Loading summary
Transcript3 lines
- [00:00]
A
It's funny, I keep having plans and then the world keeps derailing me. I was part of my way through writing the two part Jewish civilization video and I've already done the research for the Mesoamerican and Ancient Egyptian civilization videos. But much like what the F is the left doing, the events of the outside world keep intervening in a way that I feel compelled to make more current events videos as a sort of public service to the audience. This video was pushed by the recent Joe Rogan podcast with Daryl Cooper. As a professional historian in that studying history is what I do full time to pay my bills, and I read about 20,000 pages on history or the social sciences on a yearly basis, I felt it as a sort of moral duty to talk about this topic, to try to share what the evidence that I've seen says. There's been this whole thought meme spreading across rightist circles that Winston Churchill was the villain of World War II, that Winston Churchill caused millions of deaths due to not signing a peace treaty with Hitler in 19 that Churchill was the main driving variable of the war and contrary to the decades old Anglo Saxon tradition which sees him as a hero let's unpack whether or not this is correct.
- [01:30]
B
What does the future hold for business? Ask nine experts and you'll get 10 answers. It's a bull market. It's a bear market. Rates will rise or fall. Can someone invent a crystal ball? Until then, over 42,000 businesses have future proofed their business with NetSuite by Oracle, the number one Cloud ERP bringing accounting, financial management, inventory and HR into one fluid platform with one unified business management suite. There's one source of truth giving you the visibility and control you need to make quick decisions. With real time insights and forecasting, you're peering into the future with actionable data. When you're closing the books in days, not weeks, you're spending less time looking backwards and more time on what's next. If I had needed this product, it's what I'd use. Whether your company is earning millions or even hundreds of millions, NetSuite helps you respond to your immediate challenges and seize your biggest opportunities. Speaking of opportunity, download the CFO's Guide to AI and Machine Learning for free at netsuite.com102. The guide is free to you at netsuite.com102netsuite.com102.
- [02:36]
A
It often feels like the Internet gives nothing but frustration and argument, taking your time and energy while offering you nothing. Thankfully, the online world does have something to offer you in the form of YouGov, a leading Internet based market research company. Trusted globally. YouGov conducts polls on a variety of different topics with ranging from politics to pop culture. And the best part? You get paid for each poll. I really enjoy YouGov because they have polls on things that are relevant and interesting, things I actually care about and want to give my opinion on. It's a great way to fill time while I cook or have the TV on. I can take a few polls and earn a few points that I redeem for Amazon vouchers and cash for coffee. Joining YouGov is completely free and the polls are easy and interesting. As a member you'll earn points for giving your actual opinion on topics that matter. So why not turn your opinions into rewards? Click the link below, Sign up for YouGov today and start earning why Reading Books Is Important One of the things that really shocks me with discourse today is it seems like no one reads books anymore. This is one of the things I've spoken about in previous videos in which, having met dozens of kids who went to the Ivy Leagues in their early 20s and I'm gen Z, I'm in complete shock that almost no one reads today. This is true of, as I said before, the Ivy League class of people as well as the political pundit class for both the right and the left. I even see it with professors. The problem with this is that the Internet is actually really bad at learning. I try to almost completely avoid the Internet now, since it's like a closed fetid pond in which the same water is stuck together in a pool. Whenever I go online, I find it's always the same opinions, information, and the like stuck in the same algorithms. There's almost no contact or intermixing between these different algorithmic vortexes, which means that when I periodically check in on the leftist Internets for research purposes, I'm completely horrified at the things they believe. Reading teaches a certain caliber of knowledge that you can't find online, which is why I read about 70 books a year. Books offer a deep contextual textual frame of knowledge, which the Internet lacks. The Internet operates under hot takes, removing wisdom and turns all of us into children. It's frankly disgusting to watch. This means almost no one has even a basic context at the history of the war, and as an example, these are my favorite histories of World War II. John Keegan is probably the best military historian alive today, so everything he writes is good. Little Hart is good, but he also has too many axes to grind about North Africa The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich is too long and it needs an editor. Bloodlands is excellent, but only focuses on the Eastern front and the social side of it. JFC Fuller's three volume history of Western warfare is also excellent, with the third volume mostly being about World War II. Childers also has a wonderful great courses series on World War II as well. When I'm talking about reading World War II history books to understand the context, I don't mean books that are written to argue clear claims or from compiling or cherry picking evidence together, such as why the Helodomor actually only killed 2.3 million people by Commie McTankey or why America at D Day was the Chatteliest country ever by Patriot McAdams. Rather, general history books which exist to explain the entire narrative of World War II or theaters of World War II through the context of trying to understand why each side made certain decisions or how the war fits together. Because you need the latter book, because only through that will any of the details make sense. When I look at the discourse today, the people who do talk about World War II the most are propagandists. When I see people talk about this war, I see enormous gaps of knowledge which are just embarrassing. Literally reading a single major history of World War II would disprove a lot of the theories. Now the thing that I see is that people are looking for certain narratives. They isolate variables with no understanding of the underlying context and they try to rip it apart. And the most embarrassing part of it is the lack of the understanding of how these different variables fit into the broader equation. You have my word of honor that I'm not going to do that, and that this is the most accurate narrative of the war that I can write for you. This is a video which mostly exists to provide context when you want to l without directly falsifying stats, you instead choose to tell a story with certain details and without others. Marxists are the most guilty of this in that Marxist histories are normally so deceptive that it's often not even worthwhile to read them. I've read histories written by liberals, Christians, Muslims, fascists, anarchists, libertarians, rightists and other groups, while in general the only group where you can't take it and leave it with their biases are Marxists, since their lies pervade every layer of their mental narrative. For the other authors you can say I can see their biases here, but then this thing seems honest. Marxists do the most work to establish a highly advanced grammar of deception. If you're interested Read the text. While here, people like to say that the victors write history and