Sunday Morning Churchill Surprise Contest

 

Winston_Churchill_cph.3a49758Here’s a link to The Churchill Centre, which has one of the better collections of Churchill’s speeches and writings on the Internet; and here’s a link to the National Churchill Museum, where you’ll find many more.

This Sunday’s contest is a little different. Usually I ask members to submit their entries for their favorite lines from a great writer or politician. Today, I suggest combing through Churchill’s writings and speeches for the ones that surprise you most — the things you never had any idea he said. Entries from any of Churchill’s 43 books are also admissible and welcome.

I nominate “Fifty Years Hence,” which he wrote in 1931. He was not yet prime minister. It ran in Popular Mechanics under the byline “former British Chancellor of the Exchequer,” and was later published in a collections of essays called Thoughts and Adventures.

It contains his predictions about the technology of the future and its implications. I found it astonishing for its foresight. I’ve added a few notes to show where I was especially surprised. I think you will be, too:

The great mass of human beings, absorbed in the toils, cares and activities of life, are only dimly conscious of the pace at which mankind has begun to travel. We look back a hundred years and see that great changes have taken place. We look back fifty years and see that the speed is constantly quickening. This present century has witnessed an enormous revolution in material things, in scientific appliances, in political institutions, in manners and customs. The greatest change of all is the least perceptible by individuals: it is the far greater numbers which in every civilized country participate in the fuller life of man. ‘In those days,’ said Disraeli, writing at the beginning of the nineteenth century, ‘England was for the few and for the very few.’ ‘The twice two thousand for whom,’ wrote Byron, ‘the world is made’ have given place to many millions for whom existence has become larger, safer, more varied, more full of hope and choice. In the United States scores of millions have lifted themselves above primary necessities and comforts, and aspire to culture – at least for their children. Europe, though stunned and lacerated by Armageddon, presents a similar if less general advance. We all take the modern conveniences and facilities as they are offered to us without being grateful or consciously happier. [indeed — ed.] But we simply could not live if they were taken away. We assume that progress will be constant. ‘This ‘ere progress,’ Mr Wells makes one of his characters remark, ‘keeps going on. It’s wonderful ‘ow it keeps going on.’ It is also very fortunate, for if it stopped or were reversed, there would be the catastrophe of unimaginable horror. Mankind has gone too far to go back, and is moving too fast to stop. There are too many people maintained, not merely in comfort but in existence, by processes unknown a century ago, for us to afford even a temporary check, still less a general setback, without experiencing calamity in its most frightful form.

When we look back beyond a hundred years over the long trails of history, we see immediately why the age we live in differs from all other ages in human annals. Mankind has sometimes travelled forwards and sometimes backwards, or has stood still even for hundreds of years. It remained stationary in India and in China for thousands of years. What is it that has produced this new prodigious speed of man? Science is the cause. [An interesting foreshadowing of one of Churchill’s much more famous speeches and the lines, “the perverted lights of science.” – ed.] Her once feeble vanguards, often trampled down, often perishing in isolation, have now become a vast organized united class-conscious army marching forward upon all the fronts towards objectives none may measure or define. It is a proud, ambitious army which cares nothing for all the laws that men have made; nothing for their most timehonoured customs, or most dearly cherished beliefs, or deepest instincts. It is this power called Science which has laid hold of us, conscripted us into its regiments and batteries, set us to work upon its highways and in its arsenals; rewarded us for our services, healed us when we were wounded, trained us when we were young, pensioned us when we were worn out. None of the generations of men before the last two or three were ever gripped for good or ill and handled like this.

Man in the earliest stages lived alone and avoided his neighbours with as much anxiety and probably as much reason as he avoided the fierce flesh-eating beasts that shared his forests. With the introduction of domestic animals the advantages of co-operation and the division of labour became manifest. In the neolithic times when cereals were produced and agriculture developed, the bleak hungry period whilst the seeds were germinating beneath the soil involved some form of capitalism and the recognition of those special rights of landed proprietors the traces of which are still visible in our legislation. Each stage involved new problems legal, sociological and moral. But progress only crawled, and often rested for a thousand years or so.

The two ribbon States in the valley of the Nile and the Euphrates produced civilizations as full of pomp and circumstance and more stable than any the world has ever known. Their autocracies and hierarchies were founded upon the control and distribution of water and corn. The rulers held the people in an efficiency of despotism never equalled till Soviet Russia was born. They had only to cut off or stint the water in the canals to starve or subjugate rebellious provinces. This, apart from their granaries, gave them powers at once as irresistible and as capable of intimate regulation as the control of all food supplies gives to the Bolshevik commissars. Safe from internal trouble, they were vulnerable only to external attack. But in these states man had not learnt to catalyse the forces of nature. The maximum power available was the sum of the muscular efforts of all the inhabitants. Later empires, scarcely less imposing but far less stable, rose and fell. In the methods of production and communication, in the modes of getting food and exchanging goods, there was less change between the time of Sargon and the time of Louis XIV than there has been between the accession of Queen Victoria and the present day. Darius could probably send a message from Susa to Sardis faster than Philip II could transmit an order from Madrid to Brussels. Sir Robert Peel, summoned in 1841 from Rome to form a government in London, took the same time as the Emperor Vespasian when he had to hasten to his province of Britain. The bathrooms of the palaces of Minos were superior to those of Versailles. A priest from Thebes would probably have felt more at home at the Council of Trent two thousand years after Thebes had vanished than Sir Isaac Newton at a modern undergraduate physical society, or George Stephenson in the Institute of Electrical Engineers. The changes have been so sudden and so gigantic that no period in history can be compared with the last century. The past no longer enables us even dimly to measure the future.

