Posted on 08/27/2006 7:04:55 AM PDT by Marius3188
Editor's note: Seldom I disregard the editorial policy of dealing exclusively with issues of my country. The recent escalation of violence in the Middle East against Israel however merits our attention for the issue goes far beyond a dispute between the Islamofundamentalists of Hezbollah and Israel; it isn't about Israel's future and safety anymore, rather a 'holy war' between deranged people and freedom; between terror and the values and liberties the civilised and rational inhabitants of this world hold dear. Someone sent the following speech -originally published March 03, 2006, which I have decided to post for it couldn't have expressed my feelings on the subject better.
RALEIGH — Winston S. Churchill III maintains that Islamic fundamentalism is as destructive as the malevolent "isms" of the 20th century: Nazism, Communism and Facism. In a speech on Feb. 10 at the John Locke Foundation's anniversary dinner, the grandson of Winston Churchill urged the West to stay the course in the fight against extremist Islam.
Here is the text of his speech:
It is both an honor and a pleasure to be your guest here tonight and to have the privilege of addressing the John Locke Foundation. First and foremost, may I congratulate you for honouring the memory of John Locke, who was very much involved in the establishment of the Governments of the Carolinas and who, most important of all, was one of the great philosophers of the English-speaking world.
Locke’s message — the vital importance of resisting authoritarianism — is as relevant to the strife-torn times of the world in which we live, as it was in the strife-torn times of the 17th Century. Authoritarianism constantly rears its ugly head, even within our own societies on both sides of the Atlantic, in so many guises and disguises, and in every field, be it religion, government or the military.
At its most extreme, authoritarianism is exemplified by the isms of the 20th Century — Communism, Fascism and Nazism. The Fascists and Nazis were responsible for the deaths of more than 30 million human beings, while more than 50 million are estimated to have been murdered by Stalin and the Russian Communists, while Mao-Tse-Tung and the Chinese Communists are believed to have accounted for some 80 million.
But today a new challenge — another ism — confronts us, and that is the challenge of Islamic fundamentalism. Extremist Islam has declared war on the rest of the world, as evidenced by their ruthless attacks across the globe — overwhelmingly targeted at innocent civilians. Beside the outrage of 9/11, the bombings in Madrid, in Bali, in London and, most recently, in Jordan come to mind.
Those who have declared jihad against the West, and Western values, such as freedom of speech, are doing all in their power to mobilize against us the large Muslim communities living in our midst. In North America, there are an estimated six million Muslims in the USA, plus a further three-quarter million in Canada; while in the European Union, they number an estimated 20 million, including nearly 2 million in Britain. Unlike most other categories of migrant, the Muslims are reluctant to assimilate and, all too often, wish to pursue their own agenda.
Unbelievably, Washington is urging Europe to admit Turkey to the EU. Were that to happen, the Muslim population of Europe would skyrocket to 100 million — an act, in my view, of consummate folly. Already Judeo-Christian Europe is under siege from a tidal wave of Islamic immigration. The admission of Turkey would hasten its demise. While I have a great regard for the Turks, the only democracy in the Muslim world and stalwart members of NATO, I am firmly opposed to their admission to the EU. I would accord them most-favoured nation status, but not the right to settle in Western Europe and become EU citizens.
The scale of the problem confronting Europe today is epitomized by France, which has a Muslim community of some 6 million, or 10 percent of its population. But, if you take the population aged 20 and below, the figure rockets to 30 percent, such is the birthrate of the immigrant communities. In other words, within one further generation, France will be a Muslim country — a truly horrifying prospect.
At the same time it is vital that, in our pursuit of the men and women of terror — we do all we can, not to alienate these large Muslim communities already established among us. For, without the active support of the Muslim communities, we shall never excise this deadly cancer in our midst.
Intriguingly, the dangers of extremist Islam were foreseen by Winston Churchill all of 85 years ago, as I discovered to my amazement, while compiling my most recent book NEVER GIVE IN! The Best of Winston Churchill’s Speeches.