thus the field of history itself is not trustworthy. This is true up to a certain point. Hell, I've spoken a lot about how the managerial class has rewritten history recently to fit their propaganda. However, using this to just throw away any history writing, especially so in the 20th century, a century which is absurdly well recorded is just ridiculous. Let me frame it this for every major war of the last 1,000 years in the Western world, we have narratives and histories of the war written from both sides. We have English and French narratives on the seven or Hundred Years War, we have narratives from both sides of the Civil War, and in fact the Southern narrative in that war was the dominant one for about a century. For World War II, the Nazi narrative isn't some hidden conceit that's just been discovered. The 20th century is absurdly well recorded. We have multiple books on Hitler's private correspondences and dinner conversations. Many of his generals wrote autobiographies which have been out for decades. The Nazis had loads of movies, propaganda, battle plans and stuff to argue their point of view. My father is a classical liberal style conservative and is an expert on Marxist political theory, Having read over 200 books in the topic. This was all stuff he was reading in the 1970s. This was a less cucked society on this sort of topic. So all of this stuff was out in the open. You could buy it at bookstores. The complete foaming at the mouth leftist hatred of the Nazis was relatively recent. In other words, we have literal quotes from the mouths of the Nazis as well as records of the trains, military formations, supplies, propaganda, communications and anything else you could ever ask for of every major power in World War II. It's hard to overestimate how well recorded the 20th century is. It's impossible to hide anything for this long, as we can see with how the Western Marxists who tried to cover up the horrifying atrocities Mao and Stalin committed. But then decades later, the evidence came out like a flood that the communist atrocities were worse than anyone imagined. When you're looking at people obfuscating 20th century history, it's mostly due to removing context rather than just lying about facts. People will say that the czarist government that came before the communists was innately primitive and innate, innately impoverishing and people were starving, while the reality is the exact opposite. The czarist government was having mass industrialization and wealth growth. Or people try to cover up communist atrocities, or they try to make the Kaiser a worse player than he was. So this does happen, but because the 20th century is so well recorded, it's pretty easy to fact check it, and it's nigh impossible to lie about entire historic events. So the funny thing here is that lots of the Nazi apologists don't even make the argument that the Nazis did. And it's frankly hilarious to watch that all of the information is here and they choose not to use it. Part 2 the Nazis it's funny hearing people today talk about the Nazis, because for all of their faults, the Nazis were not apologetic. They literally said on an incredibly frequent basis that the main role of the Nazi party was the genocide and enslavement of the Eastern European Slavs, whom they saw as subhuman. Hitler constantly said this at the time. It's writ all over Mein Kampf, part of the public Nazi state statements, and completely intermeshed with their narrative of the world. I'm going to make a video soon explaining the social structure of Nazi Germany from using my civilizational analyses, and I'm going to talk more so about that later. The Nazis were racist in a way that's so unapologetic that even modern racists would balk at it. The Nazis openly rejected Christian values which believed in the value of the human soul. When they invaded Eastern Europe with Operation Barbarossa, they openly told their soldiers that they encouraged to cause horrifying atrocities against the local Slavs rather than hold back. The legal charge for Nazi soldiers raping Slavic girls wasn't r pe, since they didn't see the Slavs as human. Rather, miscegenation or race mixing was the illegal part of it. If you look at the Nazi educational system, they openly divided the world into different races. Some, like the Aryan Germans, were born to rule, and others, like the Slavs or blacks, were born to be slaves. The Nazis purposely removed educational standards among the conquered Slavs, aiming to keep them perpetually illiterate. The Nazis had one of the largest slave states ever in history, conscripting tens of millions of Slavs. The Nazis openly called Jews, Slavs and a majority of the world's population subhuman who didn't deserve rights of any kind. The Nazis had a plan called the Hunger Plan, in which in the drive for Lebensraum, or living space for Germans in Eastern Europe, they would need to genocide about 100 million Slavs. They implemented the Hunger Plan as they conquered East Eastern Europe, purposely starving the local population. And this is partly why almost all of the deaths in the European theater of the war occurred in the east, where over 30 out of the 40 million deaths occurred, one fifth of Poland's population had died by the end of the war. Hitler openly planned to completely level the major cities of Russia, butchering the entire population of Moscow, turning it into a lake, returning Leningrad to a swampland and giving it to the Finns alongside genocide in Kiev, turning it into the new hub of the German German colony of Ostland. This is all stuff the Nazis were really proud of in their moral code. It wasn't wrong since it was darwinistic common sense that the strong should consume the weak and use them to improve themselves. The Nazis had already designed the imperial structure of the coming German empire in which the Slavs would not survive. West of the Ural Mountains and the Volga river would become a new German Mississippi. This is all stuff that's so completely obvious and no honest historian would disagree with death. The Germans were intensely resentful that other peoples, whether the Russians or the Anglo Saxons or the French, were able to form these large colonial empires where they could form these enormous diasporas that they could draw power from. And Hitler's goal was to turn Eastern Europe into the German equivalent for what North America was to the Anglos. The Nazis had literal pre established death squads called Einsatzgruppen, who existed to scout out those with lower quality blood in their worldview and then murder them on the spot. This included Slavs, Jews, gays, Gypsies, Communists or labor organizers. The Nazis constructed literal industrial death camps which we have photographic proof for, train records of their supplies, their literal construction, confessions. The Nazis were doing them, explanations for why they did it and more. I challenge any Nazi apologist to go to any Eastern European country and say the Nazis weren't genocidal. You'll get into a fight with people whose grandparents were killed by the Nazis. I literally know about a dozen people who had their family members killed by the Nazis. Back in Europe. The Nazis openly rejected Christian morality, which they saw as making men weak. They saw the Christian belief in the soul as a blockage to their genocidal plans. The Christian church in Germany, and especially the Catholic Church, which Hitler saw as a great rival because it did resist him up to a certain point, was muzzled. Hitler openly viewed Christianity as one of his greatest enemies. Read this text wall for more context if you're interested. Hitler was also economically social, which he stopped entrepreneurs from making companies created corporate monopolies with the state, shut down free speech. He made striking for higher wages illegal and kept