The most wonderful of all modern prophecies is found in Tennyson’s ‘Locksley Hall’:

For I dipt into the future, far as human eye could see,
Saw the Vision of the world, and all the wonder that would be;
Saw the heavens fill with commerce, argosies of magic sails,
Pilots of the purple twilight, dropping down with costly bales;
Heard the heavens fill with shouting, and there rain’d a ghastly dew
From the nations’ airy navies grappling in the central blue;
Far along the world-wide whisper of the south-wind rushing warm
With the standards of the peoples plunging thro’ the thunderstorm;
Till the war-drum throbb’d no longer, and the battle-flags were furl’d
In the Parliament of man, the Federation of the world.
Slowly comes a hungry people, as a lion creeping nigher,
Glares at one that nods and winks behind a slowly-dying fire.

These six couplets of prediction, written eighty years ago, have already been fulfilled. The conquest of the air for commerce and war, the League of Nations, the Communist movement — all divined in their true sequence by the great Victorian — all now already in the history books and stirring the world around us today! [Fascinating to see that he put the League of Nations in the same list — ed.] We may search the Scriptures in vain for such precise and swiftly vindicated forecasts of the future. Jeremiah and Isaiah dealt in dark and cryptic parables pointing to remote events and capable of many varied interpretations from time to time. A Judge, a Prophet, a Redeemer would arise to save His Chosen People; and from age to age the Jews asked, disputing, ‘Art thou he that should come or do we look for another?’ But ‘Locksley Hall’ contains an exact foretelling of stupendous events, which many of those who knew the writer lived to see and endure! The dawn of the Victorian era opened the new period of man; and the genius of the poet pierced the veil of the future.

There are two processes which we adopt consciously or unconsciously when we try to prophesy. We can seek a period in the past whose conditions resemble as closely as possible those of our day, and presume that the sequel to that period will, save for some minor alterations, be repeated. Secondly, we can survey the general course of development in our immediate past, and endeavour to prolong it into the near future. The first is the method of the historian; the second that of the scientist. [His optimism about the utility of applying the scientific method to the so-called social-sciences is striking. — ed.] Only the second is open to us now, and this only in a partial sphere. By observing all that Science has achieved in modern times, and the knowledge and power now in her possession, we can predict with some assurance the inventions and discoveries which will govern our future. We can but guess, peering through a glass darkly, what reactions these discoveries and their applications will produce upon the habits, the outlook and the spirit of men.

Whereas formerly the utmost power that man could guide and control was a team of horses or a galleyful of slaves, or possibly, if they could be sufficiently drilled and harnessed, a gang of labourers like the Israelites in Egypt; it is today already possible to control accurately from the bridge of a battle cruiser all the power of hundreds of thousands of men, or to set off with one finger a mine capable in an instant of destroying the work of thousands of man-years. These changes are due to the substitution of molecular energy for muscular energy, and its direction and control by an elaborate, beautifully perfected apparatus. These immense new sources of power, and the fact that they can be wielded by a single individual, have made possible novel methods of mining and metallurgy, new modes of transport and undreamed-of machinery. These in their turn enable the molecular sources of power to be extended and used more efficiently. They facilitate also the improvement of ancient methods. They substitute the hundred-thousandkilowatt turbo-generators at Niagara for the mill-wheel of our forefathers. Each invention acted and reacted on other inventions, and with ever-growing rapidity that vast structure of technical achievement was raised which separates the civilization of today from all that the past has known.

There is no doubt that this evolution will continue at an increasing rate. We know enough to be sure that the scientific achievements of the next fifty years will be far greater, more rapid and more surprising, than those we have already experienced. The slide-lathe enabled machines of precision to be made, and the power of steam rushed out upon the world. And through the steam-clouds flashed the dazzling lightning of electricity. But this is only a beginning. High authorities tell us that new sources of power, vastly more important than any we yet know, will surely be discovered. Nuclear energy is incomparably greater than the molecular energy which we use today. The coal a man can get in a day can easily do five hundred times as much work as the man himself. Nuclear energy is at least one million times more powerful still. If the hydrogen atoms in a pound of water could be prevailed upon to combine together and form helium, they would suffice to drive a thousand horsepower engine for a whole year. If the electrons, those tiny planets of the atomic systems, were induced to combine with the nuclei in the hydrogen the horsepower liberated would be 120 times greater still. There is no question among scientists that this gigantic source of energy exists. What is lacking is the match to set the bonfire alight, or it may be the detonator to cause the dynamite to explode. The Scientists are looking for this. [Remember, he wrote this in 1931. James Chadwick discovered the neutron in 1932. Within his lifetime, the world entered the atomic age. – ed.]

