The goal isn’t diversity but the marginalization of Whites. By Caldron Pool.
The UK’s Shadow Justice Secretary Robert Jenrick has come under fire after describing parts of Birmingham as among the “worst integrated places” he has ever visited.
Boo! Hiss! White!
Jenrick said that while filming in the city, “in the hour and a half I was there, I didn’t see another White face.” He added that “we mustn’t have growing communities where people are living essentially ghettoised lives.”
The usual suspects tried to shut him down, but Jenrick refused to apologize:
West Midlands Mayor Richard Parker called the remarks “shocking and disgraceful,” urging Jenrick to apologise. …
“I’ll tell you what gives rise to extremist views,” he told Sky News. “It’s journalists like yourself trying to shut down legitimate debate. If we live in a country where people can’t even discuss integration, that’s what fuels extremism.”
Proof:
When Scotland’s former First Minister Humza Yousaf, then Justice Secretary, addressed the Scottish Parliament in 2020, he noted that at “99% of the meetings I go to, I am the only non-White person in the room.” His comments were widely praised as highlighting structural inequality.
Applaud! Diverse!
Evidently, expressions of concern about underrepresentation are celebrated in one direction but condemned in another. You’ll be applauded as a champion of “diversity” for lamenting the absence of non-Whites, but condemned as a “racist” if you say anything about the absence of Whites.
Could it be any more obvious? …
The real agenda:
What’s becoming increasingly evident is that the term “diversity” is often a euphemism wielded to obscure an agenda. It sounds inclusive and tolerant, but in practice, it frequently targets a collective of Whites as a problem to be “fixed.”
Diversity, in this context, often means reducing the presence of White people. This sleight of hand allows proponents to deflect criticism: when challenged, they accuse opponents of bigotry.
Jenrick didn’t claim there were “too many brown people” — he merely pointed out the absence of White people in a specific context — England! Yet, this alone branded him a racist. This reaction exposes the agenda: the goal isn’t diversity but the marginalisation of Whites.
The rules are clear — wanting to preserve any White presence, whether in the British Isles or elsewhere, is now deemed unacceptable. Whites are sidelined as a national majority and simultaneously as a global minority.
The game is rigged:
So why play by their rules? Why engage in their bad-faith accusations? When they hurl “racist” at us, we shouldn’t scramble to prove our innocence, citing non-White friends or admiration for other cultures. This perpetually defensive posturing only empowers their narrative. It’s time to stop playing their game altogether. Their accusations of racism aren’t about principle—they’re a tactic to silence dissent.
Wailing about the pale, stale males who clog up our institutions is fine. Wondering where the white people are at when you visit certain parts of the Midlands is evil. …
Bitching about too many honkies is okay, but commenting on a lack of white people is borderline Nazi. …
Pretty much the only people these days who denounce an entire racial group – us crackers – as monstrous and possibly deserving of eradication (whiteness ‘must be abolished’, says a Guardian hack) are Jenrick’s critics. …
Even the Guardian’s shrill assault had to admit that 91.3 per cent of Handsworth’s inhabitants are non-white. In some neighbourhoods, it’s 99 per cent. That’s not diversity, is it? It speaks not to the vibrant, multicultural patchwork of the rich, right-on Londoner’s dreams, but to the slow formation of communities Balkanised along ethnic lines.
hat-tip Stephen Neil