Thursday, 3 March 2016

O J Simpson

(2015)

Summary: Critique of “”.

What upsets Whites about the OJ Simpson criminal trial is that his guilt had to be proved – beyond a reasonable doubt – which it was not. Previously, Black guilt had merely to be assumed and asserted by Whites to be accepted as a form of proof – by Whites – in a White supremacist justice system in which proof of Black guilt was never really deemed necessary.

If OJ Simpson had murdered Black people, his guilt or otherwise would not so enrage Whites. As it was, it appeared a Black man was getting away with murder which, heretofore, was seen as a White man’s sole preserve: 99% of White lynchers were never tried for murder and few Whites were outraged by the Rodney King beating. Whites now fear that Black people will be allowed to murder them (& get away with it), as Whites continue to murder Black people (& not be punished for it) to this day. A racial dread that Whites are not prepared to live with; while angrily‑demanding that Black people do just that – regarding voracious White supremacy; resulting from the non‑crime of being Black.

Whites, here, are not concerned with such weighty matters as evidence or proof, merely with Black guilt; ie, the White belief that Black people are automatically guilty and that criminal trials of Black people are a waste of White people’s money and time.

A mostly‑White jury found Simpson civilly‑liable for murder; while a mostly‑Black one found him criminally‑innocent. Whites simply cannot bring themselves to believe that Black people are rational enough to present the correct verdict; ie, one politically‑acceptable to Whites. This is why the OJ Simpson criminal verdict was the only one after which Whites demanded IQ tests for jury‑members – they have never done this when a White is wrongly‑acquitted of murdering a Black person. Black people will always judge cases on the basis of ethnicity; while Whites will always judges cases on the facts – something that can easily be shown to be historically‑false.

Monday, 12 October 2015

Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner
(1967)

RATING:80%
FORMAT:DVD

Subtle appreciation of White middle-class bigotry

Sly looks from a White cab driver, when the central couple kiss, begins this journey into white racial paranoia and self-repressive blackness. It gleefully exposes the self-serving hypocrisy of allegedly well-meaning White liberals and their Negrophobic obsession with skin color.

Essentially a romantic manifesto about the never-ending and endemic struggles of White liberals to come-to-terms with and whitewash the White supremacism of their own culture - from which they, too, benefit. The script also struggles with the issue of institutional White racism and wisely decides to leave that to the audience's imagination since, if you do not know what the characters are referring to, then this movie is clearly not for you since you obviously do not come from around here.

The basic theme is Social Acceptance versus Happiness: Race politics being precisely the same today, despite the optimism shown here, as it was then. The film humorously confronts White supremacy as an institutionalized condition of White culture, yet there is an unacknowledged problem the White-written screenplay tellingly creates for itself.

Sidney POITIER’s character is so perfect, that any objection to him marrying a White woman must be racist. But why would such an accomplished Black man marry a White nobody?

It is because Whites believe the only equality possible between the two is that a Black person must work hard to overcome the limitations of being a Negro, in order to match the innate and already-achieved perfection of any White - no matter the White’s actual lack of personal achievements? And, moreover, that such a relationship is of political benefit to the Black, but of little utility to the White.

That the Black character here is actually superior - in many ways - to all of the Whites shown is ignored since it would mean a) that a Black can best a White; &, b) that the Black man here is actually slumming in a culture that is beneath him.

Yet, despite this hypocritical White-liberal whining, this is a well-cast movie all-round, with Katherine HEPBURN and Spencer TRACY convincing as the real couple they actually were - and funnily-written by William Rose.

Thursday, 27 August 2015

Political Correctness

(2015)

White Whine for Beginners

Hypocritically disregarding their own political correctness (PC) in telling others what to think without supporting rights or logical justification, this is the usual White whine about alleged inferiors getting rights Whites exclusively covet for themselves.

‘Our country’ is, of course, a Whites-only political formation: Whites will never use the word ‘our’ to include People Of Color (POC).

If PC is an attack on White free speech, why are so many Whites free to condemn it? The White fear is that they will be penalized for speaking freely, as if this kind of punishment were somehow new for this kind of speech and as if Whites had a right to consequenceless actions when all acts imply the risk of censure.

Whites resent being penalized for the free speech they have traditionally punished others for invoking - and are really only taking here about free speech for Whites. (When, for example, Whites are attacked for being racist, one quickly sees how much commitment Whites have to the free speech of others in their attempts to shut down the attack.)

Whites blaming Marxism for their own penchant for PC is a typical White intellectual dodge in trying to hide the inherently-PC nature of all White cultures - the PC belief that Whites are genetically-superior to everyone else - and that this is to be believed by all, come what may and evidence to the contrary.

