Norman Rockwell, Study for “Freedom of Speech”
1,763 words
The ruling elites in Canada want a silent citizenry incapable of challenging them. They want to avail themselves of the boons of technology with none of its drawbacks; they wish to become a political and economic class immune to criticism. The multicultural system that they preside over is inherently unstable; and increasingly, maintaining the status quo requires authoritarian controls over free speech.
In theory, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees freedom of expression under section 2(b): “Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: . . . freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication.” This was once a cornerstone of Canadian democracy that includes the right to communicate ideas, even unpopular ones.
Successive federal governments, however, have introduced or passed laws that expand regulatory oversight of online platforms, impose new criminal penalties for speech-related offenses, and mandate content moderation or access controls. Free speech and internet freedom advocates argue these measures risk overbreadth, overreach, prior restraint, chilling effects, and indirect censorship. While framed as protecting children, supporting Canadian culture, safeguarding news accuracy, or combating hate, critics—including civil liberties groups, legal experts, and creators—warn they erode the open internet and impose self-censorship on users, journalists, and platforms.
As of March 2026, several key pieces of legislation (passed, implemented, or poised for revival) warrant scrutiny. This article examines the Online Streaming Act (Bill C-11), the Online News Act (Bill C-18), the stalled but resurrected Online Harms Act (Bill C-63), age-verification proposals like Bill S-209, and recent Criminal Code expansions under Bill C-9. Each carries distinct risks, but together they signal a trend toward greater government and regulatory control over what Canadians see, share, and say online.
The Online Streaming Act (Bill C-11): Discoverability Mandates & CRTC Overreach
Passed in April, 2023 and now under Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) implementation, Bill C-11 amends the Broadcasting Act to regulate online streaming services and certain social media platforms as “online undertakings.” Its stated goal is to promote Canadian content (CanCon) through discoverability requirements—ensuring Canadian stories and music appear prominently in algorithms and searches on platforms like YouTube, TikTok, Netflix, and Spotify.
Advocates worry most about its potential overreach into user-generated content (UGC). Although the government insists the law targets commercial services and excludes individual users’ posts, the bill’s broad criteria capture nearly all audiovisual material. Section 4.2(2) leaves most UGC vulnerable to CRTC oversight, with platforms required to promote CanCon quotas or face penalties.
Buy Jason Kessler’s book “Charlottesville and the Death of Free Speech”
By prioritizing approved Canadian programming in feeds, the CRTC has essentially gained the authority to dictate outcomes. Former CRTC officials and critics note this forces platforms to manipulate recommendations, effectively letting regulators decide what users see first. Conservative opponents and groups like OpenMedia called it “silencing Canadians online,” arguing it creates a two-tier internet: favoured CanCon rises while independent or non-Canadian creators sink.
According to University of Ottawa law professor Michael Geist, Canadian creators risk losing global reach if algorithms deprioritize their work, which may lead to self-censorship. Essentially, creators will live in fear of running afoul of the CRTC’s internet commissars. The bill’s reliance on post-passage policy directions offers weak protection; a future government could reverse them, expanding regulation to individual posts. Although legal challenges to the law continue, it remains in place, which underscores the ongoing concerns about freedom of expression and censorious cultural policy.
This law sets a precedent for state influence over online discovery, undermining the neutral, user-driven internet. Increasingly, the state will dictate what you see, read, and think.
The Online News Act (Bill C-18): Link Taxes & News Blocks
Enacted in June 2023, Bill C-18 (the Online News Act) requires large digital platforms like Facebook, Instagram, and Google to act as news intermediaries that negotiate compensation deals with Canadian news outlets for linking to or displaying their content. The CRTC oversees exemptions and bargaining. Proponents argue it corrects a market imbalance where platforms profit from news without paying creators.
Critics, however, label it a “link tax” that distorts the internet’s fundamental design—hyperlinks as free sharing. Platforms responded predictably: Meta blocked all news content on Facebook and Instagram for Canadian users, eliminating millions of daily views. Google negotiated exemptions but threatened similar action. By 2025, reports documented a sharp drop in news visibility, with users losing easy access to local journalism, public health updates, and breaking news. Taylor Owen, Director of the Centre for Media, Technology and Democracy, stated that “The Online News Act had a profound impact on Canada’s news ecosystem. . . . Meta’s response to the Act was to block access to journalism . . . leading to the removal of 11 million views of journalism a day.”
