IRON CURTAINS, RHETORIC & REALITY
Dr. Eugene
Narrett, Ph.D
October 5, 2009
NewsWithViews.com
“The United Nations Organization must immediately be equipped with an international armed force… a force for action, a true Temple of Peace.”
“We are engaged in the process of creating a European unit in the world organization of the United Nations... one of several continental units, the pillars of the world instrument for maintaining security.” [1]
When the generations now worrying about “Social Security,” State – managed health ‘insurance,’ and dogmas like global warming or “a new world money, a contrived currency” to advance “a collectivist world order” were young, they read about the bold leadership and heartening rhetoric of Winston Churchill, elder Statesman of the Allied powers and champion of “the fraternal association of English-speaking peoples.”[2] A classic example of his tutelary prophetic status was his celebrated speech about Russia’s clamping an “iron curtain…upon Europe from Stettin on the Baltic to Trieste on the Adriatic.” Amid his soaring rhetoric, including poignant mention of “mass expulsions of millions of Germans on a scale grievous and undreamt” the immortal Churchill, as was his wont, presented a truth little discussed in mass media or mass-produced school texts.
The mass expulsions and extermination of European Jewry was a fact lord Churchill did not find noteworthy in this characteristic speech, perhaps because it was he, as Prime Minister who had enforced the ban on immigration of Jews to the Promised Land while the einsatzgruppen and crematoria were working in Europe.[3] Indeed, study shows that sabotage of the League of Nations in order to unify Europe under Germany the better to pressure America into alliance and even fusion with Britain was a primary British strategy from 1920 – 45 that then was continued with Russia as the bugbear.[4] All the more reason to take hegemony from Germany and give it to the bear and then give it back to a new Europe, “the greatest of continents…”
Lamenting that the Russians were at work building hegemony in eastern Germany, Lord Churchill mentioned that “at the end of the fighting last June [he meant May] the American and British armies withdrew westwards, in accordance to an earlier agreement, to a depth of 150 miles upon a front nearly four hundred miles [long] to allow our Russian allies to occupy this vast expanse of territory which [the soldiers of] the Western democracies had conquered.”[5] Why, if one did not want Germany and Europe divided, if one did not want what came to be known, in common knowledge, as ‘the Cold War’ did the ruling circles of Britain and America decide on this withdrawal and de facto creation of the very sphere of Russian Communist hegemony that the statesman decried?
Perhaps it was for the same reason that the army and winning strategy of General Patton was over-ridden and Patton, eventually, injured and killed.
Without the contrived dialectic of a cold war, one might not have a “world organization” to which, Churchill declaimed, Americans and the British owe their “over-riding loyalties.” Only by merging the resources, military, strategic and economic of America and the British Empire (along with that of the “south American republics, [sic]) could the “world organization achieve its full stature and strength.”
After all, we live “in a world struggling through federation to collective unity” and, given the strains of this process, “an ad hoc disarmament police [sic] with its main strength in the air would necessarily fall into close co-operation with other world police activities.” Such police work, for which “a sturdy and assertive variety of the new young will be needed” will be necessary for “world Federation leading to socialism.”[6] Churchill also asserted the pressing importance of “an international armed force” to serve “the United Nations Organization.” His idea had an uncanny similarity to that proposed by Wells almost seven years previously when WW II had barely begun.
The emphasis was on air power: “I propose,” Churchill said “that each of the Powers and States should delegate a certain number of air squadrons to the service of the world organization. These squadrons would be trained and prepared [paid for] in their own countries but would move around in rotation from one country to another.” Such a rotation would be the diplomatic-military-economic blender for a globalized world, and its enforcing arm (“courts and magistrates cannot function without sheriffs and police”). Churchill grandly assured his American audience, that for decades would pay most of the bills for this new world agency for “security and peace,” that this multi-national air force “would not be required [though they might be requested] to act against their own nation, but in other respects they would be directed by the world organization.”
