Winston Churchill-inspired 'Blighty cafe' is stormed by a group of Left-wing protesters who brand Britain's wartime leader a 'racist'

veya_victaous wrote:But they are celebrating British imperialism and colonialism.

It's pretty obvious, DON'T WAVE A SWASTIKA if you don't want to be called a Nazi. What the fuck did they expect by putting up a Racist Holocaust causer. A Man Famous For Sacrificing Allies so Brits could avoid the hardest battles.

Churchill was a genocidal maniac. He is fawned over in Britain and held up as a hero of the nation. He was voted ‘Greatest Briton’ of all time. Below is the real history of Churchill, the history of a white supremacist whose hatred for Indians led to four million starving to death, the man who loathed Irish people so much he conceived different ways to terrorise them, the racist thug who waged war on black people across Africa and in Britain. This is the trial of Winston Churchill, the enemy of all humanity.

THE TRIAL OF WINSTON CHURCHILL:

Afghanistan:
Churchill found his love for war during the time he spent in Afghanistan. While there he said “all who resist will be killed without quarter” because the Pashtuns need “recognise the superiority of race”. He believed the Pashtuns needed to be dealt with, he would reminisce in his writings about how he partook in the burning villages and peoples homes:

   “We proceeded systematically, village by village, and we destroyed the houses, filled up the wells, blew down the towers, cut down the great shady trees, burned the crops and broke the reservoirs in punitive devastation.” – Churchill on how the British carried on in Afghanistan, and he was only too happy to be part of it.

Churchill would also write of how “every tribesman caught was speared or cut down at once”. Proud of the terror he helped inflict on the people of Afghanistan Churchill was well on the road to becoming a genocidal maniac.

Greece:


The British Army under the guidance of Churchill perpetrated a massacre on the streets of Athens in the month of December 1944. 28 protesters were shot dead, a further 128 injured. The British demanded that all guerrilla groups should disarm on the 2nd December 1944. The following day 200,000 people took to the streets, and this is when the British Army under Churchill’s orders turned their guns on the people. Churchill regarded ELAS (Greek People’s Liberation Army) and EAM (National Liberation Front) as “miserable banditti”, these were the very people who ran the Nazis out. His actions in the month of December were purely out of his hatred and paranoia for communism.

The British backed the right-wing government in Greece returned from exile after the very same partisans of the resistance that Churchill ordered the murder of had driven out the Nazi occupiers. Soviet forces were well received in Greece, this deeply worried Churchill. He planned to restore the monarchy in Greece to combat any possible communist influence. The events in December were part of that strategy.

In 1945, Churchill sent Charles Wickham to Athens where he was in charge of training the Greek security police. Wickham learned his tricks of the trade in British occupied Ireland between 1922-1945 where he was a commander of the colonial RUC, responsible for countless terror.

In April 1945 Churchill said “the [Nazi] collaborators in Greece in many cases did the best they could to shelter the Greek population from German oppression” and went on to say “the Communists are the main foe”.

India:



   “I’d rather see them have a good civil war”. – Churchill wishing partition on India

Very few in Britain know about the genocide in Bengal let alone how Churchill engineered it. Churchill’s hatred for Indians led to four million starving to death during the Bengal ‘famine’ of 1943. “I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion” he would say.

Bengal had a better than normal harvest during the British enforced famine. The British Army took millions of tons of rice from starving people to ship to the Middle East – where it wasn’t even needed. When the starving people of Bengal asked for food, Churchill said the ‘famine’ was their own fault “for breeding like rabbits”. The Viceroy of India said “Churchill’s attitude towards India and the famine is negligent, hostile and contemptuous”. Even right wing imperialist Leo Amery who was the British Secretary of State in India said he “didn’t see much difference between his [Churchill] outlook and Hitler’s”. Churchill refused all of the offers to send aid to Bengal, Canada offered 10,000 tons of rice, the U.S 100,000, he just point blank refused to allow it. Churchill was still swilling champaign while he caused four million men, women and children to starve to death in Bengal.

Throughout WW2 India was forced to ‘lend’ Britain money. Churchill moaned about “Indian money lenders” the whole time. The truth is Churchill never waged war against fascism. He went to war with Germany to defend the British Empire, he said this about India during WW2 “are we to incur hundreds of millions of debt for defending India only to be kicked out by the Indians afterwards”.

In 1945 Churchill said “the Hindus were race protected by their mere pullulation from the doom that is due”. The Bengal famine wasn’t enough for Churchill’s blood lust, he wished his favourite war criminal Arthur Harris could have bombed them.

