Sunday, June 9, 2013


CHURCHILL ON ISLAM
 Winston Churchill as a young man

Churchill as Britain's Prime Minister

"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries!  Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy.  The effects are apparent in many countries, improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.

“A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement, the next of its dignity and sanctity.  The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.

“Individual Muslims may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it.  No stronger retrograde force exists in the world.  Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith.  It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step;  and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome ..."

[NOTE: The above speech was written in 1899 (The River War, 1899, first edition, is not available online). These words were delivered in 1899 when Churchill was a young soldier and journalist. They express the views of Islam many have come to hold today in colorful Churchillian prose.  Winston Churchill was, without doubt, one of the most significant leaders of the 20th century –– a brave soldier, a fine journalist, an extraordinary politician and statesman, and a great war leader as Britain’s Prime Minister to whom the Western world must be forever indebted.  A prophet in his own time he died on 24th January 1965, at age 90 after a lifetime of service to his country, and was accorded a State Funeral.]

SOURCE: Winston Churchill: The River War, first edition, Vol II, pp 248-250, London, 1899).

[FYI: SNOPES does not deny this, but takes considerable pains, of course, to denigrate Sir Winston as a racist, imperialist icon and an emblem of Western Shame in a series of responses left by leftists –– who else?]

22 comments:

  1. Sir Winston fought the Whirling Dervishes in the Battle of Omdurman, so he got to see it up close.

    Brace yourself, FreeThinke, for others to swoop down and lecture you about how the misanthropic maladies he describes are better ascribed to the culture of Sudan, only among the stupid and illiterate, or whatever...

    The fact that Ducky's Muslim friends are civilized and cultured and would never cut someone's head off does not negate the overwhelming evidence of Islam's malign influence on every unfortunate culture it has overwhelmed.

    I, too have enjoyed friendships with Muslims, and almost all of them were in the US Military. I don't want them deported, interned or discriminated against in any way.

    They enjoy my love and respect, and I thank God that the cultural malignancy of their religion has not gained a stranglehold on them.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Not sure which edition it is, but the book is available in various formats at Gutenberg.

    http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/4943

    I read it about a year ago. Interesting view of the region in a 'the more things change.." sense, with the added attraction of Churchillian prose.

    ReplyDelete
  3. @ "SNOPES does not deny this, but takes considerable pains, of course, to denigrate Sir Winston as a racist, imperialist icon and an emblem of Western Shame in a series of responses left by leftists –– who else?

    Cultural and historical vandalism is a hallmark of the angry left.

    They besot and shit-smear all that is good. They cannot win in an open debate, so smear and smashy-smashy is the name of their game.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I am sure that there are many derogatory statements from a hundred years ago about a wide variety of religions. That does not make them true or even relevant today.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "They enjoy my love and respect, and I thank God that the cultural malignancy of their religion has not gained a stranglehold on them."

    But how could you possibly be sure of that given the nature of TAQIYYA? You wouldn't be the first and you won't be the last to have nursed a viper in your bosom, all-American friend.

    This is how they gain a foothold and then CONQUER. It may take five-hundred years or more, but CONQUEST s what lies behind the Muslim Mindset.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "They enjoy my love and respect, and I thank God that the cultural malignancy of their religion has not gained a stranglehold on them."

    @ FreeThinke: But how could you possibly be sure of that given the nature of TAQIYYA?


    ````````````

    Excellent question. I cannot, of course. But they are citizens and have served patriotically.

    In the same vein, how do we know this or that native-born blue collar citizen won't snap and take out his coworkers with a gun, as happens with alarming frequency in this country?

    I vote NO to preemptive justice.

    I do wish we would stop importing people from Muslim lands. The little bastards who set the bombs at the Boston Marathon were here as refugees, even as they and their parents traveled back to the homeland they were seeking refuge from. We are stupid.

    Controlling who comes in is one action we can take that violates the rights of no one.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Whats next, FT, you start quoting Patai?

    You don't like Muslims. Anyone who has visited your blog more than twice knows this.
    Churchill and Kipling were your kind of supremacists.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I've read those thoughts of Churchill previously. I don't doubt that they accurately depict his observation of Islam, but as I've found out more about Churchill and the times from say the beginning of the twentieth century until after the end of WW I, say 1920, I can't accept that Churchill would not have known about some interesting developments that came to fruition during those years.

    Specifically, the formal declaration that land should be set aside for the country of Israel, via the Balfour Declaration.

    Have you heard the thoughts of one Jewish insider that was present while reparations were being imposed on a defeated Germany, and the League of Nations was the object of Woodrow Wilson and his handlers "heart's desire"?

    This man, Benjamin Freedman, offers some interesting insights in a Washington speech from 1961. Is a Jew that walks out on the religion, discloses unspoken information that should be considered by any rational human being attempting to understand the past, an anti-Semite? What twisted logic could possibly call this man that?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKsDNhYm4ds

    I believe Churchill would have been privy to this information in this speech, as well, at the time Freedman was aware of it.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "The fact that Ducky's Muslim friends are civilized and cultured and would never cut someone's head off does not negate the overwhelming evidence of Islam's malign influence on every unfortunate culture it has overwhelmed."

    Right, except for countries like the UAE, Malaysia, and Indonesia. All Muslim, yet they do pretty well for themselves. UAE is filthy-stinking rich, yet it's a country in which Christianity is illegal.

    Indonesia and Malaysia are both democratic nations. Is it any wonder that the nations with the most problems pertaining to radical muslim violence are generally poor countries with a largely uneducated populace?

