#jews and Palestinians are and always will be stronger than white supremacists

[emerging-jew]

Hitler should’ve gotten rid of both you kikes and those arab terrorists

He shot himself in a sewer like a coward and you can die mad about it

[whiteliesuk]

White Lie: Churchill is a wholly good war hero; we should continue to endlessly make the same WWII movies about him as the grumpy, difficult, irate, but oh-so-loved Prime Minister

The reality:

Anyone who’s followed me on any social media platform for any period of time will know how much I despise Churchill. In fact, I sit here restraining myself from launching into a massive tirade… In the interest of keeping some level of decorum and in the hope that readers will take me with some level of seriousness, I’ll refrain from calling him a shithead.

It instils a sense of rage knowing that Churchill was posthumously voted by Brits as the greatest Briton when you know his true colours. The removal of his bust from the White House was enough to create a political scandal on both sides of the pond. Dear god spare us from yet ANOTHER movie/TV series about the man saving Britain in the Second World War. Last week I watched the Darkest Hour to get over a sudden and frustrating break up. Did the movie add anything new? Absolutely not. But note to all womenkind: watching movies about reprehensible men will help you get over reprehensible men.

Politicians have scrambled to be equated to Churchill as though it’s a mark of pride and honour: Blair was compared to Churchill after dragging us into the 2003 Iraq war; Johnson has identified as Churchillian. To be fair, in both these instances, the comparison to Churchill is not entirely misplaced: the former was warmongering and terrorised innocent civilians in an illegal war while the other is a racist reprobate.

You can’t learn about the true nature of British colonialism and not be disturbed by the British obsession with Churchill. An obsession that’s driven by an insistence to see him as a one-dimensional war hero who saved Britain from fascism. This is not to say that Churchill didn’t play a part in saving Britain from fascism (I plan to dispel the myth that Britain alone won the war, without a MASSIVE helping hand from its Empire), but that there is so much more about Churchill that makes him deplorable.

Churchill’s well-documented white supremacism & bigotry

It takes a simple Google search to clue oneself up on Churchill’s racism. There was no two ways about it, Churchill was a white supremacist. Born in 1874, educated at Sandhurst and a Harrovian (always be wary of this lot), he was brought up believing the simple story that superior white men conquered people of colour and brought them the benefits of civilisation.

An explicit example of his beliefs in white superiority was recorded in US Vice President Henry Wallace’s diary: in 1942, Wallace challenged Churchill’s beliefs on Anglo-Saxon superiority during a meeting. Wallace wrote in his diary that Churchill had drank ‘quite a bit of whiskey’ and said in retort: ‘why be apologetic about Anglo-Saxon superiority, that we were superior, that we had the common heritage which had been worked out over the centuries in England and had been perfected by our constitution.’ And neither was this merely a drunken slip. Churchill was never shy to utter some of the most racist and vile things: he hated people with ‘slit eyes and pig tails’; people from India were ‘the beastliest people in the world next to the Germans’; he admitted that he did ‘not really think that black people were as capable or as efficient as white people’; and that ‘Aryan stock was bound to triumph’.

But he only said racist things, right? Even Johnson admitted that Churchill sometimes expressed opinion that would be ‘unacceptable to us today’, but it’s what he did, namely his defeat of the Nazis, that matters. To many, Churchill is the equivalent of the racist, old, white boss/manager/CEO who belonged to an older generation, who of course believed and therefore said those things. As long as he didn’t act upon them, then it’s all fine. This prevailing belief explains why the country voted for our currently unashamedly racist prime minister (lest we forget Johnson once referred to ‘cheering crowds of flag-waving piccaninnies’; to African people as having ‘watermelon smiles’; and saying that Muslim women in burqas looked like ‘letter boxes.’)