The discovery and control of such sources of power would cause changes in human affairs incomparably greater than those produced by the steam-engine four generations ago. Schemes of cosmic magnitude would become feasible. Geography and climate would obey our orders. [Perhaps — ed.] Fifty thousand tons of water, the amount displaced by the Berengaria, would, if exploited as described, suffice to shift Ireland to the middle of the Atlantic. The amount of rain falling yearly upon the Epsom racecourse would be enough to thaw all the ice at the Arctic and Antarctic poles. [Where have I heard this recently? — ed.] The changing of one element into another by means of temperatures and pressures would be far beyond our present reach, would transform beyond all description our standards of values. Materials thirty times stronger than the best steel would create engines fit to bridle the new forms of power. Communications and transport by land, water and air would take unimaginable forms, if, as is in principle possible, we could make an engine of 600 horsepower, weighing 20 lb and carrying fuel for a thousand hours in a tank the size of a fountain-pen. Wireless telephones and television, following naturally upon their present path of development, would enable their owner to connect up with any room similarly installed, and hear and take part in the conversation as well as if he put his head in through the window. [Indeed. — ed.] The congregation of men in cities would become superfluous. It would rarely be necessary to call in person on any but the most intimate friends, but if so, excessively rapid means of communication would be at hand. [And here we are. — ed.] There would be no more object in living in the same city with one’s neighbour than there is today in living with him in the same house. The cities and the countryside would become indistinguishable. Every home would have its garden and its glade.

Up till recent times the production of food has been the prime struggle of man. That war is won. There is no doubt that the civilized races can produce or procure all the food they require. Indeed some of the problems which vex us today are due to the production of wheat by white men having exceeded their own needs, before yellow men, brown men and black men have learnt to demand and become able to purchase a diet superior to rice. But food is at present obtained almost entirely from the energy of the sunlight. The radiation from the sun produces from the carbonic acid in the air more or less complicated carbon compounds which give us our plants and vegetables. We use the latent chemical energy of these to keep our bodies warm; we convert it into muscular effort. We employ it in the complicated processes of digestion to repair and replace the wasted cells of our bodies. Many people, of course, prefer food in what the vegetarians call ‘the secondhand form’, i.e. after it has been digested and converted into meat for us by domestic animals kept for this purpose. In all these processes, however, ninety-nine parts of the solar energy are wasted for every part used.

Even without the new sources of power great improvements are probable here. Microbes, which at present convert the nitrogen of the air into the proteins by which animals live, will be fostered and made to work under controlled conditions, just as yeast is now. New strains of microbes will be developed and made to do a great deal of our chemistry for us. With a greater knowledge of what are called hormones, i.e. the chemical messengers in our blood, it will be possible to control growth. We shall escape the absurdity of growing a whole chicken in order to eat the breast or wing, by growing these parts separately under a suitable medium. Synthetic food will, of course, also be used in the future. [And it all happened.] Nor need the pleasures of the table be banished. That gloomy Utopia of tabloid meals need never be invaded. The new foods will from the outset be practically indistinguishable from the natural products, and any changes will be so gradual as to escape observation.

If the gigantic new sources of power become available, food will be produced without recourse to sunlight. [Indeed.] Vast cellars in which artificial radiation is generated may replace the cornfields or potato-patches of the world. Parks and gardens will cover our pastures and ploughed fields. When the time comes there will be plenty of room for the cities to spread themselves again.

But equally startling developments lie already just beyond our finger-tips in the breeding of human beings and the shaping of human nature. It used to be said, ‘Though you have taught the dog more tricks, you cannot alter the breed of the dog.’ But that is no longer true. A few years ago London was surprised by a play called Rossum’s Universal Robots. The production of such beings may well be possible within fifty years. They will not be made, but grown under glass. There seems little doubt that it will be possible to carry out in artificial surroundings the entire cycle which now leads to the birth of a child. [And it happened.] Interference with the mental development of such beings, expert suggestion and treatment in the earlier years, Fifty Years Hence Reprinted by kind permission of Mr. Winston S. Churchill Page 5 of 6 would produce beings specialized to thought or toil. The production of creatures, for instance, which have admirable physical development, with their mental endowment stunted in particular directions, is almost within the range of human power. A being might be produced capable of tending a machine but without other ambitions. Our minds recoil from such fearful eventualities, and the laws of a Christian civilization will prevent them. [There’s one thing he didn’t foresee, alas.] But might not lop-sided creatures of this type fit in well with the Communist doctrines of Russia? Might not the Union of Soviet Republics armed with all the power of science find it in harmony with all their aims to produce a race adapted to mechanical tasks and with no other ideas but to obey the Communist State? The present nature of man is tough and resilient. It casts up its sparks of genius in the darkest and most unexpected places. But Robots could be made to fit the grisly theories of Communism. There is nothing in the philosophy of Communists to prevent their creation.

