Chairman Gary’s War on History

Earlier this week the revolting communist propaganda organ, The Guardian, posted an article by the disgusting communist idiot, Gary Younge. The article was called ‘Why every single statue should come down’. It sported the byline, ‘Statues of historical figures are lazy, ugly and distort history. From Cecil Rhodes to Rosa Parks, let’s get rid of them all.’

In this needlessly long, self indulgent, rambling mess of an argument, Younge repeatedly displays the fact that he has the mind of a petty and bitter child, low resolution and silly; that his socialist worldview informs everything he says, a worldview which stands as an embarrassment to civilisation. His concept of history appears to be born out of little more than resentment, half-truths and whole lies - a tissue thin veneer of nonsense.

First of all, was it really wise of Gary to accuse anyone or anything else of being lazy, ugly and distorting history? Classic leftist projection, there. Rock bottom levels of self-awareness which surpass contempt and sit firmly in the realm of comedy.

To address the article itself, then, the most striking aspect about it is the degree to which it is disingenuous. The layers of poorly constructed deceit and obvious subterfuge should fool no-one. Be under no illusion, though Gary speaks of history and memory and heritage and the sometimes interesting interplay between these ideas, it is all a smoke-screen for his real motivation, ie, to undermine civilisation, to spit venom at western culture and to generally take a massive stinking dump on anything beautiful; socialism 101.

Straight away he sets out his stall, proudly reminding us that he penned such articles as “Riots are a class act”, “Let’s have an open and honest conversation about white people” and “End all immigration controls”. While Gary trumpets these efforts as something he isn’t ashamed of, anyone who isn’t a self-loather will see them for what they are; hateful bile designed to rip society to pieces.

He then goes on to talk about Trafalgar Square (of course he does, all leftists hate Nelson and his string of glorious victories) and the fourth plinth. He follows with a humble-brag about how ‘Red’ Ken Livingstone appointed him as chair of the committee responsible for choosing what should stand on that fourth plinth. His true colours shine through when he can’t help himself but to dismiss Sir Henry Havelock, Sir Charles Napier and King George IV (the occupants of the other three plinths) as somehow entirely atrocious. No attempt at impartiality or fair-handedness shown. Just a vicious little swipe at Britain’s history - this is the real point of the article. Just to remind us half a dozen times that we (presumably white Britons who don’t hate all statues) are all collectively guilty by association of colonialism, racism, bigotry, exploitation and all-round depravity. Of course there is no mention of the same crimes committed by Ottoman rulers, or Barbary slavers, or Arab colonisers. Funny, that. Almost as though he were peddling an agenda which has very little to do with historical fact, and everything to do with distorting history in a very specific direction, ie, against the interest of Britain. That is far more lazy and ugly than any Victorian statue I have ever beheld.

In one particular passage, Younge writes:

“In Britain, we seem to have a peculiar fixation with statues, as we seek to petrify historical discourse, lather it in cement, hoist it high and insist on it as a permanent statement of fact, culture, truth and tradition that can never be questioned, touched, removed or recast. This statue obsession mistakes adulation for history, history for heritage and heritage for memory. It attempts to detach the past from the present, the present from morality, and morality from responsibility. In short, it attempts to set our understanding of what has happened in stone, beyond interpretation, investigation or critique.”

What a moron. What a despicable moron. I wonder who he thinks he’s kidding. I wonder if he genuinely fails to see the irony in those words, or whether he just doesn’t care; probably the latter.

Gary then drones on about the usual crypto-communist talking points, BLM, Confederate statues, the Edward Colston incident, the brave and stunning Rosa Parks, y’know, all the usual stuff. As you might imagine, Younge approaches every single one of these topics as though they are nothing more than tools to be used to batter western culture with. Bit hackneyed, that. More than a bit lazy.

At one point Gary writes:

“The problem isn’t that we have too few statues, but too many. I think it is a good thing that so many of these statues of pillagers, plunderers, bigots and thieves have been taken down. I think they are offensive. But I don’t think they should be taken down because they are offensive. I think they should be taken down because I think all statues should be taken down.... I think they are poor as works of public art and poor as efforts at memorialisation. Put more succinctly, they are lazy and ugly. So yes, take down the slave traders, imperial conquerors, colonial murderers, warmongers and genocidal exploiters. But while you’re at it, take down the freedom fighters, trade unionists, human rights champions and revolutionaries. Yes, remove Columbus, Leopold II, Colston and Rhodes. But take down Mandela, Gandhi, Seacole and Tubman, too.”

So, Taliban/ISIS levels of artistic suppression, then; that’s what Gary Younge wants for our country. Just tear it down. Pull it down. Get rid of it. All of it. Destroy it. Annihilate it. What a child-like absolutism. What a frightful position to hold. What resentment he must hold deep down in his soul. What an utterly perverse conclusion to come to. Mao would be proud.

Gary Younge and the Guardian editors which signed off on this article aren’t quite finished though. They want to try to pre-emptively dismantle any arguments which might be presented to counter their insanity. The only one of these which is worth rebutting, is as follows:

“One claim for not bringing down certain statues of people who committed egregious acts is that we should not judge people of another time by today’s standards. I call this the “But that was before racism was bad” argument or, as others have termed it, the Jimmy Savile defence.”

On this point, anyone who isn’t a pre-teen, a mindless boomer, a clinical retard or a leftist will notice that Younge’s argument is backward in the extreme. It is at this point that it can no longer be denied that art and beauty and history have little or nothing to do with it. This is just a naked attack on reason, an almost blind assault on the concept of sane discourse.  

When Younge lumps in statues depicting heroes of the left and progression (like Parks and Mandela) as among those he would also ear-mark for removal, I suppose he thinks that he is masking his real intent. Yet I’m not even close to being hoodwinked, nor should you be. It’s as transparent as could be, as clear as the nose on his face, that the main objective of his argument is to ruin our nation. To pour scorn on it from every direction. To strike at the very foundations of everything we hold dear. What a truly ugly thing to do.

Gary asks that the debate around public art should be engaged with and not ducked. I do agree with that. We should engage with the traitorous lefty scumbags who seek to undermine our heritage and distort our history. We should meet them at every turn with counter arguments which easily dispel their nonsense. Let’s have an open and honest conversation about Guardianistas.