In George Orwell’s celebrated novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, the modern world was introduced to the concept of doublethink. This occurs when an individual, organisation or political party holds two contradictory beliefs and simultaneously believes in both fervently. If there were nominations for an award in doublethink the Guardian newspaper would sure to be a contender.

In 2015, its staff columnist Jessica Valenti wrote an article where she both condemned the rude behaviour of men cat-calling women and at the same time said that she missed it as she got older. She sounds like the kind of person that after a few drinks would have a row with herself on the way home from the pub. How does one end up as a regular columnist in a leading newspaper when you can’t even win an argument with yourself?


Another area where the Guardian excels in doublethink is the issue of racism. At times it has published decent articles, as here, that rightfully call out genuine racial bigotry and discrimination. However, it has in recent years become an unequivocal cheerleader for far-Left divisive identity politics and has published celebrations of anti-white racism as here, where the columnists, often whites themselves with a penchant for self-flagellation, make sweeping negative generalisations about all white people being racist and complicit in the historical oppression of non-whites.

This week, though, the Guardian scraped a new low in the bottom of the identity politics barrel when it published this article by the journalist Georgia Chambers entitled, ‘If Meghan Markle Represents the “Mixed Race Community”, what about me?’, in which she complains that Prince Harry’s fiancée isn’t the best representative for mixed-race people because, to put it plainly, Miss Markle isn’t the right shade of brown. Here she is in her own words as I don’t want to be accused of misrepresenting her:



‘Many women of black and white heritage, myself included, have darker skin and curly, afro hair that, thanks to our Eurocentric standards of beauty, are seen as less desirable. The media’s efforts to paint Markle as a patron for this imaginary mixed-race community therefore excludes many of us who do not have this commonly assumed “beauty privilege.”’

The only place where Miss Chambers is being excluded from ‘this imaginary mixed-race community’ on the basis of her skin colour is in her own mind, but what would you expect from the author of an article about another woman’s engagement who narcissistically includes ‘what about me?’ in the title?

Miss Chambers is the one focusing on Miss Markle’s skin tones, not the media; Miss Chambers is the one assuming that Miss Markle is deemed more attractive and more ‘privileged’ because of her lighter skin tone and straightened hair. She is the one judging people to be worthy or less worthy due to their colour.

What then is she projecting other than her own self-obsession? Were she as devoted to the Guardian’s diversity values, then shouldn’t she be celebrating the fact that there are a variety of mixed-race people of all shades and hairstyle choices?

Her contention and objection to Harry’s choice appears to be her theory that darker-skinned women with curly and Afro hair are deemed less desirable. Since attractiveness is subjective, the qualities one person finds attractive another person doesn’t, are we to assume she is projecting her own preferences? It is by no means clear that ‘whiter’ people are preferred or that there is a fashion discrimination against ‘blackness’ as she implies. Take the fashion industry, where there have been many black models down through the decades, many with darker skin such as Grace Jones and those such as Pat Cleveland who proudly displayed their Afro hair.

Did Miss Chambers or her publishers stop to consider that perhaps Miss Markle might just want to be viewed as an individual without unnecessary scrutiny of what colour she is or her racial heritage? Miss Markle is first and foremost an individual. To paraphrase Dr Martin Luther King, we should judge Miss Markle and every other human being on the content of their character and their arbitrary physical traits should be completely irrelevant. It would be great if the Guardian could ease up on the race baiting, but I suspect it will carry on in the same vein.

83 COMMENTS

  1. The Guardian appears to be the way the crazies get their craziest stuff out to their followers.

    Only once it’s tested among them does then the BBC take over to push it to those who are less crazy but not really aware.

    While race baiting is one of the things that the crazies do, the Guardian won’t ease up on it.

    • The BBC is apparently going to start, from next year, going into schools to inform schoolchildren on the difference between real and fake news.
      According to James Harding, the outgoing director of BBC news and current affairs, “never has it been so important for young people to develop their critical thinking and to be news literate, and have the skills to filter out fakery from the truth, especially on their busy social media feeds.”

      So, according to your line of thinking, where the BBC adds moss to the rolling stone from the Guardian is to encourage readers/listeners/viewers that their crazy world view is the correct and just action and that the doublethink it perpetuates can be managed.

      What a nutty, nutty world.