This constitutes indirect censorship: platforms, facing financial penalties, simply remove or deprioritize news rather than pay. As a result, small outlets gain little while negotiated deals favour legacy media, and innovation suffers. A report published on the Internet Society website warns that the Online News Act is problematic in a whole host of ways:
the Online News Act’s harm to the Internet will contribute to fragmentation, giving people and businesses in Canada a different use and experience of the Internet from those in the rest of the world. In turn, it will make people in Canada less secure, it will stifle innovation online, and it will hinder the growth and interoperability of Canada’s thriving digital economy.
The Online Harms Act (Bill C-63): The Most Dire Threat & Its Looming Revival
Introduced in February, 2024 as an omnibus bill, Bill C-63 proposed the Online Harms Act alongside Criminal Code and Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA) amendments. It died on the order paper in January, 2025 after parliamentary prorogation but is slated for revival in 2026. Child-protection advocates hope for progress; free speech groups dread it.
Part 1 of the Online Harms Act would establish a Digital Safety Commission and impose duties on social media operators to mitigate seven categories of “harmful content”: child sexual abuse material, non-consensual intimate images, child bullying, self-harm inducement, content fomenting hatred, inciting violence, and violent extremism/terrorism. Platforms face massive administrative penalties (up to 10% of global revenue) for non-compliance, plus requirements for risk assessments and transparency reports.
Critics like the BC Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA) warned that vague definitions (e.g., “hatred”) open the door to wide interpretations and will encourage platforms to err on the side of deletion, the resultant fallout would see lawful but controversial speech removed from the internet. Part 3 of the act will enable human rights complaints against internet communications. Aggrieved complaints will be able to remain anonymous while when they bring their cases against platforms or websites in hopes of being compensated anonymously and subjecting their ideological enemies to punitive measures. The BCCLA articulated their concerns:
According to Part 3 of Bill C-63, complainants could request to be anonymous or could potentially include a large number of people who see a viral post, while the Tribunal’s monetary rewards could rise to $20,000. There is a real danger that people will use the new provision to gain money or to carry out a grudge. Given how ineffective this would be, the BCCLA has also urged the government to sever Part 3.
The negative implications for running afoul of this or similar legislation or laws are as obvious as the are disturbing.
Part 2 endeavors to alter the Criminal Code:
Part 2 proposes to make several amendments to the Criminal Code, increasing penalties for hate-speech related crimes, the worst among these being life imprisonment as a potential penalty for all crimes and all federal offences, if a new hate-motivation offence is attached. It would also introduce a new peace bond that aims to restrict people from potentially hateful behaviour before they have done anything illegal.
These changes in Part 2 drew the BCCLA’s fiercest opposition. A new “hate-motivated offence” that threatens life imprisonment for any underlying crime (even minor federal offenses); and peace bonds permitting pre-emptive restrictions such as house arrest and electronic monitoring—on individuals that judges deem at risk of hateful speech, before any crime occurs. Margaret Atwood, who is by no means a Right-wing zealot, likened this to Orwellian thoughtcrime. Although the bill died on the order paper twice, its revival in 2026 looms.
Age-Verification Legislation Bill S-209 & S-210
Private members’ bills like the earlier S-210 and current S-209 seek to protect minors from pornography via mandatory age verification or estimation on commercial sites. Organizations failing to comply face offenses, with courts empowered to order blocking of non-compliant services.
Proponents frame it as child safety. Critics, including Michael Geist, warn of mission creep: regulatory powers could extend mandates to search engines, social media, and AI services—not just dedicated pornography sites. Canadians would upload ID or biometrics to third-party verifiers (often foreign), creating privacy nightmares and data-leak risks.
As of late 2025, the bill advanced despite warnings.
Expanding Hate Speech Laws: Bill C-9
Bill C-9, known as the Combatting Hate Act, “would amend the Criminal Code to propose new offences to better protect access to religious, cultural and other specified places, and to address hate-motivated crimes.” The act aims to introduce new Criminal Code offenses as well:
(1) an intimidation offence that prohibits conduct that is intended to provoke a state of fear In another person to impede them from accessing religious or cultural institutions and other specified places; (2) an offence that prohibits the intentional obstruction of a person’s lawful access to such places; (3) a hate crime offence to more explicitly denounce hate-motivated crime; and (4) an offence that prohibits wilfully promoting hatred against any identifiable group by displaying, in any public place, certain hate or terrorist symbols.
The bill would also define “hatred” as “detestation or vilification and does not mean disdain or dislike.”
