The above is the NHS blood donor page.  There are 12 people in the photo - half of whom are black...why?  Britain's black population is just 4%.  So, at random, you would have to show 24 people before a photo of a black person.  Around 8% of UK people are Asian...so where are the Asian people in the above NHS photo?  The NHS, the government, the media, advertising...they are all obsessed with black people - with showing black people as though they make up 50% of the population rather than 4%.  It's nothing more than 'blackwashing'.  It uses black people as mascots in order to appear to be virtuous.

 

Below is a snapshot of the NHS's main webpage - two black people.  Why?  The NHS (according to their own stats - I looked it up) is almost 80% white.  So why would you deliberately show two black NHS workers on your main home webpage and no whites or Asians?  It cannot be, of course, that such photos are chosen at random, that's not how webpage designing works.  Such webpage designs are carefully crafted by teams of people.  This photo has been DELIBERATELY chosen.  They have sought out a photo such as this, full in the knowledge that it is totally unrepresentative of NHS staffing.

 

Below is a ad-email sent to me by Marks & Spencer via ebay.  Do they REALLY think that this is a good idea?  Why don't they want to appeal to the 96% of non-black people in the UK?  Four people are on the ad-email...all of them black.  It baffles me that M&S would think that I want to shop there.  Not now, and because of your racist virtue signalling, not for the rest of my life.

Now, some attempt to explain this by saying that although black people make up only 4% of the UK, the UK is not the world, and that we need to reflect the world in general and not be so insular.  Ok, that's a fair point...except that black people make up just 15% of the world's population.  Around 20% of the world is white.  Asians make up around 31%.  So, if we are to reflect the world as it is, let's do that - so where are all the Asians in advertising?  Let's stop lying that the UK and the world is half black!  If you were producing a play, a film, a TV series, or whatever, this is the number of people you would have to show to truly represent the population of the UK.

22 white people

2 Asians

1 black person

Advertisements (especially TV ones) are the worst, with some ads featuring only black people.  There are many people, like myself, who will have no part of this, and boycott companies who do this - not buying their products or services.  If you want to sell me your stuff, appeal to me.  I'm white, straight, and male.  If you don't want to appeal to me, that's fine, I have no problem with that as I won't be buying your shit.  So many companies and institutions run TV ads with a hugely disproportionate cast of black people, such as Marie Curie, Cadbury, Sainsburys, Boots, Seriously Spreadable, Macmillan Cancer Support...and about 100 others.  They are incredibly unrepresentative of the UK population...and the world population!  Why do they do this?  As has been already said, to appear virtuous - purely to make themselves look good by 'including' black people.  They are using black people for their own ends.

 

If you produced a play for a theatre, set in modern times, and included no blacks or Asians at all - made the entire cast, white...well, that would be 'racist'.  And yet a theatre company in Stratford puts on a version of Hamlet (as a fat homosexual) with an all-black cast (Aug '25) and no one says a word.  US singer, Bruno Mars, surrounds himself with black people in virtually every video.  Racist, much, Mr Mars?  But a white singer cannot do that and get away with it.

 

The following is 'Campaign' (a media company) laughingly trying to explain it on their terms.  It's by Katie Mackay and Hermeti Balarin (it took two to write the article) :

"Seeing a "face like mine" on TV can be hugely empowering for many of the communities that suffer this kind of prejudice. It shows people that they are part of society, not something left on the fringes. So bravo to the advertisers that are showcasing regular people doing regular things (who just happen to be BAME). At the end of the day, haters are always going to hate, but our job isn’t to pander to them out of fear of backlash. We must continue to show them that their views are not those held by the brands or people we work with. Their comments shouldn’t represent who we are as a nation."

 

There are many bollock points there.  First of all, mathematically, BAME people are on the fringes.  Secondly, they aren't 'regular' people who happen to be BAME!!!  If you truly took a number of people at random (rather than choosing them deliberately for your agenda) only 4% would be black!  Thirdly, they aren't BAME!!!  They are black, not minority ethnic.  As I said earlier above, where are the Asians - who number TWICE that of black people in the UK (percentage-wise)?  Lastly, if it's to be representative, where are the disabled?  A whopping 25% of the UK are disabled...where are they in TV ads?  Oh, and 20% of us are over 65, and much under-represented, also.  So Campaign's piece isn't just wrong, it's laughably pathetic, misleading, and incomplete.  It pisses me off that the people who should be complaining loudest about this are black people for being mascoted, and the Asians for a lack of representation.