      • I expect that the Harding/BBC understanding of what constitutes “critical thinking” is rather more straightforward than what most of us would understand it to be, because it would be something along the lines of:-

        “the progressive worldview is always correct, any qualification or criticism of it is always wrong, and the correctness or otherwise of anything apparently neutral should be decided by whether or not it is supportive of progressivism”.

        • When there is a Deputy PM, Green who worked for the BBC, and Greening is in charge of Education, however appalling this is, it should not come as a surprise.

          When the Conservative Party was conservative, they would both have been suited to the party that shares their name.

      • The relationship between the BBC and the Labour party appears to be symbiotic so in reality this will probaby be further promotion of Corbyn as a cult “great leader”.

        In any case, that the BBC could differentiate between true and fake news when the vast majority of their output is thinly disguised left-liberal propaganda is laughable. They have even admitted this bias.

        • But the Government/ Department of Education doesn’t need to allow it.

          But then that too is thinly disguised left-liberal.

  2. I have come across this sort of thing in Twitter (where I’m involved with Birds, Wild Flowers &c.). Some people seem to live in a World where they are permanently oppressed, the World is against them &c. surrounded by people similarly oppressed &c. A very Sad way to live Life since they end up believing the World actually is against them.

    • Perhaps after they’ve lived a lifetime like that, they may end up becoming right. Simply by being tedious, paranoid, vociferous people whom most of the rest of the world would prefer to avoid.

    • The Guardian, like the BBC, plays the game. They like to point out everyone’s differences and decide on their findings who or what group fits appropriately into one of two categories – victims or the privileged. While they have suitable cannon fodder in either Trump, Farage or anyone on the right, they can continue playing their ridiculous little games completely unaware of how much division they are causing. It’s a classic paradigm of divide and rule and, as long as the majority let them do this, they will continue on their merry way.

      • I would argue that they are completely aware of what they are doing and its a high level organisation employing sophisticated psychological techniques to cause as much chaos as possible in society by polarising the SJW zealots against more conservatively minded possible. The overreach technique is particularly effective as they will say that for example that barbecues are racist which makes the less insane stuff more palatable. Their psychological techniques are more advanced than we give them credit for.

        http://21stcenturywire.com/2017/10/09/guardian-exposed-conning-public-financing-independent-journalism/

        • You make a good point and, if you’re correct, that they’re fully aware of the division they’re causing, this makes them infinitesimally dangerous.

        • Spot on. One particular organisation sets great store in “neuro-linguistic programming” – the politicisation and control of language to compel, subvert or confuse.

        • This is very true – and what you describe has the added bonus of making anyone who attempts to explain this to typical non-political person look like a foil hat wearing loony tune.

      • The Guardian, like the BBC, and Channel 4, ramms diversity down our throats, whilst making damned sure that little of it is permitted to come anywhere near their own senior management or boardrooms (except perhaps for the cleaners). Just take a look at their management.
        .

  3. Why is race mixing only black/white? Given the number of other races and ethnicities why do we only focus on that mix? What if Harry had decided on a Chinese or Japanese bride?

  4. I have been triggered ever since Princess Anne picked somebody else. Obviously she bought into the horrible prejudice that men have to be handsome, rich, intelligent and well bred in order to be desirable. Just because I exhibit other qualities, why should that mean that I am not good enough and I have to be discriminated against? It’s a scandal. I am a victim, dammit, so why doesn’t anyone recognise my pain?

    • If you say that you are married to Princess Anne, then who are we to argue? It would be most bigoted of us to say that you aren’t.

    • I recognise your pain, Paul, because I, too, am discriminated against for the same reasons. Let us unite to form a ‘cohort’ and see if we can lever ourselves into the progressive stack; all it would take would be a couple of tweaks – for example, also identifying as gender-fluid, Muslim lesbians – and I reckon we could compete in the Weaponised-Victimhood Olympics with great success…

  5. You really should look up Sargon of Akkads piece about Meghan on YouTube. She sits right up in that lefty, virtue signalling, feminista. This is woman who loves Hillary, who’s father got her the contacts to push her career. Unpleasant liberal-vomit inducing speech on how she ‘persuaded’ P&G to drop their ‘oppressive’ advert showing women washing dishes.

  6. As the Left’s identity groups, sub-groups and sub-sub-groups pecking order seems to be constantly expanding and changing a visual wall chart might help us deplorables to get it right. Then the different categories and classes of skin colour and hair could be better appreciated and due deference given to them.

