Posted on 05/31/2015 8:31:27 AM PDT by pabianice
Did they bother to mention that he returned as Prime Minister for a 4/5 yr stint in the early 50s?
Churchill died when I was a senior in high school.
The American media was already turning Communist even back then but to their credit, just about all the news outlets credited Churchill as being the greatest man of the 20th Century.
Seeing that he was so famous made me want to study about him. I ended up reading his entire “History of WWII”, and that is quite an accomplishment.
Good old BBC, which stands for Britains Broadcasting Communism.
Yes it is. Churchill's writing is definitely an acquired taste, but once you get a feel for it, it yields up some good stuff.
I read the 6-volume WW2 series twice and intend to get around to his "History of the English Speaking Peoples" epic. I started it a few years ago but got sidetracked - I'll have to add this to my short list.
What a great collection of quotes.
The liberals are trying to get iPads and other tablets into the schools just so they can wipe out all history they do not like and rewrite. All in an instant.
I’m currently reading W. Manchester’s vol 1 of “The Last Lion.” It’s an excellent read.
Thank you! Is it any wonder that Churchill’s bust no longer has a place of honor in the American people’s White House?
Great quotes - did Churchill read Any Rand or did Rand read Churchill? ;-)
Henry Luce was still alive then, and had a big influence on the MSM at the time. I date the inflection point of the MSM’s rapid decline to when Luce retired.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Luce
He spoke the truth about socialism and islam. So they hate him.
For those who like Churchill's understanding of the difference between the ideas of freedom and the ideas of socialism (no matter how they are packaged), enjoy and pass along the following, noting the date of the writing:
From the Liberty Fund Library, is "A Plea for Liberty: An Argument Against Socialism and Socialistic Legislation," edited by Thomas Mackay (1849 - 1912), Chapter 1, excerpted final paragraphs from Edward Stanley Robertson's essay:
"I have suggested that the scheme of Socialism is wholly incomplete unless it includes a power of restraining the increase of population, which power is so unwelcome to Englishmen that the very mention of it seems to require an apology. I have showed that in France, where restraints on multiplication have been adopted into the popular code of morals, there is discontent on the one hand at the slow rate of increase, while on the other, there is still a 'proletariat,' and Socialism is still a power in politics.
I.44
"I have put the question, how Socialism would treat the residuum of the working class and of all classes—the class, not specially vicious, nor even necessarily idle, but below the average in power of will and in steadiness of purpose. I have intimated that such persons, if they belong to the upper or middle classes, are kept straight by the fear of falling out of class, and in the working class by positive fear of want. But since Socialism purposes to eliminate the fear of want, and since under Socialism the hierarchy of classes will either not exist at all or be wholly transformed, there remains for such persons no motive at all except physical coercion. Are we to imprison or flog all the 'ne'er-do-wells'?
I.45
"I began this paper by pointing out that there are inequalities and anomalies in the material world, some of which, like the obliquity of the ecliptic and the consequent inequality of the day's length, cannot be redressed at all. Others, like the caprices of sunshine and rainfall in different climates, can be mitigated, but must on the whole be endured. I am very far from asserting that the inequalities and anomalies of human society are strictly parallel with those of material nature. I fully admit that we are under an obligation to control nature so far as we can. But I think I have shown that the Socialist scheme cannot be relied upon to control nature, because it refuses to obey her. Socialism attempts to vanquish nature by a front attack. Individualism, on the contrary, is the recognition, in social politics, that nature has a beneficent as well as a malignant side. The struggle for life provides for the various wants of the human race, in somewhat the same way as the climatic struggle of the elements provides for vegetable and animal life—imperfectly, that is, and in a manner strongly marked by inequalities and anomalies. By taking advantage of prevalent tendencies, it is possible to mitigate these anomalies and inequalities, but all experience shows that it is impossible to do away with them. All history, moreover, is the record of the triumph of Individualism over something which was virtually Socialism or Collectivism, though not called by that name. In early days, and even at this day under archaic civilisations, the note of social life is the absence of freedom. But under every progressive civilisation, freedom has made decisive strides—broadened down, as the poet says, from precedent to precedent. And it has been rightly and naturally so.
I.46
"Freedom is the most valuable of all human possessions, next after life itself. It is more valuable, in a manner, than even health. No human agency can secure health; but good laws, justly administered, can and do secure freedom. Freedom, indeed, is almost the only thing that law can secure. Law cannot secure equality, nor can it secure prosperity. In the direction of equality, all that law can do is to secure fair play, which is equality of rights but is not equality of conditions. In the direction of prosperity, all that law can do is to keep the road open. That is the Quintessence of Individualism, and it may fairly challenge comparison with that Quintessence of Socialism we have been discussing. Socialism, disguise it how we may, is the negation of Freedom. That it is so, and that it is also a scheme not capable of producing even material comfort in exchange for the abnegations of Freedom, I think the foregoing considerations amply prove." EDWARD STANLEY ROBERTSON
I have “The Last Lion”. It is in paperback but a high quality, large paperback. My memory is going because I am sure I have read it but can’t recall a thing about it.
Interesting that when TR died, one of his Sons telegraphed another that “The Old Lion Has Died”.
A lot of similarities between Churchill and TR. They both had been to war, they both wrote extensively etc.
I used to work with an old guy who had started out as a door to door mailman in Birmingham, Alabama.
I remember his telling me that he dreaded the day that “life” magazine came out because his pack was so heavy that day.
Just by questioning Sir Winston’s oratory skills tells me that little commie twit douchebag hasn’t a clue about what he speaks. Probably knows nothing of British history, either.
Very nice. The evil of socialism was obviously recognized early on.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.