..by Jonas E. Alexis
Pick up any popular biography of Winston Churchill by popular historians and people who have internalized the demands of their oppressors and you will hear only great things about the man.
The BBC tells us that Max Hastings’ Finest Years: Churchill as Warlord, 1940-45 “presents a positive version of the Churchill story.”
These popularizers have invented things about Churchill and World War II. In the words of David Irving, these people “have created legends of magisterial permanence.” Irving adds:
“The legends pollute the history books and have a charm and existence of their own, devoid of any foundation in the archives.”
Irving continues to tell these “conformist historians” that the best way to write something that will stand the test of time is to use archival evidence. But these people want to please the powers that be and therefore have to make things up. How else would they embrace Hermann Rauschning’s fabrication?
To many admirers and sympathizers, Churchill was a savior who brought salvation to Europe during World War II. According to John R. Lukacs of the University of Oregon, Churchill’s speech basically saved civilization. Others declare that he was an “unexpected hero,” a military leader who rescued European Jews from Nazi Germany, a great statesman whose words one ought to live by, a “prophet” who was also a “liberal statesman,” and on and on the chorus goes.
Thomas Sowell, a scholar and popular commentator who has been saying crazy things about Iran for years, calls Churchill “legendary.” James C. Humes opens his book by saying,
“Winston Churchill is rightly celebrated as the greatest statesman of the twentieth century and among the greatest of any century.”
Popular historian Boris Johnson argues Churchill is a “man of contagious bravery, breathtaking eloquence, matchless strategizing, and deep humanity.”
If those accolades are true, then we are in deep trouble precisely because Churchill was one of the strategic mass murderers in the twentieth century. As we have seen in the past and as we shall see in a moment, he signed pacts with the greatest mass murderer in the twentieth century (Joseph Stalin), literally starved thousands upon thousands of German civilians and even Indians to death, and invented bold and categorical lies to marshal what one ought to call a diabolical plan. His wicked acts are rarely known because people like Humes and Johnson have desperately tried to obscure the historical facts. Sowell says,
“Anyone who wants to read one book that will help explain the international crises of our time should read The Gathering Storm by Winston Churchill. It is not about the Middle East or even about today. It is about the fatuous and irresponsible foreign policies of the 1930s that led to the most catastrophic war in human history.”
Shouldn’t a serious scholar really laugh at this risible statement? How does Sowell know that Churchill didn’t pepper The Gathering Storm with a “bodyguard of lies”? Does he really take Churchill seriously when Churchill writes things like Hitler had nothing but contempt for all Jews? How would he explain the fact that there were at least 150,000 people of Jewish descent in Nazi Germany?
Moreover, does Sowell really believe Churchill when Churchill writes that Hitler’s knowledge of the Jews was basically conspiratorial and had virtually nothing to do with actual facts?
Perhaps Sowell needs to pick up Prostitution and Prejudice: The Jewish Fight Against White Slavery 1870-1939, by Jewish historian Edward J. Bristow, Why Did the Heavens Not Darken, by Jewish historian Arno J. Mayer, and Jews and Revolution in Nineteenth-Century Russia, by Eric Harberer. The scholarly literature is quite conclusive on this point: Jewish revolutionary and subversive movements gave rise to Nazi Germany, gave rise to anti-Jewish reaction in Europe, and gave rise to bloody conflict during World War II.
Furthermore, Hitler and German politicians knew about those subversive movements. In fact, virtually no serious German intellectual or thinker on the eve of World War II was oblivious of Stalin’s “Great Purge” in the early 1920s, which was largely a Jewish movement.
In fact, Dr. Friederich Karl Wiehe published his Germany and the Jewish Question in 1938 and meticulously argued that Jewish behavior was the main cause of anti-Jewish reaction around the world. Wiehe argued that wherever
“immorality was made into a business, Jews were prominent, if not dominant…Even the so-called ‘Sexual Science’—one of the unsavory products of the last century—was a purely Jewish invention and exploited by them into a most flourishing and lucrative branch of trade.”
