The Culture War: Meme Farmers Smash Gramsci's Anglophobia

Channel 4 releases disgusting propaganda that SLANDERS Britain’s heroes

Just when you thought Cultural Marxism in Britain couldn’t hit a lower point, it has. Channel 4 in their infinite wisdom decided to air more anti-British, pro-globalist, pro politically correct propaganda in the form of The Battle For Britain’s Heroes, presented by one Afua Hirsch, Guardian columnist, The Pledge contributor and utter whinger. Here, we have her yet again calling for statues to be removed, particularly those of Winston Churchill and Nelson’s Column, the latter of which she has been calling for since August last year following the Charlottesville protests in the USA whereby the statue of Confederate soldier Robert E. Lee was also removed.

So yes, in other words Afua is someone whose main focus and USP is moaning about racism. Kind of like Munroe Bergdorf and Weyman Bennett then; as in people who would never get any real job in their lives so sell social justice whinging to make up for it. Amazing. The fact that society seems to cater to these people so much speaks loudly of how far down the progressive rabbit hole we currently are in.

Back to the programme. First, she starts on Nelson. Immediately, she complains about his pro-slavery views (as if such views, though abhorrent, weren’t common at the time, which they were among the ruling class) and that she got more than she ‘bargained for’ when writing such a column advocating for the removal of his statue.

Forgive me for not playing the violins when one writes a provocative article written from the lens of an SJW cretin. It would be like complaining about being shot in a warzone. She complains about this abuse for a good few minutes (I thought this was meant to be a history documentary challenging perceived history) making her the centrepiece here. So, like a typical SJW she paints herself as the victim, being the narcissistic fool she is. She moans about mean tweets and the like, and of course cherrypicks the most obscene.

Following on this, we get back to actually challenging this perception of Nelson being a hero (calling him on the ‘wrong side of history’ for being pro-slavery – really). Firstly, she uses guilt by association law to establish that he was the leader of the Navy in the West Indies where slavery thrived (which doesn’t establish him endorsing slavery), using the same tactic to establish that he admired slave owners and their wealth (which again doesn’t establish him endorsing slavery) and does that again to establish his marriage into a slave owning family (which yet again doesn’t establish him endorsing slavery).

Meanwhile, throughout this part, all context is removed. We have no idea what his relation to the trade was at this point, nor do we know that the people he knew and married were good people or not. There were nicer slave owners, even if the business itself was utterly abhorrent. So, no context is given and instead we are left with this ridiculous display of propaganda to make Nelson into an evil soul because he had links to the slave industry and slave owners. Nothing about endorsing slavery, him owning slaves or him being directly involved in the slave industry at this point.

But it gets better. When it is revealed that he helped to defend slave owners in the West Indies, she complains that he ‘should have known better’ and that when the person defending his actions on the grounds that his views were more of a reflection of the 18th century and not a defect to him, she complains about the lack of ‘basic compassion’ Nelson had towards Africans. Funny how the African kings who often were the ones selling the slaves to the various Empires lacked that compassion.

Finally, the man defending Nelson ends the conversation by saying that he didn’t have time to advocate anti-slavery views as his day job was to defend Britain from the French, which had he failed, would have occupied London. When she then complains about him telling only ‘half the story’ after the conversation is over and him being in ‘denial’, what that translates to is that he doesn’t hate Nelson as much as I do because of slavery. Because throughout that exchange, he didn’t deny links Nelson had to the slave trade, but instead showed that applying modern values to them is ridiculous (which it is) and that his main asset was defeating Napoleon, of who was a far bigger advocate of slavery and butchered his way across central Europe to maintain an Empire.

She then confronts a ‘Twitter troll’ about the abuse (no joke) in a pub, whereby signs about the Navy wanting men are displayed (just to get shots of toxic masculinity in motion I guess). Suffice to say, it doesn’t go well. She first complains about being ‘nervous’ meeting a Twitter troll (again, no joke) and then he thoroughly destroys her by talking about how if we start taking down historical statues, where does it stop? All she does in response is whinge about how personal his Twitter attacks were. It ends with him jokingly advocate that he would rather he be locked up in response to her trying to poison the well against him by making him out to be behaving irrationally. All fine and well then, and what a great laugh it is for the audience. Wait, isn’t this meant to be about tearing down statues and challenging history? Not complaining about mean Twitter trolls?

Moving on, she then changes tact a quarter of the way through. After seemingly having an epiphany about not being fond of destroying statues after seeing the destruction of Nelson’s Pillar in Ireland by the IRA in 1966 where she feels sentimental, she decides the debate must change to include Nelson’s pro-slavery outlook (which she hasn’t proven).

Still feeling that Nelson’s history is being concealed (despite an Admiral literally telling her that the facts are already out there), she decides to make such history visible through a ‘guerrilla projection team’ by putting chains on his column. All that happens is that some sightseers take pictures and yet more historians tell her the obvious: this is bad and will divide people. The only person siding with her is one Kehinde Andrews, who shares her views about destroying history based on supposed racism (another one of the types who base a career on victimhood as explained above) and a former director of the British Museum who complains as well about slavery and how ‘selective’ we are about our history. Hate to see what his tenure at the British Museum was like.

