|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Jun 10, 2023 12:49:39 GMT
I was aware of Churchill's health problems during his second term in office but I have never heard of him being 'ga ga' until you mentioned it. He was certainly not the 'Action This Day' type of leader that he was in wartime but he was still an effective prime minister until ill health forced his resignation.
The only serious criticism that can be levelled at his record after 1951 is that he failed to take effective measures to stem or halt immigration from the New Commonwealth. But then neither did Attlee, Eden or Macmillan.
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Jun 11, 2023 7:49:08 GMT
No it couldn't, you're talking nonsense and I think you know it. Who is going to stand up and say African and Asian mothers should have fewer babies? That's where the global population explosion is happening, but if you have white skin you dare not mention it. Actually Asian and African birthrates and the attendant population explosions need not concern us unduly if we resolved to let nature run its course and build stout defences instead.
If we declined to become involved nature would run its course and equilibrium would be restored in the form of pre-colonial population levels.
I agree, however, to allow nature to take it's course would be racist. |
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on Jun 11, 2023 10:39:12 GMT
Actually Asian and African birthrates and the attendant population explosions need not concern us unduly if we resolved to let nature run its course and build stout defences instead.
If we declined to become involved nature would run its course and equilibrium would be restored in the form of pre-colonial population levels.
I agree, however, to allow nature to take it's course would be racist. To be clear, are you talking about the ghettoization of a whole continent? A new Holodomor? |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jun 11, 2023 10:46:09 GMT
By ghetoisation you mean take steps to make sure we also have somewhere of our own to live?
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Jun 11, 2023 10:51:27 GMT
I agree, however, to allow nature to take it's course would be racist. To be clear, are you talking about the ghettoization of a whole continent? A new Holodomor? I suppose that would be up to them. Perhaps someone should point out that population explosion in poor countries with insufficient resources equals humanitarian disaster. Who knew. |
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on Jun 11, 2023 10:54:04 GMT
By ghetoisation you mean take steps to make sure we also have somewhere of our own to live? I'm trying to understand what was meant by ''let nature run its course''. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Jun 11, 2023 11:24:26 GMT
In practice it would mean refraining from stimulating further population growth through artificial inputs of external resources whether financial, medical, agricultural, technical, administrative, military or humanitarian. A return to pre-colonial arrangements in fact.
Countries would need to sustain their populations through their own efforts, perhaps in collaboration with others in similar straits.
|
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on Jun 11, 2023 11:35:29 GMT
So starve Africa until the population shrinks to 19th century levels.
|
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Jun 11, 2023 11:36:29 GMT
I thought that was happening anyway, we have been getting them clean water for decades but they still don't have any, while they flock this way and we don't have any either, shit there must be some irony in that.
|
|
|
|
Post by patman post on Jun 11, 2023 11:46:51 GMT
I was aware of Churchill's health problems during his second term in office but I have never heard of him being 'ga ga' until you mentioned it. He was certainly not the 'Action This Day' type of leader that he was in wartime but he was still an effective prime minister until ill health forced his resignation.
The only serious criticism that can be levelled at his record after 1951 is that he failed to take effective measures to stem or halt immigration from the New Commonwealth. But then neither did Attlee, Eden or Macmillan.
I'm not convinced Churchill was an effective leader after 1951 — his name was probably used by others for governing.
Another disconcerting aspect of Churchill was his antipathy to the Nazis, when his attachment and views on eugenics and race were so closely aligned to theirs. Despite excuses that he just held views common at the time (about 1910 to 1940), pro-Churchill commentaries on his life tend to down-play or omit his statements and writings on these topics...
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Jun 11, 2023 11:58:16 GMT
So starve Africa until the population shrinks to 19th century levels. There's little doubt that without external inputs Africa could not sustain its present population let alone the four billion projected for later this century.
But the ultimate optimum size of its population is something for Africans to decide not starry-eyed do-gooders in the West.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Jun 11, 2023 11:59:18 GMT
I was aware of Churchill's health problems during his second term in office but I have never heard of him being 'ga ga' until you mentioned it. He was certainly not the 'Action This Day' type of leader that he was in wartime but he was still an effective prime minister until ill health forced his resignation.
The only serious criticism that can be levelled at his record after 1951 is that he failed to take effective measures to stem or halt immigration from the New Commonwealth. But then neither did Attlee, Eden or Macmillan.
I'm not convinced Churchill was an effective leader after 1951 — his name was probably used by others for governing.
Another disconcerting aspect of Churchill was his antipathy to the Nazis, when his attachment and views on eugenics and race were so closely aligned to theirs. Despite excuses that he just held views common at the time (about 1910 to 1940), pro-Churchill commentaries on his life tend to down-play or omit his statements and writings on these topics...
Which of the many biographies of Churchill have you read? |
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on Jun 11, 2023 12:39:37 GMT
So starve Africa until the population shrinks to 19th century levels. There's little doubt that without external inputs Africa could not sustain its present population let alone the four billion projected for later this century.
But the ultimate optimum size of its population is something for Africans to decide not starry-eyed do-gooders in the West.
So do they get to decide what to do with all their mineral wealth too or will Europeans still get to take all that while they watch them starve? |
|
|
|
Post by patman post on Jun 11, 2023 12:50:49 GMT
About 1995, I think I first read Churchill As I Knew Him, by Bonham Carter. Later, I read Roy Jenkins' Churchill, and another of which I forget the details.
Over the years, I've also read several papers, reviews and publications from the International Churchill Society and elsewhere — I guess we've all been bombarded with Churchill fact and fiction, myths and legends, for decades... |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Jun 11, 2023 12:52:41 GMT
Since they can't eat their mineral wealth they'll probably do what they've always done. Take the biggest bribe going and spend the proceeds on villas on the Riviera and Mercedes limousines.
|
|