Iran:
   “A prize from fairyland beyond our wildest dreams” – Churchill on Iran’s oil

When Britain seized Iran’s oil industry Churchill proclaimed it was “a prize from fairyland beyond our wildest dreams”. Churchill meddled in Iranian affairs for decades, he helped exclude Iranians from their natural resources and encouraged the looting when most lived in severe poverty.

In June 1914 Churchill proposed a bill in the House of Commons that would see the British government become become the major shareholder of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. The company would go on to refrain from paying Iran its share of the dividends before paying tax to the British exchequer. Essentially the British were illegally taxing the Iranian government.

When the nationalist government of Mohammad Mosaddegh threatened British ‘interests’ in Iran, Churchill was there, ready to protect them at any cost. Even if that meant desecrating democracy. He helped organise a coup against Mosaddegh in August 1953.  He told the CIA operations officer that helped carry out the plan “if i had been but a few years younger, I would have loved nothing better than to have served under your command in this great venture”.

Churchill arranged for the BBC to send coded messages to let the Shah of Iran know that they were overthrowing the democratically elected government. Instead of the BBC ending their Persian language news broadcast with “it is now midnight in London” they under Churchill’s orders said “it is now exactly midnight”.

Churchill went on to privately describe the coup as “the finest operation since the end of the war [WW2]”. Being a proud product of imperialism he had no issue ousting Mosaddegh so Britain could get back to sapping the riches of Iran.

Iraq:

   “I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against the uncivilized tribes… it would spread a lively terror.” – Churchill on the use of gas in the Middle East and India

Churchill was appointed ‘Secretary of State for the Colonies’ in 1921 and he formed the ‘Middle East Department’ which was responsible for Iraq. Determined to have his beloved empire on the cheap he decided air power could replace ground troops. A strategy of bombing any resistance to British rule was now employed.

Several times in the 1920s various groups in the region now known as Iraq rose up against the British. The air force was then put into action, indiscriminately bombing civilian areas so to subdue the population.

Churchill was also an advocate for the use of mustard and poison gases. Whilst ‘Secretary for War and Air’ he advised that “the provision of some kind of asphyxiating bombs” should be used “for use in preliminary operations against turbulent tribes” in order to take control of Iraq.

When Iraqi tribes stood up for themselves, under the direction of Churchill the British unleashed terror on mud, stone and reed villages.

Churchill’s bombing of civilians in ‘Mesopotamia’ (Kurdistan and Iraq) was summed up by war criminal ‘Bomber Harris’:

   “The Arab and Kurd now know what real bombing means within 45 minutes a full-sized village can be practically wiped out, and a third of its inhabitants killed or injured, by four or five machines which offer them no real target, no opportunity for glory as warriors, no effective means of escape”. – Arthur ‘Bomber’ Harris

Ireland:

   “We have always found the Irish a bit odd. They refuse to be English” – Churchill

In 1904 Churchill said “I remain of the opinion that a separate parliament for Ireland would be dangerous and impractical”. Churchill’s ancestry is linked to loyalism to Britain, he is a direct descendent of the ‘Marquis of Londonderry’ who helped put down the 1798 United Irishmen rising. He would live up to his families reputation when it came to suppressing revolutionary forces in Ireland.

The Black and Tans were the brainchild of Churchill, he sent the thugs to Ireland to terrorise at will. Attacking civilians and civilian property they done Churchill proud, rampaging across the country carrying out reprisals. He went on to describe them as “gallant and honourable officers”. It was also Churchill who conceived the idea of forming the Auxiliaries who carried out the Croke Park massacre, firing into the crowd at a Gaelic football match, killing 14. Of course this didn’t fulfill Churchill’s bloodlust to repress as people who he described as “odd” for their refusal “to be English”, he went on to advocate the use of air power in Ireland against Sinn Fein members in 1920. He suggested to his war advisers that aeroplanes should be dispatched with orders to use “machine-gun fire or bombs” to “scatter and stampede them”.

Churchill was an early advocate for the partitioning of Ireland. During the treaty negotiations he insisted on retaining navy bases in Ireland. In 1938 those bases were handed back to Ireland. However in 1939 Churchill proposed capturing Berehaven base by force. In 1941 Churchill supported a plan to introduce conscription in the North of Ireland.

Churchill went on to remark”the bloody Irish, what have they ever done for our wars”, reducing Ireland’s merit to what it might provide by way of resources (people) for their imperialist land grabs.