Then another leftie trope props up: because of how multicultural and ‘diverse’ we are, we should alter the views of the statues to reflect this. God help us. The moronic Rhodes Must Fall campaign comes up, whereby she interviews ‘one of the few black students studying at Oxford’ (apparently Oxford University is also racist now) who by his accusations of Cecil Rhodes being a white supremacist (which aren’t true by the way) and stealing South Africa’s resources (as in finding them before the indigenous population could), was advocating for the campaign, and showing that Oxford are setting their standards low these days. God forbid when one of these idiots gets into the high offices of government. He then lies through his teeth with fake quotes and states that South Africa’s history is not taught in schools (which it is, I remember clearly in primary school) and then openly shows how much he hates Britain by saying that Britain’s ideas of being great should be challenged. Funny how he hates the country he lives in and the university he attends, but still hypocritically wallows in both. Funny also how South Africa’s myth of a rainbow nation and Nelson Mandela’s awful past (which included pouring petrol into tyres around black people’s necks to kill them) is not discussed either, especially given how the latter has a statue in London too. But given that Afua has defended both Mandela and his recently deceased wife, why should one be surprised?

After being schooled by yet another professor over her crusade (see this keeps happening here), she then turns her sights to Bristol and on Edward Colston, mainly because she failed on the whole Rhodes Must Fall argument. This mainly includes her meeting a street artist (the cream of the crop when it comes to intellectual debate I’m sure) who has been ‘correcting’ history by reminding people that Colston was a slave trader. Here, she condones illegal street vandalism (of a statue no less) because it is ‘responsible’ to lecture modern day Brits about how guilty they should feel over the slave trade. Her only complaint here was that the act was ‘criminal’ and that it was a wet night. What a plonker.

She then travels to Germany (the wonderful multicultural love-nest that is Germany) to examine how they confront their history as opposed to Britain with Hitler speeches playing in the background. We’re off to a bad start here. It gets worse when she compares Germany removing Kaiser and military statues after the Second World War to how Britain doesn’t at all. Here she makes a false equivalence: Germany behaving like this after World War 2 signified their transition from a military dictatorship whereby symbols reflecting that were removed to show this whereas Britain has no such transition to speak of. It’s a false argument. Meanwhile, we also see Nelson Mandela’s statue being shown as one not to remove. Given that he was a terrorist, it seems weird that she would whitewash his history, eh?

Speaking of World War 2, she finally goes after Winston Churchill. After relying on diary evidence that he allegedly claimed that Indians were beastly (not exactly concrete proof of anything), she then brings up the old false chestnut that Churchill was responsible for the Bengali famine, which killed millions of Indians. She states that ‘no help’ came from London (not true either, with Churchill often begging other countries for food to supply the starving Indians) and ignores how the minister for supplies at the time, Huseyn Shurawardy, had policies which led to the hoarding of rice supplies, according to Stephen Weir’s book History’s Worst Decisions. His rejection of aid from countries like Canada was based on the length of time the food would reach India, therefore being ineffective as opposed to racism.

When asked about what it says about Churchill’s legacy, instead of responding rationally in that his quick response showed how heroic he was (with some commentators arguing that the situation would have worsened had he not been so forthright with his response) Churchill was apparently ‘nasty’. What an insult. Not only to Churchill, but to the millions who died in the Bengali famine too, whose legacy to be exploited like this is beyond rational political discussion.

She also then has the gall to say that the bombing of Dresden was not for the better, given the civilians it killed. Again, ignoring the context of it being wartime and the Nazis happily bombing London and its people to kingdom come and it becomes furtherly insulting.

After getting schooled yet again (this time by one Jacob Rees-Mogg), she then goes full vanity project with a museum of her own, allegedly exposing Churchill, called Churchill Unveiled (how risqué!). After some discussion involving the Blightly café (whereby the main protestor and the owner debate), her overall conclusion is that we should be objective about history, and not remove statues at all. Given how extreme her views have been up to this point, that conclusion seems fairly rational. Who knew?

So, there we have it. A disgusting piece of anti-British propaganda that for all its claims about wanting to be objective about history, is disgustingly one-sided in how it slanders some of Britain’s biggest heroes. It has no consistent argument, arguing for the removal of statues at first and then talking up more objective outlooks later. Her views are utterly weak and hence she gets utterly destroyed by everyone she confronts. She comes across as unlikable and narcissistic, encouraging illegal vandalism for the former and complaining about her mean tweets for the latter.

Her conclusion seems dreadfully out of place with the rest of the programme, and worst of all, it skews history in a disgraceful manner. Nelson being pro-slavery overall and Winston Churchill being an evil, vile racist are both unfounded and this programme doesn’t support that in any way, all the while exaggerating the negative sides of both Edward Colston and Cecil Rhodes.

Funnily enough, statues she didn’t advocate removing include Gandhi (who held very racist views of black people), Abraham Lincoln (who believed in the inherent superiority of white people over black people) and Nelson Mandela (who led the armed wing of the African National Congress and killed innocent blacks, often violently I should add), whose statues still stand proudly in Parliament Square, with no criticism whatsoever. Funny that.

Shame on Afua Hirsch for her lying and shameless propaganda trying to demonise Britain’s heroes. Shame on the press for giving such shows good coverage. And mostly, shame on Channel 4 for sharing such nonsense which she couldn’t even defend on early morning breakfast shows. Shame on all of you. A plague on all your houses it shall be then.

I’d rather much watch Lucy Worsley’s show about the Suffragettes instead. At least there you are taught actual history, not skewed history by someone with an agenda. Shame on all those who were involved in this pigswill (apart from those refuting the propaganda) and I hope they all sit in the nearest corner and ponder whether it was all worth it.

(Articles reflect the views of the author, and not necessarily those of Luke Nash-Jones, The Red Pill Factory, or Make Britain Great Again.)

Most Popular

To Top