Fake Feminist, Genuine Jew: Blood, Sweat and Fears with Ethnocentric Media Maven Emma Barnett

Female victims. They’re very important to feminists, aren’t they? Of course they are. So let’s consider some male and female victims in 21st-century Britain. First, two men murdered with relatively little suffering by a man, who did not target them as males. Second, seventeen women and girls murdered with great suffering by another man, who deliberately targeted them as females and who also maimed and badly injured dozens more women and girls. Which set of victims do you think matters more to a feminist?

Emma’s Dilemma: “Who matter more: 17 murdered women or 2 murdered men?”

The answer is obvious. Any feminist would certainly find the second group, the murdered and maimed women and girls, far more significant and important. Wouldn’t she? Well, no. It’s the two murdered men who matter much more to one prominent media feminist in Britain. Indeed, the feminist is much more concerned about the two murdered men than she is about tens or hundreds of thousands of women and girls who have been raped, prostituted, tortured and sometimes murdered in Britain since the 1950s. So what kind of feminist is she? Simple. She’s a Jewish feminist called Emma Barnett (born 1985), who spent three years presenting the feminist flagship Woman’s Hour on BBC Radio. With her broad face and deep voice, she’s a good example of the high-testosterone, masculinized women who are over-represented among feminists. But how sincere is her feminism? Let’s try and find out. Barnett grew up in the northern English city of Manchester, where seventeen women and girls were horrifically murdered in 2017 by a male Muslim suicide-bomber, Salman Abedi, who had deliberately targeted a concert by the American pop-star Ariana Grande. Abedi knew that the concert would be attended by mostly women and girls.[1]

Blonde, broad-faced Jewish feminist Emma Barnett identifies with Jewish men, not with gentile women (image from Jewish News)

Sure enough, when he exploded his suicide-bomb, the vast majority of his victims were women and girls. In feminist terms, the attack was a blatant act of murderous misogyny by a malevolent masculinist intent on punishing women and girls for exercising autonomy, pursuing male-free pleasure and celebrating female culture. But did the feminist Emma Barnett condemn it in those obvious feminist terms? No, she didn’t. She joined the rest of the Sisterhood in responding to the Manchester bombing with silence. To repeat: when dozens of women and girls were murdered and maimed in her own home-town by a malevolent male misogynist, Emma Barnett utterly failed to apply her supposedly fierce feminist principles. Now fast-forward to October 2025, when another Muslim man attacked a synagogue in Manchester and murdered two Jewish men.[2] Fierce feminist Emma Barnett didn’t stay silent this time:

The BBC presenter and host [Emma Barnett] said she viewed the attack on Heaton Park Synagogue, her old shul, in October as having crossed a “threshold” in Britain.

“[The attack] felt very different,” she said of the attack which claimed the lives of two people. “When you’ve got Jews being killed in synagogues, it’s very, very frightening. It was a threshold crossed in Britain. But I don’t believe we [Jewish people] can’t live here and be happy.”

In a piece she wrote for the Times filed the day of the attack, Barnett said how she had been walking home from the gym when she heard the news.

“I was very, very upset and realised I was checking the story in a different way from normal because I was trying to see if I knew anyone who had been killed, which is not a normal way to interact with any story,” she said. “I could imagine the place; I know its doorknobs.” [Barnett continued: “My tears fall softly on the street outside my home, helping me to pierce the news wall I’ve built and absorb the dawning reality. I cry for the community. I cry for the people who have been killed and their families. I cry out of fear and for what such hate can do. But I also cry out of sheer rage, indignation and horror.”]

Writing for the [Jewish Chronicle] in 2016, Barnett said that she “came out” as a Jew live on air during her first LBC [London Broadcasting Company] broadcast without any forward planning. She wrote: “My throat was tight and mouth desert dry as the word fell clumsily out. ‘I am… a Jew.’ And there it was. My faith out there. Live on the radio. Before that point, my religion had never been relevant in my job.” (“Emma Barnett reveals Jeremy Corbyn had to plead with his supporters to stop them sending her antisemitic abuse,” The Jewish Chronicle, 9th November 2025)

