Are you a fascist, a racist, or even a Nazi as leftists so often and carelessly brand people these days? There is a straightforward way to give a definite answer to these questions.
We start by identifying a man in history that epitomizes the opposite of a Nazi. Then we see how well that person would fare in a modern day leftist Nazi-test. If he would be branded as a Nazi, then we unquestionably know that there is something wrong with the standard by which the leftists judge other people. Let’s not be shy. Let’s choose Mr. “anti-Nazi” himself, former British Prime Minister and Nobel Prize winner of literature Sir Winston Churchill.
Churchill was an esteemed politician and intellectual long before he became prime minister of Britain in 1940. However, he had spent much of the 1930s in political isolation, being one of only a few voices who strongly warned against the rise of Adolf Hitler in Germany.
When it became abundantly clear to everyone that Churchill had been right about all his warnings, he was promptly elected to lead the nation in its war efforts against the Third Reich. Five years later, Britain emerged triumphantly, and Churchill could label himself as the most celebrated anti-Nazi ever to have walked the earth.
Was Churchill a communist? A member of Antifa? A progressive? A social justice warrior? No, he was a conservative. Or as some would possibly say, a classical liberal.
What about his views on, for instance, Islam? Unlike most people who have strong opinions on the subject, Churchill had actual combat experience as a young soldier in Sudan, and during his service, he had the opportunity to study Islamic societies and practices up close for a prolonged period.
Based on his experiences, he wrote the book “The River War: An Historical Account of the Reconquest of the Soudan” in 1899. Here are a few passages from the book.
“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.”
These are harsh words, and anyone who uttered them today would be deemed an Islamophobe and the words as hate speech. Churchill was, however, careful to point out that he was not criticizing individual Muslims, but the religion of war.
“Individual Muslims may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyzes 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.”
He ends this passage with something akin to a warning or prediction for future generations.
“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 civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.”
These are words spoken by one of the most esteemed and respected men of the twentieth century. It is also interesting to note that he on other occasions expressed great admiration for some Islamic cultures, which shows that Churchill was capable of distinguishing the good from the “retrograde” elements.
Churchill was neither a Nazi nor a racist, so maybe it is not he who was “far right,” but that the politically correct today is far left. Modern progressivism utterly fails the Churchill test.