Thursday, 21 July 2005

Stand together united

Frank TALKER doesn’t condemn terrorism because it’s sometimes justified (eg, The Maquis). A clear distinction needs to be made between the justified and the unjustified kind of terrorism otherwise, when We do it, it’s always automatically justified; when They do it, it’s not.

If terrorist acts are mindless, then why are they so effective; given that only a disciplined mind can have any real effect upon the real world? A so-called mindless mind could have no genuine effect upon objective reality. This is simply a mindless insult designed to make us feel better about our failure to protect ourselves from the inevitable consequences of our racist attitudes upon others’ conceptions of us.

The claim of mindlessness is also itself mindless because it inevitably leads to underestimating your enemies; leading to your invariable defeat. It is, in fact, the basis for the profound foolishness of banning racists from the BLINK Website, since it proves Blacks are mindless enough not to be able to refute racists, logically, and are easy to goad. Such censorship isn’t logical; it’s a fearfully-tacit admission that one is hurt by name-calling - a free weapon to one’s enemies. This, rather than displaying a willingness to develop the mental toughness that’s actually required to defeat actual racists.

A “names-will-never-hurt-me” policy would be a definite improvement on the ludicrous aim of defeating the IDEA of racism, alone, as if by so doing this will automatically defeat racists. Ideas, themselves, can never be defeated (any more than, say, nuclear proliferation can be halted) because once the Pandora’s Box is opened it can never be shut again. This is a deliberate attempt by Blacks to evade the real issues involved in racial survival and success. It allows Blacks to exploit (& thus become dependent upon) White Racism (& its attendant, exploitable middle-class guilt) as an excuse (not a reason) for relative UK Black economic and educational failure.

Muslims must be selective as to the information they hand over to Whites - regarding their own culture. Whites will use any Muslim data as the basis for a Racially-Profiled Database that they can use against Muslims at a later date. The principle to adopt is “Need To Know”: If Whites don’t need to know, don’t tell ‘em.

White Racism entails this necessary caution, especially since Whites aren’t going to offer anything in exchange for any information Muslims vouchsafe to Whites – except increasingly overt, racist abuse. If White Police Officers won’t break ranks to reveal racist police officers that they know about, then why should Muslims do this to reveal the so-called extremists in their midst that whites claim they must know about? Whites can only generate the necessary trust if they can renounce their racist hypocrisy, which they aren’t going to do. White racism has created the problem of terrorism and Whites’ll now find that it’s come back to bite ‘em on the bum, because it’s now obviously counterproductive – no matter how much they claim terrorism is religious rather than racially-political. Whites will claim that Muslims being stopped more than anyone else by police can be minimised by Muslims helping whites. This is racist emotional‑blackmail that will be met with Muslims refusing to co‑operate. This is true whether the potentially-useful information is forthcoming from Muslims or not, since Whites will always claim Muslims aren’t helping enough as they claim Muslims aren’t condemnatory enough. Because Whites don’t know what - nor how much - Muslims know, they can always claim Muslims are holding back on them and Muslims would never be able to prove otherwise. The fact that such a negative is impossible to prove (ie, that you do NOT know something) is of no interest to Whites. This is because trying to force people to do the impossible is one of the all-important bases of the racism they refuse to renounce. This is the essential fly-in-the-ointment of the idea of collaborating with Whites in relation to terrorism. Levels of co-operation are essentially unquantifiable and every time a terrorist incident occurs it will be blamed not only upon Muslims – as such – but also upon lack of Muslim commitment to rooting out the terrorists in their own midst. In other words, such co-operation will simply become a new way of racially-attacking Muslims: Damned if you do; damned if you don’t.