 

It's 100% natural to feel an affinity to people who are like you.  Just as in the animal kingdom (and we are animals) we tend to stick to the like-minded.  Tigers don't lay with lions, lions don't lay with leopards, and leopards don't lay with cheetahs.  They are all feline, but different...and so are we.  The British don't think the same way as the French, and yet we share so much between us due to history, and we're just 26 miles away from each other.  They could be on the other side of the planet!  So let's stop the bollocks of thinking 'we're all the same'.  We're not.  Mixing cultures doesn't work, generally, just the same as mixing religions don't.  Black and white are different, not just in colour.  We ARE different in genetics (albeit slight), we're different in social outlook, in culture, in beliefs, and in almost all ways of life.  Even the blood of white and black people is 'different'.  The average haemoglobin and haematocrit levels, white blood cell count & absolute granulocyte count, and TS are lower in blacks than in whites  The serum ferritin and absolute lymphocyte count is higher in blacks.  Black men are more prone to prostate cancer.  White people have been incredibly inventive, black people have not.  Africa hasn't progressed, while white Europe has.  Whites are still going to Africa to dig water wells for them!  Why?  Why, when left to themselves, could black Africans not generally build structures over one storey high?  Even termites have built taller structures.  As with the rest of this website - LET'S BE HONEST.  If you think I am being 'racist', then point out what I have said above which is not correct.  You cannot be correct and racist...facts are facts.

 

There hasn't been an African Shakespeare, there hasn't been an African Alan Turing, there hasn't been an African Albert Einstein.  There is a very good reason for that.  Also, almost every invention has come from Europe.  Sub-Saharan Africa hasn't invented anything at all.  In sub-Saharan Africa, there were no roads, no writing, no machinery, no buildings, and not even wheels...before Arabian or Europe colonialists went there!  Sub-Saharan Africa has produced NO civilisations at all.  There isn't one 'successful' country that is 'black' in the world.  Botswana isn't terrible, but it's hardly held up as a progressive and successful country.

 

There are considerable moves afoot to totally and utterly fabricate 'black history'.  In large part, this is to make out that they were cleverer than we know them to be.  Books (in your children's school library) flat out lie about historical black people and their countries.  One such book is Lessons From Our Ancestors by 'Raksha Dave'.  It is, of course, made up - a book of fiction posing as a book of fact.  And it's not alone.  We are meant to believe that black people constructed Stonehenge and that there were black men at Hadrian's Wall.  We are told by our own government that black people 'built England' - a complete and utter lie.  There were none - there is no evidence for any.

 

Let's take one historical character by the name of Mary Seacole.  She was a lady who lived during the 1800s.  Unfortunately, many lies have sprung up about her.  For a start, she wasn’t ‘black’!  This may surprise you if you have already read about her, as it is something which is stated as true – and yet it is COMPLETELY untrue.  Mary Seacole had a Jamaican mother and a Scottish father.  She came from a fairly privileged background, and although she is now described as a ‘black Jamaican’, she was in fact three-quarters white!  At best, she could be described as mixed race – even her mother was mixed race.  Neither was she a nurse.  Together with her husband, she had set up a shop in Jamaica.  When her husband died, she travelled to Crimea while a war was in progress, to set up a store which sold luxury items, like tinned lobster, to officers, and to a restaurant and bar where they could dine and drink champagne.

 

Despite what you may have heard, she had no medical qualifications at all.  Although school history books now treat her as some sort of equal to Florence Nightingale, Mary Seacole never nursed in a hospital, never started a nursing school, never wrote books or any articles on nursing, and she never did anything to rival Nightingale’s outstanding work to improve healthcare.