If you think this is far-fetched, then pick up a copy of Bristow’s Prostitution and Prejudice and find out. Bristow argues quite persuasively that pornography in the nineteenth century was largely a Jewish enterprise, and Hitler and his government knew this. Wiehe moved on to say that “as the result of the revolution in Germany in 1918, all barriers of law, order and censorship were broken down.” Wiehe continued:
“Jews played a leading part in corruption scandals everywhere. In France it was Hanau, Oustric and Stavisky; in the United States of America it was Insull and in Austria Bosel, Berliner and Castiglioni were the outstanding figures. Fundamentally it is not surprising that this plague of corruption became most widespread and acute in the period which followed the disastrous World War….
“It is understandable that Germany, as the loser of the war, became infected to a particularly acute degree with the germ of corruption.”
Wiehe cited examples after examples and names after names to support his case. He argued that right after World War I, Jewish companies and individuals began to suppress and oppress the average German for
“quick profits….Jewry’s great and triumphant hour of corruption came with the end of the Great War. The liquidation of the armaments factories and the sale of military stores and equipment offered splendid opportunities for handsome profits and the Jews were not backward in exploiting this state of affairs.
“The Jew, Richard Kahn, to mention an example, made a contract with the Deutsche Werke—the largest state-owned armaments plant—whereby the whole of its valuable stock was sold to him at scap-metal price.”
Wiehe quoted a Jewish author by the name of Felix Pinner saying that Jewish revolutionaries “firmly established themselves financially with the advent of the currency inflation period.”
Some of those revolutionaries, said Wiehe, had connections to Leon Trotsky. Pinner moved on to say that Jews such as Jakob Michael, Richard Kahn and Ciprut made a fortune from “the decomposing stench of German currency.”
As the saying goes, those who don’t know their history are doomed to repeat it. When the stock market crashed in 2008, guess which company was making a fortune from the “decomposing stench” of the ruined economy?
Goldman Sachs. This became so apparent that one writer for Forbes said: “Goldman can no longer retain public trust. The government should terminate high-level people who worked previously at Goldman, and never recruit from Goldman again. The revolving door between Goldman and government empowers abusive conflicts of interest even more.”
So when Churchill starts talking about Hitler’s hatred toward Jews without qualifications or that Hitler’s knowledge of Jewish activities was unfounded, then you can be sure that Churchill, as Solomon Erhman would have put it, was basically “jewified.”
Churchill proved that he could not get a rational thought in his head when he wrote:
“The main thesis of Mein Kampf is simple. Man is a fighting animal; therefore the nation, being a community of fighters, is a fighting unit. Any living organism which ceases to fight for its existence is doomed to extinction.”
I simply could not hold my laughter here because Churchill was a sort of social Darwinist. One of the obscure writers who played a profoundly influential role on Churchill was Winwood Reade, author of The Martyrdom of Man, a book which left Churchill with a “sombre vision of a godless universe.” Historian Richard Toye of the University of Exerter writes,
“The book’s message needs to be understood in the context of an intellectual atmosphere much influenced by Charles Darwin (with whom Raede had corresponded). It was common to apply Darwinian insights not only to the social competition between individuals but also to that between nations.
“It was widely believed that…the day of the small nations had passed, and that of empires had arrived. In order to survive in a predatory world, states needed to expand in order to maximize their populations and natural resources.”
Agreeing with Darwin, Raede argued that “war had acted as ‘the chief agent of civilization’ in the ancient world.” In that sense, war is the hero of the plot. It has magical powers. It can create prosperity, happiness, and provide healing to a wounded civilization. “It seems that Churchill’s cheerful vision of war as the engine of social improvement—which he maintains in the 1940s—was heavily influenced by Raede.”
Churchill became prime minister in May of 1940. During his speech, he pronounced unapologetically:
“You ask, what is our policy? I will say: it is to wage war, by sea, land, and air, with all our might…”
Here once again we see the marriage (or competition) between the Darwinian ideology and Jewish subversive movements. They both support the idea that wars will bring about the greatest good—at the expense of the weak and needy. Wars, according to Darwin, is inevitable because the “higher animals” need to wipe out the “lower” ones.