Kenya:

Britain declared a state of emergency in Kenya in 1952 to protect its system of institutionalised racism that they established throughout their colonies so to exploit the indigenous population. Churchill being your archetypical British supremacist believed that Kenya’s fertile highlands should be only for white colonial settlers. He approved the forcible removal of the local population, which he termed “blackamoors”.

150,000 men, women and children were forced into concentration camps. Children’s schools were shut by the British who branded them “training grounds for rebellion”. Rape, castration, cigarettes, electric shocks and fire all used by the British to torture the Kenyan people under Churchill’s watch.

In 1954 in a British cabinet meeting Churchill and his men discussed the forced labour of Kenyan POWs and how to circumvent the constraints of two treaties they were breaching:

   “This course [detention without trial and forced labour] had been recommended despite the fact that it was thought to involve a technical breach of the Forced Labour Convention of 1930 and the Convention on Human Rights adopted by the Council of Europe”

The Cowan Plan advocated the use of force and sometimes death against Kenyan POWs who refused to work. Churchill schemed to allow this to continue.

Caroline Elkins book gives a glimpse into the extent that the crimes in Kenya were known in both official and unofficial circles in Britain and how Churchill brushed off the terror the colonial British forces inflicted on the native population. He even ‘punished’ Edwina Mountbatten for mentioning it, “Edwina Mountbatten was conversing about the emergency with India’s prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, and the then colonial secretary, Oliver Lyttleton. When Lyttleton commented on the “terrible savagery” of Mau Mau… Churchill retaliated, refusing to allow Lord Mountbatten to take his wife with him on an official visit to Turkey”.

Palestine:

   “I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger.”

In 2012 Churchill was honoured with a statue in Jerusalem for his assistance to Zionism.

He regarded the Arab population Palestine to be a “lower manifestation”. And that the “dog in a manger has the final right to the manger”, by this he meant the Arabs of Palestine.

In 1920 Churchill declared “if, as may well happen, there should be created in our own lifetime by the banks of the Jordan a Jewish State under the protection of the British Crown which might comprise three or four millions of Jews, an event will have occurred in the history of the world which would from every point of view be beneficial”.

A year later in Jerusalem he told Palestinian leaders that “it is manifestly right that the Jews, who are scattered all over the world, should have a national centre and a National Home where some of them may be reunited. And where else could that be but in this land of Palestine, with which for more than 3,000 years they have been intimately and profoundly associated?”.

At the Palestine Royal Commission (Peel) of 1937, Churchill stated that he believed in intention of the Balfour Declaration was to make Palestine an “overwhelmingly Jewish state”.

He went on to also express to the Peel Commission that he does “not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place”.

Four years later he wrote of his desire for a ‘Jewish state’to be established after the second war world. The establishment of the colonial settler state however was done on the watch of the British Labour Party under Attlee, who were always there to back their Tory counterparts when it came to British foreign policy.


Saudi Arabia:

   “My admiration for him [Ibn Saud] was deep, because of his unfailing loyalty to us.” – Churchill

Prior to 1922 the British were paying Ibn Saud a subsidy of £60,000 a year. Churchill, then Colonial Secretary, raised it to £100,000.

He knew of the dangers of wahhabism, but was content to use the House of Saud’s twisted ideology for benefit of British imperialism. Just as the British had done a few years earlier when they teamed up with Al-Saud and their wahhabism to wage an internal war in the Ottoman Empire. He described Ibn Saud’s wahhabis as “intolerant, well-armed and bloodthirsty’. Of course, as long as they were on the side of the British, Winston was happy.

Churchill went on to write that his “admiration for him [Ibn Saud] was deep, because of his unfailing loyalty to us”.

Churchill meeting with Ibn Saud whom he showered with money and gifts. Britain foisted Wahhabism on the region. He gifted Ibn Saud a special Rolls-Royce in the mid 1940s.


South Africa:

Thousands were sent to British run concentration camps during the Boer wars. Churchill summed up his time in South Africa by saying “it was great fun galloping about”.

Churchill wrote that his only “irritation” during the Boer war was “that Kaffirs should be allowed to fire on white men”.

It was Churchill who planted the seed to strip voting rights from black people in South Africa. In June 1906, Churchill argued that Afrikaners should be allowed a self-rule which would mean black people would be excluded from voting.

He went on to state to Parliament that “we must be bound by the interpretation which the other party places on it and it is undoubted that the Boers would regard it as a breach of that treaty if the franchise were in the first instance extended to any persons who are not white”.

