Churchill, English History, World War II, and Donald Trump

I have just been to see the new movie "Darkest Hour: about Churchill's situation on the eve of World War II. I believe the HBO movie "The Gathering Storm" is actually a depiction of those times that I like better.  In "The Gathering Storm," Albert Finney seems like a stronger leader, despite being plagued by the "black dog" of depression, in part due to his being an unpopular political outcast.  Gary Oldman, however, may more graphically depict Churchill's depression and struggles with advancing age.  He became Prime Minister in 1940, at the age of 65.   In any case I would like to think of him as pugnacious, and one of the movies brings out that one term of endearment for him was "Mr. Pug," and it shows him having a pug dog. 

In any case, he was a great man.  I think one of the essays that best captures his greatness was Isaiah Berlin's essay, "Mr. Churchill" in The Atlantic in September 1949.  My favorite line is, "[H]e saved the future by interpreting, the present in terms of a vision of the past."  Some  more extended quotes from the article, which is as much about Churchill as historian as politician, follow: 

Mr. Churchill's dominant category, the single, central, organizing principle of his moral and intellectual universe, is an historical imagination so strong, so comprehensive, as to encase the whole of the present and the whole of the future in a framework of a rich and multicolored past. Such an approach is dominated by a desire—and a capacity—to find fixed moral and intellectual bearings to give shape and character, color and direction and coherence, to the stream of events….

[I]t was Mr. Churchill's unique and unforgettable achievement that he created this necessary illusion within the framework of a free system without destroying or even twisting it; that he called forth spirits which did not stay to oppress and enslave the population after the hour of need had passed; that he saved the future by interpreting, the present in terms of a vision of the past which did not distort or inhibit the historical development of the British people by attempting to make them realize some impossible and unattainable splendor in the name of an imaginary tradition or of an infallible, supernatural leader. 

From <https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1949/09/mr-churchill/303546/>

Churchill was a man in touch with the grandeur and sweep of British history.  It gave him the confidence to stand up against Hitler.  But Churchill was a believer in the British Empire.  He believed that if England was left alone in Europe standing against Hitler, the Empire would come to its aid, and to his thinking this Empire still included the United States, if only in some honorary status.  He felt that he had to have, and would have, support from President Roosevelt and the United States. 

In World War II, the world was being unified as Hitler and Japan brought other nations under their military control.  Today the impulse seems to be in the opposite direction with centripetal forces breaking up existing political groups from the EU to the Middle East.  While many government and leaders call for acceptance of more diversity, populations are rebelling against it on racial, religious, and nationalistic grounds. 

People see Donald Trump as a leader of this resistance to greater diversity, but almost no one questions whether greater diversity is a social good.  They say the US is a nation of immigrants.  While the US has always accpeted immigrants, the number and type of immigrants has varied over the years.  Going back to Columbus and the Pilgrims taking land from the Indians hundreds of years ago is not meaningful except as history.  America had become a white country by the end of the 19th century, with a significant black minority and some Indians left on reservations.  According to Wikipedia, in 1900, the US was about 88% white, 12% black, and less than 1% Indian and other races.  There had been immigration during the 19th century, but it was almost entirely from white European countries.  That pattern changed during the 20th century.  By 2010 Hispanics made up nearly 20% of the US population, surpassing the black population, which remained steady at about 12%, while the white population fell to about 72%.    America is changing from being a northern European country speaking English to a Latino country speaking Spanish. 

What this means is that there is no shared history for a politician like Churchill to draw on.  With diversity, everyone has a different history, different morals and ideals drawn from different religions and cultures.  There are no common ties to draw the nation together.  The Civil War split the US over one issue; today the US is split over multiple issues with little common worldview to address them. 

If anything, the pundit talking heads on TV, radio and on op-ed pages characterize US history as evil, mainly because of slavery and lack of diversity. They imply that if America had been founded by blacks, Jews, and Hispanics it would be a much better country.  They are still afraid to say it outright, but the pundits and historians no longer respect the "founding fathers," Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, Adams, etc.  The play "Hamilton" has been a success because it praises Hamilton as an immigrant who was the son of a whore, the kind of man the new establishment likes.  Since he is a bastard and an immigrant, they forgive him for being white; it also helps that his role is played by a Hispanic.  The biography that Lin-Manuel Miranda based the play on was written by Ron Chernow, a Jew who may well have instinctive, ethnic prejudices against white men like the founding fathers. 

Into this mix we introduce Donald Trump.  Trump could hardly be more different from the refined, polite Virginia plantation owners who were part of the group, or the educated lawyers from New England, although Trump may have more similarities to the immigrant Hamilton than today's pundits would like to admit.  Trump sees himself in the mold of Andrew Jackson, who while not a founding father, was an early, important President who put the US on the path if followed for over a century.  While Trump avoided military service in Vietnam, he has shown himself brave in standing up to withering attacks, primarily from Jews working for CNN, NBC, the New York Times, and the Washington Post.  His election has highlighted fractures in American society, mainly between whites who used to be an unassailable majority, and growing minorities led by Jews, blacks and Hispanics.  There are a lot of non-Jewish whites who oppose Trump, with without the minorities, they would be a voice in the wilderness.  Although Trump rails against the media and "fake news," he does not identify it as Jewish, which it is in large part.  He obviously knows this from his years in TV, but he has thrived in Jewish environments -- first in Manhattan real estates, which is traditionally a Jewish fiefdom, then in TV also an industry dominated by Jews.   It looks like over the years he has beaten them at their own game and doesn't fear them.  The last bastion of defense against Trump by the liberals is the legal system, another profession dominated by Jews.  The court system has blocked many of Trump's proposals, mainly related to immigration, but it continues to grind in the background with the Mueller investigation.  Mueller is not Jewish, but his boss at the Department of Justice, Rod Rosenstein, is. 