The Malthusian doctrine, said Darwin, could be applied “with manifold force to the whole animal and vegetable kingdoms.” In that sense, “the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life,” which incidentally is the subtitle of Darwin’s On the Origin of Species, is of primary importance. Darwin, in a covert and pernicious way, subverted the moral order and replaced it with the “favoured races.” It was no coincidence that colonial empires were viewed in a Darwinian terminology. As one historian puts it,
“Contemporaries explained this rush for land in terms of Darwin’s evolutionary theories. The fittest and most adaptable of the great powers would survive and grow stronger at the expense of the enfeebled…As Churchill observed in 1899, ‘the position of England among the nations is the position of a dog with a bone in the midst of a hungry pack.’”
Zionism, as we have seen in previous articles, is no different: the Palestinians have to be wiped out in order for the “Jewish state” to exist. In fact, Zionism has been doing exactly that in the Middle East.
So, when I hear people talking about the genius of Darwin and the so-called “evolutionary thinking” and then condemning Zionism, then it is an infallible sign to me that those people are either propagandists, useful idiots, or do not understand logic and reason. You cannot be a consistent Darwinist and condemn Zionism at the same time. Soon or later you will be floating in the irrational and illogical world.
At one point, Churchill said: “I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion.” Toye writes that Churchill “gave his views on the Indian famine of 1873-4, claiming that Viceroy had been right to refuse demands that he prohibit grain exports.” Another observer writes that
“Churchill had corroborated Malthus’s perspective, writing of an 1898 Indian plague: ‘a philosopher may watch unmoved the destruction of some of those superfluous millions, whose life must of necessity be destitute of pleasure.’”
Churchill said elsewhere:
“I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilized tribes. The moral effect should be so good that the loss of life should be reduced to a minimum.”
Darwin used similar words to describe “uncivilized men.” In fact, Darwin constantly used phrases such as “higher animals” to describe how the powerful would eliminate the weak. Following Darwin’s ideology, Churchill declared,
“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 a wrong has been to those people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher grade race or… a more worldly wise race…has come in and taken their place.”
When people were objecting to his views about poisoned gas, Churchill said that they were being too squeamish, adding that
“the objections of the India Office to the use of gas against natives are unreasonable. Gas is a merciful weapon than [the] high explosive shell, and compels an enemy to accept a decision with less loss of life than any other agency of war….
Why is it not fair for a British artilleryman to fire a shell which makes the said native sneeze? It is really too silly.”
It got even better:
“when an aide pointed out that Tito intended to transform Yugoslavia into a Communist dictatorship on the Soviet model,” Churchill responded by saying, “Do you intend to live there?”
The plot thickens. Turning an entire country “into a Communist dictatorship on the Soviet model” is no problem for Churchill. But he is complaining about Hitler’s Mein Kampf?
Keep in mind that it was Churchill himself who said in 1943,
“In wartime, Truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies.”
So, can Sowell explain Churchill’s diabolical statement to us in a logical fashion here?
As it turns out, Churchill and his apologists would ideologically find themselves in the same boat with Friedrich Nietzsche, who said unapologetically:
“To be truthful means using the customary metaphors—in moral terms: the obligation to lie according to a fixed convention, to lie herd-like in a style obligatory to all.”
Despite the fact that Zionist historians have tried for years to darken the minds of the public with distorted statements, the truth continues to spring forth like a mighty stream even in unexpected places. The Daily Mail has recently reported the dark side of Churchill:
“The confession was a startling one, in light of the great man he became. ‘The only thing that worries me in life is — money,’ wrote Winston Churchill, then aged 23, to his brother, Jack. ‘Extravagant tastes, an expensive style of living, small and diminished resources — these are fertile sources of trouble.’
“Indeed they were. For the qualities that were to make Churchill a great war leader came very close to destroying him time and again during his career, as manic optimism and risk-taking plunged him repeatedly into colossal debt.
“In the Thirties, when he was a married man with four dependent children and already borrowing more than £2.5 million in today’s money, he would gamble so heavily on his annual holiday in the South of France that he threw away the equivalent of on average £40,000 every year.
“In my own career, advising families on tax affairs and investments, I have never encountered addiction to risk on such a scale as his…. As a result, he left behind a trail of financial failures that required numerous bailouts by friends, family and admirers.
