In this, he tells us this:
"Winston the spendaholic... teetered on the brink of bankruptcy and was saved by secret backhanders... Faced with a £900 [£54,000 today] demand from his wine merchants Randolph Payne & Sons in 1936, Churchill checked the bill and found the total came to even more — £920 [£55,200], including £268 [£16,080] spent on champagne…CHURCHILL SANK 454 BOTTLES OF BUBBLY IN JUST TWO MONTHS… His accumulated bills for alcohol came to £900 (£54,000)...
At the outbreak of World War I, Churchill was smoking a dozen cigars a day, at about £13 a month [£1,300] — and he had not paid his suppliers, J Grunebaum & Sons, for five years…
During World War II, his personal spending on wine, spirits and cigars was £1,650 a year [£66,000]. In a two-month spell in 1949, Churchill and his house guests at Chartwell drank 454 bottles of champagne, 311 bottles of wine, 69 bottles of port, 58 bottles of brandy, 58 bottles of sherry and 56 bottles of Black Label whisky...
On his way home from a Mediterranean cruise in 1927, Churchill — then Chancellor of the Exchequer — dropped in on the casino at Dieppe and, playing baccarat, lost £350 — the equivalent of £17,500 today. Winston holidayed in the South of France 12 times during the Thirties and always gambled at the casinos. He came home a winner only once…
In the Thirties, when he was a married man with four dependent children and already borrowing more than £2.5 million in today’s money, he would gamble so heavily on his annual holiday in the South of France that he threw away the equivalent of on averge £40,000 every year.
In contrast to his well-documented periods of anxiety and depression, when the ‘black dog’ struck him, there were phases when he gambled or traded shares and currencies with such intensity that he appeared to be on a ‘high’… As a result, he left behind a trail of financial failures that required numerous bailouts by friends, family and admirers.
The defining disaster of Winston’s financial career was the Wall Street Crash of 1929. Churchill always told his friends his losses in the Stock Market collapse amounted to $50,000 — or £500,000 today…Everything he could raise was plunged into U.S. stocks, in businesses from foundries to department stores. His brokers sounded warnings by telegraph: ‘Market heavy. Liquidating becoming more urgent. Will await your telephone. Your bank still losing gold & there are rumours of increase in bank rate.’
Churchill ignored them. In four days he bought and sold $420,000 in shares — or more than £4 million-worth now. It was like a drug to him... The crash was inevitable. At the opening bell in the New York Stock Exchange on Thursday, October 24, 1929, prices fell by an average of 11 per cent…
Churchill kept buying, confident of recouping his losses, right up to the moment he boarded an Atlantic liner to return home. By the time he reached Chartwell, his home in Kent, he was poorer by $75,000 (£750,000). But instead of pulling in his horns, he tried to recoup — and within six months had lost another $35,000 (£350,000)...
His journalism could no longer even cover his back-taxes, and he had borrowed to the limit against his life insurance policies. Creditors were clamouring on all sides. His overdraft had reached £35,000 (more than £2million) and his brokers were demanding an immediate payment of £12,000 (£720,000)…
His efforts to cling to some kind of solvency became desperate. He borrowed money wherever he could — from his brother, his bank, his brokers, his publishers and newspaper editors… And it was only by a wildly improbable intervention, almost an act of God, that he wasn’t bankrupt in 1940 instead of Prime Minister: as war loomed, A SECRET BENEFACTOR WROTE TWO CHEQUES FOR WELL OVER £1 MILLION TO CLEAR CHURCHILL’S DEBTS…
Salvation came from an unexpected quarter. Churchill turned to his friend Brendan Bracken, co-owner of The Economist, to find him a rescuer. Bracken, in turn, approached his business partner, SIR HENRY STRAKOSCH, WHO WAS A FERVENT ADMIRER OF CHURCHILL. HE WAS ALSO IMMENSELY WEALTHY.
Just two weeks after the Dunkirk evacuation, in June 1940, the Prime Minister was facing an ultimatum from Lloyd’s Bank for interest on his £5,602 overdraft (£280,100). ONCE AGAIN, SIR HENRY CAME TO THE RESCUE WITH A CHEQUE FOR £5,000 (£250,000)...
THE DEATH OF SIR HENRY STRAKOSCH IN OCTOBER 1943 BROUGHT A LEGACY OF £20,000 (£1MILLION) AS WELL AS CANCELLING A LOAN.
As D-Day approached, Churchill was solvent for the first time in 20 years.”Henry Strakosch was Jewish.
