WORSE THAN THE NAZIS?

A recent debate organized by Churchill College, Cambridge, has been the centre of controversy following an online discussion in which Winston Churchill was belittled, called a ‘white supremacist’, and the British Empire was condemned as being ‘worse than the Nazis’. The person loudest in his advocacy for this poison is one Kehinde Andrews, who currently has a book to promote. He is a professor of black studies at Birmingham City University, and is a BBC favourite.

Kehinde Andrews had previously dismissed Churchill as being a ‘clear racist’ on Good Morning Britain in 2018. In 2020, he condemned the songs Rule Britainnia and Land of Hope and Glory as being ‘racist propaganda’ which celebrated ‘the British Empire, which killed tens of millions of people’.

Kehinde Andrews said that Britain was ‘built on racism’ and ‘everyone involved in it probably has a truly racist past’. Even so, Kehinde Andrews is more than eager to take taxpayer’s money for his activities and readily admits that his ‘main income comes from the state through taxpayers’.

Another involved in the online debate was Priya Gopal, an immigrant who is anti-White and openly hostile to Britain and the British. After a row about tweeting: ‘I’ll say it again. White Lives Don’t Matter. As white lives.’ she wrote: ‘Now we have the opportunity to carry out a resolute offensive against the white, break their resistance, eliminate them as a class and replace their livelihoods with the livelihoods of people of colour and LGBTQ.’ After a deluge of criticism of Gopal’s remarks, the university fully supported Gopal: ‘The University defends the right of its academics to express their own lawful opinions, which others might find controversial. [It] deplores in the strongest terms abuse and personal attacks. These attacks are totally unacceptable and must cease.’ (Gopal was born in Delhi India, in 1968. After completing her education at the University of Delhi and Jawaharlal Nehru University in 1991, she moved to the USA where she taught and completed a PhD in colonial and postcolonial literature at Cornell University in 2000. She moved to the University of Cambridge in 2001. She is cited as being interested in a number of issues including ‘gender and feminism, Marxism and critical theory, and the politics and cultures of empire and globalisation’ – ie she is a communist.)

Another involved was Dr. Onyeka Nubia, Professor of Black Studies at Birmingham City University, who claimed that the terms ‘English Speaking Peoples’ and ‘Anglo-Saxon’ in Churchill’s ‘History of the English Speaking Peoples’ were ‘white supremacist’.

Another, Indian-American writer Dr. Madhusree Mukerjee, argued that the Churchill regarded Indians as ‘rabbits’, and that he was responsible for the Bengal Famine of 1943. She downplayed the role Britain played in winning the Second World War, claiming, ‘it was the Soviets who defeated the Nazis and the Americans who defeated the Japanese’.

This is not the first nasty little collection of assorted Lefties to accuse British as being akin to the Nazis. Around 20 years ago, The Parekh Report went even further. Paragraph 5.16 stated:

‘These theories were closely aligned with increased European nationalism and with the rising competition between the European nation-states for a monopoly of markets, raw materials, colonial possessions and world supremacy. Scientific racism spanned the period of high imperialism and two world wars – racial sentiments were valuable supports for military mobilisation and essential ingredients of jingoism. This race-based nationalism interacted with a race-based imperialism. In Britain, for example, the Empire was frequently celebrated as the achievement of “an imperial race”. The revival of rabid antisemitism, leading to the pogroms against Jews in central and eastern Europe and Hitler’s Final Solution, was the product of this pan-European trend.’

The idea that ‘Hitler’s Final Solution’ was anything other than a product of Nazi ideology is a degenerate lie – and one designed to smear the British as being responsible for Nazi genocide.

The Parekh Report was the product of a number of people, including the usual suspects such as Yasmin Alibai-Brown and Trevor Phillips – who went on to become chief of the Commission for Racial Equality (CRE) and then the Equalities And Human Commission. The report was disowned by the Labour Government at the time. Three paragraphs that were highlighted as being the most controversial stated:

‘3.28 Does Britishness as such have a future? Some believe that devolution and globalisation have undermined it irretrievably … It is entirely plain, however, that the word “British” will never do on its own.

3.29 Where does this leave Asians, African-Caribbeans and Africans? For them Britishness is a reminder of colonisation and empire, and to that extent is not attractive. But the first migrants came with British passports, signifying membership of a single imperial system. For the British-born generations, seeking to assert their claim to belong, the concept of Englishness often seems inappropriate, since to be English, as the term is in practice used, is to be white. Britishness is not ideal, but at least it appears acceptable, particularly when suitably qualified – Black British, Indian British, British Muslim, and so on.