 

Seacole learnt herbal healing from her mother, who worked as a ‘doctress’ (a ‘healer’!) and got informal tips from doctors staying with her family.  There is zero evidence of any expertise in nursing.  In fact, in her herbal ‘remedies’ she used for cholera, she stated herself how she added lead acetate and mercury chloride.  Both are highly toxic, cause dehydration, and produce the opposite effect to the treatments used by modern day healthcare people.  As we have already said, she was NOT black.  But sadly, this is how the BBC and others depict her.  In truth, she was almost white.  Alexis Soyer (a writer at the time) described her as “a few shades darker than the white lily”.  The BBC even says she was a “heroine and pioneering nurse” – she most certainly was not!  Was going to Crimea to set up a store to sell goods to soldiers ‘heroic’?  And yet she has gained a statue in London, a commemorative coin by the Royal Mint, and sickly, gushing praise from ignorant organisations and bellend individuals who have gone along with the myth.

 

Left to themselves, Africans are corrupt, unproductive, and pathetic (a generalisation, of course).  Millions of them are still cooking with dung as their fuel, and churning out children they cannot feed.  Some of them really do walk a mile to get water rather then just move closer to the water!  None of us want to see this going on in the 21st century.  We want Africa as a place which can drag itself up.  I want to see the Whoopi Goldbergs of this world doing something, rather than it being incumbent upon another race to sort it.  Africa has 65% of all the arable land left in the world on which to grow crops.  Not only could they feed themselves, and their growing numbers, they could help feed the world.  That's not ever going to happen because of tribal issues(!), corruption, and no one to invest the money.  The richest man in the world comes from Africa...and he's white!  They have rich soil, and enough sunshine to run the entire continent on solar power.  But it isn't ever going to happen, and you know why.

 

It's not racist to say that they aren't equal to Western civilisations, because they simply are not.  They don't have the culture, the inventiveness, nor the mental aptitude.  We have reached peak wank with calls for the exams solicitors have to pass to be dumbed down as "there aren't enough black solicitors".  So, they can't pass the exams?  Why should the bar be lowered - shouldn't aspiring black solicitors work as hard as white solicitors at passing?  Or is it not the case of working hard, but having the basic intelligence?  If so, isn't it time we honestly stated that there is an IQ issue?  If black people cannot achieve the same passing standards as whites, what does that say?

 

Here is The Council Of European Canadians (whatever the hell that is) take on it:

"Even though it’s widely acknowledged in the scientific community that all personality traits are heritable, studying racial differences in intelligence is still a controversial matter. Some people worry that unpalatable findings may be employed by racists to justify black inferiority, however, such concerns are misplaced. Though important, intelligence is not a measure of self-worth and racists are in the minority. According to researchers, IQ is highly heritable and genetic, therefore if blacks and whites pass on traits to children, why would some think that genes fail to even partially explain the black-white IQ gap? In fact, there is overwhelming evidence to suggest that the black-white IQ gap is genetic and many of these studies are quite recent. Without an introduction to these findings, the public will be unable to form a logical opinion on the matter."

Not at all, we can form logical opinions on it!

 

They skirt around the issue of intelligence by saying it must be genetic...which leads to the question, do whites have 'better' genes than blacks?  All depends what you mean by 'better'.  Black people (speaking generally, here!) show aggression, difficultly managing emotions, difficulty planning, a lack of cohesive thinking, a lack of inventiveness, etc.  Judging ONLY by that, you would have to conclude whites have 'better' genes in that respect.  It doesn't mean that overall whites are better than blacks.  But pick ten YouTube videos of US drivers getting pulled over for committing a minor offence like failing to stop at a 'stop' sign, and watch how the conversation between the police officer and the driver progresses.  Now understand that black people make up just 13% of the US population...but 7 out of the 10 involves black people.  Are US police racist?  No, because often, the police officer himself is black.  Listen to how it progresses and how black drivers end up being handcuffed and sent to jail.  It's so appalling that it's comical.  Instead of complying, they will argue every point (even though they often have suspended licences) and commit further offences during the traffic stop, and often act in an insane way.  I guarantee that some of them will call the police officer 'racist' - as though they only got pulled over for their skin colour, rather than the fact that their licence plates have been run through the computer and it has come back that the driver doesn't have a driving licence!  It would appear that blacks are 'better' when it comes to athleticism.  It explains why they do so well (generalising!) at sport.  They also evidently have better teeth!  It's not racist against whites to say such things.  But similarly, it isn't racist to say that whites are much more inventive than blacks and also at problem-solving.