Other mentions:

churchill_decides_to_fight_on‘British Guiana’:

Churchill ordered the overthrowing of the democratically elected leader of ‘British Guiana’. He dispatched troops and warships and suspended their constitution all to put a stop to the governments nationalisation plan.

China:
“I think we shall have to take the Chinese in hand and regulate them” – Churchill His hope from this was for “Ayran stock to triumph”…

Erich von Manstien:
Churchill donated funds for this Nazi war criminals defence when he was on trial after WW2.

Immigration to Britain:
Churchill suggested the motto “Keep England White” when debating the adoption of new laws limiting immigration from the Caribbean.

Mussolini:
Churchill extolled Mussolini – “If I were Italian, I am sure I would have been with you entirely from the beginning” and “what a man [Mussolini] ! I have lost my heart!… Fascism has rendered a service to the entire world”.

On his own people:
Churchill suggested “100,000 degenerate Britons should be forcibly sterilised/others put in labour camps to halt decline of British race”. He also went on to suggest that “for tramps and wastrels there ought to be proper labour colonies where they could be sent”.

Sudan:
Churchill bragged that he personally shot at least three “savages” whilst there.

Robert Emmet (Irish Republican leader):
Churchill plagiarised his famous “we shall fight on the beaches” from Emmet’s speech from the dock. (https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/emmet-s-speech-from-the-dock-1.378247)

Russia:
He urged the US to “wipe” out the Kremlin with an atomic bomb hoping it would “handle the balance of Russia”.

World War 1:
“I love this war. I know it’s smashing and shattering the lives of thousands every moment”.
World War 2:

Churchill’s cabinet during WW2 obsessed about British people viewing black GIs favourably.


https://crimesofbritain.com/2016/09/13/the-trial-of-winston-churchill/

magica wrote:I agree, they wouldn't have any sort of freedom if it wasn't for our forces and Winston Churchill.  He backed us all, and the troops.

Why are these left wing eejits doing this, they have no understanding, just complete and utter twats

sassy wrote:

magica wrote:I agree, they wouldn't have any sort of freedom if it wasn't for our forces and Winston Churchill.  He backed us all, and the troops.

Why are these left wing eejits doing this, they have no understanding, just complete and utter twats

Actually, they are not the ones with noo understanding.   There are people still living over the world with the consequences of Churchill's crimes, there are ever people living in Kenya who suffered them and to whom the British Government has had to pay recompence.

veya_victaous wrote:

sassy wrote:

Actually, they are not the ones with noo understanding.   There are people still living over the world with the consequences of Churchill's crimes, there are ever people living in Kenya who suffered them and to whom the British Government has had to pay recompence.

Yep it is Actually those Brainwashed on Propaganda that Have no understanding and seek to Perpetuate the wrongs of the past.

Maddog wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

sassy wrote:

Actually, they are not the ones with noo understanding.   There are people still living over the world with the consequences of Churchill's crimes, there are ever people living in Kenya who suffered them and to whom the British Government has had to pay recompence.

Yep it is Actually those Brainwashed on Propaganda that Have no understanding and seek to Perpetuate the wrongs of the past.

I think it's only fair to judge people in light of the times they lived, and compared to their peers of that time.

MLK never spoke in favor of gay marriage in the 60's, because as a minister living in that day and age, he would never have supported it. Had he lived long enough he may have changed his mind.

Churchill led, like every other leader at the time. His prejudices and biases were typical for the time period.  

The Australian Government ... regards the Pacific struggle as primarily one in which the United States and Australia must have the fullest say in the direction of the democracies' fighting plan. Without inhibitions of any kind, I make it clear that Australia looks to America, free of any pangs as to our traditional links or kinship with the United Kingdom.

— Prime Minister John Curtin

veya_victaous wrote:

Maddog wrote:

I think it's only fair to judge people in light of the times they lived, and compared to their peers of that time.

MLK never spoke in favor of gay marriage in the 60's, because as a minister living in that day and age, he would never have supported it. Had he lived long enough he may have changed his mind.

Churchill led, like every other leader at the time. His prejudices and biases were typical for the time period.  

So you obviously don't know the history.

Starting with his time in the Navy in WW1 Churchill had a 'tactic' of deploying Colonials to indefensible positions where they were slaughtered to allow the English to deploy with less opposition.

Churchill tried to force Australia to send ALL its soldiers to Europe and said let the Japs take Australia.