I have touched upon this sphere only lightly, but with the purpose of pointing out that, in a future which our children may live to see, powers will be in the hands of men altogether different from any by which human nature has been moulded. Explosive forces, energy, materials, machinery will be available upon a scale which can annihilate whole nations. [He himself lived to see it.] Despotisms and tyrannies will be able to prescribe the lives and even the wishes of their subjects in a manner never known since time began. [He lived to see this within two years.] If to these tremendous and awful powers is added the pitiless sub-human wickedness which we now see embodied in one of the most powerful reigning governments, who shall say that the world itself will not be wrecked, or indeed that it ought not to be wrecked? There are nightmares of the future from which a fortunate collision with some wandering star, reducing the earth to incandescent gas, might be a merciful deliverance.

It is indeed a descent almost to the ridiculous to contemplate the impact of the tremendous and terrifying discoveries which are approaching upon the structure of Parliamentary institutions. How can we imagine the whole mass of the people being capable of deciding by votes at elections upon the right course to adopt amid these cataclysmic changes? [Indeed.] Even now the Parliaments of every country have shown themselves quite inadequate to deal with the economic problems which dominate the affairs of every nation and of the world. Before these problems the claptrap of the hustings and the stunts of the newspapers wither and vanish away. Democracy as a guide or motive to progress has long been known to be incompetent. None of the legislative assemblies of the great modern states represents in universal suffrage even a fraction of the strength or wisdom of the community. Great nations are no longer led by their ablest men, or by those who know most about their immediate affairs, or even by those who have a coherent doctrine. [A familiar thought — ed.] Democratic governments drift along the line of least resistance, taking short views, paying their way with sops and doles, and smoothing their path with pleasant-sounding platitudes. [Another familiar thought — ed.] Never was there less continuity or design in their affairs, and yet towards them are coming swiftly changes which will revolutionize for good or ill not only the whole economic structure of the world but the social habits and moral outlook of every family. Only the Communists have a plan and a gospel. It is a plan fatal to personal freedom and a gospel founded upon Hate.

Certain it is that while men are gathering knowledge and power with ever-increasing and measureless speed, their virtues and their wisdom have not shown any notable improvement as the centuries have rolled. The brain of a modern man does not differ in essentials from that of the human beings who fought and loved here millions of years ago. The nature of man has remained hitherto practically unchanged. Under sufficient stress — starvation, terror, warlike passion, or even cold intellectual frenzy — the modern man we know so well will do the most terrible deeds, and his modern woman will back him up. At the present moment the civilizations of many different ages co-exist together in the world, and their representatives meet and converse. Englishmen, Frenchmen, or Americans with ideas abreast of the twentieth century do business with Indians or Chinese whose civilizations were crystallized several thousands of years ago. We have the spectacle of the powers and weapons of man far outstripping the march of his intelligence; we have the march of his intelligence proceeding far more rapidly than the development of his nobility. We may well find ourselves in the presence of ‘the strength of civilization without its mercy’. [I share his concern — ed.]

It is therefore above all things important that the moral philosophy and spiritual conceptions of men and nations should hold their own amid these formidable scientific evolutions. It would be much better to call a halt in material progress and discovery rather than to be mastered by our own apparatus and the forces which it directs. There are secrets too mysterious for man in his present state to know, secrets which, once penetrated, may be fatal to human happiness and glory. But the busy hands of the scientists are already fumbling with the keys of all the chambers hitherto forbidden to mankind. Without an equal growth of Mercy, Pity, Peace and Love, Science herself may destroy all that makes human life majestic and tolerable. There never was a time when the inherent virtue of human beings required more strong and confident expression in daily life; there never was a time when the hope of immortality and the disdain of earthly power and achievement were more necessary for the safety of the children of men. [Are we there yet? Debate. — ed.]

After all, this material progress, in itself so splendid, does not meet any of the real needs of the human race. I read a book the other day which traced the history of mankind from the birth of the solar system to its extinction. There were fifteen or sixteen races of men which in succession rose and fell over periods measured by tens of millions of years. In the end a race of beings was evolved which had mastered nature. A state was created whose citizens lived as long as they chose, enjoyed pleasures and sympathies incomparably wider than our own, navigated the interplanetary spaces, could recall the panorama of the past and foresee the future. But what was the good of all that to them? What did they know more than we know about the answers to the simple questions which man has asked since the earliest dawn of reason — ‘Why are we here? What is the purpose of life? Whither are we going?’ No material progress, even though it takes shapes we cannot now conceive, or however it may expand the faculties of man, can bring comfort to his soul. It is this fact, more wonderful than any that Science can reveal, which gives the best hope that all will be well. Projects undreamed-of by past generations will absorb our immediate descendants; forces terrific and devastating will be in their hands; comforts, activities, amenities, pleasures will crowd upon them, but their hearts will ache, their lives will be barren, if they have not a vision above material things. [He saw it coming — ed.] And with the hopes and powers will come dangers out of all proportion to the growth of man’s intellect, to the strength of his character or to the efficacy of his institutions. Once more the choice is offered between Blessing and Cursing. Never was the answer that will be given harder to foretell.

Your entry?

Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s growing community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

There are 40 comments.