Anti-terrorist co-operation with Whites is thus an open-ended commitment; making Muslims White political slaves. Therefore, Muslims should expect no sincere gratitude for any help given – no matter how useful it turns out to be – any more than Muslims should ever expect Whites to stop being racist. (Or that cats will one day stop chasing dickie birds). No matter what the number of times Muslims condemn terrorism, it’s never enough to satisfy White Scapegoating Bloodlust. No matter what the nature of the anti-terrorist co-operation with Whites, it’ll never be enough to satisfy the same, unquenchable White Scapegoating Bloodlust.

Therefore, only after exhausting all internal – formal and informal – community controls, via trusted and respected community leaders - in secret - should Muslim-community suspicions be passed on to White Authorities. Muslims know perfectly well this is the only means of minimising the inevitable White Torturing of Muslim terror suspects when Whites give themselves the opportunity of physically-assaulting Blacks – with the law’s arms around them. This means Whites having to trust Muslims – an experience, for Whites, as frightening as it will be new. This is why it’ll never happen.

To claim that terrorism has nothing to do with Islam is the worst kind of political buncombe. Although the issue of terrorism is primarily political, it’s always been the case that religion and politics go hand-in-hand because religions are essentially-mystical attempts to change the world – a quintessentially political activity. (Religion is, in fact, a subset of politics.) This means that the UK Muslim Community has to root out the terrorists in its own midst. They’re in the best position to do so because of their grassroots knowledge of their own community. Few Whites speak Arabic and could never possibly know, therefore, if plots are being hatched against them in a foreign tongue. (The usual British reluctance to learn others’ languages does us no favours here.)

Whites have also done themselves no favours by refusing to renounce the very racism that fuels the very Islamophobia they wish to stoke-up in order to convince themselves that their racism is a valid form of self-defence. This, in itself, produces the inevitable reprisals against White Racism in the form of the terrorist activity that Whites will inevitably exploit to excuse their racism. And so it goes on - and always will. Whites love their self-fulfilling prophecies and their “I-told-you-so” provocations – how else are they going to prove that they’re “always-right-about-everything”? This has made Blacks mistrustful and less willing to help Whites than would otherwise be the case if Whites hadn’t chosen to be counterproductively racist in the first place. This lack of community trust makes collecting useful intelligence about terrorist activity highly problematic; leading to the need for scapegoats to compensate for the lack of genuinely united activity against the threat of being blown up.

The fact that Whites claim terrorists hate us, our way of life, want to destroy our civilisation, blah blah blah, means they want to pretend the issue isn’t political (& racial) but religious. Whites call it Islamic Fundamentalism not Political Fundamentalism because they choose to evade the inevitable consequences of their Black-hating, neo-imperial foreign policies (as well as their racist domestic-policies). Whites never make much of the religious intolerance in Northern Ireland in claiming the only solution there is essentially political. Whites prove they’re as morally confused in this as they are in denial about their racially-differential treatment of White Terrorists in comparison to Black Ones. Whites are projecting-&-displacing their own self-hating attitudes on to terrorists because the West-hating attitudes Whites ascribe to terrorists are actually Black-hating attitudes Whites possess toward them. Terrorists don't want us to become like them, but to stop us from making them like us. The so-called “Theology of Terrorism” is just a White Trick to evade the wider political issues (particularly racist neo-colonialism) in the struggle against terrorists. A struggle that will fail so long as Whites are content merely to play games with words.

Whites refuse to believe current terrorism is basically political because this would then mean them having to face the inherent racism of their foreign policies, especially when dealing with non-White foreigners. Whites take views such as these: “What did we do to deserve this?” “Why don’t these Darkies accept that we can invade their countries and parasite off them at will?” “Racism is good for them since it brings them civilisation, democracy, superior Western-values, Loaded magazine, etc.” Whites’ own political fundamentalism (their racist & allegedly-ethical foreign-policy initiatives) is never referred to in the context of Christian Fundamentalism – although that’s exactly what it comes down to.