Churchill is, of course, well-known for his gift of prescience and, specifically, for being the first to warn of the menace of Hitler and Nazism as early as 1932, and of the Soviet threat in his famous Iron Curtain speech in 1946 in Fulton, Mo. But how many know that he also warned the world of the dangers of Islamic fundamentalism? I certainly did not!
On 14 June 1921, hard on the heels of the Cairo Conference, at which he had presided over the re-shaping of the Middle East, including the creation of modern day Iraq, he warned the House of Commons:
A large number of [Saudi Arabia’s King] Bin Saud’s followers belong to the Wahabi sect, a form of Mohammedanism which bears, roughly speaking, the same relationship to orthodox Islam as the most militant form of Calvinism would have borne to Rome in the fiercest times of [Europe’s] religious wars.
The Wahabis profess a life of exceeding austerity, and what they practice themselves they rigorously enforce on others. They hold it as an article of duty, as well as of faith, to kill all who do not share their opinions and to make slaves of their wives and children. Women have been put to death in Wahabi villages for simply appearing in the streets.
It is a penal offence to wear a silk garment. Men have been killed for smoking a cigarette and, as for the crime of alcohol, the most energetic supporter of the temperance cause in this country falls far behind them. Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account, and they have been, and still are, very dangerous to the holy cities of Mecca and Medina…
In Churchill’s day, of course, the viciousness and cruelty of the Wahabis was confined to the Saudi Arabia peninsula, and their atrocities were directed exclusively against their fellow Muslims, whom they held to be heretics for not adhering to the Wahabi creed — but not anymore.
Today the combination of the oil wealth of Saudi Arabia and the supine weakness of the Saudi royal family which — as the price for not having their own behavior subjected to scrutiny and public criticism by these austere, extremist clerics — has bank-rolled the Wahabi fundamentalist movement, and given these fanatical zealots a global reach to their vicious creed of hatred and extremism.
The consequence has been that the Wahabis have been able to export their exceptionally intolerant brand of Islamic fundamentalism from Mauritania and Morocco on Africa’s Atlantic shores, through more than two dozen countries including Bosnia, Chechnya, Afghanistan, Pakistan and the Middle East, to as far afield as the Philippines and East Timor in the Pacific. This is the stark challenge that today confronts the Western world and I fear it will be with us, not just for a matter of years, but perhaps even for generations.
Just in the past two weeks the temperature in the Middle East has risen markedly with three significant developments. First, we have seen the wild and furious reaction, whipped up by firebrand clerics throughout the Islamic world, to the publication some five months ago in a Danish newspaper of a cartoon depicting the prophet with a smoking bomb in his turban, as tattered suicide bombers were being greeted at the Muslim pearly gates by a gate-keeper shooing them away and shouting: “Get lost! We’ve run out of Virgins!” The fury that this mild piece of satire engendered, epitomizes the clash of civilizations that is the key factor confronting us today.
Secondly, the stunning election victory in the Palestinian elections of Hamas — a terrorist organization committed to the destruction of Israel — provided a rude shock to those in Washington who naively imagined that democracy would provide the answer to the problems of the Middle East. For many within the Beltway, free elections have been an article of faith, even though it was in a free election that Hitler first came to power, before establishing his Nazi dictatorship.
Such is the anger of the Moslem world against the West, inflamed by extremist clerics and fanned by the Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabia television networks, that truly democratic and free elections would result in the election of fundamentalist governments throughout the Muslim world. It is a frightening fact, that in 50 Muslim countries countless millions of Muslims tell pollsters that they regard Osama Bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri as more trustworthy than President Bush.
The third and by far the most serious development, is the decision of the Iranian government of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to remove the U.N. seals from its nuclear research facilities. He it is who not only denies the Holocaust ever happened, but who declares that Israel is a “tumor” that should be “wiped off the map”! Some Western analysts state that the Iranian president doesn’t really mean what he says. There were, of course, many who said just that of Hitler’s Mein Kampf, and we saw the result.