Germany's wages artificially low. He forced all young people to spend their free time in youth groups which had the goal of indoctrinating them. The point I'm trying to convey here is that for normal Western conservatives who believe in stuff like freedom, God, capitalism or the Western tradition, the Nazis are our enemies on literally everything that we believe in. Hitler opened openly said that the classical liberal were the great ideological enemy to Nazi Germany and that on an ideological basis they were closer to communists in that National Socialism was the correct new form of socialism. I see so many people on the right simp for the Nazis and I chuckle at how naive they are given this was a society and state openly built to exclude them. I'm shocked almost no one on the right who's against Churchill talks about this. Given reading a single book on World War II would teach teach it. I see so many rightists hand wave the German conquest of Europe as unimportant. Churchill could have just made peace with the Nazis who were reasonable players. The unpleasant reality which people, including Churchill knew at the time was that allowing the Germans to take the European continent would be reconciling about half of the continent to probably the worst atrocity in human history. Even if Hitler never invaded Russia, there still would have been a lot of genocide in Poland, a rich, beautiful Catholic country going back a millennia furtherm war. Poland was a strong British ally, which meant that they would be reconciling their honor bound alliance to national extinction. Secondly, Hitler's entire plan was the genocide of Eastern Europe. This was literally the only thing that he really cared about. He purposely de emphasized the Battle of Britain, Dunkirk and the North Africa theater in order to put 80% of his forces into taking Russia. The reason Hitler pulled back from the bombing raids on Britain while he was about a week from winning air superiority was that he needed to move said air forces against the coming invasion of Russia. As a reminder, World War II in Europe was almost exclusively caused by Hitler. When you're looking at World War I, it's a significantly more complex war where it's difficult to disentangle the different variables. But World War II is more simple. You can see that the British and French bent over backwards to stop war with Germany through the appeasement that occurred at Munich after the seizure of Czechoslovakia. Hitler was pretty open about the desire to start a war with Poland, which he saw as one of the biggest parts of Leben's realm. And again, keep in mind in the Nazi worldview, war is innately good. Hitler wanted a permanent war in the Urals against the future Slav remnant state that he would keep so that the Nazis would have to fight it for centuries in order to maintain their virility. Hitler chose to start World War II and the British were very reluctant to fight. With the start of the war being seen as a tragedy in the western countries, what effectively happened here is that Hitler needed to conquer Poland for Lebensraum. Britain and France were allies of Poland and thus they stuck out they're necks to help Poland and that's what started the war. I frankly find it disgusting that the Nazi apologists don't actually follow the Nazi line of argument. You can't call a nation which openly glorifies expansionist war as the highest good a victim. You can't say genocide is bad when the Nazis didn't think that. When asked about justifying the Holocaust, he said no one talks about the Armenians anymore, showing that he thought there was nothing wrong with the earlier genocide which occurred in Turkey 20 years earlier, involving the mass murder and export of their Greek and Armenian minorities. I find it hilarious that the defenders of Nazism are actually saying that the liberal value system is innately superior by trying to prove that the Nazis fit into a liberal moral code by not committing genocide. If they were honest, they'd say that in the Nazi moral code genocide is acceptable. But they won't do that since they're cowards. Daryl Cooper has said that Churchill is a monster for the atrocities he committed in World War II, which is absolutely insane given numerically, Britain killed almost no people. As a source from Matthew White, who's bipartisan and the most respected author on atrocity stats, is that In World War II the total death toll was around 65 million and 40 million of which occurred in Europe. 20 million occurred in Asia and over 30 million occurred in the Eastern Front between the Nazis and the Soviets. The Western front killed about 5 million total. The British only killed or 2 million people at most, which makes Britain one of the most humane factions in the war by far. He also says Britain started civilian bombings, but let's keep in mind the Germans were doing mass bombings of civilian centers in Britain beforehand with the Battle of Britain. Keep in mind the Nazis themselves did not see atrocities as morally wrong while the British did, which just makes the argument silly. The Nazis killed something like over 20 million people total. Hitler always fantasized about making peace with the British, who he saw as ideologically dangerous, but also fellow Aryan kin who were being misled by Jews in order to not realize their shared self interest in attacking Russia. If Churchill had made peace with the Germans, it would have reconciled the Nazis to attack Eastern Europe. This was a war that the Germans nearly won, as is in which people were surprised at how well the Russians fought due to their recent loss to the Germans in World War I. My business manager is a huge World War II buff and has read every major book written on this topic in the last few decades. I've had him watch this video and add his extra analysis on top of my own reading. He agrees that no serious historian can disagree with any of this stuff. The Nazis were really, really evil and they built genocide as the most foundational part of their worldview. The thing is that going back centuries, the British's dominant strategies strategy was preventing the unification of the European continent, which you can either see with the Spanish, French or Germans over the course of the modern period. Having a German empire stretching from the Atlantic to the Volga would be a nightmare for Britain, given they would be powerless against a unified Europe. As we've seen over history, Britain has done literally everything it can to stop a unified Europe, which is a wonderful transition. For the Next segment, part three. 3. Churchill I was completely dumbfounded when I heard people say that Churchill was the reason the British Empire fell, since it's such an insane opposite of the truth that I just find it unbelievable for a frame of reference in the social context he existed in, Churchill was seen as so imperialistic, reactionary and aggressive that he was practically an exile from British politics for decades as the nation became socialist. If there's literally anyone in British politics of that era who you could blame for the fall of the Empire, it's Churchill. For example, let's look at the socialist Labor Party. One of the major issues Britain hit with the loss of the Empire was that before World War I, only a tiny minority of Britain's population could vote. The upper classes were the main proponents of the Empire and so when only 3% of Britons could vote, the empire made sense, operating out of their self interest. However, in order to get warm bodies into the trenches, the British had to shift over to universal suffrage, including women. Due to World War I, the average lower class Briton mostly cared about improving improving working conditions, which is fair to a certain degree given the average Britain lived in completely degrading poverty. Over the