That can be called a ‘slippery slope’ as well as cold comfort; in any case, once power is delegated, especially to an entrenched oligarchy, it is difficult for localities or individuals to reclaim. Indeed, a few lines later Churchill deflected attention from the danger in his proposal by decrying “police governments” and “the power of the State.” This balanced his instruction that UN forces “would wear the uniform of their own countries but with different badges.” Hence the international ‘police forces’ and rapid deployment forces with which we have become familiar and in which “the essential brotherhood of man is embodied,” he said, as we see it in NATO’s new mission of “humanitarian intervention” to secure “human rights,” the leitmotif of Churchill’s speech to “the Council of Europe” three years later which also called, inter alia, for a strong Germany as the heart of a united Europe. Europe itself was “the greatest of continents” whose “revival” was “the united sentiment of Europeanism” to be achieved “by the spirit that we establish our force,” a sentiment ripped from psalms 20 and made into mystic dogma by the core of Europe, the Roman church. [7]
Advertisement
In his celebrated speech, Churchill did more than lay the rhetorical grounds and cast a template for the headlines, politics, fear and taxes of the cold war decades, he admitted in his coyly brazen way how that dialectic was contrived. But the most striking aspect of the speech, a precursor for the hortatory style of the post modern era, the time of politics by shame and coercive utopianism, of the Nanny State, was the tutelary way he addressed Americans, after first indirectly praising himself (paragraphs 1-4), telling them what they must do to avoid another world disaster. His manner of address might be considered an opening salvo of verbiage in the war of terror Western leaders direct against their own populations, whom they ostensibly represent, the better to mobilize them for their next ‘responsibility,’ a “world organization” to establish “security and peace.”
“You must feel anxiety,” the lord pointedly told his hosts, “lest you fall below the level of achievement…at this solemn moment for American democracy.” Why solemn, why feel anxious and what did Americans need to prove to any foreigner in 1946? The Communist regime in Russia could have been destroyed and communism preempted in China but that was not what the prophet of cold war had in mind; indeed, he came to Westminster College to announce, via the royal ‘we’ that “we welcome Russia to her rightful place among the leading nations of the world. The thesis of his famous address was another test for Americans: “the continuance of the intimate relationship” to build the “world instrument supported by the whole strength of the English-speaking world and all its connections.” That is what Mr. Churchill came to “offer” or, rather, to coaxingly require, that and decades of the UN as an instrument for afflicting Americans with guilt so that they will pay to be scourged while establishing the fiction of a ‘world community’ that, he said, “requires a new unity in Europe from which no nation [i.e. Germany or Russia] should be permanently outcast.”[8] As noted, a united Europe, “the “greatest of continents” was the goal of his later speeches to the Council of Europe. The European Union and the “Quartet” are testaments to Lord Churchill’s pioneering role in selling the world state, assisted by the media, as an American duty.
The need of Americans to prove themselves was a comfortable stance for Churchill since many of his class considered Americans younger siblings in need of instruction, and whose might, wealth and good nature existed to be exploited by the initial colonizing power. The arrogance of the posture was the more striking since Americans, at enormous sacrifice of money and blood overseas, has achieved a striking victory over imperialism and tyranny, saving, the British once again and many other nations, except for the Jews, too. But we were told, “these are anxious and baffling times” and indeed, the cold war and “world organization” we were to establish was ushering in a world like that dramatized in Macbeth, “when the battle’s lost and won,” when “fair is foul and foul is fair,” when a smog of imagery, bad dreams and worse ambitions derange reality and the witch, fearfully and bizarrely is the grandfatherly tutor and heroic warrior statesman himself, come to prescribe our duties per the vision of his oligarchic peers…
And thus, “nothing is but what is not” and we inherit the blatant artifice, fog of images and illusion, and routine lies that distinguish and define postmodernism, the last stage of the West as it sinks into “the state that follows history,” the era of the media distraction machine.
Churchill was not often as blatant as Wells (“world-wide collectivization is the only alternative to the complete degeneration of our species”) but he often came close when pressing the ‘moral imperative’ of the world organization [9]. While his ideas resemble those of openly collectivist Wells and put them on the world agenda as only a statesman of his reputation could do, what is equally remarkable is the rhetoric by which he indicates that a world order is his goal while peppering his speeches with phrases like “not yet,” or “premature,” or “not at this stage,” distinctive features of his speech to the Council of Europe. Rather, “we must feel our way forward,” Churchill said, to “creating a European unit in the world organization.” It is a “process,” he said; at this stage “we could not possibly claim” or “possess executive power.” The clear message is that it will be claimed in future, that “a sense of unity” would lead to political unity and that, aptly quoting Napoleon a Constitution “short and obscure” would be put in place to effect the transition to a Europe that would define and discuss “the foundation of human rights…on the lines of the decisions of the United Nations and the European Court.”
It was perhaps for such equivocations that Pius XI, a truly anti-Nazi pope, after meeting with Neville Chamberlain and Edward Fox, Lord Halifax in January 1939 referred to them as “slugs” and “genuine maggots.” [10]
This is the court which now adjudicates the human rights of chimpanzees while extending its reach almost to “the Curzon line.” It all stems from the extermination of the Jews by the willing dependents of the British ruling oligarchy, the Berlin-Rome axis.[9] Just as the Popes and many German Emperors saw Mainz as “the Rome of the North” in similar fashion, led by the Chamberlain government, Britain gave European dominance to Germany and, via the honeyed-tongue of the supposed ‘anti-Chamberlain’ facilitated German plans to once again dominate Europe through economic agreements, the original Prussian model. “A united Europe cannot live without the help and strength of Germany. This has always been foreseen by the European Movement to whose exertions our presence here [in Strasbourg] is due,” Churchill affirmed. Much of this speech, a notable complement to his exhortations in Missouri was devoted to the restoration of a strong Germany to achieve “world peace and European security” as the “united sentiment of Europeanism.”
