Shakira is a Colombian pop-star. Shakira Martin is a Black student-leader. For thousands of years their ancestors occupied different physical and cultural environments, and were subject to different evolutionary pressures.
That’s why the two Shakiras belong to separate races of Homo sapiens. They’re genetically and phenotypically different — and that involves far more than their skin and hair. Their bones and body-chemistry are different too. So are their brains. Shakira the pop-star is famous for being svelte, sexy and seductive. Shakira the student-leader may become famous for being crude, aggressive and obnoxious:
NUS president Shakira Martin accused of bullying at union HQ
National Union of Students leader denies allegations and claims she is victim of racism
The National Union of Students [NUS] is conducting an investigation after allegations of bullying and intimidation were made against the NUS president, Shakira Martin, by fellow officers. … Martin vehemently denied being a bully and said bullying should play no part in student politics. She said she felt traumatised by the attacks against her on social media, which had brought her close to quitting her role, and claimed they fed into a stereotype of an angry black woman. …
“I’m a strong, outspoken, articulate black woman that likes piercings and tattoos and I’ve got swagger. I’m not going to change myself. I’m not going to be anything but Shakira — rough around the edges, straight talking, authentic, real Shakira.” (NUS president Shakira Martin accused of bullying at union HQ, The Guardian, 31st January 2018)
Shakira Martin has got “swagger” because she’s got testosterone: she’s much more masculine than Shakira the pop-star. Accordingly, she’s also much less attractive. Black women are, on average, the least popular group in the sexual market-place and they often complain not just that Black men are dating White women, but that the mass media encourage this behaviour by the constant depiction of Black men with White women. They’re right: the mass media do encourage this behaviour. It’s part of a Jewish agenda of race-mixing and harms the White women who succumb to it, because they suffer much higher rates of violence and abandonment with Black partners. It also harms Black women, who are deprived of partners with whom they are more compatible and more likely to have successful relationships.
I bet my White girlfriend that every pro-Black and every anti-White identity ad in our subway was produced by Jews, who profit from racial coalition politics. She didn’t believe me.
If I’m a Jewish guy and notice this, how exactly do you think most White people feel? pic.twitter.com/FDU9qNoEFs
— Frame Game Radio () (@FrameGames) February 7, 2018
Playing the racism card
The sexual and romantic frustrations of Black women no doubt contribute to their higher levels of aggression. But their aggression would be high anyway: the accusations of bullying against Shakira Martin are no surprise. Nor is her response: she says that “she is a victim of ‘racism and classism’.” Non-Whites have found accusations of racism a very effective way to intimidate Whites and deflect attention from their own failings. In this case, the accusation may not work so well, because some of Martin’s accusers are themselves non-White:
Hareem Ghani, the NUS Women’s Officer, announced she would be filing a complaint to the NUS based on [Martin’s] ‘deeply dangerous behaviour’, such as threatening and bullying officers ‘over the course of the last 6 months.’ She later added: ‘I will no longer be going into NUS HQ until the complaint is concluded,’ ending ‘if only you all knew half the shit we’ve dealt with in the last 2 months especially.’ (NUS President accused of bullying NUS officers, The Cambridge Student, 27th January 2018)
Hareem Ghani is probably a West Asian Muslim, maybe a Pakistani or Bangladeshi, and although those groups are often very hostile to Blacks, it’s difficult for Blacks to accuse them of racism. Why so? Because the official ideology of anti-racism prefers to ignore hostility and prejudice by non-Whites against other non-Whites. It certainly ignores hostility and prejudice by non-Whites against Whites.
Again with the Agenda
Again we see a Jewish agenda at work. The agenda promotes what you might call oligolatry or “minority worship,” in which minorities are only ever victims, never villains. Whites, by contrast, are only ever villains. When minorities like Blacks and Pakistanis fail in Britain, it is because of White racism; when minorities like Chinese and Gujaratis succeed, it is despite White racism (which should, but of course doesn’t, make these activists question their dogma that there are no differences between the races).
