The campaign to airbrush white males from society (customarily euphemised as ‘diversity’), is almost complete. White men are now the most hated group in their own land. Their very existence traumatises ethnic colleagues, and worst of all they’re too obtuse to understand that ‘not being racist isn’t enough’. As the last bastion of institutions succumbs to the allure of the DEI inspectorate, the ‘patriarchy’ is now routinely being excluded from educational opportunities, employment offers, and even historic depiction – thereby rendering him persona non grata in Britain’s past, present and future. While clearly desirable, extinction isn’t yet on the cards – given that whites are so ‘useless’, even the armed forces refuse to facilitate their suicide.
One avenue remains open however: the poster boy for villainy. White men appear to be the visual of choice when it comes to media depictions of criminal activity – one might even go so far as to say he has a monopoly. White (and preferably working-class) males are the go-to-guy when Sadiq Khan wants to pontificate on ‘misogyny’. They’re TFL’s choice when it comes to tackling unwanted sexual behaviour on public transport. Unbelievably, they’re even South Yorkshire Police’s pinup for ‘child exploitation’ – how many focus groups did that take?
The usual modus operandi is to present the vulgar, white, working-class perp alongside an unassuming ethnic minority – cunningly similar to the sexual harassment and assault dramatised by the BBC in its recent show Inside Man. Occasionally however, campaigners feel the need to push the boat our even further, which is presumably why the British Army opted for the everyday occurrence of a white female soldier accosting a defenceless black male recruit.
Scotland’s Hate Monster, Sesame Street reject Humza Yousaf (who knows a thing or two about white men), couldn’t resist a special nod to this most reprehensible of demographics in the recent Hate Crime and Public Order Act:
We know that young men aged 18-30 are most likely to commit hate crime, particularly those from socially excluded communities who are heavily influenced by their peers.
They may have deep-rooted feelings of being socially and economically disadvantaged, combined with ideas about white-male entitlement.
Neither it seems can any of the mainstream media turn up the chance to out whitey when posting depictions of knife crime; even in London, even when the offender is patently non-white.
This matters profoundly, not least because it’s fundamentally untrue. Knife crime, specifically knife crime in London, is a black rather than white issue. While constituting only 13% of London’s population, blacks account for 45% of knife murder victims, 61% of knife murder perpetrators, and commit 53% of overall knife crime. Similarly, child rape gangs (or ‘grooming gangs’ as the euphemism goes) are predominantly Pakistani Muslim in nature, no matter how much the authorities choose to deny it.
Secondly, misrepresentation matters – at least from what we’re constantly told. ‘Cultural appropriation’ is a sin according to anyone vaguely progressive, and if white males are denied the opportunity to play any role other than themselves, surely they ought not to be miscast in other arenas?
Third and most importantly, such a consistent bias requires explanation. Whites might indeed be the sole purveyors of misogyny, but I’d like to see the evidence. Failing that, we must question why the sole argument made for diversity (the need for accurate representation) is mysteriously jettisoned when it comes to crime. The charitable interpretation of such a bias is the line of least resistance: black depictions of knife crime would invariably lead to accusations of racism; similarly, accurate depictions of Muslim rape gangs might arouse suspicions of ‘Islamophobia’. There is another conclusion however, which is that such a bias constitutes a deliberate attempt to buttress the antiwhite narrative. If true, such a campaign is nothing short of criminal.
The refusal to acknowledge reality is far from insignificant. It’s both dishonest and dangerous – placing white men disproportionately in the frame for crime they have not committed, and potentially leading the gullible into ill-advised decisions. If you’re more on your guard against knife crime in Blackheath than you are in Brixton, that could prove to your detriment. Similarly, if you send your daughters to the local mosque rather than the Girl Guides in an effort to preserve their innocence, you might be doing them a disservice.
Identity politics and the fear of being called ‘racist’ was the pretext given for the mass rape of white, working-class girls the length and breadth of the UK. Wilful avoidance of the truth in depictions of crime, suggests that no lessons have been learnt from this – or alternatively, that those in authority are disinclined to learn such lessons.
Frank Haviland is the author of Banalysis: The Lie Destroying the West, and writes a Substack here.
If you enjoy The New Conservative and would like to support our work, please consider buying us a coffee – it would really help to keep us going. Thank you!
Frank,
Sad, but true-Qui tacet consentire videtur – “Silence gives consent.” When, as a people, we say nothing, do nothing, we give consent to the trespasses against us. We, as indigenous people need to reject the fiction that is being increasingly imposed on us.
Absolutely Kate, though to be fair everyone who stuck their head above the parapet has been roundly vilified.
Pingback: News Round-Up – The Daily Sceptic