Combined with C-63’s remnants, these expansions risk turning speech itself into a prosecutable minefield. Harsh penalties and pre-crime tools invite selective enforcement against the ruling regime’s enemies. This legislation will undoubtedly open the door to draconian repression of Canadian citizens who want to criticize the ongoing destruction of their country through mass migration, negative eugenics, two-tier policing and various other issues.
Conclusion
These laws do not operate in isolation. C-11 and C-18 regulate discovery and sharing; C-63/S-209 add moderation and barriers to access; C-9 and hate provisions criminalize content. The internet becomes permission-based, surveilled, and fragmented, which is contrary to its open architecture. The justifications for curtailing speech and other freedoms are being couched in moral universalist terms to conceal their true authoritarian nature. Legislation and laws like these are not about protecting all Canadians and other similar arguments, it is about increasing the power of the Leftist managerial state and its executors. Unfortunately, this is only the beginning.
13 comments
I don’t know about any of you here, but if the situation were reversed, I would not hesitate to support legislation banning the expression of hatred of white people and our cultural norms now that our enemies have, at least in Canada and G.B, laid their cards on the table. Let’s quit with the pretense of being libertarians, i.e., supporters of total freedom of expression no matter what.
USA, Kanuckistan and European “nations” are not Christian anymore so we are not under any obligation to forgive and forget. Enough is enough.
Well, the Truth is always the right answer, even in wartime. But that mixes apples and oranges. Our enemies are not interested in free-speech, and that is not their strong suit anyway.
🙂
The Truth walks around naked on a battlefield at night. By the next morning it gets considerably dressed up. Almost impossible to know what is fact and what is fake anymore.
It definitely requires work. I think it is a crucially-important goal, however, and why I have been interested in historiography and epistemology all my life. The Truth is not something that can be legislated.
🙂
The only newspaper in the USSR was Pravda. Truth. They essentially legislated truth every day. The Soviet citizen knew the truth but could not speak it. After 100 years it skewed the Russian language to where they were speaking a sort of code that only another Russian could understand. After all that time there was the Truth, waiting. Historiographically speaking, who do you think was the most significant person of the 20th century?
Most significant? That would depend on the criterion. Max Weber might say something different than Gertrude Himmelfarb (wife of arch Neoconservative and ex-Trotskyite, Irving Kristol).
Leopold von Ranke, maybe, but he was born in the late 18th century.
The thing is, historians often have wildly different viewpoints without necessarily being wrong. Nobody really owns a canon of Truth with a capital T.
I tend to view historiography like the Scientific Method ─ i.e., not as a canon of Truth or dogma on a gilded shelf, but instead a process of revealing truth and fact-verification based on observational evidence, testing or experimentation, and endless revision “to bring History into accord with the facts.”
As far as individual historians, I tend to like military or diplomatic historians, and many of my favorite historians have fallen into the Memory Hole in a field now dominated by academic Marxism.
In a list of historians born in the 19th and 20th centuries at Wikipedia, many staples like J.F.C. Fuller, B.H. Liddell-Hart, Trevor N. Dupuy, and John Keegan are listed, and so is A.J.P. Taylor, Charles. A. Beard, and even David L. Hoggan, but Harry Elmer Barnes and David Irving, not at all.
🙂
I’ve always despised the excuse of “protecting minors.” Outside of the fact that the stated goal never aligns with the real goal, even if we take the liberal premise at face value, it amounts to sheltering children from vice until 18, then they’re free to pursue unrestricted decadence. If this is a serious moral threat, why shouldn’t everyone be protected? Why not go after the peddlers of vice instead of their victims?
BTW, there’s a minor error in your word choice. You probably mean dysgenics, not negative eugenics, which refers to discouraging reproduction for individuals with undesirable traits (e.g., the criminal justice system). In contrast, positive eugenics encourages reproduction for individuals with desirable traits (e.g., selective or discriminatory pro-natalist policies).
Stronza: March 27, 2026 … Let’s quit with the pretense of being libertarians, i.e., supporters of total freedom of expression no matter what.
USA, Kanuckistan and European “nations” are not Christian anymore so we are not under any obligation to forgive and forget. Enough is enough.
—
Yes, Stronza, Christian spookceaft aside, as well as the Canadian Charter and any hopeful new legislation against “haters (read: Jewish watchdogs and media masters),” let’s also forget about live and let live libertarianism. It’s killing our race. We are in a war and we’re losing out of ignorance, fear and cowardice. Get serious.
EDIT: I’ll note that in a word search of this article and comments under it the word ‘Jew’ is not found at all until in this comment by me. Does anyone find that relevant?