Having reported events — including two wars — in the Middle East over the past 45 years, I think I know the Israelis well enough to say that Israel is not about to wait to find out whether or not the Iranian president means what he says. In 1981 Israel took decisive steps to take out Saddam Hussein’s Osirak nuclear facility with a long-range air strike. I do not see how she can fail to do the same in the case of the even greater threat posed to Israel by a nuclear-armed Iran.
This time it will not be so easy, as the mullahs have dispersed their nuclear facilities across 16 sites and built them deep underground, making them far more difficult to attack. But with 500 ‘bunker-busting’ bombs from the U.S. and precision-guidance technology they will certainly make a mess of the place. The whole Muslim world will be enflamed with outrage and Iran’s reaction may well be to deploy 100,000 guerrilla fighters to Iraq to fight the Americans and British — not a happy thought.
But even before these developments, siren voices could already be heard on Capitol Hill, raising the cry: “Bring the Boys home.” I tell you: Nothing could be more disastrous than if, at this juncture, the United States were to cut and run. It would, at a stroke, undermine those forces of moderation we are seeking to establish in power, betray our troops as they fight a difficult, but necessary, battle, and break faith with those of our soldiers who have sacrificed their lives to establish a free Iraq.
Gravest of all, we should be handing a victory of gigantic proportions to our sworn enemies. Let no one imagine that by pulling out of Iraq, the threat will simply evaporate. On the contrary, it will redouble, it will come closer to home and our enemies will have established in Iraq the very base that, by our defeat of the Taliban, we have denied them in Afghanistan. We shall see a desperately weakened United States, with its armed forces undermined and demoralized, increasingly at the mercy of our terrorist enemies.
Precipitate withdrawal is the counsel of defeatism and cowardice, which, if it holds sway, will immeasurably increase the dangers that today confront, not just America, but the entire Western world. It is something for which we shall pay a terrible price in the years ahead. When great nations go to war — and they should do so only as a last resort — they must expect to suffer grievous losses and must commit to war with an unconquerable resolve to secure victory.
In Iraq the United States has lost some 2,200 men and women, Britain just over 100. Compare that to the first day of the Battle of the Somme — 1 July 1916 — when the British Army in a single day, nay, before breakfast, lost 55,000 men killed, wounded or missing in action. Did we talk of quitting?
What has happened to the mighty United States? Is it going soft? Are the elected representatives of the American people ready to surrender to those who threaten their homeland — indeed their civilian population — with death and destruction? I pray that they are not, and I call to mind the words of my grandfather, addressing the Canadian Parliament on New Year's Day 1941, in which — referring to the British nation dwelling around the globe, but it applies equally to our American cousins today — when he declared:
We are a tough and hardy people! We have not travelled across the centuries, across the oceans, across the mountains & across the prairies, because we're made of sugar candy!
In conclusion, I would remind you — and especially the legislators on Capitol Hill — of Winston Churchill’s words to the House of Commons on becoming prime minister in May 1940, which applies every bit as much to the situation that confronts us today.
You ask: What is our aim? I can answer in one word. It is victory. Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror. However long or hard the road may be; for without victory there is no survival.
Provided we have the courage to stay the course, I am convinced that we can, in the end, prevail. Any alternative is too terrible to contemplate. There are no quick, easy solutions; on the contrary it will be a long, hard slog. But more leadership is needed from on high and, above all, more guts and determination if we are to see this through to victory.
Let us fight the good fight — and let us fight it together! How pleased my grandfather would be to know that — 40 years on from his death — the Anglo-American alliance is still strong and that British and American soldiers stand shoulder-to-shoulder in Iraq and in Afghanistan, confronting the peril of the hour! Long may we stand together! God bless America!
Winston S. Churchill was the Greatest Man of the Twentieth Century - the Sentinel who stood fast, indomitable and resolute against the thousand years of darkness that threatened to envelop the world.
He was as vital to the survival of the West as was Abraham Lincoln to the survival of the United States, undivided.
It is good to see the apple does not fall far from the tree.
CGVet58
Yes, of course he's right. But the MSM, the Left, and the left half of the center isn't listening.