3.30 However, there is one major and so far insuperable barrier. Britishness, as much as Englishness, has systematic, largely unspoken, racial connotations. Whiteness nowhere features as an explicit condition of being British, but it is widely understood that Englishness, and therefore by extension Britishness, is racially coded. “There ain’t no black in the Union Jack”, it has been said. Race is deeply entwined in political culture and with the idea of nation, and underpinned by a distinctively British kind of reticence – to take race and racism seriously, or even to talk about them at all, is bad form, something not done in polite company. This disavowal, combined with “an iron-jawed disinclination to recognise equal human worth and dignity of people who are not white”, has proved a lethal combination. Unless these deep-rooted antagonisms to racial and cultural difference can be defeated in practice, as well as symbolically written out of the national story, the idea of a multicultural post-nation remains an empty promise.’

Bikhu Parekh was subsequently elevated to the House of Lords.

The Parekh Report oozed hatred of Western society and of Britain, and it revealed the true objective: ‘a multicultural post-nation’. (A full analysis of The Parekh Report is inMulticulturalist Ideology (Part One), and The Genesis of Political Correctness: The Basis of a False Morality also deals with the now Lord Parekh.)

In The Genesis of Political Correctness, I referred to a former CRE commissioner, Raj Chandran, who had been one of three Tories on the commission (all of whom were purged under Labour). Raj Chandran wrote in April 2001 (before 9/11 with the accompanying anti-British hostility from many Muslims in Britain, and before the London bombings):

‘My message is that the CRE has grossly exceeded and distorted its mission, which was defined by the 1976 Race Relations Act as being to fight discrimination and to foster good race relations.

Instead, this generously funded and largely unaccountable body has fostered prejudice and self-pity. It devotes its energies to stigmatising the white majority population and stirring up resentment among Britain’s black and Asian minorities. It attempts to perpetuate two myths: the first is that all racism, prejudice and discrimination is a matter of dominant whites mistreating downtrodden members of ethnic minorities.

The second is that the ethnic minorities are a single group bound together by their experience of prejudice and discrimination.

But this is simply not the case. Last week, parts of Bradford burned during riots which – to simplify greatly – were rooted in bitter conflicts not just between Asians and whites but also between Hindus and Muslims, and within the Muslim community. In Oldham, Asian youths were attempting to turn their rundown council estates into no-go ghettos from which whites would be excluded for fear of violence.’

This is what happens to an organization when it is taken over by the politically correct. The National Trust, for example, is currently undergoing the same process.

A video on YouTube, in which those organizing the online Churchill College conference introduced their programme, was taken down. Given the snooty, sneering presentation, including support for BLM on both sides of the Atlantic, one can well understand why.

One student pointed out that the exercise was one of critical theory. This was an astute observation. In The Genesis of Political Correctness, I wrote (the book is fully referenced):

‘Habermas argued that Marx’s theories could no longer be relied upon to achieve revolutionary change for a number of reasons: with advanced capitalism the state and the economy are interlocked; the increase in living standards with advanced capitalism meant that economic grounds were no longer sufficient for revolution; and “the proletariat as proletariat, has been dissolved” and cannot be relied upon as a revolutionary agent; and in Russia Marxism had become a “legitimation science”. The response was for immanent critique to become “total critique” – an attack on the whole of Western society. Habermas saw those who experienced most deprivation and were likely to be the least integrated into society as being the most likely supporters of revolutionary change. Such unintegrated people needed to be radicalised and promoted into positions of power. Critical theory is a means of justifying and promoting this.

Habermas, Marcuse, and the other members of the Frankfurt School remained committed to “catastrophic total revolution”, but their language changed, and milder terms were used in order to disguise their true politics. In part, this was due to the need for funding from American universities and foundations. Hegel and Freud were used as fronts for Marx. Code words were adopted, with “emancipation” and “democracy” often being used for revolution and socialism, respectively. Critical theory was used for the Frankfurt School’s version of Marxism. Marcuse advocated that the Left needed to soften its language, partly to differentiate itself from the brutal communist dictatorships, and even to criticize those dictatorships in order to accentuate that differentiation, and partly because socialism, let alone outright communism, alienated the American public. The Frankfurt School shifted their stance from praxis (the process for the realization of theory) for a communist revolution towards education for tolerance.

Whatever its flowery language and pretended scientific intellectual basis, critical theory amounted to an attack, by means of destructive criticism passed off as scientific analysis, upon all aspects of Western culture, including Christianity, capitalism, the family, hierarchy, morality, tradition, patriotism and nationalism, and conservatism. It was an attempt to turn existing understandings and common sense into a state of flux and, eventually, to replace those beliefs with a contrived neo-Marxist ideology masquerading as the truth. The ultimate aim was the destruction of Western civilization and a communist revolution.’

Although President Trump belatedly took steps to defund critical race theory programmes (see here), no such measures have been taken in the UK.