course of the World wars, Britain became a socialist country. The Conservative Party was for the Empire and the socialists were against it. Due to this process, Britain became the most socialist country in Western Europe with a 95% tax rate, state takeover of most of the important industries, the banning of gun owners ownership, the increase of the Bureaucracy by a factor of a hundred. The death of the empire, the end of the anaristocracy, amongst other things. If we're blaming anyone for the death of the Empire, why not blame the people who openly called for the death of the Empire or the socialists? This also doesn't talk about a variety of other factors. First of which is that the death of the Empire occurred more than a decade after the end of World War II. II. Also that every major West European country gave up their colonial empires, not just Britain, due to how crippled and impoverished they were due to the war. If not a single European colonial empire survived, this feels like a historic current that a single man couldn't stop, since de Gaulle and France clearly couldn't, even though he tried really hard. Same thing with Franco, the Portuguese or apartheid South Africa, who all tried to to maintain their empires by tooth and claw but failed. You could blame the US which offered Britain and France loans in order to keep fighting the war, while heavily implying that the Europeans should give up their empires as a way to pay for it. Churchill was even seen as too radical inside the Conservative Party. Keep in mind Chamberlain, the previous Conservative PM of Britain, bent his back over to appease Germany before ultimately failing. He was widely loved for it at the time and was considered considered one of the greatest men of his time for appeasing Germany. Before the war started, Churchill was seen as the far right of British politics, a figure who himself said he was born in the wrong century. Churchill was used by the British people to win the war in that he was only placed in power after the British were terrified of German conquest in 1940 and then he was immediately taken out of power. The second the war ended and was replaced. Faced with a socialist who gave India the crown jewel of the empire containing 80% of its population, independence. The British saw Churchill as an insane crusader radical who they used for wars and then otherwise saw him as too reactionary and stuck out of that era for modern governance. Churchill was not responsible for the general direction and decline of the British Empire. In fact, he was a lone madman screaming again. Instead, I see a lot of the current discourse on Churchill completely ignores who he was as a person, using him as a political symbol rather than as the human being he was. This is one of the things I find inexcusable where I think it's completely normal and healthy to have critical discussion about historic figures. And the thing I'm noticing here is that it's not actually a historical discussion. It's more so ideological game of go of trying to Pick certain symbols to attack in order to use them for an ideological gain. And the way you notice that is by looking to see when will people use language in a way where they're not trying to understand who that person was and why they made decisions. It's a critical lack of empathy. And you say this purely independently of politics, but Churchill was a truly great man. On a scale of pure assumptions achievement, probably one of the greatest men of that century. As a story from my personal life, I was suicidal when I was 15 and I'm now 23. I was not in a good psychological place. This moment changed my life. When I stood in my dad's kitchen past midnight because I couldn't sleep, holding up a giant knife against my arm. Then I thought, wait, if I have a knife, why am I using it myself? That day I realized that no matter how bad my life became, if I lived a life of honor, it would all be worth it. It. There were three books that at that critical juncture of my life, made me turn things around. One was George Orwell's 1984, the second was Marcus Aurelius's Meditations. And the third was Churchill's autobiography, which he wrote when he was 24, which is my age. And the thing that I found so inspirational about Churchill as a teenager was that by such a young age he went from a teenager who didn't do well in school and wasn't popular, and then as a young man, man, he became such an incredible hero. He fought in the last major cavalry charge in British history at Omdurman in the Sudan. He fought in Afghanistan, Cuba and escaped the concentration camp by himself in the Boer War in South Africa. He wrote the autobiography right when he was running for member of Parliament at such a young age. The thing that I found so inspirational about Churchill when I read about him as a teenager is that he was able to attain great greatness in multiple different fields. Being a modern Renaissance man, I realized at that age, if I could study how he attained greatness, I could reverse engineer it myself and use it for my own life. This inspired me to live the crazy life that I've had, including dropping out of college at age 18 to live as a digital nomad in six countries, hiking 600 miles in the Appalachian Trail alone, going on my various spiritual journeys, turning this channel into a successful business that makes six figures a year. How I ran a group for influencers in Los Angeles. Angeles became involved in conservative politics and you should watch for the the new projects that need dropping soon in the next few months and also to study these topics and try to be an intellectual. I apologize for the shameless bragging, but I am the narrator so I will take certain liberties for self promotion. But back to the story. Besides being a heroic figure at a young age, Churchill became one of the youngest Sea Lords or leaders of the British Navy in which the failed Gallipoli campaign was his brain brainchild. He also helped pioneer tank warfare which broke through the deadlock of trench warfare that made World War I such a horrifying event that killed millions. He was a best selling author including writing legitimate histories of which the four volume History of the English Speaking Peoples which I've read is Incredible. Alongside his seven volume history of World War II, he was also an accomplished artist in several fields, whether painting or bricklink playing. If this discourse was honest, there would at least be some discussion of who Churchill was as a man, since only by understanding his character could you look at why and how he made decisions, even if you dislike him for political reasons. Churchill had so many admirable traits as a person, being one of the very last Renaissance men and adventurers in an age that prized mediocrity, conformity and standardization. However, since 19, none of this is really about Churchill. We don't talk about Churchill. Thus to summarize, picking Churchill as a figure who killed the British Empire is beyond insane since he was the figure out of anyone in that time period who fought the most for it. A great irony is that before Churchill became seen as a rightist villain, he was vociferously hated by the left for being too imperialistic. They talked about his quotes where he was against women's suffrage, alternately his hand handling of the Bengal famine which killed millions, his imperial wars, or how he said Islam would be the most dangerous opponent of the west in the 21st century. Winston Churchill completely loathed the communists and thus treating him as someone sympathetic to the left is insane. The British government before the German seizure of France literally were about to attack Russia due to their alliance with Germany at the time and Russia's attack on Finland. Look this up. It would have been been an absolutely