Churchill on Mohammedanism

Winston Churchill (1874 – 1965) was no saint. The English should thank god for that. He was a patriot.

He served in the British army and was a writer before he entered politics and eventually became the prime minister of Britain in 1940. He was instrumental in the victory of the Allied Powers (UK, US and USSR) over the Axis Powers (Germany, Italy and Japan) in World War II. He suffered electoral defeat in 1945 but was re-elected prime minister in 1951.

All in all, a remarkable man. He hated Indians, particularly Hindus, with a white-hot passion. Not an uncommon affliction among the colonial rulers of India, past and present. He despised MK Gandhi and called him a “half-naked fakir” — in my opinion, a description that is more accurate than Churchill intended or realized. I suspect stooges however useful cannot possibly earn the respect of those they serve.

Hatred of Hindus is a common affliction among colonial rulers of India, past and present.

Like most great men, Churchill was good for his tribe but was pitilessly ruthless toward those he considered inferior. He was primarily responsible for the estimated three million deaths in the Bengal Famine of 1943. He should accurately be counted among the great mass-murderers of history, in the same class as Hitler, Stalin, Mao, King Leopold of Belgium, Pol Pot, Yahya Khan (the Pakistani general who butchered around 2 million, mostly Hindus in East Pakistan in 1971), etc. But since the victors write the history, Churchill is rarely characterized as a genocidal maniac that he arguably was (aside from being an accomplished writer, leader, etc.)

He lived in an age that epitomized political-incorrectness — the polar opposite of our present world. He said it like he saw it: a rare quality that only one major political leader in the modern world exhibits. I am referring to POTUS Donald J Trump. (Go, Trump!)

I wonder how he would have responded to the incessant global Islamic terrorism. My guess is that he would have probably insisted that Islam’s adherents be bombed back to the 7th C. He would have properly responded to Islam’s butchery with a greater butchery. But the age of British savagery is over, not because they have become more civilized but because their power has declined dramatically. The US has taken on the task of being the power behind global savagery.

Anyway, here’s what Churchill wrote about Islam (which was more accurately called Mohammedanism in the past by non-Muslims) in his book The River War (1899), an account of the British involvement in Sudan.

“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. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the faith: 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.” {Emphasis added.}

What Churchill said about Islam then no British prime minister, or German Chancellor, or US President dare say now. (I don’t even need to mention Indian prime ministers and chief ministers — they are spineless 2-bit dhimmis who habitually drop their pants and bend over for their Islamic overlords.)

Churchill was a vile savage but he would probably have been the right leader to fight the Islamic savages of the modern world.

Author: Atanu Dey

Economist. View all posts by Atanu Dey