 

I have met some lovely black people in my job, but we have to start being honest about what is going on here.  It's just bollocks.  There is a 'National Black Police Association', and a 'Black Solicitors Network'.  Imagine the furore if there was a White Police Association, or a White Solicitors Network?  Imagine what would be said if we had a White History Month.  White people are just expected to accept this outright racism.  And that's what it is, as it is selective purely on race - so it's racism.  I start to sound like some rabid far-right extremist, like some member of a Nazi group.  I'm neither - I've never even voted Conservative in my life!  But if the term 'racist' gets thrown around for everything from mathematics to the countryside (yes, really) then it needs to be bounced back.  There is a huge amount of racism against whites.  It's amusing, but there is an online magazine for the city of Minneapolis and the state of Minnesota called MSR.  The website is 99% 'black'.  However, the one section that runs a piece on getting caught in a financial scam has a pair of white hands on a keyboard.  That did make me laugh.

 

People bang on about how 380,000 blacks ended up as slaves in America (some of them owned by blacks!), but no one wants to mention that over 1,000,000 white slaves were taken from European coastal villages by the North Africans and Berbers (Tunisia) up to just 200 years ago.  The tiny island of Lundy, off the North Devon coast, even had the flag of Morocco flying on it!  No one wants to mention that slaves have been taken from just about every land in the world (the word itself comes from 'slav' - eastern Europe).  No one wants to mention that it was black Africans who sold black Africans into slavery.  No one wants to mention that they sold their own to Arabs a thousand years ago along with salt - that the 'slaves' had themselves mined.  There has not been just one episode of tragic human selling into slavery, there have been thousands, and for thousands of years.  American blacks want it to be all about them, so that they can claim victimhood.  And some British blacks have latched onto this like leeches.

 

No one wants to mention that slavery today is more prolific than at any time in human history - FAR, FAR worse than the black slave trade.  Estimates of the number of current enslaved people range from around 38 million to 49.6 million.  Remember that 380,000 blacks were sold to the Americas.

 

It was a sad day for Britain when the Empire Windrush ship from the Caribbean docked and off-loaded a few hundred black people onto these shores, as it began an influx which hasn't benefited Britain in ANY way, but it also [and this is very important] meant the beginning of our failure to hold onto our own workers.  Contrary to the belief of the idiot-William-who-will-be-king, we most certainly didn't need the Windrush people, nor want them.  At the time, we were encouraging our own people to leave for Australia for just £10.  What should have been done, and what should be done now, is an incentive scheme for employment.  Instead of shipping in nurses from the Philippines, we should be encouraging our own schoolgirls to want to become nurses by offering a £30,000 start wage and a flat to live in on the site of the hospital.

 

But back to the Empire Windrush.  The British government did NOT charter the ship to bring black people here to 'rebuild Britain after the war'!!!  We had 4 million people who had just joined the workforce after leaving the army.  The shipping company had spare places onboard after it had docked in Jamaica, and sent out ads asking if Caribbean people wanted passage to Britain.  500 people took them up on the offer.  Barbados (further north), at the time, had a staggering unemployment rate of 25% - and there were few jobs anywhere in the Caribbean, either.  When they arrived, the British government didn't want them, and the Colonial Office took steps to dissuade any further ships from doing the same.  Much of the rebuilding had ALREADY taken place by the 1950s when, in 1956, requests were made for workers to come here...eight years after Windrush.  But those calls didn't come from Britain, but from Caribbean states, worried about so many of their citizens being idle.  The issue surrounding black nurses coming here is also a total fabrication.  They were meant to come here for THREE YEARS and train - but work while training.  Of course, they stayed.  Of the 242 Jamaicans who were accommodated in Clapham, 23 left the area, while employment was found for the remaining 219.  It would appear that they were indeed required (filling jobs so quickly).  Not so fast.  Here is the text of what was stated in parliament on September 1st, 1948:

"Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the East End of London there are 300 to 400 coloured people unemployed?"

