New in PJ Media:
Finally, one of the West’s most maligned heroes has gotten the defense he so richly deserves.
A man who calls himself Olax Outis (“Foul-Smelling Nobody”; his real name is Caspar San Giorgi) was acquitted last Monday in a London court for defacing a statue of Winston Churchill. Outis adorned the statue with the proclamation that Churchill was a “Zionist War Criminal,” and added the obligatory “Stop the Genocide” and “Free Palestine,” but he argued in court that since he had used water-soluble paint, no real harm was done, and the court evidently agreed.
The court appeared indifferent to the need to defend Churchill’s reputation, which has come under fire from many people other than Olax Outis, as Britain continues its descent into madness. Now, however, a man who differs markedly from British authorities in that he genuinely loves Western civilization, and reveres Churchill as one of its foremost defenders, has given us an invaluable defense of Churchill himself, in the form of a book-length rebuke to ignorant leftist savages such as Olax Outis and others who revile the man who rallied Britain in its darkest hour.
In Churchill’s Secular Creed: Empire, Zionism, and Islam’s Complicity in the Holocaust, Ibn Warraq presents a comprehensive case for Churchill, providing a wealth of ammunition for those unfortunate enough to have to contend with the Olax Outises of the world. As the Outises are largely in charge today of the government bureaucracy, educational system, and entertainment apparatus, like a gang of hyenas overtaking the zoo, this is an important service, and it is striking in itself that Ibn Warraq is the one who has provided it.
That is because, like Churchill, Ibn Warraq is one of the heroes of Western civilization. Born in colonial India and raised as a Muslim, Ibn Warraq would have raised no eyebrows if he had become another Mahmood Mamdani (the father of the current mayor of New York City): a Marxist darling of the intelligentsia, railing against the alleged evils of the United States, colonialism, “white supremacy” and all the rest from his cosseted position as a professor at Columbia University.
Instead, Ibn Warraq chose a markedly different route. Instead of taking the easy path of parroting the politics of resentment that would have brought him wealth and adulation, he freed himself from the mind-forged manacles of Islam and embraced the greatness of Western civilization. His 1995 book Why I Am Not a Muslim was a pioneering and courageous work, published at a time when virtually no one in the West was aware that Islam wasn’t a religion like any other.
There is more. Read the rest here.
J Allan says
You REALLY need to concern yourself with YOUR country, MISTER Spencer!
Let US concern ourselves with OURS!
crown says
“ Let US concern ourselves with OURS!” I assume you are British?
Two comments:
1 – If you are concerned about your country, you sure aren’t doing a very good job of it. From what I’ve seen and read, your country is circling the toilet.
2 – The fact that your country is circling the toilet is, I think, precisely why Robert finds it necessary to mention it. Britain is unfortunately a very good example of the direction where the United States should NOT be heading. As such, it merits frequent mention on this site.
ploome says
he is probably muslim, and wants the infidel to ignore the obvious
ploome says
it is obvious that your “concern”, and the direction Britain is following, is creating a danger for the Judeo Christian civilization, MY world.
As Britain becomes Islamized, she becomes a danger to US.
I an puzzled by your position, unless this islamization conforms to your jihad.
࿗Infidel࿘ says
Here, Mr Spencer was praising your country, or at least one of its greatest leaders. You are beyond daft: I wonder if you even can recognize it!
James Lincoln says
J Allan,
You have accidentally landed on an anti-jihad website.
Huh!?! says
“…as Britain continues it’s descent into madness…” This author should be the UK’s new Winston Churchill. He is taking a great risk with the books he writes. I pray the UK will read and learn. Same for the West. Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition. Vote! Vote! Vote!
࿗Infidel࿘ says
If Warraq wants to defend Churchill, he’ll have to cover the latest cause célèbre of Leftists – the Bengal famine of the 1940s. At that time, Churchill was swamped w/ the war, which makes it a good argument for why Britain should not have had its colonies in Asia or Africa. However, since Britain did control the subcontinent, there are even Right-leaning people who hold them morally responsible. So Warraq would have to explain why this famine wasn’t Churchill’s fault
ploome says
he British Raj was the period of rule of the British Crown on the Indian subcontinent, lasting from 1858 to 1947.
The Bengal Famine was a disaster waiting to happen.with or without the British
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943#Pre-famine_shocks_and_distress
The 1921 census of British India shows 69 million Muslims and 217 million Hindus out of a total population of 316 million.
The population of the territory that became the British Raj was 100 million by 1600 and remained nearly stationary until the 19th century. The population of the Raj reached 255 million according to the first census taken in 1881 of India
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Raj#Demography
The population explosion under the British, better heath care etc…and the almost million refugees from Burma…and the stagnant state of their agrarian sector….etc….
India was mess
“During the British Raj, India experienced a large number of major famines, including the Great Famine of 1876–1878, in which 6.1 million to 10.39 million Indians perished[204] and the Indian famine of 1899–1900, in which 1.25 to 10 million Indians perished.[205] The first cholera pandemic began in Bengal, then spread across India by 1820. Ten thousand British troops and countless Indians died during this pandemic.[citation needed] Estimated deaths in India between 1817 and 1860 exceeded 15 million. Another 23 million died between 1865 and 1917.[206] The Third plague pandemic, which started in China in the middle of the 19th century, eventually spread to all inhabited continents and killed 10 million Indians in India alone.[207] Waldemar Haffkine, who mainly worked in India, became the first microbiologist to develop and deploy vaccines against cholera and bubonic plague. In 1925, the Plague Laboratory in Bombay was renamed the Haffkine Institute. Fevers ranked as one of the leading causes of death in India in the 19th century.[208] Britain’s Sir Ronald Ross, working in the Presidency General Hospital in Calcutta, finally proved in 1898 that mosquitoes transmit malaria, while on assignment in the Deccan at Secunderabad, where the Centre for Tropical and Communicable Diseases is now named in his honour.[209]”
࿗Infidel࿘ says
Ploome
There have been multiple accounts about what was going on there at the time. India had famines under both the Brits and the Turks before them, due to endless wars throughout the subcontinent. But this one in the 1940s was used specifically to ding Churchill. It would be a different argument if one was arguing that these famines happened under the Brits who had no business being there: that country should have gone to the Marathas and Sikhs once the Mughal empire was all but destroyed
One of the explanations I have seen was that there were disruptions to the sea route from Madras to Calcutta, which made it logistically impossible for the Brits, while they were in a war. During that time, Churchill was busy in the battle of Britain, so while one could hold him “morally” responsible for any shortcomings in addressing this famine, there was no way he could be expected to be more attentive towards Bengal than London (again underlying why the Brits had no business running the place, which was to end that very decade)
In short, any attacks on Churchill should be deflected to being a general attack on Britain for colonialism, particularly since they tended to be the islam-empowering colonialism. In India, for instance, when the Brits entered, the Marathas had conquered much of India and were on the ascendancy, until the East India Company decided to morph from a commercial enterprise into an Empire in its own right
ploome says
What do you think India would look like today, had she not been colonized by Britain?
࿗Infidel࿘ says
Somewhat like Nepal, which was never colonized by the British. But more stable & prosperous, w/o the 50+ years of socialist rule
ploome says
BTW,
have you read “Paul Scott’s Raj Quartet “?
excellent read
it was also an excellent British television serial about the final days of the British Raj in India during and after World War II.
TJ Jackson says
Pathetic. The kind of nonsense that only the Left can come up with given the small matter of a worlod war.