“And it was only by a wildly improbable intervention, almost an act of God, that he wasn’t bankrupt in 1940 instead of Prime Minister: as war loomed, a secret benefactor wrote two cheques for well over £1 million to clear Churchill’s debts. His inventive efforts at tax avoidance would spell scandal if attempted by any politician today.”
Instead of pursuing morality and abide by the moral law, Churchill locked himself in the world of greed and lust, which became his ontology in his early 20s. In that sense, Churchill would have almost certainly been on the side of Donald Trump or Milton Friedman.
Trump—who still believes that President Obama is a Muslim!–thinks that you have to “kick ass in business and life” in order to make it big. Friedman argues that virtually nothing serious can be accomplished in life without greed and lust.
Friedman ended up educating a number of economists who now believe that greed (along with usury) is the nuts and bolts of economics. For example, in an article entitled “I Love Greed,” Walter E. Williams of George Mason University tells us:
“It turns out that it’s human greed that gets the most wonderful things done. When I say greed, I am not talking about fraud, theft, dishonesty, lobbying for special privileges from government or other forms of despicable behavior. I’m talking about people trying to get as much as they can for themselves.”
How Williams differentiates greed from theft and fraud and dishonesty so quickly still remains a mystery to me. It is like trying to separate capitalism from usury.
In any event, what Williams ends up articulating is that greed is like magic. It can accomplish great things. It can raise the dead (zombie economics) and do miracles. David Hume told us that miracles were impossible, but Friedman and Williams are implicitly saying that Hume died too soon: miracles are possible when it comes to capitalism. Without morality, argue modern capitalists, people can and will help their fellow man. It is the “invisible hand,” to use Adam Smith’s own words.
The simple fact is that this dubious and worthless theory has never worked in any decent society. In fact, it has destroyed economic progress over the ages. Without morality, economic activity is just like social Darwinism: survival of the fittest, “kick ass,” and pursuing greed and lust at the expense of virtually everyone else.
Without morality, economic progress means expanding the lifestyle of the rich and powerful, who always end up manipulating the market and playing dominoes with people’s lives. Williams moves on to give this ridiculous example:
“This winter, Texas ranchers may have to fight the cold of night, perhaps blizzards, to run down, feed and care for stray cattle. They make the personal sacrifice of caring for their animals to ensure that New Yorkers can enjoy beef. Last summer, Idaho potato farmers toiled in blazing sun, in dust and dirt, and maybe being bitten by insects to ensure that New Yorkers had potatoes to go with their beef.
“Here’s my question: Do you think that Texas ranchers and Idaho potato farmers make these personal sacrifices because they love or care about the well-being of New Yorkers?
“The fact is whether they like New Yorkers or not, they make sure that New Yorkers are supplied with beef and potatoes every day of the week. Why? It’s because ranchers and farmers want more for themselves. In a free market system, in order for one to get more for himself, he must serve his fellow man.”
Does Williams seriously think that companies like Goldman Sachs serves its fellow man? Doesn’t he know that Goldman Sachs, as Mat Taibbi has brilliantly put it, jams “its blood funnel into anything that smells like money”? Doesn’t he know that no one has ever prosecuted the pernicious activities that those companies have pursued over the years?
Didn’t Williams know that Goldman Sachs executive director Greg Smith quit the company precisely because he realized that the company’s intended purpose was to cheat its customers?
In any event, Churchill, like the Friedmanites and even Adam Smith, was working with the premise that economic miracles can happen without morality. This led him to get involved in what one ought to call magical activities, which actually sent him to the abyss of desperation.
“Surrounded by these modern marvels, Churchill began to trade again in shares and commodities. He was intoxicated by Canada’s money-making opportunities, especially in exploration for oil and gas.
“Gripped by investment fever as he reached the prairies, he wired his publisher to demand an advance on his royalties, boasting of the profits he could grasp if he acted without delay.
“He plunged tens of thousands of dollars into oilfields and rolling stock, assuring his bankers that, ‘I do not expect to hold these shares for more than a few weeks.’
“In the States, he stayed with media tycoon William Randolph Hearst and bought stakes in electrical ventures and gas companies, before heading to California where he indulged in late-night parties with Hollywood’s movie elite and toured the studios.
