I appreciate that the subject of this question may seem a tad insensitive to some. However, this is some-thing that was put to myself very recently and it certainly got me thinking.
Would Sir Winston Churchill have been a member of the BNP if he were alive today?
Would he have been expelled from The Conservative party along with The Great Enoch Powell?
Winston Churchill : The British National Party
I would be interested in fellow Brits opinions.
A thread for Pantoandy and the Brits
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
A thread for Pantoandy and the Brits
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
A thread for Pantoandy and the Brits
Thats a very interesting question. I'm sure the BNP would very much like to think so. A Statesman of such stature. God knows they have very few brain cells to go round the whole party. The need a bit of street cred so Winston's a big name
I'm not so sure. Politics was a different animal back in the early part of this century. Deep in the heart of the Empire and all that. Some would say he was a product of his time and therefore dealt with problems under those parameters
It difficult to translate what someone's beliefs would be in a different climate
He certainly didnt mince his words did he ?
I'm not so sure. Politics was a different animal back in the early part of this century. Deep in the heart of the Empire and all that. Some would say he was a product of his time and therefore dealt with problems under those parameters
It difficult to translate what someone's beliefs would be in a different climate
He certainly didnt mince his words did he ?
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire."
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
A thread for Pantoandy and the Brits
Snowfire;1164450 wrote: Thats a very interesting question. I'm sure the BNP would very much like to think so. A Statesman of such stature. God knows they have very few brain cells to go round the whole party. The need a bit of street cred so Winston's a big name
I'm not so sure. Politics was a different animal back in the early part of this century. Deep in the heart of the Empire and all that. Some would say he was a product of his time and therefore dealt with problems under those parameters
It difficult to translate what someone's beliefs would be in a different climate
He certainly didnt mince his words did he ? Did you read (scroll down) the link that i attached. If you read all of it you will see what their theory is based on. It contains extracts from Sir Winston Churchill's book on his views of immigration. Please read it, it's food for thought. 
I'm not so sure. Politics was a different animal back in the early part of this century. Deep in the heart of the Empire and all that. Some would say he was a product of his time and therefore dealt with problems under those parameters
It difficult to translate what someone's beliefs would be in a different climate
He certainly didnt mince his words did he ?
Did you read (scroll down) the link that i attached. If you read all of it you will see what their theory is based on. It contains extracts from Sir Winston Churchill's book on his views of immigration. Please read it, it's food for thought. At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
A thread for Pantoandy and the Brits
I have read it and certain elements of that certainly leave a nasty taste.
Rightly or wrongly much of what was stated there maybe a popular concept today and obviously that is what was what the BNP had in mind
“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.
That quote above is hard to argue against even today, given the extreme oppressiveness handed to women in some Muslim countries. Still viewed as second rate citizens with little or no rights. Would objections to that qualify one as a British nationalist ? I hope not
I still maintain that he was a product of his time and dealt with problems accordingly. Most probably different to how he would handle them now, now we no longer reign over an Empire. He was a man of great leadership in difficult times and although he often got it wrong I cant see him being allied to some jerks in the National Front
Rightly or wrongly much of what was stated there maybe a popular concept today and obviously that is what was what the BNP had in mind
“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.
That quote above is hard to argue against even today, given the extreme oppressiveness handed to women in some Muslim countries. Still viewed as second rate citizens with little or no rights. Would objections to that qualify one as a British nationalist ? I hope not
I still maintain that he was a product of his time and dealt with problems accordingly. Most probably different to how he would handle them now, now we no longer reign over an Empire. He was a man of great leadership in difficult times and although he often got it wrong I cant see him being allied to some jerks in the National Front
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire."