No amount of fiddling with the truth can hide the FACT that these people were not invited nor required.  The scandal about Windrush is that all you have heard is a massive lie.  They aren't even good at lying about it as all the evidence that these black people were neither wanted nor required is still on the internet.  There has been a saying that has sprung up:

"You called, and we came"

No, no one did call.  This is a conflation with the invitation LATER in 1956 for nurses to come here to train.  By then, the NHS had been formed (1948).  Here is the number of people on the Windrush who were coming here under invitation to join the brand new NHS:

0

Here is a load of bollocks from blackhistorymonth.org.uk:

"Contrary to popular belief the increased migration to England post war, was not solely the result of peoples from the Commonwealth countries (former British colonies) wishing to seek a better life for themselves: In the case of Nurses, midwives and other care staff, there was also an active invitation from the British government to come to England and help staff the newly formed National Health Service...African Caribbean nurses arrived en masse to Britain, alongside other skilled and unskilled workers with the arrival of the HMS Windrush and other ships from July 1948"

This is a complete lie.  You can find interviews taken at the time with the people on board the ship after they arrived.  NO ONE talks of the new NHS, but of bettering themselves in Britain, rather than suffering the unemployment in the Caribbean and beyond.  So this piece by blackhistorymonth (an oxymoron) is just total fabrication.  People are evidently of the opinion that if a lie is repeated enough times, it will become accepted as truth.  But don't listen to me, just research it yourself on the internet.  Thankfully, all the evidence is still there.

 

The issue of an all-black cast of a Shakespeare play is easy to explain when you realise that Africans don't have any real history, and they don't have any historical writers.  So they steal from the world's most-famous writer, and simply replace all the characters who were obviously white with black ones...because they have nothing of their own.  Even Jamaica, which everyone knows to be an 'Africans-resettled' island, is only 400 years old (since it was inhabited by African slaves).  Originally, it was Spanish.  So what are they to do with a Jamaican play - a story about how the wheel, the light bulb, and the jet engine was invented in Jamaica?  No.  It's so sad as to be completely pathetic.  In researching this, I checked out '100 Unsung Black History Facts' (this should be a very thin book!).  Here is what the African-American reviewers at BLK highlighted - I kid you not...

"The Possible African Ancestry of Classical Composer Beethoven:  Picture this: one of classical music’s revered figures, Ludwig van Beethoven, potentially challenging everything we thought we knew about European musical heritage. Some historical documents and genealogical research suggest that Beethoven may have had African ancestry, leading scholars to explore the diverse influences on classical music."

What next; Winston Churchill was actually black?  Here is the only other two in the review:

"The Peters Sisters: Early Pioneers of Tennis:  Before Venus and Serena Williams dominated center court, Margaret and Matilda Peters were making strides in the tennis world. In an era when racial segregation severely restricted opportunities in American sports, these remarkable sisters helped pave the way for future generations. Their story serves as a testament to perseverance and excellence."

"Joseph Laroche: A Lesser-Known Passenger on the Titanic:  The Titanic’s tragic tale includes a chapter that is often overlooked: Joseph Laroche, one of the only known Black male passengers aboard the ill-fated vessel. His story—one of ambition, family, and fate—offers additional perspective on the social dynamics of the early 20th century."

This is what passes (their pick-out, not mine) as 'unsung black history facts'!  It's so sad and laughable, because it really is the best that they can do.  What else are they going to do - tell their audience about the rulers in Africa who sold their own race into slavery for thousands of years?  No, they don't like admitting that their own race instigated what has become a rich gravy train - victimhood.  Black Africans sold their own people as slaves to the Arabs long before the Atlantic slave trade, AFTER those enslaved had dug out salt - which they also sold to the Arabs.  THAT is real black history!

 

If you struggle to believe how pathetic it is, then check out a website which chronicles 'black history'...www.blackpast.org

No, there's nothing wrong with your browser.  It's a website with SEVEN people on it...just some black people who lived - that's it.  One of them was only born in 1977!  It's like satire from some rabid right-wing racist group.  In fact, if it were, you'd say it was cruel.

 

Here is the University of Reading and the BBC playing their games: