Churchill, Winston

---

an 3 26

The Atlantic's David Frum, the former George W. Bush speechwriter and conservative, lambasted the far-right wing for playing up the conflict online to generate more traction, more clicks and, with it, more money. It begins a cycle that both he and British historian Andrew Roberts believe has created the rise in far-right hate.

The art of the hate-click is real. It's when people are so disgusted by a headline that they click on it. Frum said that the latest tool is being deployed by the fringe right with an attack on former British Prime Minister Winston Churchill.

Frum said that they're doing it all for the clicks and their fringe behavior is simply itching for "shock value." Roberts explained, "the more shocking you are, the more likely you are to appeal to the lowest form of human nature."

He recalled the nickname "shock jocks," radio DJs who would "say the most outrageous things possible, therefore drawing attention," Roberts said.

"That is the nature of the internet," he added. "The more shocking you are, the more likely you are to appeal to the lowest form of human nature, I suppose. So it’s built into the algorithm of the internet, in a sense. But also, I think that, as well as wanting to shock and be perverse and so on, there’s also a very—even darker side to all of this, which, as I say, is anti-Semitism, and I think it has contributed enormously to the present rise of anti-Semitism in the world."

On Wednesday, a jury found Google and Meta culpable for pushing addictive algorithms. in one talk that people can become just as addicted to negative emotions as they can positive ones.

"The arousal of these stress hormones that create fear, that create anger, aggression or that create pain give the body a rush of energy," he said. "People become almost like an addict. They need the problems in their life to reaffirm their addiction to that arousal to that emotion. And if you can turn that response on by thought alone, number one, you become addicted to your own thoughts. And number two, you become addicted to the very life that you don't even like."

It made Frum ask what the cause is and what the effect is.

"Do you start as an anti-Semite and then wanna rehabilitate the Third Reich, or do you start by wanting to rehabilitate the Third Reich because you look at a lot of old picture postcards and imaginary scenes and Leni Riefenstahl movies and think, Well, that’s an accurate depiction of reality. They must have had a point about the Jews? Which goes first, this cultish attraction to the Third Reich or the anti-Semitism driving the cultish attraction to the Third Reich?" asked Frum.

Roberts thinks that they're both sides of the same coin. They can then lead people down the road of "anti-democratic, anti-Western, anti-civilization, anti-Christianity, and anti-culture" ideologies, too. Some turn anti-Semitic and toward Christian Nationalism, while others go from anti-semitism to Islamic extremist groups.

He also touched on Russian President Vladimir Putin as a strongman example that has inspired the manosphere and incel (involuntarily celibate) communities. They think it's "macho" to invade and blow up buildings, Roberts said.

This culminates in the recent debate over Winston Churchill, who is currently on the five-pound note. There's a movement in the U.K. to remove him and replace him with a bird. There are other movements to remove the people like the writers "and the people we're proud of" and replace them with animals or flowers.

"The British people, typically, are taking it as a huge joke, and they’re putting forward completely absurd animals that are going to do — if it’s done on a vote, then all hell’s gonna break loose, frankly," Roberts laughed.

But it's part of a larger issue that has been ongoing since the 1970s, in which the neo-Nazi, Holocaust denier and author David Irving sought to destroy Churchill's reputation. He has become an icon for the far-right. For the neo-Nazi community, it comes from Joseph Goebbels, who "demonized Churchill," said Roberts.

Frum noted a growing divide between real history and the world of what he called "internet history."

That rewriting is alive and well in the U.S. as President Donald Trump's administration tries to remove any mention of the history of slavery or the forced removal of Native Americans from museums and universities.

He chastized, "And the development and peace that the world enjoyed after 1945 was a product of American power and British endurance, and had the British made the choice that is being recommended to them by all these fool, loudmouth bloggers, their own childhoods would’ve been overhung by terror and fascism and tragedy."

---

https://theconversation.com/the-real-women-of-the-favourite-included-an-18th-century-warren-buffett-110345

The real women of ‘The Favourite’ included an 18th-century Warren Buffett

One of the challengers at this year’s Oscars is “The Favourite,” a film set in the early 18th-century court of British monarch Queen Anne.

Focusing on the political and sexual intrigues of a female-led state, the film has, at its center, not only the queen but also her two “favorites” – Sarah, Duchess of Marlborough, and Abigail, Baroness Masham. Much of the film focuses on how these two female courtiers vie for influence over Anne.

These early 18th-century women are hardly household names, so a movie that introduces them to a wider audience is welcome. And it doesn’t hurt that some of today’s biggest Hollywood stars inhabit the main roles: Olivia Coleman stars as Queen Anne, Rachel Weisz plays Sarah Churchill, and Emma Stone appears as Abigail Masham.

The film, as well as all three actresses, were nominated for Oscars.

But how does the portrayal of these women stack up against the historical reality? Might the fancy frocks, extravagant palaces and sexual triangles distract viewers from their true historical significance?

As a historian of women in early modern Britain, I’ve built my career analyzing the roles that women played in the past despite living in male-dominated societies. In fact, Sarah Churchill is featured in my recent book, “Silent Partners: Women as Public Investors during England’s Financial Revolution, 1680-1750.”

While “The Favourite” introduces viewers to the women who were important political figures in early 18th-century Britain, it doesn’t quite capture just how much power these women – especially Sarah – actually wielded.

Queen Anne and the birth of an empire

The Queen Anne portrayed in “The Favourite” is physically and mentally a mess, which isn’t entirely inaccurate.

By watching the film, you wouldn’t learn that Queen Anne presided over the union of Scotland and England into Great Britain in 1707, kept the Jacobite supporters of her Catholic half-brother at bay, successfully maintained a Protestant monarchy that has lasted into the present day, and furthered Britain’s rise to dominance on sea and land, ushering in the first century of Britain’s global empire.While it is true that she had bad eyesight, was overweight, suffered from gout and endured the loss of 17 children, this was only one side of her.

Sarah pulls the (purse) strings

The figure around whom the action pivots in “The Favourite,” however, is not Queen Anne but Sarah Churchill. The power behind Anne’s throne, Sarah possesses the political, economic and military vision for the country.

As Keeper of the Privy Purse, one of Sarah’s jobs was to manage the royal household’s financial accounts. And with her husband, General John Churchill, away much of the time leading the queen’s troops, Sarah also handled the finances and investments for her own family.

Her political adversaries accused both Churchills of benefiting financially from their ties to Queen Anne. Sarah’s control over access to the queen and John’s role leading the army created opportunities for patronage, bribes and, in John’s case, some shady involvement in army supply contracts.

In my book, I argue that while the Churchills may have been venal and dishonest, much of their money came from Sarah’s astute and underappreciated investing in the stock market. As an early adopter of stock investing, Sarah put her family’s funds into the national debt, the Bank of England and shares in private companies. In 1704, she had over 19,000 pounds of her own money in stocks, or US$3.5 million today.

Sarah became famous for avoiding the losses so many of her contemporaries incurred in the South Sea Bubble of 1720,when investors poured money into the South Sea Company. She had wisely taken her family’s money out a few months before the crash because she realized the company’s stock was overvalued. In the process she made a cool 100,000 pounds.

Unlike the male courtiers in “The Favourite” who foolishly wager on duck races, Sarah didn’t make unnecessary gambles. She was such a savvy and significant investor; like Warren Buffett today, her actions and decisions could single-handedly influence the market. When British Prime Minister Robert Walpole needed money to fund the government, it was Sarah Churchill whom he approached for a loan of 200,000 pounds.

...