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
A thread for Pantoandy and the Brits
Word Power Books | When Churchill hailed Zionism, Mussolini and Hitler by Lenni Brenner
He was an imperialist and a man of his time and class who saw bolshevism as a major threat. His early approval of fascism needs to be seen in that light- Immediately post war there was terrific turmoil Even the royal navy mutinied at one point and the army during the war. the establishment were terrified three might be a revolution in britain. His attitude to india and other races needs to be seen as being of his time and in his belief in the british empire
When he was the home secretary he did use troops against striking miners and was ready to order troops with tanks on to the streets to keep law and order-one of the reasons he was kicked out immediately post war is people were not prepared to go back to the way things had been and had had enough of empire. The British establishment could have given lessons on anti Semitism to Hitler who had admirers all around the globe -especially amongst those with money worried the ordinary people might rise up against them. You are not talking about democracies remember.
He also saw where Hitler was heading before many of his contemporaries and was the one who went on to lead this country in the defeat of fascism.
I don't think you can look at someone from the past and ascribe 21st century motives to them any more than you can ask someone today if they would have been an imperialist if you had been born in 1890.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4571448.stm
Britain's war-time leader also believed top Nazis should be summarily executed without being tried, the papers reveal.
He was an imperialist and a man of his time and class who saw bolshevism as a major threat. His early approval of fascism needs to be seen in that light- Immediately post war there was terrific turmoil Even the royal navy mutinied at one point and the army during the war. the establishment were terrified three might be a revolution in britain. His attitude to india and other races needs to be seen as being of his time and in his belief in the british empire
When he was the home secretary he did use troops against striking miners and was ready to order troops with tanks on to the streets to keep law and order-one of the reasons he was kicked out immediately post war is people were not prepared to go back to the way things had been and had had enough of empire. The British establishment could have given lessons on anti Semitism to Hitler who had admirers all around the globe -especially amongst those with money worried the ordinary people might rise up against them. You are not talking about democracies remember.
He also saw where Hitler was heading before many of his contemporaries and was the one who went on to lead this country in the defeat of fascism.
I don't think you can look at someone from the past and ascribe 21st century motives to them any more than you can ask someone today if they would have been an imperialist if you had been born in 1890.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4571448.stm
Britain's war-time leader also believed top Nazis should be summarily executed without being tried, the papers reveal.
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
A thread for Pantoandy and the Brits
Snowfire;1164470 wrote: I have read it and certain elements of that certainly leave a nasty taste.
Rightly or wrongly much of what was stated there maybe a popular concept today and obviously that is what was what the BNP had in mind
“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.
That quote above is hard to argue against even today, given the extreme oppressiveness handed to women in some Muslim countries. Still viewed as second rate citizens with little or no rights. Would objections to that qualify one as a British nationalist ? I hope not
I still maintain that he was a product of his time and dealt with problems accordingly. Most probably different to how he would handle them now, now we no longer reign over an Empire. He was a man of great leadership in difficult times and although he often got it wrong I cant see him being allied to some jerks in the National Front If we succumb to Sharia law in Britain then British law will be unable to protect those Muslim women who are oppressed. They will continue to be second rate citizens with little or no rights yet while living in a free democratic society of Great Britain.
Rightly or wrongly much of what was stated there maybe a popular concept today and obviously that is what was what the BNP had in mind
“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.
That quote above is hard to argue against even today, given the extreme oppressiveness handed to women in some Muslim countries. Still viewed as second rate citizens with little or no rights. Would objections to that qualify one as a British nationalist ? I hope not
I still maintain that he was a product of his time and dealt with problems accordingly. Most probably different to how he would handle them now, now we no longer reign over an Empire. He was a man of great leadership in difficult times and although he often got it wrong I cant see him being allied to some jerks in the National Front If we succumb to Sharia law in Britain then British law will be unable to protect those Muslim women who are oppressed. They will continue to be second rate citizens with little or no rights yet while living in a free democratic society of Great Britain.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
A thread for Pantoandy and the Brits
gmc;1164483 wrote: Word Power Books | When Churchill hailed Zionism, Mussolini and Hitler by Lenni Brenner
He was an imperialist and a man of his time and class who saw bolshevism as a major threat. His attitude to india and other races needs to be seen as being of his time and in his belief in the british empire
When he was the home secretary he did use troops against striking miners and was ready to order troops with tanks on to the streets to keep law and order-one of the reasons he was kicked out immediately post war is people were not prepared to go back to the way things had been and had had enoug of empire. The British establishment could have given lessons on anti Semitism to Hitler who had admirers all around the globe -especially amongst those with money worried the ordinary people might rise up against them. You are not talking about democracies remember.
He also saw where Hitler was heading before many of his contemporaries and was the one who went on to lead this country in the defeat of fascism.
I don't think you can look at someone from the past and ascribe 21st century motives to them any more than you can ask if you would have been an imperialist if you had beem born in 1990. Yes, it is difficult to equate to modern day, however, the theory is put forward due to the extracts of his book and views on immigration. I certainly believe that in this nanny pc state we live in now, his beliefs in his book would be regarded as racist and no doubt he would have been expelled by the Tory's the same as when the gutless Ted Heath sacked Enoch Powell.
He was an imperialist and a man of his time and class who saw bolshevism as a major threat. His attitude to india and other races needs to be seen as being of his time and in his belief in the british empire
When he was the home secretary he did use troops against striking miners and was ready to order troops with tanks on to the streets to keep law and order-one of the reasons he was kicked out immediately post war is people were not prepared to go back to the way things had been and had had enoug of empire. The British establishment could have given lessons on anti Semitism to Hitler who had admirers all around the globe -especially amongst those with money worried the ordinary people might rise up against them. You are not talking about democracies remember.
He also saw where Hitler was heading before many of his contemporaries and was the one who went on to lead this country in the defeat of fascism.
I don't think you can look at someone from the past and ascribe 21st century motives to them any more than you can ask if you would have been an imperialist if you had beem born in 1990. Yes, it is difficult to equate to modern day, however, the theory is put forward due to the extracts of his book and views on immigration. I certainly believe that in this nanny pc state we live in now, his beliefs in his book would be regarded as racist and no doubt he would have been expelled by the Tory's the same as when the gutless Ted Heath sacked Enoch Powell.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
A thread for Pantoandy and the Brits
oscar;1164486 wrote: If we succumb to Sharia law in Britain then British law will be unable to protect those Muslim women who are oppressed. They will continue to be second rate citizens with little or no rights yet while living in a free democratic society of Great Britain.
I agree and that goes for canon law too. It can have no part in a secular society. Others will no doubt argue about that far better than I can.
That gmc probably will. :rolleyes:
I agree and that goes for canon law too. It can have no part in a secular society. Others will no doubt argue about that far better than I can.
That gmc probably will. :rolleyes:
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire."
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
A thread for Pantoandy and the Brits
Snowfire;1164492 wrote: I agree and that goes for canon law too. It can have no part in a secular society. Others will no doubt argue about that far better than I can.
That gmc probably will. :rolleyes: gmc follows me around anyway like a fart in a spacesuit. He won't be able to resist answering and if you watch carefully, he will slip in that Gordon Brown is a moron at the first opportunity :wah:
You see....this is exactly what i find so interesting. You agree that Sharia Law has no place in our country or society and yet you frown on the BNP because they want it oulawed.?????????????????
That gmc probably will. :rolleyes: gmc follows me around anyway like a fart in a spacesuit. He won't be able to resist answering and if you watch carefully, he will slip in that Gordon Brown is a moron at the first opportunity :wah:
You see....this is exactly what i find so interesting. You agree that Sharia Law has no place in our country or society and yet you frown on the BNP because they want it oulawed.?????????????????
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
A thread for Pantoandy and the Brits
oscar;1164515 wrote: gmc follows me around anyway like a fart in a spacesuit. He won't be able to resist answering and if you watch carefully, he will slip in that Gordon Brown is a moron at the first opportunity :wah:
You see....this is exactly what i find so interesting. You agree that Sharia Law has no place in our country or society and yet you frown on the BNP because they want it oulawed.?????????????????
I certainly dont want to see Sharia law - or Canon law - enforced in this country. Its been argued that, to a limited degree, Sharia law is already being used to deal with civil disputes within Muslim communities. I have no idea how deep seated this is but it cannot carry precedence over our law.
