Social Justice Activists call Churchill a Nazi

Last Saturday social justice activists from SOAS (School of Oriental and African Studies) stormed a Winston Churchill themed café in Finsbury Park called Blighty UK Café. Their demands and grievances were standard; they wanted the owners to ‘apologise to the local community’ for portraying Churchill as anything other than a colonialist bigot, and of course they were angry about the café’s ‘gentrifying’ effect. They also reportedly posted fake one star reviews of the café online (although these appear to have been removed), and scrawled graffiti over the café’s wall art. How mature.

All of this is now standard operating procedure for today’s young leftist activists, who have nothing better to do than use violence and intimidation to make sure hipsters don’t open trendy new cafés which sell £3.20 bowls of cereal, or fail to acquiesce to having their windows smashed by protesters if it’s all in a good cause.

Most of us read these stories and laugh at the pathetic immaturity of this ‘you’re either with us or against us’ attitude and the puritanical politics that have spawned it. And laugh we should. But we also need to understand that these activists are being fed a constant diet of fundamentalist ideology at universities like SOAS, and that this indoctrination is leading to such logical fallacies as that of Andy Cuff, one of the Blighty Café protestors who claimed on Facebook that Churchill himself was a Nazi:

Born in 1874 Churchill was part of a British Empire that did many things we would today deem unacceptable. That does not change the fact that – late in his life – he led the allies to victory against the Nazis which in itself ensured that the delightful Andy Cuff has the right to be sitting there dribbling his extreme political views onto the internet at all. The world changes and so do the views and attitudes of people and politicians – should the fact that both Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama were opposed to gay marriage as recently as 2008 be the only thing we remember them for and invalidate everything they’ve achieved in their careers?

All this goes further to highlight the hypocrisy of one of most disingenuous tricks of the modern social justice left. Their narrative spinners regularly claim that Antifa protestors are beyond reproach for using violence against people they think are Nazis, and then in the same breath decide that those who saved the lives of millions of innocents by destroying actual Nazis must be despised because they represent the things the modern Left wants to erase. For some reason they tend not to mention Joseph Stalin very often. He probably makes them very confused. Incidentally, Jeremy Corbyn has reportedly refused to condemn the Blighty café protests. What a surprise.

Andy Cuff and his fellow protesters, I would imagine, think that the voices of women, minorities and the otherwise marginalised should be centred as much as possible. I wonder whether he would be willing to spare a thought for a young woman whose ethnicity meant she was marginalised, silenced, and deprived of every imaginable right – Anne Frank.

Cuff might want to picture Frank huddled around the radio with her family and the other people hiding with them listening to her ‘beloved’ Winston Churchill. Perhaps he should give her diary a read and think about the comfort and inspiration Anne drew from his speeches, and the thought that he was leading the allies as bravely as he could to end her oppression and terror.

Perhaps Andy Cuff and his friends could also think about how, despite finding themselves in the most unsafe learning environment imaginable, Anne and the other young people in the secret annex managed to study and strive to better themselves without exhibiting even a fraction of the victim mentality so integral to today’s western, university educated, safe-space generation.

Of course, the activists in question won’t do any of this – they are a lost cause. But perhaps they ought to remind themselves of Godwin’s Law. Funnily enough before the arrival of Trump we’d hear about it a lot from leftists who didn’t like being called feminazis. Nowadays, they mention it a lot less.

1 COMMENT

  1. I think if Anne Frank knew Churchill supported the sterilisation of those he deemed as ‘unfit’ then perhaps it would have been a different story. It would be an insult to suggest that Anne Franks pure brilliance resides next to Churchill, for her compassion in this world stemmed far greater that Churchills intolerance and support for the Boer concentration camps.
    As a historian I see both sides, the British need for a leader to get them through the war, to help them create a Blitz effort, and Churchill was fantastic in that he created a nation that became effectively one. Regardless of class and gender, people worked together and he led the British into victory. In comparison to the National Socialist ideology, Churchill was far from it, I think his views would have just been seen as imperialist: early 20th Century British. The denial of immigration of Jews by the British government, the ongoing antisemitism prior to and after the war, the rise of fascism in Britain even after the war- it is an indicator that it was just a way of thinking (albeit one I do not stand by and makes me shudder at the thought of it), that by definition of what the anti-Churchill movement stated in the article suggest, that Britain would have objectively been a Nazi.
    Is that the case? No.
    Moreover, not everyone would have thought this way.
    Most ideologies aren’t out of malicious intent but an ongoing belief, most likely driven by such imperialistic gains and victories in the late 18th to the 19th Century.
    It is also fair to say that the most of Britain would have been homophobic and transphobic.
    Of course such intolerance is well intolerable, especially in the present day. However that is the case- it is present day, and using present-mindedness can skew the past. Our perceptions of morality did not exist in that time because we did not exist, nor did we experience the war.
    I think although Churchill did a lot of greatness, he was also an imperialistic rich white man who had a lot of power, and did not have to face such oppression that minorities faced. His ignorance led him to some questionable views that people in this age have a right to question, however that does not mean we can judge history based on what we as current day people view morality on.
    Also anti-Churchill followrs should look closer into National Socialism, which has a set of principles and views that Chirchill certainly didn’t follow.
    I think people have a right to honour Churchill, but people have a right to disapprove of him. However opinion is an opinion and not fact, activism should be about changing the future using the past sensitively, compassionately and intelligently. For anti-Churchill people need to realise that if they are going to attack Churchill, then they may as well attack all the soldiers that fought in the wars, the people that nursed the soldiers, because many people would have had Churchills ideology.

    More so, universities aren’t as toxic as people perceive. Western universities I think have always attracted new ideas, and debates, and allowed people to find people of their political views. However the curriculum of history is very conservative, focused on Britain and their victories. In GCSE and A Level, I barely learnt about the war crimes of the British, or the Boer War and their used of concentration camps starving over 30,000 people. The worst thing I learnt about the British at school was the suffragettes, which I suppose is very leftist when you consider that it must sound rather feminist to argue why women never got the vote sooner and how appalling it would have been, and that women deserved equal rights etc.

    Interesting article, I respect all your opinions and arguments and it certainly gave me food for thought!

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here