    Otherwise there is always the risk of taking individuals as we find them and being misled by their merit.

    • The left wing wall chart will, no doubt, probably be issued as a government white paper in the none too distant future. The Tories are becoming more left wing by the day and any changes to their support for so called victims will surely gain the backing of the House as a whole.
      We need common sense representation in parliament otherwise, I fear, this country will continue to fulfil the dreams of the Guardianista.

    • Georgia Chambers is clearly playing this card, but she is missing a few tricks. These days, islam trumps everything in the intersectionality stakes, but she will go on about her hair. Doesn’t she realise that donning a hijab, specifically to hide her hair, would make her automatically brown (cf Linda Sarsour, passim)? Brown + muslim + female + (modestly concealed) curly hair is a pretty strong hand. Then she could proclaim herself to be a “ze”, called Attila, or maybe @ttil&, or something like that, and she’d wipe the floor with all-comers.

    • I have a Hispanic acquaintance, who was married to a black man, and who had children who were obviously mixed race. The girl was white-skinned, but with the African curly hair, which she didn’t cut. At her graduation when she was being fitted for her mortar board, the fitter was apologising for the fact that it was hard to fit. “Is that ‘cos I’ve got black hair” the daughter snarled.

      Well stuff her – with an attitude like that. She has been educated c/o the British taxpayer, if her chip is so big she is welcome to leave.

    • I don’t think a wall chart would be enough. I believe weather forecasters use something called a Cray Supercomputer – I think that one of these would cope with all the complexities (just about).

        • Good point.

          A Cray might be useful however for generating all the possible personal pronouns possible, assuming words of one syllable – very necessary for the progressive world in which we now live, where ‘he’ and ‘she’ are old hat.

          Perhaps a mathematician amongst the TCW readership could come up with a figure for the number of possible permutations possible. The figure is likely to be very large indeed, given that one-syllable words in English can have up to eight letters (‘strength’ for example).

          Bill C-16, currently before Canada’s parliament, will apparently make it illegal to refuse to use the personal pronoun of a person’s choice. There would be lots of scope for troublemakers to either get lots of prominent people into trouble (cf. METOO), or to wreck the law by generating thousands of spurious complaints.

          • I think Douglas Adams and Deep Thought might be the computer they need.
            Luckily the answer to all questions will be 42.
            They are not going to like it.
            As a Canadian I shudder at the antics of the current government but at least I can comfort myself with the thoughts of Jordan Peterson and Mark Steyn.

  7. https://www.thecollegefix.com/post/39422/ :

    “Brown University is implementing a change to its graduate school application that will allow applicants to ‘self-identify’ as persons of color.”

    Somebody at “Brown” University seems to have no sense of irony, for starters, and I don’t know why it’s only graduates who get this privilege. Brown does already have the reputation of being the Ivy League school that is easiest to get into. Presumably, ticking the box that reads “African-American”, “Native American”, “Classic Maya”, or whatever, gets one preferential treatment.

    Meghan Markle preferred to join the Royal Family, or get engaged to Prince Harry, anyway, instead. The only boxes she needed to tick were figurative ones, the more important things to which Andrew Devine refers.

    Both sides of the Atlantic, elements of the media and the bureaucracy are stirring up racial division. I think most of us are immune to it and should stay that way. Georgia Chambers has a mini-biography on the Guardian:

    “Her blog, Breaking Tides, documents her experiences trying to navigate her mixed-race identity.”

    For one thing, Georgia, an obsession with race is unhealthy, to put it mildly, but to emphasize one part of your ancestry and demonize the other is weird, to say the least (although Barack Obama has made a career out of it). Contrary to what you appear to think, you are not, to judge from your Guardian thumbnail, very dark-skinned and your hair isn’t very dark, either, and doesn’t appear to be naturally curly. For the record, in my younger days, when I let my hair grow a bit longer, it was darker than yours and wildly curly, but I don’t claim many African antecedents this side of Olduvai Gorge.

  8. I didn’t realise she was ‘black’ I cant see how any of it matters? Its only liberals that make such a fuss
    Her dad is white.
    Just like, Barak Obama, Halle Berry and Bob Marley, she has one Caucasian parent.

    • Guardian Newspaper genetics is the reverse of coffee don’t you know. In the way coffee only requires a drop of milk to make it ‘white’, people it seams only need a ‘drop of black’.