One of the Major factors in Australia(and many other ex commonwealth nations) shifting their military allegiance to the USA was the Fact that Churchill was Such a Terrible Cowardly Leader willing to Sacrifice everyone else to Save English Skins. Thankfully US General Douglas MacArthur was given pretty much complete command of Australian forces in the Pacific because Churchill was so Terrible for ex-Colonial nations.

The Australian Government ... regards the Pacific struggle as primarily one in which the United States and Australia must have the fullest say in the direction of the democracies' fighting plan. Without inhibitions of any kind, I make it clear that Australia looks to America, free of any pangs as to our traditional links or kinship with the United Kingdom.

— Prime Minister John Curtin

magica wrote:I agree, they wouldn't have any sort of freedom if it wasn't for our forces and Winston Churchill.  He backed us all, and the troops.

Why are these left wing eejits doing this, they have no understanding, just complete and utter twats

HoratioTarr wrote:You'd think these idiots would have better things to do with their time.     It's like the militant vegans calling farmers rapists.   Pushing your own views violently on others makes you no better than the Nazi's or ISIS, or any radical fundamentalist.  

The other thing these people don't seem to appreciate is that people died to give them the freedom to speak out like this.   Churchill's been dead for decades.   What's the point in screeching about the past, you can't change the past, you can only learn from it and/or move on.  

They're just yobs at the end of the day who want to have their 15 minutes of fame, who revel in discord, and will use any excuse to bully others.   Sound familiar?

Didge wrote:

magica wrote:I agree, they wouldn't have any sort of freedom if it wasn't for our forces and Winston Churchill.  He backed us all, and the troops.

Why are these left wing eejits doing this, they have no understanding, just complete and utter twats

It is incredible and the sort of people doing this, are lovers of Communism and Stalin

You cannot make it up how hypocritical such twats are.

Yes, Churchill was racist. Which he is rightly condemned for, but he was instrumental in uniting this country against the Nazi's and the left wing retards on here, hate that.

Nobody gives a fuck what they think, because as seen, they worship genocidal dictators

HoratioTarr wrote:

Didge wrote:
It is incredible and the sort of people doing this, are lovers of Communism and Stalin

You cannot make it up how hypocritical such twats are.

Yes, Churchill was racist. Which he is rightly condemned for, but he was instrumental in uniting this country against the Nazi's and the left wing retards on here, hate that.

Nobody gives a fuck what they think, because as seen, they worship genocidal dictators

I don't think Churchill was a great politician.  But he was,  at a time of war, a strong leader, and that's what this country needed at that time.   His mindset and beliefs were typical of the era, into which he was born and raised.   Which might not excuse his actions but certainly explains it.     It's not as though Churchill is unique in this.  

eddie wrote:People have a right to protest what they like but not in an aggressive and violent manner.

Cass wrote:

eddie wrote:People have a right to protest what they like but not in an aggressive and violent manner.

Absolutely. Calling for them to be eradicated or shot is just as wrong as violent protesting.

Cass wrote:

eddie wrote:People have a right to protest what they like but not in an aggressive and violent manner.

Absolutely. Calling for them to be eradicated or shot is just as wrong as violent protesting.

magica wrote:I agree Nicko. We're just getting the run around. Why can't we just walk away, what's all the talks for

sassy wrote:

magica wrote:I agree Nicko. We're just getting the run around. Why can't we just walk away, what's all the talks for

Because magica, even the Governments own people say that would be a disaster and even with a 'soft' Brexit, it will be a disaster.   https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/governments-own-leaked-analysis-shows-uk-will-be-worse-off-under-every-possible-brexit-scenario-a3752781.html

sassy wrote:

Cass wrote:

Absolutely. Calling for them to be eradicated or shot is just as wrong as violent protesting.

There is only one person I have on ignore, so I presume it's him calling for that.   Doesn't he realise that is the definition of fascism?   So he has taken the final step and become one.

HoratioTarr wrote:This just about sums it up.


When my grandfather set off for World War II, he was a handsome young officer in his prime, the spitting image of Gregory Peck.

He returned a very different person, haunted by what he’d seen. Like countless others who fought to safeguard the freedom of this country, he never truly found peace again. He survived the bullets only to drink himself to death.

Were he alive today I wonder what he would make of his legacy — today’s generation of young people for whom he sacrificed his health, happiness and, ultimately, his sanity. Part of me is very glad he’s not. Because I fear he would think his efforts wasted.

Certainly if young people like Andy Cuff are anything to go by.

Cuff, 22, is one of a group of sneering students who this weekend took it upon themselves to intimidate staff and customers at a Winston Churchill themed cafe in Finsbury Park, North London, describing anyone who supports the wartime Prime Minister as ‘narcissistic, self-conceited [a new phrase on me!], uneducated fascist scum’.

