Yesterday, the Left came for Lord Admiral Nelson.

A Guardian journalist, Afua Hirsch, called Lord Admiral Nelson – England’s greatest naval hero who died for his country fighting off the colonial tyrant Napoleon – a ‘white supremacist.’

Thankfully, Laura Perrins was on hand to chain herself (metaphorically) to Nelson’s Column.

Read the Express‘s write up of Laura’s storming appearance here and watch the clash in full here as she takes on Hirsch deep in the leftist belly of Channel 4 News.

(Image: Les Haines)


    • “When I was a Revolutionary Marxist, we were all in favour of as much immigration as possible. It wasn’t because we liked immigrants, but because we didn’t like Britain. We saw immigrants – from anywhere – as allies against the staid, settled, conservative society that our country still was at the end of the Sixties.

      Also, we liked to feel oh, so superior to the bewildered people – usually in the poorest parts of Britain – who found their neighbourhoods suddenly transformed into supposedly ‘vibrant communities’. If they dared to express the mildest objections, we called them bigots.”

      (Peter Hitchens, ‘Mail on Sunday’, 31.03.13)

  1. An excellent defence m’learned friend!

    You could also have said – OK, let’s tear down the statue of Karl Marx in Highgate cemetery. After all, in terms of the subsequent human body count, he did have the single worst idea in human history.

    • I have been observing this for many years.
      Your post is the first time I have read it online.
      It furtherer illustrates the tolerance & decency of the Right.
      To be honest, perhaps too tolerant & decent, otherwise that hulking,
      ugly, statue, of an unpleasant man with millions of deaths in his name,
      would have been vandalised beyond recognition.

      • Unfortunately, the right are in danger of occupying the moral high ground surrounded by corpses from the battle they lost and war they are losing.

      • Yes me too.

        It continues to baffle me why any display of national socialist paraphernalia (swastikas and the like) provoke outrage (understandable in my view) whilst displays of red flags with hammer and sickle and Che Guervara T shirts are still de rigueur amongst a certain political mindset…

        16 million people died premature deaths under the swastika…

        100 million people (and counting) have died premature deaths under marxist philosophy…

        It doesn’t make sense!

    • This is of course how we know that Afua and her ilk are not acting on principle but out of an attempt to advance their own ideology.

      It says something far greater about the person who wants to keep their history on display, warts and all, as opposed to those who want to remove the bits they don’t like.

      • She believes that the miserable state of Africa is our fault, and what we did there in the past continues to prevent Africa from recovering the integrity it had before it was colonized. Is there ANYTHING wrong in the world that people like her do not blame us for?

  2. Hatred of British people and Ideology creep in everywhere.
    The BBC history magazine always has a few objectionable sentences.
    So-called historians are all becoming cultural Marxists, with the notable exception of Starkey.
    Dan Snow will always sneaks in a Remoaner theme.
    Max Hastings hatred of Boris Johnson consumes him

  3. Miss

    Does this mean that we shall be invited by the Alt-left to ostracize the atheist Prof Dawkins for his connections with slavery?

  4. “England expects that every man (and woman) will do their duty and expunge Cultural Marxism.”
    And finally…
    “Engage the enemy more closely”

  5. Ironic that, even in Orwells’ 1984, Nelson’s Column survived, albeit with Big Brother perched atop.

  6. Thank you Laura.
    I cried yesterday at the desecration of Lord Nelson’s position in our national life.

    As a traditional conservative I am lost in my own country. It is nothing to do with my age or immigrants but has everything to do with the total loss of all of the values that I was brought up with. I revere Lord Nelson. The sailors of all races who survived the battle of Trafalgar drank some of the brandy that his body was preserved in. After losing his writing hand and one eye he leaned to write well with his other hand. He famously used his blind eye to overrule authority. He was daring, naughty, brave beyond belief. As a little child I read the ladybird book of Nelson. If the Left think they can take out our historical national heroes and destroy our shared history then I will disown them completely. No doubt that is what they wish but the consequences could be ruinous.

    • They can and they will.
      To destroy a country you just need to make its people ashamed of it. They will then not defend it when those that would do it and them harm come for it.
      The cultural Marxism that everybody denies exists is coming to fruition.
      The final nail will be when the fifth column within our leftwing establishment deliberately sabotages Brexit, allowing them to come to power in the ensuing crisis.