I dont see this as having any support whatsoever for the BNP. I find them vile and obnoxious. Its just coincidental that I agree with one aspect of theirs and I suspect it is for very different reasons. Mine for the reason of basic human rights for women and the fact I am an athiest, so I do not want any Gods law to judge me, theirs purely because they see it obviously as a racial problem.
You see....this is exactly what i find so interesting. You agree that Sharia Law has no place in our country or society and yet you frown on the BNP because they want it oulawed.?????????????????
I certainly dont want to see Sharia law - or Canon law - enforced in this country. Its been argued that, to a limited degree, Sharia law is already being used to deal with civil disputes within Muslim communities. I have no idea how deep seated this is but it cannot carry precedence over our law.
I dont see this as having any support whatsoever for the BNP. I find them vile and obnoxious. Its just coincidental that I agree with one aspect of theirs and I suspect it is for very different reasons. Mine for the reason of basic human rights for women and the fact I am an athiest, so I do not want any Gods law to judge me, theirs purely because they see it obviously as a racial problem.
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire."
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
A thread for Pantoandy and the Brits
oscar;1164515 wrote: gmc follows me around anyway like a fart in a spacesuit. He won't be able to resist answering and if you watch carefully, he will slip in that Gordon Brown is a moron at the first opportunity :wah:
You see....this is exactly what i find so interesting. You agree that Sharia Law has no place in our country or society and yet you frown on the BNP because they want it oulawed.?????????????????
You should go in to politics-you have that knack for taking what someone says and twisting the words to suit what you want.
What's the BNP take on catholics being allowed to marry in to the royal family. Given what we went through to prevent it ever happening again arguably it's remarkably unpatriotic to even consider it.
You see....this is exactly what i find so interesting. You agree that Sharia Law has no place in our country or society and yet you frown on the BNP because they want it oulawed.?????????????????
You should go in to politics-you have that knack for taking what someone says and twisting the words to suit what you want.
What's the BNP take on catholics being allowed to marry in to the royal family. Given what we went through to prevent it ever happening again arguably it's remarkably unpatriotic to even consider it.
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
A thread for Pantoandy and the Brits
gmc;1164563 wrote: You should go in to politics-you have that knack for taking what someone says and twisting the words to suit what you want.
What's the BNP take on catholics being allowed to marry in to the royal family. Given what we went through to prevent it ever happening again arguably it's remarkably unpatriotic to even consider it. Not quite sure if you are insulting me (as usual :sneaky:) in your first paragraph or it's a compliment.
Could I re-direct the Honourable Member of Fife back to the question in hand and ask him to refrain from deviating the thread? :sneaky:
What's the BNP take on catholics being allowed to marry in to the royal family. Given what we went through to prevent it ever happening again arguably it's remarkably unpatriotic to even consider it. Not quite sure if you are insulting me (as usual :sneaky:) in your first paragraph or it's a compliment.
Could I re-direct the Honourable Member of Fife back to the question in hand and ask him to refrain from deviating the thread? :sneaky:
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
A thread for Pantoandy and the Brits
The BNP are just trying to drum up an image for themselves. Though Churchill was a politician who afiliated with any party that helped him move up with his political career. He may well have joined a Nationalist party if it suited his purpose but their ideas were never accepted from the start. I wouldn't personally like to be governed by a Nationalist party.
-
Clodhopper
- Posts: 5115
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm
A thread for Pantoandy and the Brits
Churchill was, above all, a political animal. He might have jumped to the Lib Dems and back to the Conservatives, or even the UKIP for a while, but never the BNP. He had the Blackshirts on offer and he was not an admirer of theirs, as far as I know. He was also a Francophile.:wah: So forget UKIP.
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Lone voice: "I'm not."
A thread for Pantoandy and the Brits
oscar;1164679 wrote: Not quite sure if you are insulting me (as usual :sneaky:) in your first paragraph or it's a compliment.
Could I re-direct the Honourable Member of Fife back to the question in hand and ask him to refrain from deviating the thread? :sneaky:
I did
I don't think you can look at someone from the past and ascribe 21st century motives to them any more than you can ask someone today if they would have been an imperialist if you had been born in 1890.