‘It is our duty to fight for freedom,’ they chanted. Ah, freedom. You already have freedom, dears. Otherwise you wouldn’t be there, with your stupid Citizen Smith berets and silly hashtags.

‘We’ve nothing to lose but our chains,’ bleated a fellow protester, Halimo Hussein, a student at the School of Oriental and African Studies University of London. She more than anyone should have recognised the absurdity of this statement: her family are Somali refugees.

Thanks to what she terms Britain’s ‘colonialist oppression’, they were able to flee a country torn apart by civil war and ruled by Islamic militants who kill and torture their own people with impunity.

Of course, no one remotely expects people like Halimo to spend their lives saying thank you. But it might be nice if she hadn’t actively decided to dedicate her life to trashing the history of her adoptive country.

But this attitude is typical of so many young people now. People who see the world from a uniquely privileged perspective and who, instead of counting themselves as the luckiest generation in history, join the ranks of the perpetually peeved, seeking offence where it simply does not exist.

You see it everywhere, from gender politics to animal welfare. Take the poor trainee farmer from Northumberland who spoke out on the BBC’s Victoria Derbyshire Show about the abuse and death threats she has received from militant vegans.

Aside from the irony of people who profess to cherish all living things threatening to kill fellow humans, it’s a pattern of behaviour becoming all too familiar. Young people getting themselves in a terrible lather about things that don’t matter at all — while ignoring the things that really do.

Because let’s face it, mounting a protest against a Churchill-themed cafe or trolling some poor farmer is not exactly the stuff folk heroes are made of, is it? We’re not protesting against the Vietnam War here, or nuclear disarmament, pit closures or the poll tax.

Not THAT there aren’t plenty of worthwhile causes to espouse. To the protesters who took to the streets in Tehran recently, for example, or those who dare challenge the likes of Putin, this behaviour would seem laughable if it weren’t so tragic. And insulting.

But then what do you expect from a generation that has never had to want for anything? Whose idea of injustice is a slow broadband speed, or an unripe avocado on their toast.

They really don’t know they’re born. Like the spoilt second or third- generation children of self-made men, they have no idea of the gargantuan efforts it took their ancestors to get here. Of the sacrifices made in order to give them a brighter future.

All they know how to do is squander the legacy and, through their ignorance and arrogance, insult the memory of far better men and women.



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5332805/SARAH-VINE-Winston-Churchill-cafe-protesters.html

HoratioTarr wrote:This just about sums it up.


When my grandfather set off for World War II, he was a handsome young officer in his prime, the spitting image of Gregory Peck.

He returned a very different person, haunted by what he’d seen. Like countless others who fought to safeguard the freedom of this country, he never truly found peace again. He survived the bullets only to drink himself to death.

Were he alive today I wonder what he would make of his legacy — today’s generation of young people for whom he sacrificed his health, happiness and, ultimately, his sanity. Part of me is very glad he’s not. Because I fear he would think his efforts wasted.

Certainly if young people like Andy Cuff are anything to go by.

Cuff, 22, is one of a group of sneering students who this weekend took it upon themselves to intimidate staff and customers at a Winston Churchill themed cafe in Finsbury Park, North London, describing anyone who supports the wartime Prime Minister as ‘narcissistic, self-conceited [a new phrase on me!], uneducated fascist scum’.

‘It is our duty to fight for freedom,’ they chanted. Ah, freedom. You already have freedom, dears. Otherwise you wouldn’t be there, with your stupid Citizen Smith berets and silly hashtags.

‘We’ve nothing to lose but our chains,’ bleated a fellow protester, Halimo Hussein, a student at the School of Oriental and African Studies University of London. She more than anyone should have recognised the absurdity of this statement: her family are Somali refugees.

Thanks to what she terms Britain’s ‘colonialist oppression’, they were able to flee a country torn apart by civil war and ruled by Islamic militants who kill and torture their own people with impunity.

Of course, no one remotely expects people like Halimo to spend their lives saying thank you. But it might be nice if she hadn’t actively decided to dedicate her life to trashing the history of her adoptive country.

But this attitude is typical of so many young people now. People who see the world from a uniquely privileged perspective and who, instead of counting themselves as the luckiest generation in history, join the ranks of the perpetually peeved, seeking offence where it simply does not exist.

You see it everywhere, from gender politics to animal welfare. Take the poor trainee farmer from Northumberland who spoke out on the BBC’s Victoria Derbyshire Show about the abuse and death threats she has received from militant vegans.

