Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and if you have the power of the #11 richest man on earth (Michael Bloomberg) behind you, you can even get it published. If it suited his fancy to increase his number one share, you could likely even get it published in the Washington Post owned by #1 Jeff Bezos.
So what is a "villain"? I guess in this case, it is whomever "Shashi Tardoor" thinks it is. In his "morality", pretty much anyone of the late 19th and early 20th century educated in the west would be "villain". Nearly all of them believed in Darwin for real -- not the modern watered down version of "survival of the fittest". They believed that "the fittest survive" ... meaning WIN, and that Western civilization had proven superior and thus risen to the top. They ALL "believed" this ... Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Margret Sanger (founder of Planned Parenthood), Franklin Roosevelt, etc, etc. They didn't even see it as a "belief" ... they saw it as "empirically proven by results".
So there really isn't any difference between Churchill and Hitler ...
Nor can his views be excused as being reflective of their times; his own Secretary of State for War, Leo Amery, confessed that he could see very little difference between Churchill’s attitude and Hitler’s.Strangely though, neither Stalin nor Mao are mentioned ... Communist leaders that butchered well over 100 million. Somehow I suspect that Tharoor would find them much more palatable. How might he put it? If you want to make an omlette ..
Thinking like this is why we have wealth like Bloomberg and Bezos and why it provides a platform for cultural relativists that want to do away with historical heros so that more people believe that those with the most money have the best right to shape opinion. Might ... and money make right!
I'm sure that Hitler, Stalin and Mao would go right along with Bezos, Bloomberg and Tharoor -- except unlike Churchill, who used words to win his arguments, Hitler, Stalin and Mao would be quick to put a bullet in the head of guys like Bezos, Bloomberg and Tharoor once they were no longer useful to them.
Was Churchill willing to use harsh rhetoric and even harsh methods when he believed required to defend the British Empire and the future of civilization? Especially the Civilization of the English Speaking Peoples? Certainly ... and without him we would likely be speaking German today.
Certainly people like Tharoor have a right to their opinion. That we live in a world where the richest people on the planet give them a forum to spew their opinion without even the merest semblance of conterpoint is great example of #FAKENEWS ... it may be fake, but those billionaires DO have a purpose. Their big purpose is to have you uncritically read such tripe.
In the world that Tharoor apparently imagines as "better" the caste system would still be ruling over millions dying in hopeless filth in India, and the Indians of N America would still be starving and warring with neighboring tribes, including the taking the scalps of even women and children as trophies.
If you want to see the "just like Hitler" calumny debunked, there is a decent job here ... as in biographies that are far from hagiographies.
The IMPORTANT thing to understand is how critical it is to modern "progressives" to destroy any great man of Western civilization. What they desire is to make "something new" that they promise will be "quite wonderful" ... just "tust them" -- oh, and be sure not to say anything they don't like lest they destroy you as well!
Hang on to your guns ... and your scalp!
No comments:
Post a Comment