  1. 1
  2. 2
  1. Member

    I thought I once read about Churchill correcting a new, young MP — telling him that the MPs on the other side were not his enemies. They were his adversaries. His enemies were on his own side.

    But I’ve looked more than once for that quote on the Internet and in such Churchill biographies as I have at home, and haven’t been able to find it. Does anybody else remember this? Was it really Churchill who said it?

    • #1
    • December 20, 2015, at 12:32 AM PDT
    • Like
  2. Inactive

    Churchill on governance by so-called experts:

    “Nothing would be more fatal than for the Government of States to get in the hands of experts. Expert knowledge is limited knowledge, and the unlimited ignorance of the plain man who knows where it hurts is a safer guide than any rigorous direction of a specialized character.”

    • #2
    • December 20, 2015, at 12:45 AM PDT
    • Like
  3. Inactive

    I don’t have an entry, but as a footnote I might bring your attention to Larry Arnn’s discussion of Churchill and technology, in the larger context of Nietzsche. Consider this with the following in the background: that for Arnn, as for Jaffa’s best students, great statesmen are true philosophers (Churchill’s and Lincoln’s depression is more indicative of philosophy than is Socrates’ laughter…).

    HH: So Dr. Arnn, I’m curious given your mastery of all things Churchill. If Churchill is aware of this trend before it manifests itself in Hitler, is he aware of the philosophy growing of the nihilists?

    LA: Oh, very much. It’s the theme of Churchill’s life is that it’s summarized best in an essay called Mass Effects On Modern Life. And what he says is there are two things going on. One is we are gaining such power over nature that we lose our greatness. And that’s kind of a Nietzschean theme.

    HH: Yeah.

    LA: And the great crags sticking above us of granite that we can look up to, we don’t have them anymore .But that’s not the worst thing going on. The worst thing going on is as we gain power over nature, we lose standards. That’s a Nietzschean theme. And so Churchill’s argument is what’s going to happen is we’re going to start controlling ourselves. That means some of us are going to control others of us…

    More here.

    • #3
    • December 20, 2015, at 1:08 AM PDT
    • Like
  4. Inactive

    Since you point to that Churchill quote, “the perverted lights of science,” it’s worth pointing out that Harry Neumann, about whom Arnn elaborates in that discussion, addresses that quote in his brilliant if disturbing “Politics or Nothing: Nazism’s Origin in Scientific Contempt for Politics.”

    • #4
    • December 20, 2015, at 1:20 AM PDT
    • Like
  5. Inactive

    If I were your husband, madam, I’d drink it.

    • #5
    • December 20, 2015, at 2:11 AM PDT
    • Like
  6. Thatcher

    The writing of Churchill that surprised me most was an essay of his entitled “The Dream,” a description of a conversation between Winston at age 73 has with the phantom of his long-deceased father. I will not tell you the surprise; you’ll just have to read it. (It’s only nine pages and a bit.)

    • #6
    • December 20, 2015, at 2:31 AM PDT
    • Like
  7. Inactive

    Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen: all know how to die: but the influence of the religion paralyses 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. 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.

    Winston Churchill
    The River War, volume 2, pages 248-250. 1899.

    • #7
    • December 20, 2015, at 3:29 AM PDT
    • Like
  8. Contributor

    I’m not sure this is surprising, given Churchill’s lifelong enthusiasm for technology coupled with fears for its possible nocent consequences, but it’s an interesting companion to the 1931 quotation in the original post. This is from a speech in the House of Commons on November 3rd, 1953. The context for this is that on November 1st, the United States detonated Ivy Mike, the first true two stage fusion device, with a yield of 10.4 megatons, on Enewetak Atoll in the Pacific.

    There is no doubt that if the human race are to have their dearest wish and be free from the dread of mass destruction, they could have, as an alternative, what many of them might prefer, namely, the swiftest expansion of material well-being that has ever been within their reach, or even within their dreams.

    By material well-being I mean not only abundance but a degree of leisure for the masses as has never before been possible in our mortal struggle for life. These majestic possibilities ought to gleam, and be made to gleam, before the eyes of the toilers in every land, and they ought to inspire the actions of all who bear responsibility for their guidance. We, and all nations, stand, at this hour in human history, before the portals of supreme catastrophe and of measureless reward. My faith is that in God’s mercy we shall choose aright.

    Churchill was later to write to Eisenhower of the profound consequences of the human ability to release such energy. (The letter is in The Churchill-Eisenhower Correspondence, which I’m unable to quote because I’m presently out of town.)

    • #8
    • December 20, 2015, at 3:49 AM PDT
    • Like
  9. Inactive

    “I would rather see finance less proud and industry more content,” said Winston Churchill in 1925.

    Certainly applies to us today. Finance is way too proud today. Bankers, asset managers etc. take annual compensation in the millions and tens of millions while creating little that is new and adding very little value. This has had negative effects with the growth of cronyism in politics.

    Meanwhile average US household income: $52,000, which is 8% lower than in 2007 in real terms.

    • #9
    • December 20, 2015, at 4:21 AM PDT
    • Like
  10. Contributor

    Israel P.:If I were your husband, madam, I’d drink it.

