Our long-held view of WWII breaks through to mainstream academia:
Outrage as controversial taxpayer-funded black studies professor claims ‘British Empire was worse than the Nazis‘ in debate
The British Empire was branded ‘far worse than the Nazis’ during a controversial debate about Sir Winston Churchill’s legacy last night.
The wartime prime minister was also described by an academic as a ‘white supremacist‘ who benefited from Britain’s ‘heavily skewed national story’.
The online discussion – held by Churchill College, Cambridge – on ‘The Racial Consequences of Mr Churchill’ looked at his ‘backward’ views on empire and race and was held as part of a year-long ‘inclusivity’ review.
‘There is no debate. His white supremacy is pretty much on record and the question here is why does Churchill still hold the level of popularity that he does? It’s almost like he’s been beatified – a saintly figure beyond reproach.’ Professor Andrews has previously accused Britain of being ‘built on racism’ and called RAF airmen who bombed Nazi Germany war criminals.
The real question should be: why did it take mainstream academia so long to arrive at such an obvious conclusion? The simple answer is that the British Empire was Jew-friendly whereas National Socialist Germany was hostile towards Jews. But this goes beyond mere Jewish personnel infiltration of academia and subsequent conscious promotion of a Zionist-protagonist version of history. It is my contention that even among non-Jewish Westerners, hostility towards Jews is judged more negatively simply on account of Jews being known for their disproportionate contribution to every field of Western civilization:
so that hostility towards Jews is viewed (accurately!) as action slowing Western progress:
In contrast, the British Empire’s colonialism is viewed with relatively mild revulsion because its colonies were territories originally belonging to non-Western civilizations, hence colonialism is subconsciously viewed (accurately!) by Westerners as action to weaken the rivals of Western civilization, which is comforting to Westerners’ sense of security. Ultimately, Westerners judge everything by whether it advances or retards Western progress:
Professor Priya Gopal, a fellow at the college, was chairman at yesterday’s meeting.
She accused Britain of a ‘national silence’, saying the debate was ‘precisely to bring a long-overdue balance to a heavily skewed national story that has preferred untrammelled glorification to a balanced assessment in the round’. She added: ‘Historians and scholars who don’t think history should be treated as a comfort blanket or a warm bath with candles have to constantly negotiate weaponised fragility and, quite frankly, a degree of cowardice.’
Remember me saying last year that Gopal will become our ally?
The next step for mainstream academia is to realize that not only was Hitler merely “far better” than Churchill, he was the actual good guy in WWII. To reach this step, it will be necessary for mainstream academics to become anti-democratic. Since Hitler was explicitly outspoken against democracy, it will then be trivial for anti-democratic academics to see Hitler as the good guy. The fastest way to get them to recognize that they must become anti-democratic is to remind them that so long as they remain pro-democratic, they will not be taken seriously when they argue against Western superiority in other contexts, since democracy is part of Western civilization. To help this process along, I recommend spreading the following simple challenge, which I previously posted here, to anyone who claims to disbelieve in Western superiority:
A) “Western civilization is not superior to all other civilizations.”
B) “Democracy is superior to autocracy.”
PICK ONE. Because if you believe B), you logically cannot believe A).
In other words, False Leftists (who currently defend both A and B) must either become rightists (by discarding A)) or True Leftists (by discarding B)).