And amid the incessant criticism of British Whites for excluding minorities from positions of power, one highly significant fact goes unmentioned. See if you can spot what it is:
The Colour of Power: Revealed: Britain’s most powerful elite is 97% white
Exclusive: just 36 of 1,000 most powerful people are from ethnic minorities, despite decades of anti-discrimination laws
Barely 3% of Britain’s most powerful and influential people are from black and minority ethnic groups, according to a broad new analysis that highlights startling inequality despite decades of legislation to address discrimination. From a list of just over 1,000 of the UK’s top political, financial, judicial, cultural and security figures drawn up by the Guardian in partnership with Operation Black Vote and in consultation with academics, only 36 (3.4%) were from ethnic minorities (BAME). Just seven (0.7%) were BAME women. …
The numbers betray a grotesque disconnect with the composition of the UK population, almost 13% of which has a minority background. In some sectors — the police, military, supreme court and security services as well as top consultancies and law firms — there were no non-white supremos at all. Equality advocates said the new study shone a light on the glass ceilings, subtle discrimination and “affinity bias” that minorities face as a matter of course in their careers. The toll is severe, on individuals, communities, and society as a whole, they said. (Revealed: Britain’s most powerful elite is 97% white, The Guardian, 24th September 2017)
The unmentioned fact in the article is that “Britain’s most powerful elite” is disproportionately Jewish. The “grotesque disconnect” and “severe toll” mentioned above were identified by the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which is headed by the Jewish activist Rebecca Hilsenrath. The Jewish Chronicle called her “The Woman with the Best Job in the World,” because she’s leading the fight against the evils of White oppression. But she herself is a perfect example both of Jewish over-representation in the liberal elite and of the Jewish refusal to admit or discuss this over-representation. Jews are what you might call Schrödinger’s Tribe. Just as, in quantum physics, Schrödinger’s cat is simultaneously alive and not-alive, so, in anti-racism, Schrödinger’s Tribe are simultaneously a minority and not-a-minority, just as it suits them to be.
So Jews don’t discuss their status as an overrepresented and hence unrepresentative elite. Instead, they push for White goyim to be replaced by non-Whites in positions of power and responsibility. That’s why the Black woman Shakira Martin became President of the NUS in 2017. It’s also why the Indian woman Kamlesh Bahl became Deputy Vice President of the Law Society in 1998. Bahl proved a very bad appointment: she was proven to be an obnoxious bully and caused years of trouble and expense to the liberals who had appointed her. Shakira Martin looks likely to cause the same. Bahl already had a history of bad behaviour before she was given an even bigger chance to indulge her obnoxiousness, but that history was overlooked because she was non-White and female. Non-White privilege.
A fractured society is an enfeebled society
I’m confident that the same is true of Shakira Martin. Minority worship leads to bad decisions and bad appointments. In short, minority worship is bad for the West. But that’s precisely why Jews promote it. A fractured society is an enfeebled society. As the late Larry Auster put it in an American context: “Jews look at mass Third-World and Moslem immigration, not as a danger to themselves, but as the ultimate guarantor of their own safety, hoping that in a racially diversified, de-Christianized America, the waning majority culture will lack the power, even if it still has the desire, to persecute Jews.”
This remains true when vibrant New Americans and New Britons are hostile to Jews, because their hostility can be used to justify an authoritarian state under Jewish control. Take a look at the Community Security Trust (CST), which describes itself as a “UK charity that advises and represents the Jewish community on matters of antisemitism, terrorism, policing and security.” The CST goes on to boast that it “is recognised by government and the Police as a best practice model of a minority community security organisation.” What does “best practice” mean? It means dishonesty, ethnocentrism and unrelenting support for censorship and the surveillance state. The CST has just released its Antisemitic Incidents Report 2017. The report will be treated with the utmost seriousness by British politicians and media, despite the triviality of many of the incidents it highlights:
- London, April. Bacon was thrown over the wall of a synagogue and found in the grounds.
- London, May. A Jewish man’s home was hit with pork and eggs.
- London, May. A Jewish man was called a “Jewish B***ard” on the phone.
- London, June. A Jewish charity was targeted with the tweet, “The Holocaust is a lie.”
- London, July. Graffiti was found on a bus stop that read, “Adolf Hitler was right.”
- London, August. A pro-Palestinian video was put on in a museum.
- Brighton, September. A man approached a synagogue and shouted towards congregants, “Free Palestine.”
