"Patriots are not revolutionaries trying to overthrow the government of the United States.
Patriots are Counter-Revolutionaries trying to prevent the government from overthrowing the Constitution."
The Coach’s Team (TCT) offers the best in conservative essays along with articles taken from various internet sites. The victory of Donald Trump has provided a God-sent opportunity to reverse the years of willful damage done our nation by Barack Hussein Obama.
Tuesday, April 3, 2018
Reminder: The Left Hates Our Civilization
The following article appeared in
Powerline on April 1st
I know I’ve made the point before,
but there is fresh evidence in recent weeks of how much the left today hates
western civilization and human excellence in general. Once again the left is
determined to flunk what I’ve long called “the Churchill test.”
Winston Churchill in 1899
Once upon a time leading
liberals loved Churchill. Think of Isaiah Berlin’s great 1949 Atlantic
Monthly essay, “Churchill
in 1940,” or how much Arthur Schlesinger loved him, not to mention the
total fanboy crush JFK had on Churchill. Remember, too, that in the 1950s some
leading American conservatives were not all that enthusiastic about Churchill;
William F. Buckley Jr. was downright hostile to him (though he changed his
mind), and Pat Buchanan still dislikes Churchill.
But in the aftermath of Darkest
Hour and the best actor Academy Award going to Gary Oldman, voices on the
left are at it again, calling Churchill a “war criminal” and mass murderer on
the same scale as Hitler or Stalin. A popular Indian politician, Shashi
Tharoor, wrote in the Washington Post that “In
Winston Churchill, Hollywood Rewards a Mass Murderer.” Apparently the Washington
Post has decided to reward morons.
Here’s the breathless conclusion of
Tharoor’s Post piece:
This week’s Oscar rewards yet another
hagiography of this odious man. To the Iraqis whom Churchill advocated gassing,
the Greek protesters on the streets of Athens who were mowed down on
Churchill’s orders in 1944, sundry Pashtuns and Irish, as well as to
Indians like myself, it will always be a mystery why a few bombastic speeches
have been enough to wash the bloodstains off Churchill’s racist hands.
Many of us will remember Churchill as
a war criminal and an enemy of decency and humanity, a blinkered imperialist
untroubled by the oppression of non-white peoples. Ultimately, his great
failure — his long darkest hour — was his constant effort to deny us freedom.
Gary Oldman as Churchill in Darkest Hour
Tharoor’s case depends on repeating a
number of undying myths about Churchill, or gross distortions of badly tangled
affairs. Soren Geiger does a terrific job of unwinding the more egregious claims
Tharoor makes in this
article in the American Spectator. But Tharoor has lots of company.
Shree Paradkar, the “race and gender columnist” of the Toronto Star . .
. actually I could pretty much just stop right here, couldn’t it? But no, you
need to take in some of her “Winston
Churchill, the barbaric monster with the blood of millions on his hands”
article to believe it. It includes gems such as:
Oldman might as well have danced on 3
million dead bodies, many of whose loved ones were too weak to cremate or bury
them. Such tributes for a heinous white supremacist who once declared
that “Aryan tribes were bound to triumph.” Words as hollow as the
tunnel-visioned ideals on which people fashion this man, but they can’t stem
the drip, drip of blood from his hands.
Churchill and W.W. II; V for Victory
Fortunately we have Terry Reardon of
Hilldale College’s Churchill Project on the job refuting
Paradkar’s paranoia point-by-point, but see also Richard
Langworth, who offers up a catalogue of fresh attacks on Churchill from
leftist ignoramuses. Richard notes at the end of this bibliography of nihilism:
Nearly forty years ago an equally
great Churchill performance, Robert Hardy in The
Wilderness Years, was received with equal acclaim by press
and public. There was no chorus of hate, no trumped-up charges, no hint that
Churchill’s overall record was in any way debatable. Alas times have changed.
As for the calumny of Churchill’s
supposed role in the Bengal famine of World War II, I wonder if any of
Churchill’s detractors have ever asked how many would have starved if Japan had
succeeded in conquering the Asian subcontinent, which is what surely would have
happened if any of them had been in charge?
Times have changed indeed. The left’s
fundamental self-loathing of the western inheritance, hostility to human
excellence, and childlike grasp of political reality has led to these
increasingly candid expressions, for which in a sense we should be grateful—at
least the left is being more honest.
Here once again we should repair to
the observation of British historian Sir Geoffrey Elton, who
wrote: “There are times when I incline to judge all historians by their
opinion of Winston Churchill: whether they can see that, no matter how much
better the details, often damaging, of man and career become known, he still
remains, quite simply, a great man.”
Ah—that “great man” thing:
contemporary leftist egalitarians cannot tolerate such distinctions among human