Barnett is deluding herself when she says “my religion had never been relevant in my job.” Her “religion,” that is, her cultural and racial identity as a Jew, is obviously central to her politics and to her supposed feminism. I say “supposed,” because I don’t think her feminism is genuine. She “cried” and decided that “a threshold [was] crossed in Britain” only after two Jewish men were murdered in Manchester, not after seventeen women and girls were murdered in Manchester. And not after huge numbers of other women and girls became the victims of Muslim rape-gangs in Manchester and many other British towns and cities. The dead and abused White women and girls don’t seem to matter to the feminist Emma Barnett. But the two dead Jewish men? Ah, that’s different: “When you’ve got Jews being killed in synagogues, it’s very, very frightening. […] My tears fall softly on the street outside my home, helping me to pierce the news wall I’ve built and absorb the dawning reality. I cry for the community. I cry for the people who have been killed and their families. I cry out of fear and for what such hate can do. But I also cry out of sheer rage, indignation and horror.”

Blood, sweat and fears

However, when “you’ve got” far greater numbers of women and girls being murdered and maimed at a pop-concert, Emma Barnett does not find it “very, very frightening” and does not shed copious tears. Was this because the women and girls involved were shiksas, that is, gentile women? I’d suggest that it is. And what about Victoria Agoglia?

Emma Barnett has never wept for shiksa Victoria Agoglia, dead at fifteen in Manchester

Victoria Agoglia was a 15-year-old White girl who was killed in Manchester by a heroin overdose administered by a 50-year-old Muslim man. At the time she was in the “care” of the local leftist council, which, with the police, had been fully aware that she was “being repeatedly abused, raped and plied with drugs by predatory paedophiles.” Council and police did nothing to protect her and thousands of other White working-class girls from misogynist Muslim men steeped in toxic patriarchy and male supremacy. Has the fierce feminist Emma Barnett spoken out about that shocking case in her own home-town? Has she shed tears for that betrayed fifteen-year-old girl? If she has, something has prevented her words and tears being documented on the internet. But what about murders in a foreign country? Barnett can certainly wax eloquent about some of those:

When I heard the news that four Jews had been murdered last week [7th January 2015] on European soil by an Islamist gun-toting terrorist, my blood ran cold; my hands started sweating. Dazed, I found myself in the work toilets shedding a silent tear. And then I realised why I needed to be alone: I felt scared.

For the first time in my life, as a British Jew, 70 years on from the liberation of Auschwitz, I felt anxious and bewildered at how this assault had happened just across the Channel. While I was stunned and enraged by the murders of the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists and writers — both as a journalist and citizen — it was the murder of my fellow Jews that left me feeling personally exposed. (“Somewhere between the Holocaust and 2015 it became OK to blame Jews again,” The Telegraph, 15th January 2015)

So now we know the group that truly matters to Emma Barnett: “my fellow Jews.” But “my fellow women” don’t truly matter to her. After the Manchester bombing, she did not describe how her “blood ran cold,” how her “hands started sweating” and how she found herself “dazed” and “shedding a silent tear.” Murdered women and girls in her own home-town? Yawn! Murdered Jews in a foreign country? Yowl! And while Barnett won’t speak up for the White female victims of non-White suicide-bombings and rape-gangs, she will speak up for the kind of non-White men who commit suicide-bombings and form rape-gangs. Here’s what she wrote about the so-called “Calais crisis” in 2015, when aggressive, low-IQ non-Whites were trying to force their way into Britain via the French port of Calais. Note how she mocks Whites and “reserves” her “compassion” for young non-White men:

Frazzled British holidaymakers “desperately” trying to reach France for your annual sojourn, have no fear! Café Rouge in Canterbury is here. The chain is offering those stuck in Operation Stack on the M20 a free tea and slice of cake if they happen to be diverted towards Canterbury — you know because of all that unfortunate nonsense going on at Calais. Little ones eat free! And if the family phone still has battery after hours of “hell” on the motorway, you can tweet about the experience using the special hashtag #RouteRouge.

Pass the sick bucket.

And while I do have sympathy for anyone stuck in the traffic jam that’s cost UK industry millions, I’m reserving my compassion for a group who really could murder a slice of cake. Just 21 miles from Britain there is a jungle. Or to give it its full name: Jungle Camp. This is where hundreds of displaced people from all over the world live in some of the most wretched conditions. Stuck in a no-man’s land in Calais, they are living in temporary cardboard structures and surviving on porridge made out of milk and soggy bread. Not that you will probably have paid them much attention over the last week.