terrible decision, but lots of authors like Little Hart or Carol Quigley have written extensively about it. I was just rereading Matthew White's book on atrocities as I was producing this video and he makes a very interesting point where he said that for the isolationists who think that the British and the French should have kept out of Germany's attack on Poland, is that due for ideological and strategic reasons, both the Nazis and the Soviets were The natural enemies of the western democratic country countries. And so the choice wasn't fighting none of them, it was really fighting one or both where we nearly had a timeline where the Soviets and the Nazis worked together against the British and the French which the Nazis would inevitably double cross the Soviets as they did and they had no idea how things were going to work out. So when you're looking at Churchill's perspective, it's easier to start a war or to continue a war where it's just fighting against Germany than one where the situation gets gets worse. Hitler actively put himself out of his own way to be as dangerous for the global order as possible. Stalin killed more people, but Hitler made it his policy to destroy the current European social order and to wreak as much chaos as possible, which made him the natural enemy of everyone else in Europe. I also want to emphasize this point because I think a lot of people forget it that Churchill did not start World War II and in fact he was not even even in power at the start of World War II, being in political isolation and exile. Well, Neville Chamberlain was the British Prime Minister who declared war on Germany. So what happened is that the British got involved in a war which the Germans started by invading Poland and then when they were worried they were going to lose, they subbed Churchill, the old war hero into power. When asked about working with the Soviets after Hitler double crossed his Soviet allies, Churchill opened openly said in parliament, if Hitler were to invade hell, I would put in a good word for the devil. Churchill openly hated the communists more than the Nazis. But because he was an old school conservative, he saw the Nazis as innately godless, tyrannical, statist and evil. Churchill was the madman who was against the Nazis While the whole rest of the British nation begged for appeasement to work hell. The earlier British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain literally received the Nobel Peace Prize for appeasement Germany and was wildly popular at the time. Churchill alongside Patton were trying to get the Western allies to attack the Soviet Union after the end of the war scheduled for July 1st, 1945. Since he saw the Soviets as such a great threat, Churchill, unlike fdr, tried to actively push against the Soviet conquest of Eastern Europe. After the war, he attempted to block the Soviets from taking Hungary, the Balkans and Czechia while sending large amounts of aid to help the free Polish uprising against the communists and Nazis. Saying Churchill wasn't based enough is about as ridiculous as you can get. Honor. One of the worst things in our culture is the criticism of the greatest men for not doing enough. Alongside criticizing people for fields of operating in which we know nothing, both of which are incredibly immature things to do. Do for the first, you're taking the best people in history and saying what they did is not enough. And if that's the case, what's even your frame if the best isn't enough? And secondly, I don't criticize pilots because I don't know how to fly a plane. I don't criticize investors because I don't really know how to invest. When someone's operating in a field where I know nothing, I shut up and I try to show them some respect. Before I want to get started, I want to say this isn't about the historic event itself. I don't really care if you want to do counterfactuals about World War II to shadowbox the best decisions. I started this channel out for the first seven years as alternate history, for example, where I think I made a literal, exact alternate history, where Churchill makes peace with the Nazis. That's just part of military history, and open debate makes all of us stronger. History nerds forever have loved to debate about what was the correct decision or not and who was the best commander of a war. That's the point. I stands for open and honest debate of history, not propagandistic cherry picking of a historical narrative to prove an ideological point. You can tell the difference from the level of rationalizing and the degree of emotional investment in the argument. It's the intentions that matter here, not the thing at itself. For example, when historians argue about atrocities in some long gone ancient war, as an academic exercise, it's very different from people needing the numbers for the Holocaust and hello to more to be as low as possible. In the companies I've run, I've had a policy that if someone does good work, I force everyone else to clap and thank them. And then we publicly tell everyone how much I appreciate them. This is since it's very easy to sit on your ass and do not nothing and very hard to attain greatness. The culture of cynicism and criticism is so lame. What have these people done to warrant the criticism of a man vastly greater than them? Even if you criticize him on his choices in the war? Churchill is a vastly superior man by every conceivable metric than almost anyone who criticizes him. Of course they don't like him since he's better than them. Lower forms always envy higher forms, which is why America or Rome attracted so much envy. The words of lower forms mean nothing but squawking, since they do not Understand the weight of responsibility, horror, duty and history. I know Churchill is vastly superior to me and so I give him a certain degree of respect for not understanding the things he lived through. In the same way that tribal peoples in the Amazon can't be expected to understand modern society. Or you shouldn't expect radical Islamists to understand the Western liberal tradition or children to understand the responsibilities of an adult. None of us can understand the pressure Churchill was under in this situation. The weight of responsibility is something where those who don't have it cannot really understand it. I'm inferior to Churchill as a man, but as a CEO with employees and a platform, I know an inch of how hard what he did was. I constantly make mistakes and screw up. That's. Since the act of leading is intensely difficult, I challenge any of you to do a better job. When you're looking at a war, you have to realize. Realize there's a million different pressures and the people at the time don't know what's going to happen. Please have some empathy with not knowing how difficult this era of history was. People are terrified today since scary things are happening. None of us know the future. People at the time had no idea what was happening in World War II. When you look at the lives of great men, they all make mistakes. We all do. I think creating a culture where we tear down the great by selectively looking at their mistakes is frankly, morally disgusting and motivated almost entirely by envy. This is how the left left acts and it's a tactic they explicitly invented to tear down Western culture. Now the right's doing it. Judge the greatest men by their accomplishments, not their failures. Since almost everyone fails and very few become great. It's one of those things where it's not why poor countries exist, it's why rich ones do. That's the question. Because poverty is the natural state and only a handful make above it. No other era of history would see this type of criticism as acceptable. Acceptable? Our ancestors see us with contempt and disgust. They see us as weak men who tolerate the collapse of our society, the