CHURCHILLIANOS

Do the Anglophiles of Argentina's political and journalistic elite really know who Winston Churchill was?

 

By Sir Charlattam

It is trite to say that Argentina is a country of contrasts, but it is necessary to point this out once again in order to talk about a very peculiar ‘caste’ (a buzzword around here) that has a seat within the political-informational elite of the Autonomous City of Buenos Aires. The ‘Churchillians’ are the Argentinian sycophants of British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, who, when discussing political issues, continually name him as a supposed model of a politician and human being without equal.  One of these sycophants is President Javier Milei and his entourage.

Before I should make it clear that only some of them know who this character was and what his works were, the rest only repeat out of snobbery or rather their Anglophile character.

These specimens, who have a special residence among the CABA media and who share, in addition to their deep-rooted Anglophilia, a recalcitrant Zionism, do not miss any opportunity to say that such and such a politician or leader is a ‘Churchill’ as if it were an accolade. As I said, they are cynical or rather truly ignorant of who this guy really was. To such degrees is this ignorance that many (if not all) of them are convinced that everyone in the UK respects his works. Politically, the current PM Keir Starmer has always been a disciple of Churchill so he is well aware of what he can do to achieve his aims.

You don't even need to mess with his personal life (which would be a lot) to disarm the myth in his image.

The article Keith Knight, editor of Libertarian Institute that I was able to read on https://libertarianinstitute.org/articles/churchill-knight-2/  is a literary delicacy that summarises in a well documented and referenced article, the inhuman works of this alcoholic and cyclothymic pig that not by chance, we see reflected his dark thinking in guys like Henry Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Margaret Thatcher or more currently with Zelensky in Ukraine or Netanyahu in Israel. As reflected in each of his documented experiences, life (as a human right) and the universal value it has in itself, was only worth that of the British, the rest can go fuck themselves. Where are we seeing this way of thinking?

But the ignorant Argentinian ‘Churchillians’ when they try to be sarcastic or insult an ideological opponent use the word Nazi or fascist to try to discredit the opponent. The left uses the word ‘facho’, an acronym that synthesises a supposed sympathy with Hitler by associating him with the big bad of history. But both are whimsically and conveniently relegating the true dimension of evil, Do they know that the Third Reich was not the first to use poison gas to annihilate ‘undesirables’ as ‘uncivilised’?  Or, about his peculiar and well-documented thinking on how to inflict terror on populations for the benefit of empire?

Churchill was the one who encouraged the start of indiscriminate bombing of cities (Dresden was an example), even before the Germans did it, not only to kill as many Germans as possible but to strip them of their homes and destroy them psychologically. Doesn't that sound familiar in what Anthony Blair and David Cameron did in Iraq and Libya respectively or what is happening today in Palestine? He was also the political mastermind behind sinister plans such as poisoning animals and pastures in the German countryside by spraying ‘ANTRAX’ to infect food and create a massive and indiscriminate calamity in the German population, not to kill Hitler or his generals. Do these ‘Churchillians’ know anything about the so-called ‘Operation Vegetarian’ or the ‘island of death’, which was nothing more than a Scottish island where military scientists developed this stinking weapon?

Another of Churchill's exploits was to order the so-called ‘Operation Catapult’ executed in July 1940 by British aircraft, which consisted of treacherously bombing French ships anchored in Algeria, killing more than 1200 French sailors. A clear and ruthless example of a False Flag that anticipated even the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor a year later and was continued throughout history with the Gulf of Tonkin, the ‘US Liberty’ incident and 9/11 in 2001. 

Surely the ‘Churchillians’ will turn a deaf ear to this part of the story as it leaves them with no argument to support the narrative. They often forget that it was not Churchill who brought about the defeat of the Third Reich, but the USSR.

These ‘Churchillians’ who, invoking this personality, try to present themselves as civilised and democratic by deploying editorials full of strident words and, at the same time, hiding under the table the atrocities that contemporary Anglo-American politicians and their Atlanticist bootlickers have committed only twenty years ago and continue today by proxy in Eurasia, are the demonstration of these dark ages, of so-called intellectuals with little brains and no scruples, as if they were serial copies of the original model of politicians like Liz Truss, Boris Johnson or Rishi Sunak.

If true, Churchill has been an inspiration to contemporary political psychopaths who do not hesitate to use any method to achieve their ends. It was not just the mountain brute Joseph Stalin who like Hitler trampled the lives of millions of human beings underfoot. It is not a question of numbers as even many of these ignorant and others of these for the sake of expediency, still try to maintain in order to cover up the mass murders of guys like this.

It is true that Britain as a country, as a people, is a very different matter to certain individuals who are born into it and who, by the prominence they take at certain moments in history, make them prominent in their lights and shadows.

Winston Churchill was an ordinary man, perhaps more ordinary than any of us, who achieved a place in history by having walked the corridors of power in London from a very young age. As a politician there is nothing extraordinary about him, for the only difference with other butchers in history is only that he was on the side of those who won, but nothing more.