Do you think Winston Churchill is unrightfully glorified?


They also made movies about Jeffrey Dahmer, too.


I think you are wrong. While it is true that no nation can endure multiple cultures tugging and pulling it in different directions, I do not believe that is an ethnic phenomena as much as it is a function of people who want to create an entire society on the principle that they just do not want to face a person of another race as a societal equal. The US has only has federal law that actually embraced the intent of the Constitution for a couple of very brief periods in history. Most of the time we have had laws that attempted to use the power of government to slice and dice society. I have met a lot of very smart blacks who, by and large want no more and no less out of society than I do and I have known many whites who are little more than a waste of space… I want a homogeneous culture but it must be created by people who will give each other a fair shot and culture with the fortitude to understand that you only get out what you put in. I believe in the individual… it is the adoration of the state and some peoples need for empire rather than an individuals connection with something higher than another man that has caused so many of the worlds problems. Naive?.. you might say so but then you likely don’t care what I think anyway…

  • he was a racist and anti Semite - So? Doesn’t that just mean he knew the truth.
  • he openly criticized Supreme Commander Eisenhower which led to his dismissal - Eisenhower was a number one asshole and Jewish btw
  • even after he visited the concentration camps he still sided with Germany as he hated Jews - So Patton, even after seeing the ‘‘horrors’’ of the death camps still thought the Germans were right…hmmm
  • Patton hated Russians and considered them “mongols” and not white Europeans , and should be wiped out, as he believed America and the USSR would go to war. - So he was right on that one too - ever heard of something called the cold war


I can appreciate your perspective; however, I think you are wrong because for the majority of human existence people lived in ethnically homogenous countries. In fact, most non-whites still do live in ethnically homogenous countries around the world. If you hadn’t noticed yet, it’s only white (European-native) countries that “need” to take in non-whites. I do see where your perspective comes into play - and I agree with it. When non-whites arrive they are treated as “minorities” and are provided with a special protected status by the government, despite whites being the only true ethnic minority in the world. You may believe in the individual - but it was not the individual who created the entirety of Western civilization. That’s yet another trick by those who are pushing this. You are arguing for the atomization of your people and culture. Wrong move.


Meh… I think the difference between then and now is technology. Various regions of the world were, for the most part isolated from each other by space and when they did come into contact with each other it resulted in war as generally it was one group attempting to expand into the space of another. When that happened it was almost a complete destruction of the culture of the vanquished.

Technology has, at least for the last 4 or so hundred years emanated from Europe and the industrial revolution… The British empire injected itself for better or worse in the rest of the worlds business because of a vastly superior technology and perhaps the need to dominate. The point is, people are coming into contact with each other in a much more natural way, except of course for the contrived mass movement of people which suits a select groups interest.

While I understand that the ‘west’ was a function of government totality, the ideas that made the west what it is stemmed from the individual… from the individual mind and spirit. I don’t think the French Revolution was particularly enabling from a political point of view… but the declaration by the US of its independence from Britain and its basic principle of inalienable rights was. Did government insure that people had these rights to go and expand and express… some would like to credit government for that but as I see it the constitution of the US and the premise of the Magna Carte protected the individual from government.

As an American, I am amored with the US Constitution. While founded on British law it is supposedly unique in that it was the people who decided what the country would become… not by government action or interference but by individuals interacting with individuals. (I.E. if I like you and you like me, we set the terms of our relationship both business and personal) The mistake came when somehow this idea was perverted into the government creating laws that set values and customs for the individual… The start of a totalitarian state that is alive and will and living in the hearts of every nearby socialist.

Britain, I believe, has never left the mind set of a monarch… its government actually fears a written constituton because it, like so much of US government would have to expend time and energy to circumvent it… better to be fluid.

I find the issue of race homogeneity to be an interesting one. I gravitate to white people i guess because they are more likely to listen to the same music, eat the same foods and have similar behavioral norms (although I am seeing a lot of deviation in that last one as time goes on and I get older), however I know people of different nationalities that find comfort in many things I believe but aren’t necessarily consistent with the values of their home country. I find white women by and large more appealing to me than other women although I have seen some fabulous looking women from Japan, Mexico, Middle East etc. I don’t see race as important as others do but I do agree with you that the ‘space’ for whites is being undermined and deliberately so… and it would seem to be that way by an alliance of globalist and progressives in an attempt to force an amalgamation of color. In that, you and I agree but the natural coming together of people because they like each other… I’m not so worried about. As for the atomization of ‘my people and culture’… again, I don’t see white as important as I do two people who like and respect each other… from that respect grows a common culture that would be acceptable to both… Again, I understand natural homogeneity is not for the impatient and globalist and progressives are definitely not patient.