      • No, in the context of the Pakistani rape gangs the term ‘white’ is significant. The victims have been singled out precisely because they are white and non-muslim.

          • Not all white girls had been targeted. They were English, working class (or what counts for it this days), from broken families. They were no Polish girls with working dads. They were not Albanian girls with six brothers.

            Now, why “English working class” and “broken families” come together – that is a question.

            And Pakistani? They just prey on most vulnerable.

          • Yes, you can certainly add class into this – that was another factor in the refusal of the local authorities in question to act. But saying ‘not all white girls..’ is about as significant as saying ‘not all black men were lynched by white lynch mobs in the USA.’

      • People aren’t any more “obsessed” with race when they ask, than they are when they ask “where are you from?” when someone has a foreign accent. It’s just natural interest, no more, no less.

        • I know when people are obsessed with my race when I tell them I am from Norfolk and English, to which they have been known to ask “*where* are you from” repeatedly.

          Accents are cultural and can be traced to where someone had grown up. Thatis as you say natural.

  9. I stay with Megan. I say, it’d only be fair, given our past of colonialism and racial oppression, to give every black woman a natural right to marry a prince. I mean, people are entitled to all kinds of crazy things those days, so why not?

    • As long as the prince does not attempt to wake her with a kiss, Sleeping Beauty-like, from a charmed sleep. That would be bumping into her, even under any mistletoe, or worse “socialising”, and without consent, which would be rape – according to Plod.

      These days the impenetrable forest of thorns is no longer round the castle but supporting equally impenetrable and unfathomable feminist protocols.

    • Maybe he should marry her as recompense for the devastation this country brought to Africa. Thank goodness the independent countries there have managed to get back to their former glory before the dreadful British imposition.

      • You read my mind. Just the other day, I had a thought. Now, when the horror of Rhodesia was finally transformed to the glorious Zimbabwe, and their great leader Mugabe may have some rest, we could probably persuade this person to run against Trump for the American presidency in the next election.

        America needs her first Black President badly (Obama was half-white), – and also a person, who knows a thing or two on how to fix racial issues and broken economies, – like Mugabe.

        • Yes – Obama cheated – he wasn’t really the US’s first black president. He was tainted with whiteness.

  10. Nothing wrong with Jessica Valenti article. It is coherent, well written and well argued. You might not like what she says but she is admirably clear. That’s why she’s syndicated so much. The other article does plunge into the murky waters of what call intersectionality, and does rather disappear down a rabbit hole.

    • Yes, she very eloquently elucidated that she both approves and disapproves of cat-calling. She is very coherent in her double think I will give you that.

      • You’re just being crass. She emphatically does not approve of cat calling, and makes it crystal clear that it has often been a demeaning and even frightening experience for her. She simply says that she remains conditioned to seek affirmation through male approval, however much she dislikes this trait in herself. For such a muddled writer she is very widely published and followed. Perhaps you are a little jealous?

        • As a man I find articles by the likes of Valenti demeaning and even frightening.

          As for her being “conditioned” to “seek affirmation through male approval” – what a load of old codswallop.

          • Jessica Valenti has a habit of taking something, it could be as little as a tweet, and then generalising to ‘all men’. Drives me nuts.

            In this case I understand exactly what she’s saying and I think she’s absolutely right. My own experience of dealing with a teenage daughter leaves me in no doubt.

  11. “…it published this article by the journalist Georgia Chambers…”

    Calling people who write for the Guardian journalists only encourages them…how about polemicists, propagandists…or just witless inept cretins

    • For most journalists, and Guardian and BBC journalists particularly, I prefer the term “propaganda technician” (from “Brave New World”, Aldous Huxley).

  12. The day after the engagement of Prince Harry and Meghan Merkel was announced newspapers were full of articles about the couple. Most seemed to either ignore or only mention race in passing. The exception was, of course, the Guardian which seemed to think that her race was the most interesting thing about her.

    When Meghan weds Harry, Britain’s relationship with race will change for ever
    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/nov/27/prince-harry-meghan-markle-britishness-monarchy-relevant

    The article in the above link was written by Afua Hirsch, the same woman who recently called for Nelson’s Column in Trafalgar Square to be torn down.

    Toppling statues? Here’s why Nelson’s column should be next
    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/aug/22/toppling-statues-nelsons-column-should-be-next-slavery

    Afua Hirsch regularly uses the Guardian to express her hatred of this country. Here is another recent example.