They are so concerned with bringing Bush down that they appear willing to see the US lose in the Middle East. Hard to believe but true.
Look for the Democrat controlled House to begin impeachment investigations in January.
But what this elusive victory could be? Elimination of all terrorists? Establishing pro-Western regimes in every Muslim country?
Or maybe revival of Christian religion, having enough children to maintain native Western populations, converting Muslims?
Bump
What is this elusive victory? I've been wondering the same thing a long time. A mere 50 years of relative peace followed WW II only after all-out war totally destroyed our enemies. It may require the same crushing, overwhelming defeat of this enemy to restore peace. But this enemy is dispersed among us world-wide and uses asymmetrical warfare, unlike the Japanese and Germans did in WW II. Where will it end? That is a very good question.
Bears repeating. A most excellent address.
I think victory, at this moment, has got to be instilling enough fear in Muslim populations that they do not dare attack. That is the only thing that has ever made Islam "peaceful" in the past: when it simply realized it was up against a more powerful force. Of course, then it just bided its time and built up its aggressive forces to attack again when it perceived that its enemy had grown weak or careless.
I think in the long run, the only way of eliminating Islam will be to destroy the black rock that is its cultic object. Islam is a cult, it is one that turns its devotees into the children of Hell, and like any cult, it can only be destroyed through the destruction of its head (or through the suicide of its people, which is how many cults eventually collapse). The "head" of Islam is a place that represents its founder's fevered dreams, and if the place is destroyed, all of Mohammed's heirs (remember, being a descendant of Mohammed is very important among Muslims) will be left in a sense without their main claim to cult leadership and will lose their power. To destroy Mecca would be to destroy the evil thing that holds millions in thrall, and to release them from their captivity.
War Against Islam (WAI) ping!
We wouldn't have to fight them if someone would invent a substitute for petroleum. Yeah, that's not as simple as inventing margarine or saccharin, but it sure would do the trick.
O.K. Winnie! Thanks for the tag line!
"Gregory Smith offers this Churchill comment on that great religion we are not fighting against, from The River War, first edition, Vol. II, pages 248 50 (London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1899)."
"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property‹either as a child, a wife, or a concubine‹must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen; all know how to die; but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science‹the science against which it had vainly struggled‹the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome."
http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=137
It is not so certain. Ancient Romans thought along these lines and destroyed the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem. Did it make the Jewish (and Christian) religion weaker? Has the previous destruction of the First Temple made Jewish religion weaker?
The strength of the West does not lie in the well armed legions, or in the secular democracy or in the material comfort and circuses. It lies in the power of the Gospel.
If I recall the book of Revelations correctly, it will end with one third of the world's population dead and the rest in misery. It is our job to make sure that most of that one third are Muslim.
So true then and now. Thanks for posting this.
IIRC, the prophets had foretold the destruction of the First Temple, and that it would be rebuilt. "Next year in Jerusalem" was more than a prayer, it was a promise.
Any learned Jew, please feel free to correct me if I am wrong.
Invade their nations, kill the leaders and convert the masses to Christianity.
Well, it's true that our defense lies in the power of the Gospel. However, from a practical point of view, many people who are going to be defending the West don't follow it, although they have inherited the semi-unspoken precepts of their faith through their daily experience of Western culture.
In terms of the Romans, their belief about the Temple resulted from the fact that they had a religion that was similar to Hinduism. They had a virtual caste system and a large array of place-specific gods, and they thought that the Jews were like them in that. The Temple was important to the Jews, but there was a big difference between the way they viewed the symbolic and "metaphysical" nature of a place and the way the Romans viewed a place as the specific dwelling place of the local god.
The thing with Islam is that it actually is place-specific and is much closer to pagan Roman belief, although with the elimination of the minor deities and the addition of an individual cult leader, Mohammed. You could destroy the Vatican and it would do nothing to Catholicism, except destroy many fine art works and make the administration a little rocky for awhile, but if the black rock were destroyed, Islam would cease to exist.
I once kind of met this grandson. I was in London years ago, and needed a tux for an event there. I went in to rent a tux and who should also be renting one but Winston III. I didn't speak to him but some time side-by-side with him. Of course, we were both a lot younger then.