Failure of Democrats to Defeat Worst Republican Ever

According to New York Magazine’s article on the “Fire and Fury” book by Michael Wolff, Trump and his campaign did not expect to win the 2016 election. It says:

Even though the numbers in a few key states had appeared to be changing to Trump’s advantage, neither Conway nor Trump himself nor his son-in-law, Jared Kushner — the effective head of the campaign — ­wavered in their certainty: Their unexpected adventure would soon be over. Not only would Trump not be president, almost everyone in the campaign agreed, he should probably not be. Conveniently, the former conviction meant nobody had to deal with the latter issue.

From <http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/01/michael-wolff-fire-and-fury-book-donald-trump.html>

The liberal media have been having a field day criticizing Trump for his poor campaign and rudderless administration, hyping the book, "Fire and Fury." The opposite inference from the discussion of this book is that the Democrats failed to defeat the worst candidate who ever ran for President. The book says that even Trump did not expect to win.

 How did the Democratic Party turn out to be such a gigantic failure, pulling defeat from the jaws of victory? At least part of the problem for Democrats was that they lost contact with a considerable portion of the United States population -- ordinary white people. The Democrats have become the party of minorities -- mainly Jews, blacks and Hispanics. This is probably the constituency of the future, but it was not for 2016.

 People ridiculed Trump for saying he would save coal mining jobs despite a failing industry, but the Democratic position was that coal miners should just go away and die. Meanwhile the Democrats promised and gave billions to blacks, Hispanics and other minorities. They clearly favored non-citizen DACA kids over unemployed American citizens in the rust belt; however, there were still enough white voters left so that the Democrats’ decision to spit in their faces lost the election.

 Since the election, the Democrats, led primarily by Jews such as Ben Cardin and Adam Schiff, have tried to nullify the election by claiming Russian meddling. As Congressional committees have failed to remove Trump, the Democrats have turned to special counsel Robert Mueller to find grounds for removing Trump. Mueller is under extreme pressure from his Democratic patrons to find some way to remove Trump, but he may have the integrity and character to stand up to them and do an honest investigation. Because of the political animosity surrounding the issue, whatever result he reaches will be subject to strong criticism from one or both sides.  But for now Trump is still President.

Jews on Sunday Morning Talk Shows

Once again Jews played a leading role on Sunday morning news talk shows.  On “Meet the Press,” Chuck Todd (Jewish), had as commentators David Brooks (Jewish), Danielle Pletka (Jewish),  Mark Leibovich (probably Jewish), and Joy Reid (non-Jewish black woman).  Todd’s main guest was Michael Wolff (Jewish), but he also interviewed Lindsey Graham (not Jewish).  It was mostly Jews, and they all viciously attacked President Trump, except for Sen. Graham.  Of course, Todd is just doing the bidding of his Jewish bosses, Comcast CEO Brian Roberts, and president of NBC News, Noah Oppenheim.  

Meanwhile, on his CNN program, “The Global Public Square” Fareed Zakaria had a panel discussing international affairs that was all Jewish -- Richard Haass, Jane Harmon, and Dan Senor.  Of course, Fareed himself is not Jewish; he is a Muslim from India.  This GPS panel was more moderate and informative than Todd’s MTP panel.  

Fox’s Sunday show with Chris Wallace was considerably less Jewish, including both the guests and the commentators.  CIA Director Pompeo staunchly defended Trump in the face of some pretty strong questioning by Wallace.  

On CNN’s “State of the Union” Jake Tapper’s interview with White House staffer Stephen Miller went off the rails despite the fact that both Tapper and Miller are Jewish.  Miller spent most of his time criticizing CNN;s anti-Trump bias and defending Trump rather than answering Tapper’s questions.  Miller was followed by Democratic Congressman Adam Schiff, also Jewish.  Schiff and Tapper pretty much agreed that Trump has mental problems as described in the new Wolff “Fire and Fury” book.  Schiff also criticized the FBI investigation of Hillary Clinton, while Tapper suggested the investigation might be legitimate.  As commentators, Tapper had David Axelrod (Jewish) and Mark McKinnon (probably not Jewish).  The larger panel Tapper had on later did not have any Jewish members.  

ABC’s “This Week” did not feature too many Jews, although ABC legal analyst Dan Abrams is presumably Jewish.  Interviewee Sen. Bernie Sanders is Jewish, but an ethnic Jew who usually does not side with establishment views like those of the Jews on the other shows.  

On CNN’s “Reliable Sources” Carl Bernstein (Jewish) was an outspoken critic of Trump and defender of the “Fire and Fury” book, particularly questioning Trump’s mental wellness.  The difference between the highly critical Bernstein and his former partner Woodward, who is much more moderate, is notable.  

It appears to me that the “Fire and Fury” book by an unprofessional Jewish tabloid author opens the door for more professional Jewish journalists to criticize Trump as mentally unfit to be President.  I don’t think it was planned, but it grows out of a widespread Jewish hatred and contempt for Trump. Because there are so many Jews in the media, the book serves as the seed that creates a racist snowball of criticism.