I posted the link about Jewish control of Canadian media that you and others at C-C may have missed, or either saw and ignored: “Journalists and Canadians” at nationalvanguard.org . You really should read this eye-opener by William Pierce from 24 years ago, then ask yourself if things in Canada have really changed since then:
… I’m not much of a believer in giant conspiracies, involving many people and crossing ethnic boundaries. If journalism students are selected for their lemming-like characteristics, I suspect that the selection is unconscious rather than calculated. Which is to say, journalism professors are lemmings themselves and they favor the more lemming-like students. More likely, it is the fundamental nature of the profession that guarantees that nearly all of them will think alike. Journalism, after all, is a fundamentally extroverted profession. Journalists spend all their lives talking with other people and writing about other people. They are less private and more highly socialized than the people in most other lines of work.
I’ve tried to talk about this and related subjects with journalists, but usually I haven’t had much luck. So my own writing about the mass media has focused less on what makes Gentile reporters tick so uniformly than on what motivates their employers, the Jewish media bosses. With more than 3,000 years of Jewish history to provide examples, the motivation of the media bosses is easier to understand and to explain.
Last month, however, something came to light that I found very interesting in this regard. As you may be aware, the mass media in Canada are as much under Jewish control as in the United States. The undisputed top media mogul in Canada is Israel Asper, who is commonly known by his nickname “Izzy.” With his sons Leonard and David and other family members, Izzy Asper owns CanWest Global Communications Corporation.
A Gentile, Conrad Black, also used to be a major player in the Canadian media, but a little over a year ago Black’s Southam News, Inc., was bought out by Izzy. CanWest now owns more than 60 per cent of Canada’s newspapers and other media outlets. That’s more than 60 per cent of all of Canada’s mass media in the hands of one Jew. Included are 14 metropolitan dailies and 128 local newspapers across the country, including the Vancouver Sun, the Vancouver Province, the Calgary Herald, and the Montreal Gazette. CanWest also owns the National Post, which is distributed throughout Canada. In addition Izzy owns media in the United States, Australia, New Zealand, and Northern Ireland.
Last month Izzy issued a written directive to his newspapers, instructing them that from now on they must print nothing critical of Israel or of Israeli actions or policies. This is a rare thing. Usually directives of this sort are oral only, and great care is taken to keep them from coming to the attention of the public. But Izzy, with even more brass than is customary for his tribe, made his directive public. He announced that, beginning three weeks ago, December 12, the editorial content of all of his newspapers would be homogenized, and they all would be pro-Israel…
Read the rest of this remarkable exposé from our foremost expert in Jewish media control at the link.
Scott: March 28, 2026 … Truth is always the right answer, even in wartime… Our enemies are not interested in free-speech, that is not their strong suit.
—
Truth in wartime? Don’t expect much of that. Witness wild whoppers flying around Trump’s AIPAC Fury.
“The first casualty of war is truth” captures a timeless observation: conflict
inevitably distorts reality, making vigilance, critical thinking, and independent
reporting essential to safeguard truth.
Yes, free speech for (((them)))), but not for us. Jews ban our truths, so to Hell with them.
Here at C-C you may have noticed that I’ve moved just ahead of kök böri, whoever that is, to number 8 on the Top 100 Commenters list, just behind you at number 7. Don’t worry, I’ve plateaued and won’t be moving up any further. I was curious about the fellow with the alien name who I’d just eclipsed so looked it up:
The rules of the [Central Asian Nomad Game] kök böri are simple: two teams of eight to twelve riders on each side compete to wrestle a decapitated goat carcass away from each other. In the modern version of the sport, the carcass must be carried to the ‘cauldron’—the opponent’s goal—and thrown into it. In older versions, the carcass had to be carried to a certain point in your own half of the field…
Well, I do tend to be grimly realistic, but I am nevertheless quite skeptical of the efficacy of Churchill’s “Bodyguard of Lies” tactic. That is why I said above that “the Truth is always the right answer.”
If one takes Churchill’s maxim far enough ─ and that isn’t very far at all ─ then you are not really protecting Truth with a “Bodyguard of Lies” at all, but are just peddling crass falsehoods to begin with.
Origin of the term, per AI:
Winston Churchill famously said during World War II: “In wartime, truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies.”
A simple-minded idealist or one-world Internationalist could argue that (falsely) claiming that Hitler tried to gas all the Jews in “murder showers” during World War II was necessary to prevent World War III, and thus save billions of lives instead of waging the next global thermonuclear war.
