April 24, 2023
Source: Public Domain
Today, 24 April 2023, marks seventy years since Winston Churchill got down on one knee and allowed Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II to dub him into a “Sir”—but was the true queen here actually Winnie himself?
Churchill’s reputation has taken a bashing lately. Winston, we are now told by biased BLM-loving academics, was a racist, an imperialist, an Islamophobe, a bigot, a warmonger, a white supremacist, a drunkard, a misogynist, a coward, and a genocidal maniac—far worse than Adolf Hitler, when you really think about it.
How to salvage Churchill’s reputation in the eyes of the woke? One tactic would be to retrospectively reclaim him as being a member of an oppressed minority group himself. The most common method of political rehabilitation has been to dubiously “out” Britain’s greatest-ever leader as a closet homosexual: less warlord, more gaylord. As we all know, in 1940 Winston stood alone—but was this really just because sitting down now hurt too much?
We Shall Bum Them on the Beaches
An early attempt to force Winnie out of his War Cabinet came with the 2004 proposal of longtime Gay Liberation Front activist and Rainbow Warrior Peter Tatchell to establish a “Gay Museum” in London, devoted to fighting the previous colonization of homosexual minds by “a straight version of history, where we queers were invisible.” The trouble was, like so many invisible beings, some of the particular fairies Peter was talking about didn’t actually exist—not as fairies, anyway.
Tatchell’s limp-wristed dream was to parade the “personal possessions of famous homosexuals and bisexuals” from throughout British history, such as Lord “Mount ’Em” Mountbatten, William “Bottom” Shakespeare, Rear-Admiral Lord Fellatio Nelson, Richard the Loveheart, and Pitt the Bender—only some of whom are actually definitely known to have been absolute credits to diversity. Central to this unprecedented Museum of Mince would be a “Gays at War” room, featuring interesting and intimate details about “lesbians who served in the Women’s Land Army,” which sounds like just about the most niche porn film ever made.
Another of Peter’s Friends celebrated here would be Sir Winston Churchill, who Tatchell claimed had enjoyed a “one-off gay encounter” with the celebrated prewar singer, composer, and actor Ivor Novello, both an accomplished player of the pink oboe and a genuine fan of musical theater in all senses of the term.
According to legend, the author Somerset Maugham once addressed an elderly Churchill with the rumor he had shagged about with other men in his youth, presumably alluding to an occasion when Churchill had successfully sued someone for libel after the liar in question had spread false gossip about Young Winston engaging in “acts of gross immorality of the Oscar Wilde type” with a willing soldier back in 1896.
“Not true!” Churchill replied, then quickly changed his mind, admitting he had actually stubbed another man with his secret cigar just the once, but only to see what it was like. “Who was it?” asked Maugham. “Ivor Novello,” said Churchill. “And what was it like?” further inquired an eager Maugham. “Musical!” laughed Churchill.
Modern-day readers like Peter Tatchell may not immediately understand this was just a joke, though: “Musical” in the slang of the day was a humorous term for “homo.” The rough modern-day equivalent might be someone boasting about once having been sodomized by Elton John before, and then, when asked how he had found it, replying “I’m Still Standing.”
Cum, Sodomy, and the Lash
Despite this low quality of “evidence,” Churchill today nonetheless enjoys his own personal entry on LGBT History UK’s official online list of prominent supposed sodomites, a real “Homopedia.” This contains the following classic sentence PROVING Churchill’s homosexuality once and for all: “Throughout his life, Churchill showed little interest in women other than his wife.”
So weak is the queer crowd’s case that Winston’s marriage to a woman has actually become a key plank in the campaign to paint him pink; apparently he only married a female to put people off his perfumed gay scent so as not to lose votes, a bit like how Barack Obama married a secret tranny named Michael.
According to Christian-baiting gay blogger Jonathan Poletti—who has also shown, inter alia, that Ron DeSantis, O.J. Simpson’s dad, John Wayne, Malcolm X, Top Gun, Little House on the Prairie, Mark Twain, and Mickey Mouse were all as bent as bent can be—Churchill had little interest in sex with women. Admittedly, he and his wife Clementine “had five children, but one might not know how.” I do. Women have a hole around the front too, Jonathan. Glad to have cleared that one up for you.
