Claims Michael Caine’s 1964 film, Zulu is sponsoring right-wing extremism, are a big “load of bulls**t” the British actor said.

The 90-year-old slammed the far-left-inspired demonisation of the film during an interview with The Spectator UK’s Tanya Gold.

Zulu wasn’t the only movie, book, or personality to be labelled as such.

One of the four pillars in the U.K. government’s CONTEST, counter-terror program, Prevent also red-flagged The Dam Busters, Bridge over the River Kwai, and the Complete Works of Shakespeare, as ‘key texts’ for “Right-Wing Extremists.”

Other titles considered contraband included Paradise Lost, The Great Escape, and a host of TV shows such as Sharpe, Yes Prime Minister, and Great British Railway Journeys.

This isn’t surprising, explained author, Spectator, and NY Post writer, Douglas Murray in his exposition on the Government blacklist.

Their advice came from ‘left-wing activists like Hope not Hate.’

Better described as Hate, Not Hope, the group’s 2022 State of Hate report railed against what it called “Far-Right toxic figures,” targeted non-woke organisations like UKIP, The Spectator, GB News, BREXIT, and smeared anti-COVID mandate protesters as “anti-vaxxers.”

The far left – “everyone we don’t like is either -phobic or racist” – organisation dismissed reasoned concerns about COVID overreach, political correctness, the pseudo-religious LGBT fascist cult, and positive discrimination (aka hate whitey racism), as ‘traditional’ far-right extremist narratives.

With the help of Left-Wing hate groups, the Prevent counter-terror program also listed Murray, Jacob Rees-Mogg, Melanie Phillips, and Rod Liddle, as sponsors of far-right radicalisation.

About which, Murray quipped, “So, everybody reading this column is at as much risk of being ‘radicalised’ as some young Muslim settling down with a tape recording of Ayman al-Zawahiri or Osama bin Laden.”

The complaint is justified.

William Shawcross’s recent review of the U.K government’s counter-terror program, slammed Prevent’s skewed focus, arguing that “some of the material’ labelled right-wing extremism fell ‘well short of the extremism threshold altogether.” (3.47)

“While the products related to Islamist terrorism focus on the most serious material relating to violent Islamist ideology, mostly Islamic State and al-Qa’ida, much of the material covering Extreme Right-Wing falls well below the threshold for even non-violent extremism.” (3.46)

The independent reviewer recalled how material considered Right Wing Extremism, “not only covered non-violent far-right extremism, but included examples of centre-right debate, populism, and controversial or distasteful forms of right-leaning commentary and intolerance.”

“Some of this material,” he wrote, “falls well short of the extremism threshold altogether.”

Broadening his discussion, Shawcross raised alarm about the ideological imbalance.

Prevent needs to be “consistent in the thresholds that it applies across ideologies to ensure a proportionate and effective response,” he argued.

Shawcross added, “my four-year analysis shows this is not the case.” (3.44-45)

“In practice,” Shawcross said, “the bar for what RICU [Prevent] includes on Islamism looks to be relatively high, whereas the bar for what is included on Extreme Right-Wing is comparably low.”

Exposing how falsehoods about “Islamophobia” paralyse policing, he accused authorities of hindering justice by no longer referring to Islamist attacks as Islamic extremism.

“It cannot be considered an intellectually honest approach nor a sustainable and plausible one for the people of this country who are owed an honest explanation for the motivations behind acts of terrorism. Doing so would deny government the ability to name the problem and therefore deliver effective policy.”

Shawcross’s 192-page review concluded, “it would also be proportionate to devote some resources to better understanding Extreme Left and Anarchist terrorism.”

Prevent’s review was met with (the typical deaf) ridicule from lawfare leftists, who criticised the review’s legitimacy, while dismissing Shawcross’ conclusions as “deeply prejudiced.”

Meanwhile, the U.K. government has declared its intention to take on Shawcross’s 34 recommendations.

Current U.K Home Secretary, Suella Braverman admitted, “Prevent had defined the Extreme Right-Wing too broadly.”

So much so, “that it sometimes draws in right-wing and centre-right politicians and commentators.”

At the same time, Braverman added, “this has given to narrow a scope to Islamist extremism, which has enabled some extremist groups to operate unchecked.”

Not only does the Shawcross review amplify Douglas Murray’s concerns about the danger of Woketivist overgeneralisations, the report supports Michael Caine’s blunt refusal to kowtow to Cancel Culture.

He has good reason to hold his ground.

Zulu, the film, employed thousands of Zulu people while communicating a respect for, and celebration of Zulu temerity.

Known as the people of the sky, the Zulu nationalised under Shaka Zulu, and as the largest workforce in South Africa, formed some of the first worker unions.

Caine’s film tells part of their story.

On a somewhat slightly related note, in 2019, the Zulu people backed white farmers besieged by a racist government land-grab.

The late King Goodwill Zwelithini’s ‘unlikely alliance’ with the Afrikaner lobby group was motivated by a “shared concern for the country’s food security.”

Proving, the mighty Zulu – a majority of whom are Christians – were, and still are a commanding and formidable political force.