“After lunch with Charlie Chaplin on the set of his latest film, City Lights, Churchill boarded Hearst’s yacht and wrote to Clemmie that he had banked £1,000 (£50,000 today) by cashing in some shares in a furniture business called Simmons. His buying had spiralled out of control. Everything he could raise was plunged into U.S. stocks, in businesses from foundries to department stores.”
Churchill certainly did treat people as subjects and instruments to get what Christ calls Mammon. Churchill was completely broke because greed and lust know no limits. In the end, he got involved in gambling, and that too failed miserably and pathetically. He became poor, owing more than $100,000. Obviously that led him to depression and drinking.
“In fact, his accumulated bills for alcohol came to £900 (£54,000). His gambling was even more costly — 66,000 francs (about £50,000) in a single holiday at a casino in Cannes in 1936, for example.
“His efforts to cling to some kind of solvency became desperate. He borrowed money wherever he could — from his brother, his bank, his brokers, his publishers and newspaper editors.”
Churchill was financially handcuffed.
“But by 1938, as the European situation with Hitler and Mussolini became critical, Churchill had run out of resources. Both Chartwell and his house in London were up for sale but had attracted no buyers.
“His journalism could no longer even cover his back-taxes, and he had borrowed to the limit against his life insurance policies. Creditors were clamouring on all sides.
“His overdraft had reached £35,000 (more than £2million) and his brokers were demanding an immediate payment of £12,000 (£720,000). His attempts to bargain were ignored.”
Churchill was so desperate that he once said:
“For a while, the dark waters of despair overwhelmed me. I watched the daylight creep slowly in through the windows and saw before me in mental gaze the vision of Death.”
When death came to his front door, Churchill certainly had to find a way to escape. The Dreadful Few rescued him, but he had to loot and kill for them. He had to liquidate poor German civilians. In the process, he had to mercilessly slaughter the Germans en mass and brag that he had great fun doing it. He declared in 1915:
“I know this war is smashing and shattering the lives of thousands every moment—and yet—I cannot help it—I love every second I live.”
“The twin roots of all our evils, Nazi Germany and Prussian militarism, must be extirpated. Until this is achieved, there are no sacrifices we will not make and no lengths in violence to which we will not go.”
So, when he explicitly said that he wanted “to starve the whole [German] population—men, women and children, old and young, wounded and sound—into submission,” he meant it. This became apparent when he told Joseph Stalin in 1944:
“The problem was how to prevent Germany getting on her feet in the lifetime of our grandchildren.”
It must be emphasized that Churchill already had blood all over his hands by 1919. “We are enforcing the blockade with rigour,” he said, “and Germany is very near starvation.”
When all was said and done, Churchill ended up slaughtering almost 90,000 Germans. He also was responsible for the deaths of more than a million Indians.
“Britain’s wartime prime minister did not discuss in his six-volume account the 1943 famine in the eastern Indian province of Bengal, which killed 1.5 million people by the official estimate and 3 million by most others.
“One primary cause of the famine was the extent to which Churchill and his advisers chose to use resources of India to wage a war against Germany and Japan, causing scarcity and inflation within the colony.”
But it would have been almost impossible for him to slaughter so many people (most specifically the Germans) without outside forces.
Jewish historian Martin Gilbert himself tells us that Churchill had “a lifelong friendship” with the Jews. For example, right after the outbreak of World War I, Theodor Herzl’s son, Hans, was immediately “naturalized.” Chaim Weizmann, a powerful Zionist Jew, provided Churchill with acetone, “the solvent used in making cordite: the essential naval explosive.”
Weizmann was a biochemist and later became the first President of Israel. Weizmann was working at Manchester University when Churchill approached him and declared, “Well, Dr. Weizmann, we need thirty thousand tons of acetone. Can you make it?”
Weizmann was a little chocked, but then said in part:
“Once the bacteriology of the process is established, it is only a question of brewing. I must get hold of a brewing engineer from one of the big distilleries, and we will set about the preliminary task.”
Weizmann later recalled,
“I was given carte blanche by Mr. Churchill and the department, and I took upon myself a task which was to tax my energies for the next two years, and which was to have consequences which I did not foresee.”