I would challenge the notion that it’s fine for your boss/manager/CEO, let alone Prime Minister, to be racist in what they say. In fact, Paul Weston, Chairman of the Liberty GB party (a far-right anti-immigration, Islamophobic political party), was arrested in 2014 on suspicion of racial harassment after reading aloud from Churchill’s own book The River War: ‘How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is dangerous in as many as hydrophobia [rabies] in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce and insecurity of property exists wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.’ Clearly, simply saying what Churchill did could be considered a hate crime.

But I’ll humour those that take the ‘actions speak louder than words’ line and set Churchill’s diatribes against his context and actions:

Churchill was not merely an armchair aristocrat who waited to achieve his political ambitions, but a soldier who set off as soon as he could to take his part in ‘a lot of jolly little wars against barbarous peoples.’ And kill Churchill did: Churchill raided and laid waste to the Swat Valley (now part of Pakistan), destroying houses and burning crops; in Sudan, he bragged of personally shooting at least three ‘savages’. In South Africa, where ‘it was great fun galloping about’, Churchill defended British built concentration camps for white Boers, saying they produced ‘the minimum suffering.’ The death toll was almost 28,000, and while at least 115,000 were swept into British concentration camps, Churchill wrote only of his ‘irritation that Kaffirs should be allowed to fire on white men.’ (Shock, horror, the British were guilty of using concentration camps too. A blog post on this to come.)

On that note, we return to Churchill’s bust in the White House: George W Bush had left the bust near his desk in an attempt to associate himself with Churchill’s heroic stand against fascism (Bush joins the ranks of politicians who deserves an association to Churchill, but not in the sense he intended). Barack Obama had it returned to Britain because his own paternal grandfather, Hussein Onyango Obama, was one of the 150,000 rebellions Kikuyus forced into detention camps during Churchill’s post-war premiership: when the British government began its campaign to suppress the alleged 1952-60 Mau Mau uprising in Kenya, all to protect the privileges of the white settler population. Approximately 11,000 Kenyans were killed and 81,000 detained. In that light, we’ll allow it, Obama.

In 1920, as Secretary of State for War and Air, Churchill advocated for the use of chemical weapons on the ‘uncooperative Arabs’ involved in the Iraqi revolution against British rule: in an official memo he stated that he ‘[did] not understand the squeamishness about the use of gas… I am strongly in favour of using poison gas against uncivilised tribes. It would spread a lively terror.’ Historians have bent over backwards to excuse this particular comment: Warren Dockter, a research fellow at the University of Cambridge and the author of Winston Churchill and the Islamic World, said that Churchill was only ‘proposing to use in Mesopotamia… lachrymatory gas, which is essentially tear gas, not mustard gas.’ Don’t worry all, he wasn’t actually intending to kill people, just to commit a terrorist act. Oh, and Churchill was in favour of using mustard gas against Ottoman troops in WII, Dockter admits, but that was at the time when other nations were doing it too, so it was obviously alright for him to actually intend to kill the masses then.

Finally, as Colonial Secretary, Churchill offered the Jews Israel, although he thought they should not ‘take it for granted that the local population will be cleared out to suit their convenience.’ Simultaneously, he dismissed the Palestinians already living in the country as ‘barbaric hoards who ate little but camel dung.’ In an address to justify why Britain should decide the fate of Palestine to the Peel Commission in 1937, Churchill was again outspoken about his white supremacist ideology. Specifically, he sought to justify the British displacement of peoples throughout history:  ‘I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do 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 was, has come in and taken their place.’

In thoughts, words, and actions Churchill was racist, and his position as a politician meant that his white supremacism had real, tangible effects. Many of which still has relevance today. Despite this, Martin Gilbert, Churchill’s most revered biographer, said that in writing Churchill’s story: ‘I never felt that [Churchill] was going to spring an unpleasant surprise on me. I might find that he was adopting views with which I disagreed. But I always knew that there would be nothing to cause me to think: ‘How shocking, how appalling.’ History is not only written by the victors, but also by historians who are willing to excuse those victors’ vile and abhorrent behaviour.