    Huzzah-

    • #10
    • December 20, 2015, at 5:08 AM PDT
    • Like
  11. Contributor

    The single most surprising thing I can now recall of Churchill is his account of the times in vol.1.chp.2 of his Marlborough. It’s called The Jovial Times–& you can count the ironies, if you like to do that… You can read some of it here courtesy of amazon. By the way, why do American corporations have such awful names these days? Is it an oligarchic deception, to throw off the scent? Except for Uber, which is openly for domination…

    Churchill takes the time in the chapter to say that at some point in English history some women by their now unpublishable charms made or refused to make or maybe unmade the careers of the proud. There is a delight in such corruption that must earn the whip. Then he goes on to say that shockingly in that age there arose Marlborough; & none since.

    • #11
    • December 20, 2015, at 5:24 AM PDT
    • Like
  12. Editor
    Claire Berlinski, Ed. Post author

    Percival:The writing of Churchill that surprised me most was an essay of his entitled “The Dream,” a description of a conversation between Winston at age 73 has with the phantom of his long-deceased father. I will not tell you the surprise; you’ll just have to read it. (It’s only nine pages and a bit.)

    I just read it. Deeply moving.

    Thank you for letting me know about it.

    • #12
    • December 20, 2015, at 5:27 AM PDT
    • Like
  13. Member

    Percival:The writing of Churchill that surprised me most was an essay of his entitled “The Dream,” a description of a conversation between Winston at age 73 has with the phantom of his long-deceased father. I will not tell you the surprise; you’ll just have to read it. (It’s only nine pages and a bit.)

    Wow. That was a great read. Thanks.

    • #13
    • December 20, 2015, at 5:54 AM PDT
    • Like
  14. Reagan
    iWe

    Most surprising? Heard a John Batchelor podcast on Churchill’s war on India – the deliberate and systematic starvation of Indians to support every possible chance to win the war. The podcast quoted someone in Churchill’s cabinet accusing him of sounding like Hitler on racial purity.

    Churchill told (the Prime Minister) Asquith in 1910, ‘The unnatural and increasingly rapid growth of the feeble-minded and insane classes, coupled as it is with a steady restriction among the thrifty, energetic and superior stocks, constitutes a national and race danger which it is impossible to exaggerate … I feel that the source from which the stream of madness is fed should be cut off and sealed up before another year has passed.’

    ‘I propose that 100,000 degenerate Britons should be forcibly sterilized and others put in labour camps to halt the decline of the British race.’

    ‘I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes. The moral effect should be so good that the loss of life should be reduced to a minimum.’

    Between 24 and 30 July 1912, a month after the Second Reading of the Mental Deficiency Bill in Parliament, the first international Eugenics Conference was held in London, and was attended by four hundred delegates. Churchill was a Vice-President of the Congress.

    • #14
    • December 20, 2015, at 7:13 AM PDT
    • Like
  15. Editor
    Claire Berlinski, Ed. Post author

    iWe: ‘I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes. The moral effect should be so good that the loss of life should be reduced to a minimum.’

    Always quoted, never in full. The full quote:

    “I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas. We have definitely adopted the position at the Peace Conference of arguing in favour of the retention of gas as a permanent method of warfare. It is sheer affectation to lacerate a man with the poisonous fragment of a bursting shell and to boggle at making his eyes water by means of lachrymatory gas.

    I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilized tribes. The moral effect should be so good that the loss of life should be reduced to a minimum. It is not necessary to use only the most deadly gasses: gasses can be used which cause great inconvenience and would spread a lively terror and yet would leave no serious permanent effects on most of those affected

    “Making his eyes water by means of lachrymatory gas” is otherwise known as “tear gas.”

    • #15
    • December 20, 2015, at 8:00 AM PDT
    • Like
  16. Editor
    Claire Berlinski, Ed. Post author

    iWe: The unnatural and increasingly rapid growth of the feeble-minded and insane classes, coupled as it is with a steady restriction among the thrifty, energetic and superior stocks, constitutes a national and race danger which it is impossible to exaggerate … I feel that the source from which the stream of madness is fed should be cut off and sealed up before another year has passed.’

    This is true. It wasn’t his finest hour. Some background on that letter.

    • #16
    • December 20, 2015, at 8:08 AM PDT
    • Like
  17. Inactive

    iWe:Most surprising? Heard a John Batchelor podcast on Churchill’s war on India – the deliberate and systematic starvation of Indians to support every possible chance to win the war. The podcast quoted someone in Churchill’s cabinet accusing him of sounding like Hitler on racial purity.

    Churchill told (the Prime Minister) Asquith in 1910, ‘The unnatural and increasingly rapid growth of the feeble-minded and insane classes, coupled as it is with a steady restriction among the thrifty, energetic and superior stocks, constitutes a national and race danger which it is impossible to exaggerate … I feel that the source from which the stream of madness is fed should be cut off and sealed up before another year has passed.’

    ‘I propose that 100,000 degenerate Britons should be forcibly sterilized and others put in labour camps to halt the decline of the British race.’