These two speeches delineate the growth and integration of NATO and the EU that we experience in our time. Add to this the integration of Russia’s and the EU’s economies with that of America and China’s one has a “socialist world collective” fronted “by the world instrument” of “the Temple of Peace” – the lie is complete. Global jihad, inflated and promoted by the great powers, has replaced Communism in the dialectic processing of a controlled world: ‘they made a desert and called it peace.”
|
Subscribe to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts! |
Reports a year ago had Tony Blair, convert to Rome and advocate of unity among the “Abrahamic faiths” through his “Faith Foundation,” angling to become President of the EU, assisted by Nicholas Sarkozy, a strong figure in the “war on terror” of France, an enthusiastic partner of German strength as Churchill and others have noted. A review of these two speeches by Winston Churchill shows that such developments are not spontaneous but the fruits of long-established policy, -- and these speeches reveal the global ambitions of that policy. From global warming to swine flu to government control of resources shifting to international bodies, to oligarchic personae (masks) we have been dragged into the realm of fictive identities and universal deceit.
“In this our age of infamy man’s choice is but to be a tyrant, traitor, prisoner, no other choice has he.” [11]
Footnotes:
1.
The quotes are from Winston Churchill, the first from paragraph 10
of his speech, “The Sinews of Peace,” March 05, 1946 delivered
at Westminster College, Fulton, Missouri, often termed the ‘iron
curtain’ speech; the second quote from “the Council of
Europe,” delivered at the Council in Strasbourg, August 17,
1949.
2.
H. G. Wells, The New World Order (NY, Knopf 1940; re-print,
Filiquarian 2007), 132, chapter 12, “World Order in Being”;
Churchill, “the Sinews of Peace” op. cit.
3.
David S. Wyman, The Abandonment of the Jews: America and the Holocaust
(NY 1984; 2nd edition 1998). For Churchill’s insistence on enforcing
the 1939 “White Paper” see Samuel Katz, Days of Fire
(1968), 60. Churchill’s policy was striking in its circumlocutions
and switchbacks (“I have always regarded it as a gross breach
of faith {with the Jews} committed by the Chamberlain government…I
am sure no member of the current War Cabinet would agree to positive
endorsement of it… but it runs till it is superseded.”
This is drawn from Churchill’s War Memoirs Volume IV,
849. Also remarkable is the fact that he affirmed the ban on Jewish
emigration to Israel to Lord Moyne, Colonial Secretary & a notorious
anti-Semite (“the Jews are a mixed breed. The Jews of Palestine
[sic] must leave and we will find a place for them in North Africa.”
See Israel Eldad, The First Tithe (1950; 2008 English translation),
180-3. “Moyne was not as slippery as Churchill… and did
not attempt covering his hate-filled intentions with wrappings of
‘support,” Eldad comments. “If Moyne had been more
‘Churchillian’ and less honest in his hate” the
Jewish war for independence would have found less support.
4.
C. Quigley, Tragedy & Hope (NY 1965), 251-656
5.
“Sinews of Peace,” op. cit.
6.
Wells op, cit. 136-7, 73, 79, chapters 12, “World Order in Being”
and chapter 7, “Federation.”
7.
“Sinews of Peace” op. cit. “Council of Europe”
August 17, 1949 calling for German restoration with the “enthusiastic”
support of France; for “humanitarian intervention” see
Tony Blair’s speech on the strategic principles and plans of
the new, post cold war NATO made in Washington, DC, April 1999.
8.
Wells op. cit. 79 & 62: “if we [the West] produce a better
collectivization…the Russian system will incorporate our improvements,
debunk Marx and Stalin and merge into the one world state.”
9.
Churchill, “the Council of Europe” op. cit. cf. John Cornwell,
Hitler’s Pope (Penguin 1999), passim and for the Church’s
definition of and plan for the Jews, in conjunction with the power
of the German Empire, see James Carroll, Constantine’s Sword
(Boston, Houghton Mifflin 1999).
10.
“del proprio larvarae,” Cornwell, supra. 203;
the British were trying to reassure the Pope about having the Munich
‘agreement’ the previous fall and their de facto gift
to Germany of Central & eastern Europe.
11.
Pushkin’s verses quoted by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Cancer
Ward (1964-7)
© 2009 Eugene Narrett - All Rights Reserved