People like the future Connecticut U.S. Senator Thomas J. Dodd, who was a super-devout Catholic attorney and prosecutor at the Nuremberg Trials, had no qualms about posing for press photos with fake Nazi shrunken heads (IMAGE).
🙂
Knowing what we know about him now, who cares what that POS Churchill had to say about anything?
Scott: March 30, 2026 … Winston Churchill famously said during World War II: “In wartime, truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies.”
—
Speaking of truth, William Pierce laid out unvarnished truth about WC years ago, here: “The Buying of Mr. Churchill” at nationalvanguard.org:
THE MAN MOST directly responsible for the demise of the British Empire and its replacement as a world power by the Soviet Empire is Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill (1874-1965). The policies which he advocated as a member of the British government in the period just before World War II and the policies which he followed as prime minister during that war were diametrically opposed to the interests of the British people and led ultimately to the sad plight in which Britain finds herself today. Churchill acted as he did, because he consciously and deliberately served alien interests from 1938, at the latest, until the end of the war…
…He took up the Jewish cry, “Delenda est Germania – Germany must be destroyed,” and urged his government, in a series of jingoistic and bloodthirsty speeches, to join the Jewish “holy war” against Hitler. This was the same Churchill who, in September 1937, had said of Hitler: “If our country were defeated, I hope we should find a champion as indomitable to restore our courage and lead us back to our place among the nations.”
Pierce also put into perspective by comparing WWII Allied leaders Churchill, Stalin and Roosevelt to Adolf Hitler in his April 1989 National Vanguard magazine editorial to commemorate Hitler’s 100th birthday “The Measure of Greatness” at nationalvanguard.org :
APRIL 20 of this year [1989] is the 100th anniversary of the birth of the greatest man of our era — a man who dared more and achieved more, who set his aim higher and climbed higher, who felt more deeply and stirred the souls of those around him more mightily, who was more closely attuned to the Life Force which permeates our cosmos and gives it meaning and purpose, and did more to serve that Life Force, than any other man of our times. (ILLUSTRATION: portrait by Will Williams)
And yet he is the most reviled and hated man of our times. Only a few tens of thousands of men and women, in scattered groups around the world, will celebrate his birthday with love and reverence on April 20, while all of the scribblers and commentators of the controlled news media, the controlled politicians, and the controlled churchmen will pour out their hatred and venom and lies against him, and those lies will be believed by hundreds of millions. What is the measure of greatness in a man?…
Read more of these two classic Pierce essays at the links.
Scott: March 30, 2026 … Winston Churchill famously said during World War II: “In wartime, truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies.”
Will Williams: March 31, 2026 at 12:17 am … Knowing what we know about him now, who cares what that POS Churchill had to say about anything?
True, but let’s not forget Winnie’s famous article on page 5 of the Illustrated Sunday Herald of February 8, 1920 entitled “Zionism vs. Bolshevism: a Struggle for the Soul of the Jewish People.”
https://archive.org/embed/WinstonChurchillZionismVsBolshevismStruggleForTheSoulOfTheJewishPeople1920
In it Churchill acknowledged the role of Jews in Bolshevism and International movements, and he suggests that Good Jews should be Zionists instead of Commies.
But as Hitler observed in Mein Kampf, the last thing that Diaspora Jews want is to actually live in Israel. Unless caught with their hands in the cookie jar and fleeing justice, they prefer to have some other good Jewish “pioneers” move there to work and fight for their own country.
George Lincoln Rockwell used to introduce skeptical audiences to this long memory-holed Churchill essay because the future Prime Minister was apparently arguing against interest by at least acknowledging what Hitler said, that Bolshevism was Jewish.
🙂
Scott, replies to me: March 31, 2026 …[L]et’s not forget Winnie’s famous article on page 5 of the Illustrated Sunday Herald of February 8, 1920 entitled “Zionism vs. Bolshevism: a Struggle for the Soul of the Jewish People.”