dehumanization of white men in their own countries, obvious lies like trans civilizational suicide and the most cuss society ever. No one else in history is impressed. They think this is a pathetic attempt to project our own insecurities onto men ostensibly superior to us in any conceivable way. We couldn't stand a second fighting the world wars today. Your grandfather is better than you. What's going on here is that people need a single ideological narrative that Churchill is bad for their narrative. Thus they're cherry picking a single line of history in which they'll become children. If you disagree, I know this since whenever I've pushed back, I get an insane emotional response. If this was legitimate, I'd see paragraphs looking at the context of British command at that time. But I don't. The thing is that history happens for complex reasons and no one's really in control. History kind of just happens, often from complex and difficult to entangle culture, economic and demographic reasons. No one is actually trying to understand why the British Empire fell here. This is a backtracking of our current anti Nazi policies decades to find a villain that can justify our current narrative. This is, as I will explain later, an attempt to escape the the fact that we ultimately are responsible for our own society's collapse, not people who lived a century ago. These tactics all started with the left, who has a very immature notion that progress just happens and you should support progress whenever it does. So they draw this straight line. While in reality history is insanely chaotic and difficult and it's impossible to predict the next step because there's hundreds to thousands of factions constantly fighting each other, drawing their straight causation lines. To say that blank events like the Protestant Reformation caused modern wokeness is a super immature thing the left does, since they believe in linear progress. History is actively carved out every day by millions of people. Keep in mind every major country of this era was by today's standards, racist, patriarchal or homophobic, including the Soviet Union. The only thing even approximating wokeness showed up in the majority mid 20th century and was carried out by leftist academics who were trying to launch a cultural revolution. So why are we blaming Churchill for this rather than the weakness of the current regime which let the Woke win? The logical answer is that due to complex reasons, the Western elites were unusually weak which allowed their infiltration by Marxists. I'm just using Occam's razor here and we don't need to overcomplicate this. We have records of Marxists saying they wanted to do it. It's unclear that if the Nazis won World War II, for example, then America was. America wouldn't be even more left wing as a way to counteract them. There's no reason to put the causation in this place except emotion. I grew up in an honor culture since I grew up in rural Pennsylvania and my ancestors were from Ireland, Scotland and Northern England. My father would tell me growing up that the only thing that matters in life is honor. He didn't care what career I Got as long as I lived with honor. He said, rudyard, there are certain hills you have to die on to be a man. And when all's said and and done, did you stand where you needed to? I'm explaining this since an enormous cultural difference between our society and the one Churchill or the Nazis lived in was the rapid collapse in honor culture. You need to see this whole war through the prism of honor. In an honor culture, an insult must be fought back. You could see the start of World War I as a sort of clan honor dispute, like Nile Saga or the hatfields and the McCoys. People treat honor as silly, but honor is, in a lot of cases, the same thing as masculinity. Nations which lack honor get conquered by those who have it. If you lack the will to fight over what belongs to you, you will lose it. Mocking honor is the pathetic conceit of a dying, conquered society so up its own A in cynicism as to be committing suicide. Europe's leadership class in this time period was deeply steeped in honor, although the Nazi version was deep, deeply abusive and evil. For the Nazis, honor meant winning, not having any real principles. The Nazis declare war on the world since the humiliation of World War I was too great. Churchill, as part of a proud aristocratic tradition, saw honor, much like my father, as the most important thing in life. Fun fact. Churchill was a direct descendant of the Duke of Marlborough, who won the War of Spanish Succession at the start of the 18th century, single handily saving Europe from French conquest. At the Battle of Blenheim, when Germany invaded Poland, the British and French were bound by treaty to protect Poland. What happened after is that the Germans conquered the French and the British decided to keep fighting. This is the point Churchill critics dislike that. They just want him to give up. And I find this laughable because I thought they were men. Churchill was a visionary in that he knew the British could win, and he actually did. As men, if you can win a war, you should, and with any reasonable assessment of success, fail. Churchill ended up winning. It's completely dishonorable and unmasculine just to give up. Did your dad not tell you this or something? There's something profoundly beautiful and tragic in Europe's world wars in that tragedy was a genre invented by the Greeks, which they used for plays and writing, where the purpose of a tragedy is to show the rise and fall of a great man. And what always happens in tragedy. And Aristotle made quite advanced philosophic points based off this is that the very same traits that let you rise to greatness are those that push you to your downfall in that the hero tries to push for greatness one too many times he hits hubris and then it all falls down for the Europeans. Their drive to honor and technically technology and excellence, which created the European world we now live in and brought about modernity, was also the thing that brought about Europe's downfall in that the Europeans were so vigorous and technologically advanced that the one people who could destroy Europe were the Europeans. And you can view European history starting in 1914 as this tragic downfall of this glorious civilization that effectively committed suicide. And once you start seeing the lights go out across Europe, they didn't click back on for a very long time. And I would argue that they still haven't today. You need to emotionally process this loss because only through doing so can you attain objectivity about it and figure out how Europe can save itself again. The world wars are over. We now have to figure out how Europe can survive and regain its glory. Today in a different context. The idea that we can act as if these historic figures could completely understand the entire future of the war and its outcome is just ridiculous. This is how incredibly unmature and weak people view the world since they don't understand the weight of titanic responsibility this entails. When the war started in Poland, the idea that this war would end with the Americans and Russians dividing up the European continent with the atom bomb and fighting in North Africa is ridiculous. Furthermore, the idea that we can backtrack responsibility for modern wokeness, which is really what people are talking about, decades to completely unrelated events, is just insane. It's as if someone wanted to blame the American Revolution on the thirty Years War or blame the moon landing on World War I. Keep in mind that if Churchill does make peace with the Germans, he's taking responsibility indirectly for the general genocide of Eastern Europe and the creation of one of the worst slave states ever in human history. He's taking responsibility