    Britain’s colonial crimes deserve a lasting memorial. Here’s why
    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/nov/22/british-empire-museum-colonial-crimes-memorial

    However it would be unfair to put the blame for this on one individual. Nobody forces the Guardian to publish her articles. The Guardian is utterly obsessed with race. It would be interesting to know just how many days it can go without publishing an article on race.

    • It would be interesting to get Ms Hirsch’s views on the Ashanti empire in Ghana, which had a few ‘colonial crimes’ of its own, including slavery.

  13. Andrew Devine wrote: “The only place where Miss Chambers is being excluded from ‘this
    imaginary mixed-race community’ on the basis of her skin colour is in
    her own mind, but what would you expect from the author of an article
    about another woman’s engagement who narcissistically includes ‘what
    about me?’ in the title?”

    The aforementioned Miss Chambers is a devotee of the totalitarian Cult of Social Justice and Identity Politics, which enshrines infantile, narcissistic victimhood within a framework of collective groupthink: until she grows up psychologically and breaks free from this terrifyingly destructive mindset, everything she thinks, says and does can only ever be about herself and her juvenile feelings of resentment and envy.

  14. The “street” hierarchy of “desirability/acceptability” of the looks of mixed-race individuals, as expressed in a somewhat cynical fashion in days of yore:

    “If you light, you all right.
    “If you yellow, you mellow.
    “If you tan, you The Man…
    “If you brown, stick aroun’…
    “If you black, git back.”

  15. In my experience as a teacher, it is the black students who differentiate obsessively between different shades of black skin. A common question is “Is he black or ‘blik’?” The latter pronounced as Afrikaaners say it and meaning ‘very dark skinned’. The only times I have had to deal with one pupil telling another to get her skin bleached it has been dark-skinned black girls saying it. And then whenever there is a joke about not being able to see someone in a dark room, it is another black student making it.

    These pupils will often try to project their own obsessions on to teachers. When many black children have good relationships with their teachers, behave and do well in class, it is ridiculous to accuse a teacher of being racist. The child will then accuse the teacher of being prejudiced against dark-skinned black pupils. I have heard this accusation being made against several black teachers as well.

    From early years in secondary schools, many black and mixed race girls develop a belief that the whiter a woman is the more attractive she is likely to be considered. I know this from overhearing conversations and the fascination that many of these children have with white men who choose non-white women. Quite where this belief comes from, I can’t be precise. However, what their adult relatives say, the preference of many black men for white women, the desertion of many black mothers by the fathers of their children and, yes, advertising and the media all probably play a significant part. If an advertisement for young women wants to show diversity, it will probably include a mixed race woman rather than a black woman.

    For some mixed race girls, there is a love-hate obsession with the possibility of passing as white. Doing so is seen as enhancing employment prospects as well as romantic possibilities. Doing so however also involves denying the person you are and disrespecting the black parent and grandparents, who were involved in raising and loving you. The result again is that many mixed race children are more obsessed with skin tone and race than the white children around them.

    Some mixed race children, especially those raised by a white single mother and with little or no contact with their black relatives, identify as white. Many others identify as black. Many identify as dual heritage or have no strong sense of a racial identity but just want to be accepted for the individual they are. As a result, it is difficult to see where exists this ‘mixed-race community’ that Ms Chambers describes. I suspect she is talking about herself and a group friends, who rather than confronting their own obsessions prefer to project the obsessions onto broader society and then scream ‘racism!’

  16. There’s a picture of Chambers on the internet and readers can make up their own minds about where she might fit in the spectrum of beauty, Eurocentric or otherwise. I thought she looked quite sweet. But she certainly fits the stereotype of the young adult wimmin who drive commentary at the Guardian. At a guess, fairly fresh out of university and armoured with a view of the world unadultered by too much experience of real life.

    What I wonder is why enlightened young women like Valenti and Chambers care about beauty which should be an ideological anathema. Female beauty was designed by nature for the sole purpose of making women attractive to men which is an idea repugnant to feminists. Either that or it’s a social construct emanating from patriarchy in which case, need one say more.

    Insofar as feminists approve of Miss Markle getting married at all to something as inferior as a man, what she looks like shouldn’t matter so long as she thinks the right thoughts.

  17. Harry might have won the Guardian’s approval if he had fought their war against age-ism and racism by marrying Diane Abbott.

Comments are closed.