    Or countries that are/have been run by maniacal dictators? We don't see any bombings in Dubai, now do we?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Well Jack, you can add Turkey (little recent speed bump), Morocco ... India has a huge Muslim population and radical Hindus seem more of a problem.

    I wonder if Churchill had anything to do with the British deciding to stiff Faisal on self rule after WW I? We know what an imperialist bigot he was. But Britain and France were there to promote freedom and democracy. They had nothing to do with today's problems in the Middle East.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Jack Camwell said...
    "The fact that Ducky's Muslim friends are civilized and cultured and would never cut someone's head off does not negate the overwhelming evidence of Islam's malign influence on every unfortunate culture it has overwhelmed.


    What the Hell dies that have to do with CHURCHILL?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Interesting that you would cite a "filthy stinking rich" country that outlaws the practice of Christianity as a an example of how "good" a Muslim society can be, Jack.

    The only reason Pakistan exists today was to give India's fractious, bellicose Muslim population a place to go. Pakistan before Ghandi was a part of India. The division occurred because Islamic elements was undoing most of the good Ghandi had done in freeing his country from British rule.

    I'm sure today's "revisionist" history books tell a different story. The truth rarely serves The Agenda.

    ReplyDelete
  13. In the eyes of the "progressives" Winston Churchill
    was seen as an warmongering extremist in Britain for most of his career. He never saw a situation where he didn't think the British should go on the military offensive. If he were alive today, there wouldn't be a al Qaeda, or a Taliban. He would have wiped them out a long time ago (with the help of Ronald Reagan, Bless their Hearts..

    ReplyDelete
  14. The most bigoted person present in these precincts would have to be you, Canardo. I don't believe I've ever run into anyone more besotted with his own worldview and more certain that he already knows everything worth knowing than you.

    One or two others bear a similarity to you in that regard, but you really take the cake.

    No one could possibly know as much as you'd like us to believe you do.

    Name dropping and name calling are unworthy substitutes for critical thinking.

    A bigot is not someone who hates, so much as someone who loves far too much ------ his own opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  15. We don't see any bombings in Dubai, now do we?

    Seriously, Jack?

    Their government was almost tipped over by fanatics last year. Saudi Arabia marched in and took care of it for them.

    And look a little closer at Indonesia while you're at it.

    I never held that all Muslim countries are horrible wrecks.

    Qatar does pretty good for itself, using your words, but they too suffer periodic attacks from fanatics who hate that they are aligned with the US, and that they have a Catholic cathedral and Hindu temples.

    Lebanon was also once a refuge for the Muslim world's liberal outcasts, but the Hesbos took care of that.

    Such is the fate of liberals in Muslim lands. Think about it.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Correction: Bahrain was almost tipped over, not UAE, but UAE does have its radical fundie problems, but the government is murderously efficient at stomping them out befor they make the news.

    @ FreeThinke:

    The most bigoted person present in these precincts would have to be you, Canardo. I don't believe I've ever run into anyone more besotted with his own worldview and more certain that he already knows everything worth knowing than you.

    Well said.

    Ducky is an intelligent man, and I respect where he is coming from, but he can be quite stinky most of the time. Don't know why. If he merely met us as honest interlocutors and exchanged ideas instead of spreading bile and sarcasm, our debates would be more pleasant.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I think Jack Camwell meant that Christianity in the UAE is LEGAL, not illegal.

    Roman Catholicism in the United Arab Emirates


    Also, this:

    "According to a ministry report, which collected census data, 76 percent of the total population of the United Arab Emirates is Muslim, 9 percent is Christian, and 15 percent is "other." There is no official recognition of Christian denominations.[3] However, Christians are free to worship and wear religious clothing, if applicable. The importation and sale of religious material is allowed, however, attempts to spread Christianity among Muslims are not permitted. The country has Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox churches along with Protestant and Roman Catholic churches. The schools in public ownership have no Christian religious education. Christian men are not allowed to marry Muslim women. Conversion from Islam to Christianity is not permitted."

    ReplyDelete
  18. Shaw: Yes. There are some flickers of enlightenment amid the islamic darkness. Lebanon was once a liberal beacon, but it has been snuffed by islamists.

    ReplyDelete
  19. It is impossible, at least for me to grasp how any truly logical and rational individual can accept the Koran and thereby Islam.

    But then again it is hard for me to accept much of the Old Testament and New Testament as well.

    Guess that shows my bias.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Well. RN, once you realize that sharia is extremely similar to Leviticus and only the liberal tradition has kept the Abrahamic religions in line in the West it becomes clear.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I would much prefer to accept the words of our great friend and staunch ally, Winston Churchill, than anything some grubby little nobody who identifies himself as a leftist, might have us believe.


    --------------> Katharine Heartburn

    ReplyDelete
  22. Good for you, Thrasher. I just noticed your remark. I feel the same.

    --------------> Katharine Heartburn

    ReplyDelete

IF YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THE FOLLOWING, YOU DON'T BELONG HERE, SO KINDLY GET OUT AND STAY OUT.

We welcome Conversation
But without Vituperation.
If your aim is Vilification ––
Other forms of Denigration ––
Unfounded Accusation --
Determined Obfuscation ––
Alienation with Self-Justification ––
We WILL use COMMENT ERADICATION.


IN ADDITION

Gratuitous Displays of Extraneous Knowledge Offered Not To Shed Light Or Enhance the Discussion, But For The Primary Purpose Of Giving An Impression Of Superiority are obnoxiously SELF-AGGRANDIZING, and therefore, Subject to Removal at the Discretion of the Censor-in-Residence.