As were a good few of the richest of 'South Africa’s gold-mining' profiteers.
The following Hobsonian excerpts are taken from, 'The War in South Africa.'
"We are fighting in order to place a small international oligarchy of mine-owners and speculators in power in Pretoria. Englishmen would do well to recognise that the economic and political destinies of South Africa are, and seem likely to remain, in the hands of men most of whom are foreigners by origin, whose trade is finance and whose trade interests are not British…
South Africa presents a unique example of a large press, owned, controlled and operated by a small body of men with the direct aim of bringing about a conflict which shall serve their business interests...
The small group of international financiers (are) chiefly German in origin and Jewish in race."
In a letter from South Africa of 18 December 1898, addressed to the British Colonial Secretary, Butler said:
"All the political questions in South Africa and nearly all the information sent from Cape Town are being worked by what I have already described as a colossal syndicate for the spread of false information".In a South African despatch of June 1899, to the British War Office, describing the efforts of the South African bankers to bring about war, Butler described these mostly Jewish finaciers as 'the train-layers setting the political gunpowder.'
Butler is also on record as having said:
"If the Jews were out of the question, it would be easy enough to come to an agreement, but they are apparently intent upon plunging the country into civil strife...
Indications are too evident here to allow one to doubt the existence of strong undercurrents, the movers of which are bent upon war at all costs for their own selfish ends."
"If it were possible to eject the Jew monopolists from this country’s neck and crop without incurring war with Great Britain, then the problem of ever lasting peace would be settled in South Africa."
"It is ordained that we, insignificant as we are, should be amongst the first people to begin the struggle against the new world tyranny of capitalism."
In The Boer War, by T. Pakenham, Kitchener is quoted as stating that the Boers were 'afraid of getting into the hands of certain Jews who no doubt wield great influence in the country.'
Anyway, the it would seem that an exactly similar type to 'the small group of international financiers... Jewish in race' of Boer War infamy, with the financial and strategic assistance of the secretive 'Focus' group headed by Baron Robert Waley-Cohen, enabled World War 2 to be prosecuted to their eventual advantage as well.
Around sixty million lives would be lost in the process.
Churchill fought alongside Stalin, even though the Soviet Union invaded Poland just two weeks after the Nazis invaded. In so doing he was fighting for a regime that had behaved with incalculable brutality towards its own citizens since taking power in 1917.
In his 8 February 1920, article for The Sunday Herald, Churchill, who was Secretary of State for War at the time, said this:
"As bankers and industrialists (master capitalists?) they have strenuously promoted the development of Russia’s economic resources... In politics their support has been given, for the most part, to liberal and progressive movements... In violent opposition to all this sphere of Jewish efforts rise the schemes of the international Jews...
This movement among the Jews is not new. From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxemburg (Germany), and Emma Goldman (USA), this world-wide revolutionary conspiracy for the overthrow of civilisation and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing.
It played, as a modern writer, Mrs. Webster has ably shown, a definite recognisable part in the tragedy of the French Revolution. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the nineteenth century; and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworlds of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of the enormous empire.
There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creating of Bolshevism and in the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution by these international and for the most part atheistic Jews. It is certainly the very great one; it probably outweighs all others. With the notable exception of Lenin, THE MAJORITY OF THE LEADING FIGURES ARE JEWS. MOREOVER, THE PRINCIPAL INSPIRATION AND DRIVING POWER COMES FROM THE JEWISH LEADERS...
In the Soviet institutions the predominance of Jews is even more astounding. And the prominent if not the principal part in the system of terrorism applied by the extraordinary commissions for combating counter revolution has been take by Jews...
The same evil prominence was obtained by Jews in the brief period of terror during which Bela Kun ruled in Hungary. The same phenomenon has been presented in Germany... Although in all these countries there are many non-Jews every whit as bad as the worst of the Jewish revolutionaries, the part played by the latter in proportion to their numbers in the population is astonishing."
"Of all the tyrannies in history, the Bolshevist tyranny is the worst, the most destructive, and the most degrading. It is sheer humbug to pretend that it is not far worse than German militarism. [The atrocities are] incomparably more hideous, on a larger scale, and more numerous than any for which the Kaiser is responsible." (Connaught Rooms, London)So, according to Churchill, what Trotsky' and 'the international Jews' created in Russia was 'the worst tyranny in history!'
By the time Henry Strakosch and the money men of 'The Focus' intervened, it seems he had changed his mind.
Kind of makes you wonder why, doesn't it?
No comments:
Post a Comment