So, where is Winston Churchill III? I saw no information referring to where he lives/ what he does/ if he is running for office/ if he is a professor? Anyone know??
This guy is NOT Winston Churchill III.
He is Churchill's grandson, but his name is different. He was on Rush's show a couple weeks ago.
Oh, thanks, I could have read it more carefully.
No, I think he IS WCIII. Opening paragraph says that.
Apart from the 'Christianity' bit, this is different to fundamentalist Islamic philosophy in what way?
Yeah, you guys are right. I Gooogled Winston Churchill III, and he's for real. The grandson who was on Rush's show d wasn't the same guy, and was giving a speech to the AEI or Heritage or someone, and I wrongly assumed this article to have an error in it. Guess not. Sorry. Anyone remember who the other guy was? Adam someone?
I was plagarizing satire of Ann Coulters
;-)
I have posted this idea before and it has received rather mixed reviews, but the only way to defeat an idea - and Islam is an idea - is to destroy each and every believer in that idea. Anything less merely sentences our progeny to re-fighting the same war in the next century.
I know, that tactic is best known by the name 'genocide' but try as I might, I cannot think of any other way to survive. So far, our "leaders" don't seem to have come up with any better idea either, instead giving away billions of our hard-earned dollars in an attempt buy security or repeatedly sending our young men and women to fight and die in vain efforts to establish democracy among peoples who not only don't want it but can't handle it.
I know genocide is a bad thing. But it'll be much worse when we are on the losing end of it and that's what radical Islam has in mind for us. If we are to survive at all we will have to suck it up and use their tactics against them.
For starters, after the problem is swept from the face of the earth, the remaining peoples will be able to live in peace and liberal democracies with all of our freedoms. If the Islamderthals win and liberal democracies are destroyed, all will be slaves. That is a fundmental difference.
(No more Olmert! No more Kadima! No more Oslo! )
You are on the money...unfortunately may well require the nuclear option....
Have you seen Kolokotronis' tag line? Nuke the Cube.
One of my co-workers advocated the same thing on 9/12/01 and continues to think it is a useful course of action.
But I imagine they might still make the hadj to the sea of glass that would be left behind and circle around it seven times and rub it to take away their sins.
Sort of like one's cat rubbing on the doorframe and leaving a blotch of cat-grease?
Sometimes I have the gloomy feeling that we are going to find ourselves in a situation where "nuking the cube" is our last resort - if it works it works; if it doesn't, well, we went out with our boots on. I honestly can't understand why something as pyschotic as Islam was inflicted on the world; weren't the regular plagues, wars and famines enough?
Yea? And I wonder what THIS moron has to say about THAT?
I vote for that.
I would agree that it is psychotic.
I would also describe it as a Counterfeit of Satan.
That is the source of its infliction on the world.
He is one of Them.
And use dirty bombs. The dirtiest - plutonium bombs made intentionally inefficient, with lots and lots of nasty, long-lived by-products, detonated at ground-level.
The land will be "cursed" for 10,000 years.
not so hard to believe at all; they're just following their playbook:
1973 - American military intervention in Vietnam ends with promise to South Vietnam that air support and military materiel would be available if the north attacked again.
Nixon - watergate - impeachment - Church hearings hampering CIA (where FISA comes from) - dhimmi-controlled Congress passes War Powers Resolution limiting executive to 90 days before requiring congressional approval of fighting.
1975 - North invades with 20 divisions (!) - Ford goes to dhimmi-controlled Congress asking to honor commitments to SVN - that Congress reneges on our promise to support our ally ...
Vietnam falls... the khmer rouge... Cambodia... the killing fields... over 3 million dead as a direct result of the left's treason... and a stain all we Americans must bear on our honor
And they would intend to do this again if we let them...
CGVet58
This is true on several levels. Of course, truth is usually true on several levels.
The lame stream news media finally reported Mr. Churchill's comments, ONE MONTH after they were first discussed on Free Republic. Amazing.
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.