Your problem with me is that I passively play into the hands of those who work 24/7 to destroy the white race. I get that but I just can’t bring myself to preserve a thoroughbred when, while they are aesthetically pleasing, mutts are real fine dogs…


My God, where have you been? My post is known as black - dark humor.


So this is the reason you justify throwing Western civilization down the toilet? Your entire post made sense up until this point. I read this and literally facepalmed.


I am justtifying nothing … I do not accept the artificial degradation of the west by the various groups to diluent the western ‘culture’. I am a strong opponent of open borders and I feel that US foreign policy both from the supposedly benevolent ‘gifts’ of USAID and the malevolence of sticking our face in everyone else’s business has created much of our problems in this regard. Make no mistake, these programs and actions were not an accident, not on the part of the US government or indeed ‘some’ countries of the EU. I am very vocal about the artificial destruction of our culture but I do not see the individual as the problem. Their is a big difference between the evolution of culture and how that happens between willing parties and what is happening now which is a strong arm attempt to destroy a culture. My comment to @Thule was his objection to my position is that I am not an active… for lack of better words… racist. I fully understand what people are doing and I use my voice and my vote as effectively as I can to stop it… but that doesn’t mean that I hate a black person that agrees with me just because he is black. I may not attend his daughters wedding but then again, their are a lot of white people who’s invitation I would pass on as well…

One last point. While I don’t have a problem with people of two different ethnicities coming together in business or in love… I do find the forced amalgamation repugnant. What is happing with this movement is not only the forced acceptance of cross racial breeding but because it is forced… it is forcing many cultural changes as well… to this I strongly object.


Is that where you get your facts from?..:laughing:


I never saw the movie



Other than demanding adherence to laws promoting personal property rights, safety, civility, our Constitution, and national sovereignty…I am not in favor of people being forced to do anything whatsoever.


Eisenhower wasn’t a jew, he was German and could trace his family history, unlike Hitler.
You really think America would have let a jew become president, even in that era? it was a miracle that JFK was president as Roman Catholics are not popular with main stream America .

lets use logic for a moment if you can, if you physically hate someone and something horrendous happens to them, you will not shed a tear.

Its like if a pedophile rapes and kills my niece, and then the pedophile lives to 90 years old and the death penalty is reestablished , Im not going to shed a tear if they execute his ass even at 90 years old and he is a old man, I say kill the bastard and be done with it, as I hate pedophiles.

Patton hated the Jews so after seen what happened to them he was thinking " shit happens", why do you think he hated the Russians/Bolsheviks ?

Because of the Jewish influence, he didn’t think Russians were White Europeans and often refereed to them as “mongols”


Yes!..kill the bastard and be done with it.


Probably not as generalizations are far from correct in 100% of all cases.


Did you leave off the “1” ?



And that proves what?.. that Scott Kelly would rather say fuck it in the face of the raving hordes than try to talk to them which is a pretty impossible task even for those who are highly talented at debate… as if the social justice crowd would ever know how to debate.


Look, again at the title of this thread - and then look at some of Churchills quotes before he became PM.


Not everyone agreed with Kelly kowtowing to the Twitter trolls. AEI resident scholar Christina Sommer told Kelly, despite Churchill’s shortcomings, there was no need to apologize. “Please don’t apologize. Winston Churchill, like all of us, had serious human failings,” Sommers said. “But unlike most of us—he possessed genuine greatness. And that greatness may have saved freedom & democracy. Ask the Twitter scolds to name a hero or heroine who didn’t have serious flaws.”

So who is your perfect hero?.. who would you say had the worst failings during that period of time? I love the perfect people of today pointing fingers at the imperfect human leaders of the past while insisting that we have more government, more regulation and more oversight from what history will always find as flawed characters in some form or fashion… What until the world gets around to judging todays social justice grunt… those that spent their lives ‘fighting for equality’ while creating new out groups to shun… perhaps the younger of them will be ready to take a position on the supreme court and someone will point to pictures of them standing on the hood of someone else’s care with hammer in hand… or beating someone bloody because they disagreed with an opinion. Churchill saw Britian through some pretty dark hours… for that he deserves accolades not a bunch of critical loonies tearing down his statue and reputation.