The author does not say what the ‘cohesive elements of our [White] society’ actually are. They do not exist, of course - except for the shared PC belief that Whites are superior to everyone else. This helps Whites evade the issue that White culture will always be repressive and illiberal. He denies the existence of activities like racism, sexism & classism by suggesting that civil rights for POC has done ‘untold damage to ‘our [White] society’ by giving freedoms to unnamed ethnic groups (eg, POC) whom he obviously believes should not have them.

The author makes further unsubstantiated claims about British education being liberal, when Blacks have been systematically-encouraged not to take it up. His claim the UK police are not institutionally-racist proves he has never been abused or harassed by White police officers simply for being Black. And is a claim made despite the wealth of evidence that Whites, as such, are just as institutionally racist.

The usual resentful White supremacist claptrap about Travelers and undocumented migrants is well to the fore in the form of statements not supported by evidence. He is resentful that White humor, typically racist, has been neutered; clearly indicating his approval of such racism and his belief that free speech includes the ability to deliberately offend, hurt & abuse others, for no particular reason, when this is something few Whites would countenance for an instant. Whites will not tolerate jokes about terrorists as Whites board planes since it is White lives that are threatened, but they will tolerate plenty of jokes about POC receiving state welfare benefits. He does not clearly define what (the fiction) ‘not real abuse’ is especially when compared to ‘real abuse’ - which he thinks does not exist in his Nazi fantasy land. He even claims there is such a thing as ‘true racism’ - what would untrue racism be like, one wonders? He implies that he is a racist, just not a ‘true’ one - and that feminists attack ‘men as rapists’. As white males imagine they are emasculated by feminism, Whites imagine they are no longer able to engage in Manifest Destiny because of anti-racism. LIke all racists, pedophiles & rapists, he simply wishes to peddle his nonsense without being punished for it.

The ultimate resentment here is that if those whom Whites consider non-people, with no rights Whites need to respect, get everything Whites get, then Whites will have lost something they can never get back, rather than the full rights and responsibilities of being fully human which Whites, for 500 years, have run away from. Whites will have lost the pseudo-Edenic childhood world where they could do as they please - without consequences - and are now forced to face the real world of adult responsibilities and pleasures. Whites accept the extra rights given them by White supremacy without complaint, yet refuse to accept the necessary responsibility for the victims of that White supremacy, nor the inevitable White guilt the very existence of such victims cause - except by whinging to their hearts’ content about not being able to bully people they do not like, legally.

Whites refuse to see that economics is the basis of everything - not their needy emotions - and that focusing on wealth-creation is the only way to create, protect and progress any culture wishing to remain viable.

Thursday, 13 August 2015

Bardwell’s Justification

(2009)

Bardwell’s Justification

Summary: Critique of “Bardwell’s Justification”.

Interesting case of White wishful-thinking and mental retardation in which the proprietorial claim of a non-existent White duty-of-care toward Black people is used as an excuse to racially abuse them! In his world, impairing the life-chances of Black people is not racism, it is both normal and sane. He never has any concern for the children of White couples, after all, since he is perfectly well-aware if the White supremacy he supports that they will benefit from.

His jsutification is the usual circular and self-serving argument that because Whites are racist - and intend alwats to be so - that Black people need to learn their place or be discrininated aginast: Nothing for Blacks to do but do what Whites tell them - or else suffer the consequnces of not accepting an alleged White largesse based upon the philosophy of White superiority as the ridiculous attempt of a numerical minority (Caucasians) to bolster their own short-comings at the expense of everyone else.

As if White supremacy were as economically-good for Blacks as it is for Whites. As if Whites creating the problem of their refusal to accept anyone else gave Whites the right to pretend to solve this self-created problem by actively perpetuating it; appearing to care for Black people when Whites are really negatoively-discriminating against them.

Mr Bardwell makes claims about Black people he does not substantiate, in a clear attempt to make such beliefs true thorugh their sheer repeition - a mantra-like political act that only works well within the frigid limitations of his own coldly-calculating mind. As one has come to expect from Whites, they only obey the laws they make when it is in their interersts to do so - like White police officers warning White teenagers for carrying drugs, but arresting Black ones for doing exactly the same thing.

He hates ethnically-mixed marriages and so damns their offspring as looking forward to a life of suffering (he hopes) despite:

  1. Not knowing any of them, personally;
  2. implying he actually believes they should not be born in the first place;
  3. evading his own psychological suffering in living in mortal dread of one day becoming part of an ethnic minority (& then being treated as badly by Blacks as Whites have treated Blacks); &,
  4. completely ignoring the successful existence of Barack Obama.

With this issue, it becomes self-evident that Whites are deeply-concerned to place their own beliefs above any laws they (or anyone else might make) make, out of a reality-resenting belief that their feelings are the law - much as Hitler did with his so-called Will.


About Us:

My Photo

Frank TALKER - Truth-Teller