Since Weizmann was a flaming Zionist, he certainly perceived that thousands upon thousands of German civilians would end up losing their precious lives through Churchill’s pernicious activity. By 1917, Weizmann
“was using bacterial fermentation to produce substantial quantities of substances needed for the manufacture of explosives. Weizmann used the bacterium clostridium acetobutylicum—known as ‘the Weizmann organism’—to produce the acetone for the cordite which was critical to the British and Allied war effort.”
So, one can reasonably say that Churchill was a willing executioner: he took his orders from members of the Dreadful Few and executed them. If you think this is far-fetched, let us listen to Churchill himself:
“‘Yes, we are all guilty men,’ admitted Churchill to Weizman. ‘You know, you are are masters. And yours,’ he added pointing Attlee and Wedgwood, ‘and yours,’ to Victor Cazalet and James de Rothschild, the others round the table. ‘What you say goes. If you ask us to fight we shall fight like tigers.’”
But executing people at will and destroying much of Germany (and England, through debt) for the Dreadful Few came with a huge price:
“Britain’s triumph over Germany was the classic illustration of a pyrrhic victory. Britain had not only bankrupted herself, emerging from the war with a debt that was ’14 times what it had been in 1914,’ it had also lost its empire to its American creditors. In order to continue, that empire would have to become the Anglo-American empire.”
 See for example “Winston Churchill’s Way With Words,” National Public Radio, July 14, 2012; JP O’Malley, “Winston Churchill was a very human leader, says Churchill and Empire author Lawrence James,” The Spectator, August 13, 2013.
 “Churchill: As good as we think?,” BBC, September 3, 2009.
 David Irving, Churchill’s War: The Struggle for Power (London: Focal Point, 2003), 84.
 John R. Lukacs, Blood, Toil, Tears and Sweat: The Dire Warning—Churchill’s First Speech as Prime Minister (New York Basic Books, 2008).
 Paul Addison, Churchill: An Unexpected Hero (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), chapter six.
 See for example James C. Humes, Churchill: The Prophetic Statesman (Washington: Regnery Publishing, 2012), chapters 17 and 18.
 See for example Winston Churchill, Never Give In!: The Best of Winston Churchill’s Speeches (New York: Hatchette Books, 2004).
 Paul Johnson, Churchill (New York: Penguin, 2010), chapters 2 & 5.
 Thomas Sowell, “A Churchill for Our Times,” National Review, March 15, 2015.
 Humes, Churchill: The Prophetic Statesman, 1.
 Boris Johnson, The Churchill Factor: How One Man Made History (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 2014).
 Thomas Sowell, “Random Thoughts,” Townhall.com, February 11, 2014.
 Winston Churchill, The Gathering Storm (New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1976), chapter 4.
 See Bryan Mark Rigg, Hitler’s Jewish Soldiers: The Untold Story of Nazi Racial Laws and Men of Jewish Descent in the German Military (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2002).
 Friederich Karl Wiehe, Germany and the Jewish Question (Ostara Publications, 2014), 99.
 Ibid., 42.
 Ibid., 43.
 Michael Snyder, “How Goldman Sachs Made Tens Of Billions Of Dollars From The Economic Collapse Of America In Four Easy Steps,” The Economic Collapse, December 30, 2009; Terry Macalister, “Revealed: Goldman Sachs ‘made fortune betting against clients,’” Guardian, April 25, 2010; William D. Cohan, “The Great Goldman Sachs Fire Sale of 2008,” NY Times, February 18, 2010; William D. Cohan, Money and Power: How Goldman Sachs Came to Rule the World (New York: Anchor Books, 2011).
 Robert A. Green, “It’s Getting Harder To Defend Goldman Sachs,” Forbes, May 18, 2011.
 See Albert S. Lindemann, Esau’s Tears: Anti-Semitism and the Rise of the Jews (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 331.
 Churchill, Gathering Storm, 48.
 Ralph Raico, Great Wars & Great Leaders (Auburn: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2010), 59; Mukerjee, Churchill’s Secret War, 16-17.