- London, October. Graffiti reading “Banks, Media, Holohoax and 9/11” was found along a canal. (Antisemitic Incidents Report 2017)
Meanwhile, the heavily Jewish media in Britain continually promote the idea that Whites are racist and that non-Whites are their helpless victims. That’s much more serious hate than graffiti “found on a bus stop” and “along a canal.” And how many of the incidents recorded by the CST were genuine examples of “antisemitism”? The wave of anti-Jewish hate that struck America in 2017 was largely driven by a Jewish-Israeli teenager sending anonymous threats, with assistance from an unbalanced left-wing Black journalist who was trying to harass an ex-girlfriend. In Britain too, what appears to be antisemitism can be nothing of the kind:
Woman who made synagogue hoax bomb threat jailed for three years
A Jewish mother who made a hoax bomb call to a synagogue as part of a campaign of harassment against another Jewish parent was jailed for three years today. Claire Mann, 43, bombarded Roz Page with abusive messages after a dispute over a children’s party. She then tried to frame Mrs Page by sending similar texts to her own phone. …
Sentencing at Wood Green Crown Court, Judge Robert Morrison told Mann: “This all arose when you thought your daughter was not invited to a birthday party for a schoolmate. You started a campaign against the child’s mother that was spiteful and malicious. You bought a pay-as-you-go, unregistered phone and sent texts to yourself to support a claim you made to the police. You later used the same phone to send a message alleging a bomb had been placed close to hotels, close to a synagogue.” (Woman who made synagogue hoax bomb threat jailed for three years, The Jewish Chronicle, 17th October 2016 / 15th Tishrei 5777)
If the truth hadn’t been uncovered, that bomb-threat might well have been recorded as the CST as a serious hate-crime against Jews. It seems very likely that other apparent hate-crimes against Jews in Britain are also carried out by Jews. After all, such hoaxes kill two birds with one stone: the hoaxers cause distress to their individual targets and benefit Jews as a whole by making them seem like victims. What’s not to like? This also explains why mass immigration by antisemites can be beneficial to Jews. The CST’s report contains this interesting section:
CST received a physical description of the incident offender in 420, or 30 per cent, of the 1,382 antisemitic incidents recorded during 2017. Of these, 225 offenders (54 per cent) were described as ‘White — North European’; 13 offenders (three per cent) were described as ‘White — South European’; 77 offenders (18 per cent) were described as ‘Black’; 74 offenders (18 per cent) were described as ‘South Asian’; one offender (0.2 per cent) was described as ‘Far East or South East Asian’; and 30 offenders (seven per cent) were described as ‘Arab or North African’. (Antisemitic Incidents Report 2017)
At “54 per cent,” Whites are substantially under-represented as antisemites, while Blacks, “South Asians” and “Arabs or North Africans” are substantially over-represented. Therefore, as the White share of the population falls and the non-White share rises, antisemitism will also rise. If the CST genuinely cared about protecting individual Jews from antisemitism, it would oppose mass immigration, particularly by groups like Muslims who are much more hostile to Jews.
Equality = Discrimination
But the CST doesn’t genuinely care about protecting individual Jews. Instead, it cares about promoting an “anti-racist” ideology in which Jews and other minorities are helpless victims whose plight demands ever more censorship and surveillance. This ideology has metastasized to the point where, under British law, equal treatment is proof of discrimination:
Two asylum seekers have won a legal challenge against the government when a high court judge ruled on Thursday that it was a breach of their human rights to allow smoking in immigration detention centres. The two men, both Muslims, also succeeded in a claim that they should have an option for prayer other than next to uncovered cell toilets, which they described as “deeply embarrassing and humiliating”. Mr Justice Holman agreed that forcing Muslim detainees to pray next to toilets when locked in their cells overnight amounted to indirect discrimination and that allowing smoking in “enclosed or substantially enclosed areas” was unlawful. …
Lewis Kett, of Duncan Lewis solicitors, said: “We welcome the findings that the home secretary has had absolutely no regard to the potential discriminatory effect of the lock-in regime at Brook House on Muslim detainees and their right to properly practise their religion. Our clients have been forced to pray next to unsanitary and unscreened toilets in cramped conditions. The home secretary must now immediately take steps to remedy this.” (Asylum seekers win case over smoking in immigration detention centres, The Guardian, 1st February 2018)
In other words, when Muslims in a non-Muslim country are treated exactly like non-Muslims, this is “indirect discrimination” that requires privileges for Muslims. Can you imagine a Muslim country accepting such a claim if it were advanced on behalf of Christians? I can’t. Britain now has a legal system that works against the interests of the White British, benefiting instead non-Whites and the greedy, parasitic lawyers who represent them.
Little white slag
And would any White Briton be able to sue the government for suffering harm because of immigration? No, the concept of “harm to Whites” doesn’t exist in official ideology. “Hatred against Whites” isn’t a concept either. Instead, Whites are villains, never victims. But in reality Whites are constant targets of non-White hatred and violence. Look at this story from 2015 about one of the many thousands of White British girls sexually abused by non-White men since mass immigration began after the Second World War:
The girl, who cannot be named, accuses 15 men of sexually abusing her when she was 13 and 14 during a 13-month ordeal. Fourteen of the men, aged 17 to 62, are on trial at Bradford crown court. They deny a total of 28 charges between them.