    ‘I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes. The moral effect should be so good that the loss of life should be reduced to a minimum.’

    Between 24 and 30 July 1912, a month after the Second Reading of the Mental Deficiency Bill in Parliament, the first international Eugenics Conference was held in London, and was attended by four hundred delegates. Churchill was a Vice-President of the Congress

    This wins the prize, surely. It seems to go against everything he stands for in our present understanding of him. We must remember that he was in a state of flux during this time — I doubt (but can’t prove) that he felt this way later in the decades to follow.

    Regarding the book you cite, the description includes this gem:

    [These actions] devastated India and set the stage for the massive bloodletting that accompanied independence.

    Unbelievably stupid thing to say — to try to connect these unrelated things and then to blame the biggest evidence of latent evil in the society on the British and Churchill is despicable. India’s partition bloodbath was a homegrown one. The British do have some blame in their planning of partition (which is not inconsiderable) and in sins of omission and schadenfreude but the people wielding the machetes were the culprits in this.

    • #17
    • December 20, 2015, at 8:15 AM PDT
    • Like
  18. Inactive

    In a letter to his mother, Jan 26, 1898:

    “…In politics a man I take it, gets on not so much by what he does, as by what he is. It is not so much a question of brains as of character & originality.”

    • #18
    • December 20, 2015, at 8:28 AM PDT
    • Like
  19. Editor
    Claire Berlinski, Ed. Post author

    iWe: the deliberate and systematic starvation of Indians to support every possible chance to win the war.

    This is partly true.

    The cause of the famine above all was the fall of Burma to the Japanese (and a devastating cyclone in mid-October 1942). The incipient famine in the border areas of Bengal was ignored and then made worse by measures to hinder Japan when it appeared Japan might conquer the region. The war caused floods of refugees from Burma to Bengal, which raised the demand for food and made it impossible to importing rice from Burma.

    But certainly, British officials ignored the problem as it developed and failed to act to resolve it for a year. There is real moral culpability there.

    NB: The US War Department also denied food allocations and shipping space to Britain (which forced Britain to ration food to its civilians at half the level rationed to Americans) and diverted shipping to support US and Allied military operations, which did not help.

    And indeed, Churchill did really say, to his Secretary of State for India, Leopold Amery, “I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion.” He also said, during a war cabinet meeting, that it was their own fault for “breeding like rabbits.”

    But this sentiment is in marked contrast to his response to the Amritsar riots, which suggested no hatred for Indians:

    However we may dwell upon the difficulties of General Dyer during the Amritsar riots, upon the anxious and critical situation in the Punjab, upon the danger to Europeans throughout that province, … one tremendous fact stands out – I mean the slaughter of nearly 400 persons and the wounding of probably three to four times as many, at the Jallian Wallah Bagh on 13th April. That is an episode which appears to me to be without precedent or parallel in the modern history of the British Empire. … It is an extraordinary event, a monstrous event, an event which stands in singular and sinister isolation.”

    That said — in the broader picture — there were 22 major famines in India between 1900-1945, most during peacetime. Consider the timeline of famine under British rule. Only 14 recorded famines prior to colonization, and no famines remotely on that scale since decolonization. (The 1966 Bihar famine was trivial by comparison.)

    So I think it quite fair to say that Churchill was morally blind to the destruction colonization had wrought.

    • #19
    • December 20, 2015, at 8:37 AM PDT
    • Like
  20. Editor
    Claire Berlinski, Ed. Post author

    Titus Techera: Except for Uber, which is openly for domination…

    But also an awful name, because that should be off-putting.

    • #20
    • December 20, 2015, at 8:47 AM PDT
    • Like
  21. Podcaster

    Having read Manchester’s biography of the Great Man, nothing that Churchill has said or written is a surprise. He had a marvelous hold on the basics of human nature.

    • #21
    • December 20, 2015, at 8:58 AM PDT
    • Like
  22. Member

    Claire Berlinski, Ed.:

    iWe: The unnatural and increasingly rapid growth of the feeble-minded and insane classes, coupled as it is with a steady restriction among the thrifty, energetic and superior stocks, constitutes a national and race danger which it is impossible to exaggerate … I feel that the source from which the stream of madness is fed should be cut off and sealed up before another year has passed.’

    This is true. It wasn’t his finest hour. Some background on that letter.

    By all rights, I guess that should make Churchill a huge hero among feminists. After all, Margaret Sanger said pretty much the same thing and women are now “honored” to receive awards in her name.

    • #22
    • December 20, 2015, at 8:59 AM PDT
    • Like
  23. Inactive

    kelsurprise:

    Claire Berlinski, Ed.:

    iWe: The unnatural and increasingly rapid growth of the feeble-minded and insane classes, coupled as it is with a steady restriction among the thrifty, energetic and superior stocks, constitutes a national and race danger which it is impossible to exaggerate … I feel that the source from which the stream of madness is fed should be cut off and sealed up before another year has passed.’

    This is true. It wasn’t his finest hour. Some background on that letter.

    By all rights, I guess that should make Churchill a huge hero among feminists. After all, Margaret Sanger said pretty much the same thing and women are now “honored” to receive awards in her name.