for the creation of a continental sized power on the shores of Britain, which hates Britain. Please have empathy that at the time he made a decision you may disagree with to achieve those goals and hoped he could keep the entire empire down the road. Britain, if it wanted to, could have kept the empire. But the British people, not, not Churchill, decided they didn't want to. My question is, do you want others to judge you like this? Do you think that's fair at all? Frankly, it just comes across as very abusive and judgmental. This idea that you have to read minds and predict the future to attain some impossible goal is very immature. Asking a historic figure to project decades into the future in the middle of a life threatening national catastrophe just doesn't make sense. As well as the inability to take responsibility for the present and the need to project blame onto someone else who is better. Probably out of envy. I thought you were men. Again, I repeat, I'm not against Shadowboxing World War II to see different historic scenarios. If you're in that category, none of this applies to you. I am against using this to trash the reputations of historic figures for ideological goals in which people become incredibly emotionally worked up. I know most of my friends are against me on this channel topic. I hope that you're not taking historic disagreement this seriously. The thing I'm asking for here is rationality and respect, not really a historical outcome. If you respond to my calls for maturity and reason by being even more immature, you don't get the point. I hope you can still respect me as a thinker or a man, much as I would like you to respect Churchill, even if you disagree. I had a conversation with a friend where he was trying to get me to watch None Nazi apologist historic content. I gave him a hard no. He was shocked and kind of angry saying that I wasn't being reasonable. The conversation, long story short, involved me saying that not all of life is reasonable. Our society likes to pretend every player in a game is rational in good faith, which is insanely naive given in fact almost no players are. Only a few modern western countries even attempted to attain good faith, objects, objectivity, and they still failed. You need to treat people as they are. I told him that if I worked with the Nazis, it would be a complete rejection of my being as a person of Britannic ancestry. The Nazis are a complete rejection of my people's ancestral folkways of freedom, individualism, honor and rule of law. The Nazis were against my religion, Christianity, viewing it with contempt. The Nazis openly saw my politics as a classical liberal Liberal with contempt. The Nazis also don't believe in the truth or compromise, so any concessions I give will be seen as weakness. If the Nazis won, they'd put me in a camp as a dissenter, so why should I work with them? Not everything is discussion. There are times for hard nos. There are people where if you compromise with them, you'll lose your identity. This is just obvious and I don't know why others don't get it. I refuse to be a Nazi since they just take up without offering anything. Weakness is not a possibility. Positive. As my father would say growing up, if you have nothing to die for you'll have nothing to live for. I try my best to have empathy with Hitler, to try to understand why he made decisions and what his logical process is in that. Empathy is the understanding of someone else's mind whether or not you agree. However, Hitler was not a good faith player, and so although you can have empathy with him, you have to tell him no and you have to push back because that's how you treat bad faith players. The sheer scale of pro Nazi arguments on the right made me realize something horrible. The right has no identity. I've literally tested this by posting Bible quotes on Twitter without crediting the Bible. And people who claim to be Christians call me a C. The Nazis are a complete rejection of Western values and who we are as a people. Pushing for the Nazis as an American is silly since Nazism is very particular to a German context. It makes no sense here. People on the right apparently don't really believe in God, Frieda, truth, Anglo Saxon values or anything like that. They are consumed with hatred of the left and their own nihilism. Thus they support those who will destroy everything they love as long as the left still hates them. You're being manipulated. I've stopped using Twitter for the last four months and I don't intend to start using it again soon. That's since something palpably evil is happening online now. I try to avoid the Internet at all costs now. Since I can see people going crazy and losing their souls, I know I'm not special. And so like a real illness, I try to close off contact to the pathogen so as to protect myself. The things I see every day are a complete rejection of my values, what I was raised with in my peoples traditionally, which is scary. Let me spell this out. Values exist for a reason. People don't realize that today. Since most people are stuck in permanent adolescence, they never feel feel real suffering or consequence. They have no idea how our ancestors, including many great men like Churchill, made a society so wealthy and stable that their descendants could degenerate to the point of complete childishness. The reason we have values is that without them, very, very bad things happen. They don't exist for no reason and your actions have consequences. Most people see LARPing for some insane political position online line as fun since it gives them dopamine hits and a sense of community. The right today is almost entirely based off mocking the left. There's no internal values. The problem is that our civilization is committing suicide since no one is actually willing to be responsible. Leftist childish larping is killing us and I Refuse to see the right succumb to it. Being a Nazi isn't cool. It's legitimately an evil political position which if it it gains popularity, will cause unimaginable horrors once again. The thing I can't forgive is that this was all done by people who were propagandized to not be Nazis and they're not even consistent with the Nazi code. We all know being a Nazi is morally wrong since the society is obsessed with it. In order to spite the society, people pretend to be Nazis even though it's still a terrible political position. You know, you could pick literally any other faction of right as and being Nazis is literally exactly what the left wants us to be. In no logic does this make sense. Cool it with the Nazi sh T guys. Furthermore, if you are a Nazi, just commit to the bit. The Nazis would not respect you since they were completely unironic. You're still trying to justify Nazism within the liberal framework since you know it's morally wrong deep in your soul. This is just stupid, evil and immature by any metric. The blunt reason people care about Churchill and almost all of the political issues today is because their lives are garbage. The average American is poor, lonely, depressed, sexless, angry and hopeless. It's funny how Churchill went from being a rightist hero two years ago to a rightist enemy today. Right when people's lives got worse. However, rather than having an honest, mature discussion about this society, people look for scapegoats instead. This is silly. Can't we actually talk about the issues in society today? Rather than blaming external events? You need to admit power powerlessness, that your life sucks, and blame the current regime whose fault it really is. Why are we blaming people 80 years ago and not those today? I've lived a very strange and difficult life. I've nearly died several times for various strange, implausible plot reasons. I can tell you with complete certainty that bad things can happen when you make