  7. If Nelson’s Column falls, then there will be no stopping the carnage that follows.

    St Paul’s Cathedral – that detestable bastion of Christianity, designed by that white male chauvinist Wren, could not possibly remain. The Tower of London? Hateful symbol of the outdated privilege of the elite that ruled the country for centuries on rivers of blood. Smash it to powder. All Brunel’s works need to be demolished too, and all his tunnels filled in. Who wants or needs reminders of imperialist Victorian Britain, let alone monuments to it designed by another pale, stale male? Enough of all that sickening history. Wipe it out, and let’s start again with a clean sheet, ready for the new reality. Why, we can even start from a new year – let’s call it Year Zero, shall we? It has such a nice ring to it.

  8. I think Afua Hirsch would quite gladly provoke violence in this country provided she was safely at home when it broke out. Then she could earn some more easy money from the Guardian by writing an article depicting the people she had set out to provoke as a bunch of extreme right-wing, white racist bigots.

  9. The mad dogs of the left will not be happy until they, like Pol Pot of Cambodia, close the cities and factories, forcing everyone out into the countryside to toil and die in a “year zero” remake of society.
    This is all about gaining power over ordinary people, nothing more.
    Since it is totally impossible to satisfy these truth obliterating destructive zealots, I suggest we start a habit of saying “no, not ever ” to their madcap ideas, starting right NOW !

  10. The self righteous smug look on the Guardians reporters face was galling.
    She sat there enjoying the very freedoms that Nelson facilitated going on about all the palaces and monuments we apparently destroyed and how Africa was this garden of eden that had apparently integrity that we destroyed?
    I dare say she doesn’t want to go into the fact that Africa supplied slaves to the Slavers and that the slave trade was thriving well before we got there.
    She probably doesn’t want to go into how most of North Africa was colonised by Islam who were prodigious slave traders.
    Apparently also Africa is unable to recover from this terrible event to this day and has nothing to do with the average IQ being in the 70s!

  11. Even with all the evidence to the contrary, there are still those who claim in all seriousness that the Guardian and BBC are pillars of impartiality.

  12. Let’s not have any more statues of pale stale males!
    Let’s remember those courageous women who fought for women’s rights and put up statues to them instead!
    How about a statue of Mary Richardson, a prominent suffragette.
    Here’s her biography:

    I’m sure every BBC and Guardian feminist would welcome this!

        • You’ve got it Busy Mum!
          The three people in the links were (1) suffragettes and (2) leading lights in Sir Oswald Mosley’s British Union of Fascists.

          I remember a few years ago Guardian readers chose Marie Stopes as the woman in history that they most admired. Marie Stopes! A person who wanted “eugenic breeding” of the population and campaigned tirelessly for this to be introduced.

      • See reply to Busy Mum.
        “Male pale stale” is a phrase that is evidently of such lyrical beauty that feminists feel the need to use it over and over and over again.

  13. These lefties aren’t even original. In America, they get their talking-points from things like Journolist and Media Matters, which is why they put out virtually identical comments and tweets, such as the ones the other day with the same picture from D-Day. Calling anybody “racist” with whom you didn’t agree (or, to be more exact, someone who failed to agree with you) was a favourite tactic for the Democrats and their media leeches, during the Obama years.

    So I’m guessing they’ve worn it out, in much the same way as dodgy scientists make a laughing stock of “climate change”, when they blame every single weather event on it. Accordingly, along came “white supremacism”, which sounds such an intellectual term – I mean: just count those syllables, for starters. It is, in itself, racist, since it imputes racism uniquely to white people. If I had a Ghanaian grandmother, rather than a Welsh one, would I be cured?

    The sinister thing is that “white supremacist” is treated as interchangeable with “n*zi” and a “n*zi” is somebody it’s OK to whack over the head; hence, using violence against one’s political opponents is condoned, as long as they’re white (meanwhile, black-on-black murders in Chicago in 2017 head towards five hundred, but… whatever.)

    So, now “white supremacism” has landed on our shores, as if from that endlessly repeated landing-craft. I was actually going to make a joke on an American website: there was a reason why they put Nelson a hundred and fifty feet from the ground. I didn’t think the mini-minds of the left would get around to imitating the idiots in America quite so soon, but it was only a question of time.