I would also point out didn't join the british fascist party at the time why would he do it today? he was one of the first to see where hitler was going.
Could I re-direct the Honourable Member of Fife back to the question in hand and ask him to refrain from deviating the thread? :sneaky:
I did
I don't think you can look at someone from the past and ascribe 21st century motives to them any more than you can ask someone today if they would have been an imperialist if you had been born in 1890.
I would also point out didn't join the british fascist party at the time why would he do it today? he was one of the first to see where hitler was going.
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
A thread for Pantoandy and the Brits
gmc;1164942 wrote: I did
I would also point out didn't join the british fascist party at the time why would he do it today? he was one of the first to see where hitler was going. Agreed and i don't think he would have joined the National Front either. Not so sure about The Black Shirts movement though.
I have been googling like mad about the BNP. The thing that stands out so much to me is the UAF. It makes the whole voting process one big hypocritical farce. How can anyone condemn the BNP but not condemn people like my local MP who by the way is going to get some serious shyte off me now he's turned up on their list of supporters, for supporting the UAF?
I would also point out didn't join the british fascist party at the time why would he do it today? he was one of the first to see where hitler was going. Agreed and i don't think he would have joined the National Front either. Not so sure about The Black Shirts movement though.
I have been googling like mad about the BNP. The thing that stands out so much to me is the UAF. It makes the whole voting process one big hypocritical farce. How can anyone condemn the BNP but not condemn people like my local MP who by the way is going to get some serious shyte off me now he's turned up on their list of supporters, for supporting the UAF?
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
A thread for Pantoandy and the Brits
oscar;1165046 wrote: Agreed and i don't think he would have joined the National Front either. Not so sure about The Black Shirts movement though.
I have been googling like mad about the BNP. The thing that stands out so much to me is the UAF. It makes the whole voting process one big hypocritical farce. How can anyone condemn the BNP but not condemn people like my local MP who by the way is going to get some serious shyte off me now he's turned up on their list of supporters, for supporting the UAF?
British union of fascists/ blacks shirt movement what was the difference?
I have been googling like mad about the BNP. The thing that stands out so much to me is the UAF. It makes the whole voting process one big hypocritical farce. How can anyone condemn the BNP but not condemn people like my local MP who by the way is going to get some serious shyte off me now he's turned up on their list of supporters, for supporting the UAF?
British union of fascists/ blacks shirt movement what was the difference?
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
A thread for Pantoandy and the Brits
gmc;1165168 wrote: British union of fascists/ blacks shirt movement what was the difference?
Exactly....No bloody difference yet my local Labour MP swans about speaking as an authority on how we should vote and live our lives. The pillor of community yet he endorses an organisation that wants to outlaw a registered Party in our laughable Democratic society. What a hypocrite.
He's due to give a speech to his devoted near me very shortly. I will be the surprise guest and wait patiently for question time at the end. :wah:
Exactly....No bloody difference yet my local Labour MP swans about speaking as an authority on how we should vote and live our lives. The pillor of community yet he endorses an organisation that wants to outlaw a registered Party in our laughable Democratic society. What a hypocrite.
He's due to give a speech to his devoted near me very shortly. I will be the surprise guest and wait patiently for question time at the end. :wah:
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
A thread for Pantoandy and the Brits
posted by oscar.Not quite sure if you are insulting me (as usual ) in your first paragraph or it's a compliment.
It's an insult wrapped up in a compliment. Back handed compliment if you prefer.
It's an insult wrapped up in a compliment. Back handed compliment if you prefer.
A thread for Pantoandy and the Brits
Clodhopper;1164860 wrote: Churchill was, above all, a political animal. He might have jumped to the Lib Dems and back to the Conservatives, or even the UKIP for a while, but never the BNP. He had the Blackshirts on offer and he was not an admirer of theirs, as far as I know. He was also a Francophile.:wah: So forget UKIP.
Tend to agree here!
Tend to agree here!