The “Calais crisis” as it’s being referred to, is mostly being reported as a transport or business story. Actually, it’s a humanitarian timebomb. On Tuesday, one man died trying to get through the Channel Tunnel. We don’t know his name. He is the ninth this summer. […]

Even the language that’s being used to describe the mostly male Eritreans, Ethiopians, Afghans and Sudanese trying to live in Europe is mechanical at best, and dehumanising at worst. Emergency government meetings are being held to ensure there is “upstream management of illegal migratory flows”. Excuse me? These are real people, with hearts, families and lest we forget it, human rights. What if they were children instead of young men? Would we feel differently? […] This country has a proud history when it comes to taking in the needy. Let’s not let ourselves down because we’re impatient for a holiday or a booze cruise. It’s time to see the bigger picture and stop the lamentable narrowing of our horizons. An island nation we might be, but that doesn’t have to mean our mentality must follow suit. (“Calais crisis: Screw British holidaymakers. What about the real victims?,” The Telegraph, 30th July 2015)

It’s plain that Emma Barnett places the welfare of non-White men from the Third World far above the welfare of White women in Britain. Like countless other Jews, both avowedly leftist and supposedly “conservative,” she has welcomed unlimited immigration by non-Whites from the most corrupt, illiberal, rape-friendly and economically unproductive cultures on Earth. But the real concern of those Jews isn’t for non-White migrants: it’s for themselves. Like countless other Jews, Emma Barnett has supported non-White migration because she thinks it is “good for Jews.” That’s why she used the wrong pronoun when she said of Britain that “we are an island nation.” Her true nation — the country and group to which she is natally bonded — is plainly not Britain but Israel, which isn’t an island at all. So does Israel have “a proud history when it comes to taking in the needy”? Sadly, it doesn’t. Not if the needy are non-Jewish. Israel has erected high-tech fences on its borders to keep out “the needy” and has just spent two years using high explosive to make “the needy” of the Gaza Strip even needier than before.

Israel’s response to “the needy”: a big steel fence topped with barbed wire (image from Wikipedia)

That’s the Jewish attitude in Israel to “the needy.” But the Jewish attitude in the West to “the needy” is now shifting towards that in Israel. After the Hamas attack on Israel in October 2023, Jews based in the West seem to have expected that their non-White “natural allies” would side with poor persecuted Israelis rather than with murderous anti-Semitic Palestinians. To their horror and disbelief, non-Whites in the West have sided with non-White Palestinians, not with Israeli Jews. You see, non-Whites in the West have failed to absorb a loud and oft-repeated Jewish message. Jews have told non-Whites again and again that Jews are an oppressed minority just like them. Jews have told non-Whites again and again that Jews are entirely different from gentile Whites, who enjoy White privilege and oppress cowering Jews and their non-White “natural allies.” Alas, it’s now obvious that non-Whites have failed to absorb this vital Jewish message. Instead, they’ve come to regard Jews as “Hyper-Whites with Hyper Privilege.” That’s why more and more Jews in the West are deciding that non-White immigration may not be so good for Jews after all.

The highly ethnocentric Emma Barnett may be among those Jews having a re-think about their natural allies. Recall how she invoked “children” in her sentiment-laden appeal for unlimited non-White immigration into Britain. Then recall how she shed copious tears and said “a threshold [was] crossed in Britain” by the murder of two Jewish men in Manchester. Well, that threshold was crossed by a Muslim man, Jihad Al-Shamie,[3] who came to Britain as a child. Maybe a disturbing biological fact has now struck Emma: that ickle children can grow up and become icky adults. Of course, she didn’t shed tears or think that any threshold was crossed when seventeen gentile women and girls were murdered in Manchester by another Muslim man, Salman Abedi. My conclusion? Emma Barnett is a fake feminist and genuine Jew.

[1]  Ariana Grande’s fans are also disproportionately gay and there was at least one gay among the five men killed in the Manchester bombing. Like women, gays are group whose welfare is supposedly of great concern to the left. But just as leftists refused to condemn Muslim misogyny after the bombing, so they refused to condemn Muslim homophobia.

[2]  One of the Jewish men was in fact accidentally shot dead by police, but the Muslim attacker was morally responsible for his death.

[3]  Note that Jihad al-Shamie means “Jihad of Syria” in Arabic. Did this ring any alarm-bells with the British authorities who gave asylum to little Jihad’s family? Of course not. Jews have trained White gentiles to regard common sense and rational self-interest as “racist” and “Islamophobic.”