    And where the Grauniad goes, the Beebyanka is sure to follow.

  14. One would have thought that Hirsch would rejoice that the Britain of two hundred years ago was a place where a half-blind, one-armed, vertically-challenged human being, who had been deprived of any secondary and higher education, was able to reach his maximum potential, including full self-expression in his private life. Nothing so bad as prejudice and discrimination seemed to damage his self-esteem either…..
    Goodness, it’s almost enough to rationalise the belief in white supremacy – what an amazing race of people to have such a meritocracy, without so much as an Equality Act to help him on his way. Added to which, they didn’t keep it to themselves – they proactively shared the key to peaceful civilisation with the rest of the world, regardless of kindred, tribe or tongue.

      • Of course, what they really hate is independence. They love patronising ‘disadvantaged’ people more than anything else, not because they care about those people but because it makes them feel better about themselves, especially as deep down they know they are nothing amazing anyway. So somebody who refuses to be patronised and pitied becomes the butt of their wrath instead.

  15. The only statues of Nelson that need pulling down are those of Nelson Mandela…..and the column that needs destroying is the Fifth Column that seeks to undermine our country and our culture.

  16. I’m opposed to any statues being torn down, regardless as to whether the individual is regarded as good or bad in modern eyes. They are historic objects as much as our castles and famous buildings and reflected the views of the public at the time they were erected.

  17. The British, or at least a certain type of them, have an odd relationship Trafalgar, which was an indecisive battle at which our Admiral died. It is not remembered in France as having been a great defeat. But anyway, “He who controls the past controls the future.” And that is was why, between 60 and 100 years after the Civil War, statues and other elaborate monuments were put up to commemorate long-dead men who had committed treason against the United States.

    Washington and Jefferson owned slaves. But neither of them ever committed treason against the United States. Lincoln was a racist towards the African-Americans, and he was a genocidist against the Native Americans. But he never committed treason against the United States. FDR interned the Japanese-Americans, and Truman nuked the Japanese. But neither of them ever committed treason against the United States. Are you starting to see the point? There would not be a statue of Cecil Rhodes at Oriel College, Oxford if he had waged war on the British Empire. There would not be a Stalin Road in Colchester, or a Stalin Avenue in Chatham, if Stalin had been on the other side in 1945. (There would not be much else, either.)

    This is not about slavery. It is not even about the memorialisation of the recently fallen, which the Confederates were not by the time that these things were erected. This is about treason. And as such, it is a crossroads moment for paleoconservatism as surely as it is for the Trump Presidency.

    Before anyone starts, in the words to me today of Alex Nunns, the Labour Left’s pre-eminent present chronicler of itself: “John Lilburne himself would pull down the statue of Cromwell, if he were not 350 years dead.” The proposal to erect it nearly brought down the Liberal Government of the day. It went up only because the Liberal Unionists decided that making a point against the Irish Nationalists was even more important than making a pro-Tory one. So they voted for it against the ferocious opposition both of the Irish Nationalists and of their own Tory allies.

    It is pointedly not inside the Palace of Westminster, and not a penny of public money was spent on putting it up even where it is. In fact, it exists only because of a donation by the Liberal former Prime Minister, Lord Roseberry. He then gave an address at its unveiling. But almost no one knew that that was why he was the speaker. His donation had had to be made anonymously.

    • If it was so indecisive it would be remembered in France, only Anglo-Saxons remember why and how we lost. Most decisive victory since Lepanto at least, and not only for Britain. It was only a few years after the Spanish had transferred Louisiana to France prompting Jefferson to write to Livingstone, the US Minister to France…

      “The day that France takes possession of N. Orleans fixes the sentence which is to restrain her forever within her low water mark. It seals the union of two nations who in conjunction can maintain exclusive possession of the ocean. From that moment we must marry ourselves to the British fleet and nation.”

      Granted France had sold Louisiana a couple of years before Trafalgar, but without those distant storm tossed ships, that would not have happened, nor would the continued independence of every nation in the New World south of the United States, nor would the end of the slave trade, all accomplished by the Royal Navy, with a bit of assistance from the United States. Jefferson’s letter came true, on 21 October 1805.

      And that does not even mention the first effect of the victory, the end of the threat of French invasion of Great Britain.

