because of how he was born?"
But Churchill was not an uncritical friend. He once observed that most Bolsheviks were Jews, but added (in a phrase usually omitted by the Feet of Clay School) that the reason for this was that they were also the most persecuted minority in Europe. (See notes on Churchill's 1920 article "Zionism vs. Bolshevism," Finest Hour 128, page 43.)
In November 1944, Churchill was outraged by the killing of his friend Lord Moyne (Walter Guinness), the Minister Resident in Cairo, by members of the terrorist Stern Gang. In a statement to Parliament, Churchill said: "If our dreams for Zionism are to end in the smoke of assassins' pistols and our labours for its future to produce only a new set of gangsters worthy of Nazi Germany, many like myself will have to reconsider the position we have maintained so consistently and so long in the past. If there is to be any hope of a peaceful and successful future for Zionism, these wicked activities must cease, and those responsible for them must be destroyed root and branch." (See Gilbert, WinstonS.Churchill vol. VII Roadto Victory, 1050).
Yet, despite Churchill's outrage, he refused to agree to a Colonial Office proposal in the wake of Moyne's death to curb Jewish immigration to Palestine, and refused to appoint as Moyne's successor two senior Conservatives whom he knew to be opposed to Zionism.
An under-appreciated quality of Churchill was his consistency. If his principles were offended, the offenders were chastised, no matter who they were. He never paid the slightest attention to "public opinion"; Political Correctness would be lost on him. And yet Churchill could always be counted upon, at the end of any debate, to come down on the side of justice, right and freedom.
"I never felt that he was going to spring an unpleasant surprise on me," said Sir Martin Gilbert, reflecting on his forty years of biographical research with the historian Max Hastings (Finest Hour 65). "I might find that he was adopting views with which I disagreed. But I always knew that there would be nothing to cause me to think: 'How shocking, how appalling.'"
Richard M. Langworth, Editor
Finest Hour
The Journal of Winston Churchill
OF COURSE, I WOULDN'T EXPECT CRANKY TO ACTUALLY RESEARCH A QUOTE. ANYTHING HE CAN USE TO SPOUT OFF HIS ANTI-SEMITISM, HE WILL USE.
SMEARING ONE OF THE GREATEST LEADERS OF ALL TIME MEANS NOTHING TO CRANKY. IF HE CAN USE IT TO FURTHER HIS ANTI-SEMITIC AGENDA, HE WILL DO SO.
I'VE PUBLISHED THE FACTS. CRANKY HAS NOT... ANYONE SURPRISED?
BTW... WINSTON CHURCHILL WAS KNOWN AS ONE OF THE GREATEST ZIONISTS. THAT IS A FACT AND ONE THAT IS EASILY PROVED.
|
|