Aside from the irony of people who profess to cherish all living things threatening to kill fellow humans, it’s a pattern of behaviour becoming all too familiar. Young people getting themselves in a terrible lather about things that don’t matter at all — while ignoring the things that really do.

Because let’s face it, mounting a protest against a Churchill-themed cafe or trolling some poor farmer is not exactly the stuff folk heroes are made of, is it? We’re not protesting against the Vietnam War here, or nuclear disarmament, pit closures or the poll tax.

Not THAT there aren’t plenty of worthwhile causes to espouse. To the protesters who took to the streets in Tehran recently, for example, or those who dare challenge the likes of Putin, this behaviour would seem laughable if it weren’t so tragic. And insulting.

But then what do you expect from a generation that has never had to want for anything? Whose idea of injustice is a slow broadband speed, or an unripe avocado on their toast.

They really don’t know they’re born. Like the spoilt second or third- generation children of self-made men, they have no idea of the gargantuan efforts it took their ancestors to get here. Of the sacrifices made in order to give them a brighter future.

All they know how to do is squander the legacy and, through their ignorance and arrogance, insult the memory of far better men and women.



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5332805/SARAH-VINE-Winston-Churchill-cafe-protesters.html

nicko wrote:Have a green didge,  you explain things better than me!

Didge wrote:Sassy wants the kind of freedom that we see in Venezuela.
Where did nationalization get the country?
Where did the country get from Socialism?

80% poverty
Massive high rates of infant mortality
High murder rates
No medical supplies
No food
Freedoms denied

Stick your kind of freedom where the sun does not shine, as its not freedom, but a death sentence

The NHS is certainly not better than many other European systems and its time we woke up to the fact the NHS system is no longer workable and needs to change alongside the European ones

And yes we do have freedoms in this country, which would disappear over night if Socialism was adopted in this country by the Far Left

veya_victaous wrote:

Didge wrote:Sassy wants the kind of freedom that we see in Venezuela.
Where did nationalization get the country?
Where did the country get from Socialism?

80% poverty
Massive high rates of infant mortality
High murder rates
No medical supplies
No food
Freedoms denied

Stick your kind of freedom where the sun does not shine, as its not freedom, but a death sentence

The NHS is certainly not better than many other European systems and its time we woke up to the fact the NHS system is no longer workable and needs to change alongside the European ones

And yes we do have freedoms in this country, which would disappear over night if Socialism was adopted in this country by the Far Left

where did the UK and Australia etc get from the Labor party

this is why everywhere needs Better education, so there a less ignorant loudmouths.  

Didge should move in with maddog and have their Libertarian wonderland

veya_victaous wrote:

Didge wrote:Sassy wants the kind of freedom that we see in Venezuela.
Where did nationalization get the country?
Where did the country get from Socialism?

80% poverty
Massive high rates of infant mortality
High murder rates
No medical supplies
No food
Freedoms denied

Stick your kind of freedom where the sun does not shine, as its not freedom, but a death sentence

The NHS is certainly not better than many other European systems and its time we woke up to the fact the NHS system is no longer workable and needs to change alongside the European ones

And yes we do have freedoms in this country, which would disappear over night if Socialism was adopted in this country by the Far Left

where did the UK and Australia etc get from the Labor party

this is why everywhere needs Better education, so there a less ignorant loudmouths.  

Didge should move in with maddog and have their Libertarian wonderland

Didge wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

where did the UK and Australia etc get from the Labor party

this is why everywhere needs Better education, so there a less ignorant loudmouths.  

Didge should move in with maddog and have their Libertarian wonderland

Australia is not a socialist system

Parties can have socialist aspects, does not mean they are socialist

Its why you, needed an actual education, dumbass



I mean, its like when socialism ever actually works with a government run by socialism, which is unlikely. Then you and other idiots will suddenlly claim its real socialism

You should stop praying to Maxist, Lenin, Mao and Stalin

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_socialism

Market socialism is a type of economic system involving the public, cooperative or social ownership of the means of production in the framework of a market economy. Market socialism differs from non-market socialism in that the market mechanism is utilized for the allocation of capital goods and the means of production.[1][2][3] Depending on the specific model of market socialism, profits generated by socially owned firms (i.e. net revenue not reinvested into expanding the firm) may variously be used to directly remunerate employees, accrue to society at large as the source of public finance or be distributed amongst the population in a social dividend.[4]

veya_victaous wrote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_socialism

Market socialism is a type of economic system involving the public, cooperative or social ownership of the means of production in the framework of a market economy. Market socialism differs from non-market socialism in that the market mechanism is utilized for the allocation of capital goods and the means of production.[1][2][3] Depending on the specific model of market socialism, profits generated by socially owned firms (i.e. net revenue not reinvested into expanding the firm) may variously be used to directly remunerate employees, accrue to society at large as the source of public finance or be distributed amongst the population in a social dividend.[4]

Yes a Market economy like Denmark with Numerous State funded Services that moderate market forces.  