 Richard Toye, Churchill’s Empire: The World That Made Him and the World He Made (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2010), 28.
 Ibid., 30.
 The Quotable Churchill (Philadelphia: Running Press Publishers, 2013), 163-164.
 Quoted in Madhusree Mukerjee, Churchill’s Secret War: The British Empire and the Ravaging of India During World War II (New York: Basic Books, 2010), 204.
 Lawrence James, Churchill and Empire: A Portrait of an Imperialist (New York: Pegasus Books, 2014), 28.
 See for example Ilan Pappe, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine (Oxford: One World, 2007); The Forgotten Palestinians: A History of the Palestinians in Israel (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2011).
 Quoted in Mukerjee, Churchill’s Secret War, 78.
 Toye, Churchill’s Empire, 30.
 Mukerjee, Churchill’s Secret War, 204.
 Quoted in Warren Dockter, Churchill and the Islamic World (New York & London: I. B. Tauris & Co., 2015), 113.
 Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex (New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1896), 1: 168.
 Dockter, Churchill and the Islamic World, 178; Gilbert, Churchill and the Jews, 120; Addison, Churchill, 137.
 Quoted in Giles Milton, Russian Roulette: How British Spies Thwarted Lenin’s Global Plot (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 2013), 243.
 Raico, Great Wars & Great Leaders, 85.
 Winston Churchill, Churchill by Himself (New York: Random House, 2008), 27.
 Friedrich Nietzsche, The Portable Nietzsche (New York: Penguin, 1976). 47.
 David Lough, “Winston the spendaholic: He teetered on the brink of bankruptcy and was saved by secret backhanders. Yet a new book on Churchill’s finances reveals he spent £40,000 a year on casinos and £54,000 on booze,” Daily Mail, September 11, 2015. What is so frustrating about this is that David Irving has been saying similar things from time immemorial! For example, he wrote that Churchill’s imperative was none other than “self-preservation—certainly political, probably financial.” Irving, Churchill’s War, 86.
 Jill Colvin, “Trump condemned for not correcting statement Obama is Muslim,” Associated Press, September 18, 2015.
 Donald Trump, Think Big: Make It Happen in Business and Life (New York: HarperCollins, 2007), chapter ten.
 Walter E. Williams, “I Love Greed,” Townhall.com, January 4, 2012.
 Actually, Hume failed miserably in this regard. See for example John Earman, Hume’s Abject Failure: The Argument Against Miracles (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000).
 E. Michael Jones provides numerous examples of this in Barren Metal.
 Matt Taibbi, “The Great American Bubble Machine,” Rolling Stone, April 5, 2010; see also “The People vs. Goldman Sachs,” Rolling Stone, May 11, 2011;
 See for example Harry Bradford, “7 Wall Street Bankers Pushing To End ‘Too Big To Fail,’” Huffington Post, March 12, 2013.
 Greg Smith, “Why I Am Leaving Goldman Sachs,” NY Times, March 14, 2012.
 Lough, “Winston the spendaholic: He teetered on the brink of bankruptcy and was saved by secret backhanders. Yet a new book on Churchill’s finances reveals he spent £40,000 a year on casinos and £54,000 on booze,” Daily Mail, September 11, 2015.
 Quoted in Ralph Raico, Great Wars & Great Leaders (Auburn: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2010), 101.
 Quoted in E. Michael Jones, Barren Metal: A History of Capitalism as the Conflict Between Labor and Usury (South Bend: Fidelity Press, 2014), 1211.
 Raico, Great Wars & Great Leaders, 58.
Murkerjee, Churchill’s Secret War, ix..
 Martin Gilbert, Churchill and the Jews: A Lifelong Friendship (New York: Henry Holt & Company, 2007), 23.
 Ibid., 24.
 Ibid., 27.
 Quoted in Irving, Churchill’s War, 91.
 Jones, Barren Metal, 1211.
Jonas E. Alexis has degrees in mathematics and philosophy. He studied education at the graduate level. His main interests include U.S. foreign policy, history of Israel/Palestine conflict, and the history of ideas. He is the author of the new book Zionism vs. the West: How Talmudic Ideology is Undermining Western Culture. He teaches mathematics in South Korea.