Like many straight men who have homosexuality suddenly thrust upon them, Churchill was “hard to pin down,” argued Poletti, but the amateur queer-spotter did his best to forcibly board the floundering Good Ship Winston nonetheless, using “evidence” that, under normal circumstances, may expect to be immediately dismissed by leftists as a litany of offensive gay stereotypes.
Apparently “He was tiny” and “As a boy, he lisped” and “worshiped his mother and nanny.” Also, “He cried easily” and “loved silk—especially for his underwear,” being “most extravagant about his [pink] underclothes.” Worse, Winnie’s private secretary, Eddie Marsh, was “a known…foot fetishist who loved male feet, especially when sweaty from hunting.”
Furthermore, argues Poletti, in a presumable double bluff, Winston often made dismissive jokes about gays, like: “It is impossible to gain a conviction for sodomy from an English jury. Half of them don’t believe that it can be physically done, and the other half are doing it.” So what? If repeatedly telling public gay jokes is evidence of hidden homosexuality, Kevin Hart’s arsehole must be an absolute bomb-crater.
Battle of the Trouser-Bulge
Much of this stuff stems from a sensationalist misreading of the homosexual historian Michael Bloch’s perfectly sensible 2015 book Closet Queens, a legitimate history of Britain’s numerous genuinely sausage-sucking MPs down the ages, from Jeremy Thorpe to Jeremy Hunt (well, he looks like one, anyway…).
As part of his research into Westminster’s many and varied Sir Queer Starmers, Bloch diligently examined the rumors Churchill was gay too, recording the various petty tidbits later made use of by the likes of Poletti and Tatchell…before then coming to the conclusion that Churchill was not in fact necessarily gay at all, just a bit apathetic about women.
Bloch guesses this was because of his father Sir Randolph’s descent into severe degeneration of body and mind in later life, after purportedly contracting syphilis from some diseased vagina or other. Winston perhaps married his Darling Clementine largely for career reasons and “as an ornamental sideboard,” contemporaries cited by Bloch suggest, to provide him with “a well-run household, ambrosial food, children and a loyal heart,” but this hardly makes him homo.
When glory-holing Labour MP Tom Driberg married a horrifically mannish and ugly woman of the rough Michael Obama type in 1951 so as to pretend he wasn’t a habitual swallower of sperm in public toilets for alleged medicinal purposes, Churchill joked, “Buggers can’t be choosers.” Tatchell or Poletti might say this showed Winston doth protest too much and had employed similar tactics himself with Clemmie; a real historian like Bloch is not so certain.
Churchill did have a lot of gay friends and colleagues, but so do many politicians—Joe Biden isn’t butt-plugging Pete Buttigieg, is he? Being raised and working in virtually all-male zones like boarding schools, the army, the Admiralty, and Parliament, it is not that surprising Winston often felt more comfortable in male than female company.
The most Bloch is willing to concede is that, just possibly, Churchill may have been a latent, nonpracticing homosexual—but this cannot in any way be proven, and that, on balance, he was perhaps just a bit uninterested in women, preferring good, honest, manly activities like getting drunk and bombing Germans.
They’ll Bend You Over the White Cliffs of Dover
The current queer thinking, however, is that WWII would have been lost were it not for the brave homos of the Home-Guard. Gay Labour MP Chris “Captain Underpants” Bryant’s 2020 book The Glamour Boys: The Secret Story of the Rebels Who Fought for Britain to Defeat Hitler even makes the overblown claim that a group of gay Tory MPs who tirelessly catalogued Nazism’s prewar persecution of their queer peers in Deutschland played as great a role in warning the world of the looming dangers of Nazism as Churchill himself did.
According to one academic, writing about the Glamour Boys for LGBT History Month 2021:
We should question why the Glamour Boys have not played a more prominent position in narratives of the Second World War…. [Public knowledge of Churchill’s more well-known role] has likely come at the historical expense of other groups such as the Glamour Boys…[whose sexuality] has prevented them from receiving their [rightful] historical place…. LGBT History Month offers a chance to…consider how certain stories have been airbrushed from national history…. The Glamour Boys offer just one opportunity—among many—to diversify entrenched national narratives.
So, there you have it. If gay evangelists like these get their woofterish way, queer-captive schoolchildren are soon to be taught that Winston Churchill didn’t win WWII, homosexuals did. With that many Glamour Boys skipping around Parliament in the 1930s and ’40s, it’s no wonder the British people spent so much of the war with their backs up against the wall.
KBO, as Sir Winston used to say: Keep Buggering On! Peter Tatchell certainly will.