On yet another level, Chamberlain was of that class that was heavily invested in the rise of the Nazis in Germany (I think that he had lots of his money in chemical companies). Post-WWI, it was the investment of the Brits and Americans that rebuilt Germany. It was a good place to invest. Labor unions were suppressed, so the profits were increased. And it kept the Commies in check.

+++

An aside: It was mentioned repeatedly on the web yesterday about the irony of President Bush condemning people who were like the Nazis' appeasers when his own grandfather was a stock broker to the Nazis, managing investments (in violation of the Trading With The Enemies Act) through the war until the accounts were seized by the US government.

The world today spins on irony and snark, and yet the entire mainstream media missed this. They didn't miss it because they missed it. It is one of those topics which are censored in the American press. Think about it. Did Olbermann mention it? (I didn't watch Olbermann last night so I don't know.) How about FOX, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC?

My point is that this fact, that the President's grandfather collaborated with Nazis, is kept off mainstream media. What the MSM blacks out should be recognized when considering how our media functions.

When I talk to my 82 year-old mother she will not have heard of Prescott Bush cutting deals with the Nazis while the boys she grew up with were dying on the beaches of Anzio. She won't believe it because she's never heard it on the radio, or TV, or read it in the Newark Star Ledger.

Is it state-sponsored censorship? Well, technically we don't have that, do we? So why doesn't this get mentioned?

But I am also saying that the censor is in each of our heads. This applies to many different things that are avoided because, well, we just don't go there. Let me give you another example:

A few months ago there was a story about a script or transcript found in a safe in Dallas that alleged Ruby and Oswald were talking about an assassination of the President at Ruby's nightclub, the Carousel Club, on October 4th, well over a month prior to the actual assassination of JFK. Now if this were true it would open all sorts of doors that our mainstream media do not want opened. But it was dismissed because it was known that Oswald was visiting his wife and baby on that Friday night.

The problem is that there actually was a witness who saw "Oswald" at the Carousel Club that night (although he told the FBI he heard a different conversation)while another "Oswald" was with his family. But there was also yet a third "Oswald" photographed outside of the Soviet embassy on October 4th (the man in the surveillance photograph was clearly not "Oswald"). He was identified at the time in early October as "Lee Harvey Oswald." The CIA station chief later said it was an impersonator.

But by the official story of JFK's assassination nobody knew Oswald. He was a nobody. Why would anyone be impersonating a nobody six weeks before the nobody becomes known? And why were there two other Oswalds in the Dallas area on the same day?

Three nobodies is something.

So here's a story about a President being assassinated. One of the biggest stories of the 20th Century. Six weeks before he's assassinated there are three different Oswalds in three different places. Why are there two people impersonating Oswald? This immediately suggests that there is some kind of conspiracy to kill the President. Ah, but the MSM is incurious about this. Move along, nothing here.

Okay, now you know. How many of you are moving along? That's what I mean about the censor inside each of our heads.

the view of Chamberlain as a bumbling failure was a manufacture of Churchills, there's a Churchill quote (which I can't quite find at the moment) along the lines of "He will be viewed badly by History, because I will write it". I don't quite think that George has the literary skills to manage the same.