As we look back at Churchill, Fisk decides to publish a mean-minded piece about Churchill’s attitude towards Muslims. This stuff is dark, apparently.
“How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism [sic] lays on its votaries!” Churchill wrote in this now almost unobtainable first edition. “Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy … Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture … exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity.”
And this:
“Moslems [sic] 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.”
To which I would say, yes? And? So? it is all perfectly reasonable. Fisk doesn’t seem to think so, though.
But there are a few, now-censored remarks which would have Isis and Boko Haram nodding in agreement. “No stronger retrograde force [than Islam] exists in the world,” the great man announced, but “…Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step…” If it were not for Christianity, “sheltered in the strong arms of science,” then “the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome.” Ukip couldn’t better that.
Gotta wheel out a Ukip snark in there, eh? Fisk really is an arsehole of the first water. Churchill’s observations are there to be seen in those countries ruled by Islam to this day and every word he said is borne out by that observation. Interesting I note, that Fisk’s little attempt at character assassination doesn’t have comments below it.
I would merely observe that Churchill, for all his faults, was a great man. Fisk, on the other hand is nothing of the sort, nor even close. A pathetic, snivelling little excuse for a man.
Fisk? You mean Robert Fisk? Thought he was dead.
No, still with us and still writing drivel in the Indy.
Just brain-dead, apparently.
I wonder what’d been the outcome in 1940 with no Churchill. Still, I doubt there be many Muslims in Europe today. Or the likes of Fisk.
His article where he relates being beaten up by Muslims and STILL blaming himself his hilarious. A must read.
Sorry but Fisk has accidentally done a good thing here.
He has presented the entire readership of the Indy with an account of the disposition of the muslim people of his era, that can’t help but resonate with the latter day experience of even the most blinkered Indy readers. And they also can’t help noticing that none of the fury and savagery in Churchill’s time was due to Israel, or oil, or American policy in the middle east.
Would this be the same Robert Fisk who gave his name to a new verb? To fisk means to go through an article refuting it line by line because pretty much every word of it is wrong.
I’m really not sure, though the title of this post may offer an itty bitty clue.
Yes.
I tend to agree with Monty, this article at this time when Churchill memorial coins are being advertised on telly, is bound to go badly (and go well for us). Timing is important, are we going to see anti Churchill articles in the Indy et al over the coming months?