And I’ve not yet mentioned how Churchill’s so-called heroic actions during WWII killed an estimated 1.5 to 3 million people. Part 2 to follow.

[ask-the-crimson-king]

((This was FAR too big for an ask, put a read more cut where you see fit))

Ok, so the accusing anon mentioned it was the Progress Flag they saw and the way they worded their explanation kinda went in a few directions, which I'll try to sort through:

"Nazi and Nazbol [Nazi-Bolshevik] Groups": Yes, that is a thing that exists, but on a smaller scale online and not nearly as prominent in the living world as other supremacist ideologies. Yes, there are people who actually looked at the darkest days of both German and Soviet History and decided "This could work well together", but they are dunked-on HARD by both pro-fascists and pro-communists by their very nature. Do not ask me how neo-Nazis and Tankies got together in such an unholy union or what they stand for because none of it makes sense to my Bachelor's education degree with social science emphasis OR my regrettable experience from both groups in my soon-to-be 29 years of life

"Eth Nat [Ethnic Nationalist] desires": Yes, those unfortunately exist around the world. Racism and ethnic cleansing isn't a solely White practice, but it's definitely been done by Whites throughout US history and its affects (and believers) still exist to this very day. Only non-White supremacist American group I can recall is the very loose online Hotep community (remember the "We were kings" memes?) that's legitimately Black supremacist and also incredibly anti-Semitic, homophobic and misogynistic---so taking a rainbow flag wouldn't be their work || [Don't forget the ethno-nationalist cleansing of Armenians that is still happening right now, and the settler-colonialism happening with the Palestinians.]

"Representing clear racial politics": Well, I guess if you loosely define Black Lives Matter and its main message of "stop profiling us as criminals and even if we are criminals, treat us humanely as you do White criminals", then it would count as "racial/identity politics". So would the "Stop Asian Hate" movement in response to COVID fearmongering, but if we're really defining any political movement (for good or for ill) as "racial" if it affects a given race, then practically everything is racial politics---by nature of people of different races experiencing things, even within the same country or social class

___ [I think they were trying to say Nazi and Nazi-adjacent groups were seeing the flag as depicting "clear racial politics". I have seen fascists use this talking point, but against non-white minorities. Never for them.] ___

"Protected by a strong border": That definitely is a policy point put forward by ethnic nationalists, pro-fascists, etc. and groups have tried to parrot or "steal" progressive groups' rhetoric to then apply to border security (remember that map of America made into a cartoon woman, gripping her skirt as a hand from the South reaches up, all with the caption "My borders, my choice"?). As for how black and brown are "stronger" colors than pink and white, that's entirely a cultural bias in associating light or warm colors with femininity or "weakness"---which is why Hitler rotated the original Hindu swastika 45 degrees to resemble an X rather than a cross and painted it black rather than the usual pink or light purple, as well as why the upside-down pink triangle was used to mark LGBT+ citizens

"The fact that four in rotation makes a swastika": I mean, if you were to completely disfigure any 4 stripes in such a way, it could resemble an X or a cross, but the swastika itself has 4 more "legs" that stick out from the base. But with how much the human mind needs to warp any given lines into a new symbol, you may as well just slap the graven image itself on the thing and be forthright with it

[And they do! Homofascists/4Chan or generally right-wing trolls in the past have, indeed, simply slapped it on the standard 6-color pride flag.

More info on fascism/it's supporters/how it gains traction under the cut.]