decisions. Once you experience enough suffering, you realize that you have have to take life seriously and not be stupid. This is why I take my civilization's survival seriously. At the same time, the perspective of nearly dying so many times teaches you that most people care too much about social approval. People's entire identity is social media approval. People are becoming more stupid since they take silly things seriously and they take serious things unseriously. I know this video is going to piss off a lot of people on the right, but also, I don't really care at this point. I'm just grateful to God and I'm still here and see it as my duty to tell you the truth, and I see it as a moral duty to keep the right accountable. I'm trying to do this out of love. One of the things I see on social media is a certain degree of how the sausage gets made or how media outlets communicate with people. I'm going to probably hurt your feelings here, but I hope you can understand why I'm doing this. A lot of you are being really manipulated and you don't realize it. It's horrible to watch as a person who helps make the collective right as discourse, but for so many people, their entire identities are things other people made up as some kind of psyop. This is super obvious on the left in which the DNC completely controls the minds and souls of their followers, which is something most rightists can agree with. Remember how within a day of switching from Biden to Kamala, influencer girls were making brat dances about how amazing Kamala is? Remembering how the lefts flipped their opinions on comey between loving and hating him four times in the mid 20th century, Marxist academics literally set out media strategy campaigns in which they would target women, blacks, homosexuals and other groups while de emphasizing the working classes since they thought it would get them more power more easily. The left established a system of psychological manipulation in which they would use symbolic stories and gradual control of the the institutions to take over society. Read authors like Sol Alinsky, Gramschki or Yuri Bezmanov and they say all this stuff in public. Meanwhile, it still worked. The reality is the differences inside the right are as great as those between the right and the left, which I talk about in this video. Monarchists, classical liberals, religious fundamentalists and fascists have practically nothing in common except fighting against the left. The American right until very recently had almost no fascist influence and in fact purposely kept 500 miles away from fascism. What the left did was to brand all conservatives as fascist since it was an easy PR move. What happened is that the right grew so resentful that extremists decided to be Nazis despite the left. There were practically no Nazis even four years ago and now Nazi apologia is mainstream. Do you see how this is so unsettling? Self aware? The Nazi label is literally a leftist strawman made to make the right look bad and rightists chose to enter into it since they don't know enough the different better types of rightists. The right is still stuck in the left's frame and as long as that's the case, the left will win since they design their frames where they Win by definition. Watch my video on Shatter the Glass if you're interested in how to completely destroy the left's frame. I briefly want to throw this in because when I say that there are legitimate, legitimate Nazis on the right, I frequently worry that that's going to be used by the left to feed their narrative that Trump and Elon and the current Republican regime are Nazis, which is completely untrue. In no universe are they Nazis or could be construed as Nazis. I don't even want to honor the argument, but there is a demographic of people online and young men, men who could be radicalized, could be, have been radicalized, who are basically Nazis. And I worry this faction's gonna grow. A lot of you folks are being manipulated by the left into being Nazis and you can't realize it. American rightism has its own tradition, completely independent from the Nazis, so we have no reason to do this. I mean, if you want to be racist or sexist, you can still do that. As a classical liberal. Hell, I'd take modern anarchism first. Secondly, the Churchill discourse only really makes sense from a fascist prism we went through. There's basically no narrative where Churchill is responsible for the fall of the British Empire. The narrative here literally is that Churchill is bad since he didn't give up to the Nazis. That's so obviously Nazi propaganda. Imagine if we said George Washington was bad for not giving up to the British or we should have given up to the Soviets. This is the exact same thing Communists do where they try to convince nations to give up to the commies. The people who do so are called useful idiots by the communists. When someone tells you you need to give up and lose a war for your own best interests, they're manipulating you. That should be obvious. We have a nasty tendency towards naivety and gullibility today, which is killing us. We don't take genocidal radical Islamists seriously and we let suicidal communists gain complete dominance of the institutions without raising a finger. Since we're gullible and silly, I don't know why this is so hard to see. The Nazis are completely open about what they believe. I feel like I'm explaining to a female friend why the bad boy is so obviously terrible, but she's excited by how dangerous he is. Isn't it strange that so many people change their minds on Churchill overnight without reading a single book on the topic? Lycan Promise. Almost all of these people loved him a few years ago. People are being turned into cheap by an algorithm and don't realize it Remember how the Trump administration invented the COVID vaccine at the time while the left was against it? Then it flipped when Biden took power with the exact same vaccine. Remember when the lab leak was a conspiracy theory and now it's the standard narrative? A few years ago, the exact same leftists who were vehemently against the Holocaust now were shouting from the river to the sea. When Trump turned the right's position towards isolationism, the left immediately became incredibly warlike and interventionists. While they hated those things before, Hasan Piker goes from saying the military industrial complex is bad to shilling for the Ukraine war overnight. Let's not pretend we're better than children as a society. We have an issue here. We don't believe in anything. We were always at war with East Asia. I notice these traits because I see them happening to in myself and I want to stop it. Why do people care so much about random sh. T they saw online? I care about Churchill for partly strategic reasons. I've read thousands of pages on this topic and he's my adolescent hero. For most of you that's not true. You just read something on Twitter about it. It's because you don't have God, your home region to take pride in, honor, family and other stabilizers. Of course I don't know you as an individual. I'm speaking to an indeterminate person who does not not exist. Don't let your identity be clout seeking Internet. What I see happening here is the Nazi right is trying to invalidate a hero from the liberal right of which I am a member. What happened was this became a useful way to virtue signal inside the right, including lots of people who don't know the context of the historic event but just see it as based. I'm not going to blame all of them. Again, I don't think this is a big issue either. Churchill was a long standing hero for decades by a fact action of the right. They want to cow people like me, but I refuse. I refuse to work with the Nazi right which doesn't believe in compromise or concessions. I have no place in their world so I don't accept.