    Yes, but conservatives are held to a higher standard.

    • #23
    • December 20, 2015, at 9:05 AM PDT
    • Like
  24. Member

    Larry Koler: By all rights, I guess that should make Churchill a huge hero among feminists. After all, Margaret Sanger said pretty much the same thing and women are now “honored” to receive awards in her name.

    Yes, but conservatives are held to a higher standard.

    Agreed. Hence my singling out feminists as the group that would laud him for such statements. The list of people my self-proclaimed “feminist” friends deem nigh on worship-worthy truly boggles the mind, sometimes.

    • #24
    • December 20, 2015, at 9:37 AM PDT
    • Like
  25. Inactive

    FRENCH VERSE
    La peinture á l’huile
    Est bien difficile,
    Mais c’est beaucoup plus beau
    Que la peinture á l’eau.

    • #25
    • December 20, 2015, at 12:12 PM PDT
    • Like
  26. Contributor

    Claire Berlinski, Ed.:

    Titus Techera: Except for Uber, which is openly for domination…

    But also an awful name, because that should be off-putting.

    I have come around to be skeptical of the opinion that Americans will not long tolerate oligarchy-

    • #26
    • December 20, 2015, at 12:57 PM PDT
    • Like
  27. Inactive

    kelsurprise:

    Larry Koler: By all rights, I guess that should make Churchill a huge hero among feminists. After all, Margaret Sanger said pretty much the same thing and women are now “honored” to receive awards in her name.

    Yes, but conservatives are held to a higher standard.

    Agreed. Hence my singling out feminists as the group that would laud him for such statements. The list of people my self-proclaimed “feminist” friends deem nigh on worship-worthy truly boggles the mind, sometimes.

    Yes, good point. Feminists are first leftists and then feminists. This is why Camille Paglia and Tammy Bruce are forced onto our side and hated by the the “feminists.”

    Related to this, how many leftists would love — love — to meet the mass murdering Castro, for example.

    • #27
    • December 20, 2015, at 3:34 PM PDT
    • Like
  28. Thatcher

    I am a huge fan of Churchill and got to spend an afternoon at the Churchill War Rooms & Museum in London. I think it was there that I learned of the remarkably civilized relationship he had with Neville Chamberlain after the Fall of France.

    Chamberlain died less than six months later. Churchill formally announced the fact of that death to the House of Commons on November 12, 1940 and this is part of what he said.

    It fell to Neville Chamberlain in one of the supreme crises of the world to be contradicted by events, to be disappointed in his hopes, and to be deceived and cheated by a wicked man. But what were these hopes in which he was disappointed? What were these wishes in which he was frustrated? What was that faith that was abused? They were surely among the most noble and benevolent instincts of the human heart-the love of peace, the toil for peace, the strife for peace, the pursuit of peace, even at great peril, and certainly to the utter disdain of popularity or clamour. Whatever else history may or may not say about these terrible, tremendous years, we can be sure that Neville Chamberlain acted with perfect sincerity according to his lights and strove to the utmost of his capacity and authority, which were powerful, to save the world from the awful, devastating struggle in which we are now engaged. This alone will stand him in good stead as far as what is called the verdict of history is concerned.

    So, this speech is semi-surprising. However, it gives a new perspective of the problem of Chamberlain’s appeasement in 1938. If one wants to draw a lesson from history, today’s appeasers do not look all that good when measured against Chamberlain.

    • #28
    • December 20, 2015, at 4:02 PM PDT
    • Like
  29. Contributor

    So this a criticism of peace–notice how peace is increasingly complicated: Toil for peace is ok, because democrats work for a living & think work dignified–but then strife? That’s strange, to say the least.

    Two contributions to peace are here criticized. One is aristocratic: Chamberlain was a gentleman–he did not stoop to populism–he sought what he honestly thought best & persisted in his persuasion. Honest men do that–they would think of prudence as lies & deceit…

    The other is democratic: I believe even the conservative Ricochet community would show that democrats, partisans of democracy think of themselves as basically peaceful & of democracy as the realm of peace. Only strangers or aliens provoke democracy to war–democracy does not have the causes of war within its own principles & practices.

    This blindness, for the most part benign, makes it impossible to check or balance the moralism of gentlemen. The prudent man who seems weak, mutable to the few seems violent, warlike to the many. Tough-

    • #29
    • December 20, 2015, at 6:28 PM PDT
    • Like
  30. Editor
    Claire Berlinski, Ed. Post author

    Percival:The writing of Churchill that surprised me most was an essay of his entitled “The Dream,” a description of a conversation between Winston at age 73 has with the phantom of his long-deceased father. I will not tell you the surprise; you’ll just have to read it. (It’s only nine pages and a bit.)

    I declare you the winner of this contest. I’d never read it and I wager very few of us had before. It was a wonderful addition to my knowledge of Churchill’s writings — and it’s also gut-wrenchingly moving. It’s been haunting me since I read it.

    Thank you.

    • #30
    • December 21, 2015, at 2:01 AM PDT
    • Like
  1. 1
  2. 2