https://archive.org/embed/WinstonChurchillZionismVsBolshevismStru
ggleForTheSoulOfTheJewishPeople1920
—
Thanks, Scott. That famous 1920 article by WS is featured in “The Buying of Mr. Churchill” that I linked to for you, above. The caption under it reads:
CHURCHILL’S relationship with the Jews changed markedly during his political career. In the 1920’s and the early 1930’s he was not afraid to criticize Jews occasionally – or to praise Hitler – but after receiving 150,000 pounds from Henry Strakosch In 1938 he thenceforth uttered only the most extravagant praise for Jews and the most vitriolic condemnations of Hitler and Germany. Even as early as 1920, however, Churchill was careful to salt his criticisms of “bad Jews” and their destructive activities with obsequious references to “good Jews” and their supposed benevolence. This article [see the Appendix for its full text. — Ed.] in the Illustrated Sunday Herald of February 8, 1920, roused the Jews to a fury against Churchill, because it exposed communism as a Jewish plot for world domination. Churchill’s praise of Zionism and his erroneous attribution of Christian morals and philosophy to Jews did little to salve their outrage. It is difficult to decide whether the rose-colored view of Zionism expressed here is due to naivete or hypocrisy. Perhaps he genuinely believed that Zionism was a movement “in harmony with the truest interests of the British Empire,” rather than an alternative Jewish plot for world domination fully as evil and dangerous as communism; perhaps not. In any event, it is clear that, despite the fulsome Jew-fawning of the first few paragraphs of his article, Churchill was issuing a thinly veiled warning to the Jews in Britain: “Behave, or else; repudiate the communist activities and doctrines of your fellow Jews and help us keep the communist menace from taking over Britain, or we’ll all know whom to blame.” After 1938 Churchill never came close to making as frank a public statement on the Jewish problem as this; the struggle for his own soul had been decided, and the Jews were the victors. And having sold out to the Jews, Churchill then had no qualms about dealing with communists as well; he sat down with Joseph Stalin and planned the post-WW II dismemberment of the British Empire. There is one minor error in the article above: Lenin was actually at least one-quarter Jewish; and one major piece of hypocrisy: Churchill knew well that the “national” Jews he praised for their contribution to the British war effort actually came over to the British side only after helping their Zionist brethren extort from the British government a promise of aid in securing Palestine as a future Jewish state.
And the text continues:
And as soon as Churchill changed his tune toward Hitler, the dark forces behind the scenes which had ignored him for 23 years began pulling the right strings for him again. In September 1939, immediately upon Britain’s declaration of war against Germany — largely as a consequence of Churchill’s insistent, demagogic oratory — he was again made first lord of the admiralty, the very post from which he had been forced in disgrace 24 years earlier! This time, however, Churchill’s reckless disregard for British lives and British welfare was to cost far more than the 100,000 casualties of his first fling at grand strategy.
In May 1940 the strings were pulled once again, and Churchill became prime minister. Britain and her empire were now his to expend as profligately as he wished in the service of his new masters. And expend them he did. His sole aim was the destruction of Germany, regardless of the cost to Britain. This aim, dictated by the Jews he served, was poorly concealed behind a mask of false idealism. Churchill’s ostensible motive in urging a declaration of war against Germany in September 1939 had been the protection of Poland from German aggression, and his Parliamentary rhetoric on behalf of the poor Poles was loud and eloquent. When the Soviet Union invaded eastern Poland later that same month, however, Churchill angrily denounced those critics who suggested that his own arguments for a declaration of war against Germany applied equally well now to a British declaration of war against the Soviets. Obviously, Churchill had no intention of using the sauce for the goose as sauce for the gander.
Churchill repeatedly rejected peace offers from Germany in 1940 and 1941, even siding with the Labor members of the cabinet against his own party when the other Conservatives in the cabinet wanted to end the war. When Hitler’s deputy, Rudolf Hess, flew to England on a solo peace mission in May 1941, Churchill had him immediately arrested and held incommunicado. (Hess remains in solitary confinement to this day.) [ED. NOTE: Hess has since died, still imprisoned at the age of 93, in August of 1987.]
Churchill was a participant in the wartime strategy conferences with Roosevelt and Stalin at which a new division of the world’s territory and resources was mapped out. In this division of the spoils of war Britain was sadly shortchanged, but Churchill was unperturbed. With a big cigar clenched in his teeth and suffused with the warm glow of expensive brandy, he merely flashed his two finger “victory” sign, and his media cheering section waxed ecstatic about his “statesmanship.” Whatever he did was now beyond criticism — and this included his utterly cynical acquiescence in the handing over of Poland to Stalin after the war, thus revealing once again the hypocrisy of his avowed war aim in 1939: to save Polish freedom.
One of Churchill’s last acts of “statesmanship” at the behest of the Jews was his insistence on the massive Anglo-American terror raid on Dresden in February 1945, a hate-inspired act of Jewish vengeance against the German people which cost the lives of approximately 200,000 men, women, and children and served no military purpose whatever….
You might want to read “the rest of the story” at the link that I provided.
If you have a Subscriber access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.