As for whether so-called progressive people do parrot fascist rhetoric and support fascist policy? That is also unfortunately true. Don't ask me how I know this or how this even could happen, but there were a few Trans Fascists I came across and I found two of their flags: one being just the swastika slapped onto the Trans Pride flag, the other being the Lesbian Labrys in the place of the axe in the fasces symbol (that ancient Roman symbol of a magistrate's power over life and death, the origin of the term "fascist/fascism") on the Trans Pride Flag

___ [People who try to be progressive but fall into the pit-falls of Nazi or fascist ideology are why we have NazBols. It's why we see groups trying to "take the land back" and basically create woke ethno-states for marginalized people. I am not saying this referring to indigenous peoples who are fighting to keep their land (which I do indeed support), I have also heard weird Tankie-esque stuff about Black people feeling so much safer away from whites, and other people of color who may feel the same. Thus creating a separatist divide and creating "woke" ethno-states -- "It's for the good of the minorities so they can feel safer!" Or we could talk about and tackle the systemic problems leading to people feeling this way? How about that instead? "But it'll never work!" It won't if you never try.

Don't fall for Black separatism, kids. You are not only feeding into the interests of white supremacists, but you're also becoming a reactionary in the process. Just because you are white, it does not mean you are an inherent threat to your nonwhite comrades. Diversity is strength. Remember that.] ___

My own hot take? We should remember that at the very core of Nazi ideology---no matter how many self-proclaimed LGBT+ individuals also proclaim to be Nazis, no matter how many non-Whites or women march beside them, no matter how many Nazis claim otherwise---is Nazism is straight White male supremacy and those undoubtedly deluded into being their "allies" are simply a means to gaining government office democratically

But once that purpose is served, they too will be slaughtered. Anyone PoC, LGBT, non-Christian or otherwise not fitting the mold of "the Supreme Master RaceTM" who is utterly duped into supporting their agenda (and cause them to succeed) would merely buy themselves a stay of execution at the cost of their neighbors' lives---before their blood also becomes the oil on the gears and their bodies also become the coal in the furnaces of the fascist war-machine

Populism, the Nazis' preferred tactic and a pillar of fascist ideology, is dependent upon democratic majority. It would be incredibly stupid (though these ARE Nazis and fascists we're talking about, so the bar is well beneath the floor as it is) to instantly demonize everyone who doesn't fit their tight mold the moment they set foot on the streets. They will deny being homophobic. They will deny being racist. They will pay lip-service to feminists. They will force a smile on their faces and hold back their gag reflex in the company of "lesser beings" just long enough to get some votes

Hitler did not seize power overnight. Hitler did not seize power, period. Hitler was elected by the desperate, the foolish and the ambitious in equal measures. The Nazi Party did not run door-to-door to viciously murder every Jew the second Hitler was inaugurated. Every Jew was not immediately sent to the death camps. The Jews were not Hitler's only victims. The Jews were not even Hitler's first victims, though the Jewish casualty count is the still highest that we can confirm

In order to both remove the "undesirables" from Germany and to control the German populace, Hitler and the Nazis went down a very long list. Every potential political opponent, every ethnicity, every possible demographic and label besides "Aryan Nazi supporter" was scheduled to be systematically demonized, discriminated, disappeared and destroyed when it was most convenient for the Nazi Party to do so

When it was ultimately the Jewish people's turn, the removal of their humanity was a long and gradual process of public indoctrination and supported legislation that lasted several years. Once the Jews were stripped of rights and thought of as nothing more than vermin by the German masses, the Nazis simply played their willing role as exterminators. Whether the Germans thought it would go so far or would go so bloodily is an afterthought that came far too late

Remember well the words of regretful Hitler supporter and Holocaust survivor, Martin Niemoller:

"First they came for the Communists And I did not speak out Because I was not a Communist.

Then they came for the Socialists And I did not speak out Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists And I did not speak out Because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews And I did not speak out Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me And there was no one left To speak out for me."

To all those who those who look upon their far-right reactionary movement and think "They will always stand by me and the power I give them will never be used against me": You could not be any more wrong, yet you already believe their lies

----

[Good and informative post for those not already familiar with any of these terms, which is why I put the cut where I did. I also added a bit of my own commentary here and there to try and provide examples along with an explanation of the terms I was using.]