The jury on Wednesday was shown a police video interview of the girl filmed shortly after she was taken into care in June 2012. She detailed how the alleged abuse began when she befriended a young drug dealer called Arif Choudry, who effectively pimped her out to his friends in Keighley, West Yorkshire. The men, she claimed, raped her at various deserted locations, including in an underground car park, in parks, and behind a library and leisure centre. …
On the video, she told police that when she tried to stop working for Choudry, he called her a “little white slag” [= slut] and a “little white bastard”. He then pinned her to the ground and raped her, she said. … The girl, who is now 18, only disclosed that Choudry had been her first rapist when she was taken into care and told police he was just the first of a string of [non-White Muslim] men to rape her — most of whom were introduced to her by Choudry. (Keighley girl lied about pregnancy and abortion to police, court told, The Guardian, 11th November 2015)
Was Choudry guilty of a hate-crime when he raped the girl after calling her a “little white slag” and a “little white bastard”? Not in official ideology, which prefers to ignore all evidence of anti-White hate. And note that what the girl suffered in Keighley was far more serious than anything recorded by the pro-Jewish CST. But there is no officially supported pro-White organization to record crimes like that and produce any equivalent of the CST’s Antisemitic Incidents Report. Nor is there any such organization to condemn the Guardian for the “insensitive” and “victim-blaming” headline it used for the story: “Keighley girl lied about pregnancy and abortion to police, court told.”
Gary and the Ghanaian
Were mistakes made by a raped girl the most important aspect of that case? Apparently they were to the Guardian, which is a prime example of the harm done by “anti-racism.” Recall the damning words of the Labour MP Ann Cryer when she was trying to combat “large-scale paedophile abuse” by Muslim men in her northern constituency. She received absolutely no help from Britain’s foremost feminist newspaper: “I couldn’t get The Guardian interested. Its reporters seemed paralysed by political correctness.” In other words, the Guardian is paralysed by its inability to admit the truth. Decade after decade, it has invested heavily in two lies: that race does not exist and that White racism is the root of all racial evil. Black journalists like Gary Younge and Afua Hirsch have built their entire careers on these lies and are not going to abandon them of their own accord:
Join the Guardian’s editor-at-large Gary Younge in conversation [with] writer and broadcaster Afua Hirsch for a discussion about race, class and national identity in modern Britain.
In her first book, Brit(ish), Hirsch, Sky presenter and former Guardian writer, explores our troubled relationship with history through her personal story as the daughter of a white Jewishfather and Ghanaian-British mother. Former US correspondent Gary Younge, the British-born son of a single mother from Barbados, has written extensively on the perils and potential of identity politics, not least in his 2010 book Who Are We — and Should It Matter in the 21st Century?
Join them for a discussion of some of the uncomfortable facts about race and identity in Britain today, as it relates to everything from slavery to Brexit and Meghan Markle to Black Lives Matter. How would coming to terms with our past help us navigate our present? What is wrong with insisting on being colour-blind? And why does the simple question: “Where are you from?” still sound so fraught to so many? (Gary Younge and Afua Hirsch: Brit(ish), The Guardian, details of event planned for 15th March 2018)
Note the phrase “uncomfortable facts about race and identity in Britain today.” Ideologues like Younge and Hirsh don’t deal in uncomfortable facts, but in comfortable illusions: namely, that Blacks bear no responsibility for their own failure and that Blacks such as themselves enjoy no more success than they deserve. In fact, Younge and Hirsch have risen on affirmative action, not on their own merit. They are mediocre writers with mediocre intellects who continually criticize and undermine an advanced technological society that Blacks like themselves could never sustain on their own, let alone create.
No luck required
But Blacks like Young and Hirsch are performing one very useful function for Whites. So are Blacks like Shakira Martin. When Whites from Eastern Europe see the pathologies and posturing of non-Whites in Britain, they are strengthened in their determination not to allow mass immigration into their homelands. Nations like Poland and Hungary will not be suffering either suicide-bombing by Libyan Muslims or self-righteous lectures by Black anti-racists.
You could say “Lucky Poland” and “Lucky Hungary,” but that would be entirely wrong. Luck has nothing to do with it. All that counts is democracy: unlike Britain, America and other Western nations, Eastern Europe is not governed by a hostile elite determined to destroy its White inhabitants with vibrancy.