AGAIN you 2 need to move beyond the Comic Book Definition of Socialism.  
Market economies can be socialist too, PLANNED economies are the opposing variable to Market.
Socialism has Many variants which cover ANY STATE FUNDED SERVICE polices.

Again DIDGE shows his complete ignorance of economics by suggesting 'socialist system' as the way a country runs. Also clearly never attended the first lessons of economic 101, cause CAPITALISM is not really capitalism if it has Anything But Market driven polices, Broader Socialism however can include Market driven polices as well and State funded service policies. 'Planned Socialist' economies and Communist Do Not contain market driven policies.

Maddog wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

Yes a Market economy like Denmark with Numerous State funded Services that moderate market forces.  

AGAIN you 2 need to move beyond the Comic Book Definition of Socialism.  
Market economies can be socialist too, PLANNED economies are the opposing variable to Market.
Socialism has Many variants which cover ANY STATE FUNDED SERVICE polices.

Again DIDGE shows his complete ignorance of economics by suggesting 'socialist system' as the way a country runs. Also clearly never attended the first lessons of economic 101, cause CAPITALISM is not really capitalism if it has Anything But Market driven polices, Broader Socialism however can include Market driven polices as well and State funded service policies. 'Planned Socialist' economies and Communist Do Not contain market driven policies.

"Therefore," he said, "I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy."

Rasmussen acknowledged that "the Nordic model is an expanded welfare state which provides a high level of security to its citizens," but he also noted that it is "a successful market economy with much freedom to pursue your dreams and live your life as you wish."

Didge wrote:

Maddog wrote:



"Therefore," he said, "I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy."

Rasmussen acknowledged that "the Nordic model is an expanded welfare state which provides a high level of security to its citizens," but he also noted that it is "a successful market economy with much freedom to pursue your dreams and live your life as you wish."

The think is, the many p;olitical scientists I research on this, agree with you.
That its not a socialist economy
Sadly, socialists are so desperate, they claim anything is socialist. Except the nightmare Socialist governments that have been in history

Maddog wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_socialism

Market socialism is a type of economic system involving the public, cooperative or social ownership of the means of production in the framework of a market economy. Market socialism differs from non-market socialism in that the market mechanism is utilized for the allocation of capital goods and the means of production.[1][2][3] Depending on the specific model of market socialism, profits generated by socially owned firms (i.e. net revenue not reinvested into expanding the firm) may variously be used to directly remunerate employees, accrue to society at large as the source of public finance or be distributed amongst the population in a social dividend.[4]

Yes a Market economy like Denmark with Numerous State funded Services that moderate market forces.  

AGAIN you 2 need to move beyond the Comic Book Definition of Socialism.  
Market economies can be socialist too, PLANNED economies are the opposing variable to Market.
Socialism has Many variants which cover ANY STATE FUNDED SERVICE polices.

Again DIDGE shows his complete ignorance of economics by suggesting 'socialist system' as the way a country runs. Also clearly never attended the first lessons of economic 101, cause CAPITALISM is not really capitalism if it has Anything But Market driven polices, Broader Socialism however can include Market driven polices as well and State funded service policies. 'Planned Socialist' economies and Communist Do Not contain market driven policies.

"Therefore," he said, "I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy."

Rasmussen acknowledged that "the Nordic model is an expanded welfare state which provides a high level of security to its citizens," but he also noted that it is "a successful market economy with much freedom to pursue your dreams and live your life as you wish."

Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy."

veya_victaous wrote:

Maddog wrote:



"Therefore," he said, "I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy."

Rasmussen acknowledged that "the Nordic model is an expanded welfare state which provides a high level of security to its citizens," but he also noted that it is "a successful market economy with much freedom to pursue your dreams and live your life as you wish."

Can You Read?? even Your own quote is saying what I AM SAYING!

Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy."

it is a Socialist MARKET economy, not a Socialist PLANNED economy

Come on I thought you had more brains then didge        
Now stop trying to get your economic education for Superhero Comics