      Not for nothing does the USN once a year also drink the toast: “The immortal Memory”

      Our navies have a signal flag hoist that Laura’s effort certainly deserves, Bravo Zulu, meaning the excercise was well conducted, and so it was.

      • Well said,
        What people tend to forget when discussing Trafalgar is that in 1805 the French population of 29 million was twice that of all the British isles (including all of Ireland) France was an incredibly wealthy country in comparison to the UK. By 1812 the French controlled all of western Europe with the exception of Portugal (and Portugal only remained free due to UK assistance)
        The British won, because out of necessity, its navy has always been a true meritocracy.

    • I think Robert E Lee committing ‘treason’ goes too far.

      We have to remember that the US is a federation of semi autonomous states who, even today, have their own elected legislatures, tax raising powers and state militias.

      At the time of the civil war the federation was even looser and starting to fracture along the Mason-Dixon line. Robert E Lee was America’s most capable general and was invited by the federal government to head the union army.

      To most in the south at that time, the civil war was less to do with slavery (slave ownership was confined to the wealthy few) and more to do with resisting an over-mighty federal government (shades of the EU perhaps – and that’s why they were called ‘rebels’). In war you have to choose sides. That Robert E Lee (who wasn’t a slave owner) chose to fight for his home state of Virginia, would be seen, even today, as a perfectly rational, reasonable – even ‘patriotic’ decision.

      He remains an important figure in US history whose generalship (much like Napoleon’s who only didn’t commit ‘treason’ because he won!) is still studied today.

  18. Saw you on the TV Laura. Gave the idiot woman a verbal battering – well done. Why do these people want to live here if they hate this country and its history. They should beggar off elsewhere – preferably some socialist hell hole like North Korea or Venezuala.

  19. The streets and squares of London are full of statues of old white males, mostly famous for their imperial wars where they murdered thousands of poorly-armed Black people.

    They symbolise the patriarchy and our sordid imperialist past.

    • You’re not fantasising about the patriarchy again are you? I know you have daddy issues and want some firm patriarchal discipline, but you could at least make it less obvious when you’re in polite company.

      • Lol.

        Are you denying the existence of the patriarchy?

        Or how do you explain the fact that, until 20 years ago, virtually all those in positions of power in britain were males?

        • We’ve had Queens in the top seat since Matilda in the 12th century. Also most women and most men have demonstrated little interest in those positions of power throughout history, there are just a few more men than women insane enough to pursue them. Comes down to the basic statistical differences between men and women and that there are more men on the extremes of the bell curve.

        • No one is denying patriarchy.

          We cannot have matriarchy.

          Nor equality of the sexes within marriage.

          • Why not?

            I take the lead in my relationship with my boyfriend. He earns less than me and is happy for me to make the majority of the financial decisions.

          • We cannot construct national policy based on your domestic arrangements.

            Why don’t you remove yourself to one of the nice liberal sites where you can sneer at the bourgeois family satisfied in the security that no one will contradict your wisdom?

        • Bodica, Matilda, The she wolves of England- wives of various Kings in War of Roses, Elizabeth 1, Bess of Hardwick, Queen Anne, William and Mary, Queen Victoria, Thatcher,

          Further Maths A level is a gateway to well paid jobs. What percentage who take the exam are female? Fewer females takes maths, physics and chemistry A Levels which lead to well paid jobs.

      • Bollocks.

        The West became pre-eminent after the Enlightenment, when we began to throw off the shackles of Christianity.

        • This is the second time you’ve immediately replied with ‘bollocks’.

          Yes, yes, yes – the so-called Enlightenment produced the Father of Fascism: Jean-Jacques Rousseau.

          It developed into Nietzsche: ‘God is dead!’

          Stalin’s 30 million victims and the dynamiting of thousands of churches.

          Along came World War I.

          Followed by the killing of Jews on an industrial scale.

        • The wool trade was greatly increased by the Cistercians.
          The Hugenots were French Protestants who developed silk spinning/weaving and banking. The Dutch started much of modern commerce who were Protestants. The Quakers and Dissenters largely created the Industrial Revolution. The Agricultural revolution was started by East Anglian farmers who were Christian.

          I have never read such errors in the description of the development of trade and technology.

      • Actually they did, for the most part, or at least at roughly the same time. The difference was that instead of muscular self defense we learned from the Romans they were a bit too good at turning the other cheek to Islam plus whatever the Chinese turned to.

    • The Nguni people migrated from the Congo area.

      Prior to the rise of Shaka there were migrations of various tribes which caused mass killings. The major aspect which Shaka achieved, after is bloody victories was to create an empire the size of Western Europe. The conflict has not finished as the Nbele, cousins of the Zulu are in conflict with then Shona. The Shona murdered 20,000 Nbele in the early 1980s- the 5 th Brigade who undertook the massacre were traied by the N Koreans.

      The Biafran Civil War was started when 30,000 Christian Igbo were murdered by the Muslims.

      The San people were all over the Cape Province until the Nguni forced them to migrate to the Kalihari for protection.

    • In the statutes and paintings of Nelson there are sailors with African features. Africans fought as free sailors in the RN. I fact, slaves who managed to swim and climb aboard RN ships became free. The RN up to 1815 had people from many races. The prize money under good Captains was very high and those manning the topmasts were well paid.

    • For an Irish Catholic, Elizabeth I would probably be the villain of the piece, having been instrumental in conquering the last part of Ireland (Ulster) not under English control and paving the way for the subsequent Plantation (importing Protestants from other parts of the British Isles to displace and dilute the Gaelic-speaking Catholic natives).

      Elizabeth’s half-sister Mary I was no sweetie either. During ‘Bloody Mary”‘s reign of terror 280 Protestants were burned at the stake.

  20. Ms Hirsch was on the point of openly laughing at Laura by the end of the discussion, such was the easy with which she dismantled her arguments.

    • My only complaint is that Laura agreed to take part in such an absurd discussion. The only sensible way to deal with the progressive left as they call themselves is to ignore them .
      Which is why they hate President Trump so much. He has their measure just look at the CNN meltdown last night.
      Rule One. Never fight on bad ground .

  21. I wonder if this woman is as exercised by the Ottomans and Arabs, not to mention the Ashanti, who enslaved and sold the slaves. Recent cases in the UK have involved people of her own heritage.

  22. As far as I can tell from the history, Nelson was completely uninterested in the ethical questions around slavery. He was interested in strategic considerations about the defeat of Napoleon on the high seas.

    As part of this process, he agreed, when asked, with the West Indian landowners that William Wilberforce was a threat and should be resisted. But this was in the context of whether we should retain our overseas holdings – the landowners were presenting Wilberforce’s arguments as requiring withdrawal from our overseas possessions.

    For Nelson, the world was a stage on which two super-powers were vying for supremacy. See the Gillray cartoon –

    Possession of land ports through which trade could be passed, and navies based, would have been critical for Nelson. The details of that trade, and how the commerce was organised, would have been of no relevance whatsoever…

  23. Just watched the whole debate. Hirsch is clearly unaware that Nelson is omitted from the curriculum as far as I can see. We have used four secondary schools and one sixth from college. So far we have had four A level historians, none of whom would have any idea who Nelson was, yet alone what he did, except for the fact that we had a family outing to Portsmouth!
    There is absolutely no context in the history curriculum, yet alone chronological order, and topics like slavery and India are delivered from a social rather than a political point of view, with no reference at all to what went before and what came after.

    • Thanks again. Yes Chris has said this also. She was very misleading on the whole idea. As you know I grew up Ireland, and my kids are too young to do English history proper, but form what I have heard, it is as I said a lesson in British self-hatred. It is pathetic.

      • Absolutely. When one of my daughters started her History degree, she was the only student in her seminar group who understood the basic doctrinal differences between Roman Catholics and Protestants and found herself delivering a mini-lecture to the group.

        The seminar leader appreciated the explanation too; she was a third-year student focusing on gender among Native American tribes in the C19th…..

  24. England has done so much for the Africans, that they should show more respect and gratitude: if it was not for us they would still be slaves, and indeed still are Mohammedanism.

      • It was the English, not the black Africans, who ended the slave trade; and so the black Africans should be thankful for that, and acknowledge that fact to the English. We bought our black slaves from the blacks in West Africa. It was the English who ended black slavery when Evangelical Christianity revived and Christian mores became more dominant in our culture and Empire. The Mohammedan world still has black, and white slaves, too.

        • Crazy fool! Germans and Russians etc never held slaves. Recite your selective and falsified version of peculiar right wing history all you like, no one is interested anymore.

Comments are closed.