Whites latch on to the idea that the current terrorist threat is a “Clash of Civilisations” because it flatters them with the delusion that they are civilised, in being one of the “Civilisations” alleged to be clashing. It also means Whites self-contradictorily thinking Muslims are civilised while ensuring they never allow them to fully integrate into British Society since they also believe Muslims are inherently uncivilised (when it suits them to do so). As always, Whites try to have it both ways by giving out mixed political messages which reveal how politically confused they really are.

The Muslim Community is in denial about the potential terrorists in its midst – as Whites are about the intractability of their racism. This means Muslims are as likely to tar themselves with the brush of terrorism as Whites are to do this because of Muslims’ apparent inactivity with putting their own extremists in order. Condemnation ain’t enough; action on the ground is required.

It makes no difference if organisations like the British National Party exploit terrorism for their own zany ends, since they will always do this - no matter what the seriousness or triviality of the situation. The various UK communities are already divided by mutual mistrust and recrimination; as proven by the Muslim Belief that Whites will launch their own secular jihad against Muslims simply for being Muslims (ie, allegedly wife-beating, limb-amputating, fundamentalists-as-such). A united society wouldn’t believe that there would ever be a serious racist backlash against Muslims: Such a belief is based upon negative Black experience of Whites over the decades. When we talk of ‘standing united together’ (a tautology if ever there was one), we imply that such a thing is possible and that it’s already been partly achieved. This is the same kind of delusion–in-principle that so many terrorists (claiming to be freedom fighters) fall into. Let’s live in the real world, for Pete’s sake!

It’s worth saying that one doesn’t judge a religion by its holy books but by its practitioners. So long as Christians no longer burn witches nor stone prostitutes, those parts of The Bible openly advocating such behaviour are irrelevant. Whites – given their historical bigotry – read the Koran (if they’ve attained literacy, that is) and assume that because they don’t know any Muslims, personally, that this book will tell them about Muslims. Whites don’t assume nearly so easily that they can learn about Christians by reading The Bible, because they hear few Christians advocating a literalist approach to The Bible. So why the differential standard? The answer, of course, is (altogether now) White Racism: The fundamentalism that determines all the others.

All religions are inherently evil because they all claim that two plus two equals five, and that truth is arrived at through faith in the unevidenced and the unprovable. All religions claim intercession between their adherents (their slaves) and the great unknown and the great unknowable (unknowable because the religious claim to know that life is essentially unknowable; without explaining how they know this). This is a so-called truth to which the religious always claim exclusive access. Thus, all religions want to substitute themselves for objective reality by trying to separate you from that reality. And make you easier to manipulate, for political ends, by trying to get you to deny the evidence of your own senses. And, thereby, get you to use their mysticism in place of your own thoughts - in exchange for your life, your liberty and your self-interested pursuit of happiness. Religion is simply the mystical wing of totalitarianism.

It’s only reality whose actual existence can be proven – not any god’s – and it’s only reality to which one should ever abase oneself and be fully prepared to unconditionally worship. It would be better for us all to become atheists (ie, realists) than ‘stand together united’.

Friday, 11 February 2005

Abuse or Iraqui detainees by British soldiers

The latest refinements of science are linked with the cruelties of the Stone AgeSir Winston Churchill (1874-1965), British statesman, writer. Speech, 26 March 1942, London, on the effects of war.

In his On the Origin of Species, Charles Darwin claimed Whites are evolved from chimpanzees. On the evidence of these abuse photographs, he was more right than he knew. (As we also see among our UK police officers.)

No Black servicemen are involved and only the dark-skinned are assaulted. If the Anglo-Americans had invaded Australia - God forbid - they'd no doubt be abusing Aborigines rather than the White immigrant-population.

The simulated sex-acts simulate the embarrassment one feels with small children at Regent's Park Zoo. "Daddy, [childish giggling] what are they doin'?" "Come on kids, let's go see the tigers!" Maybe these guys are so sexually repressed that they've sublimated their sexual rage into physical violence as a form of erotic catharsis? It doesn't work - as evidenced by typical White behaviour in UK pubs; ie, if they can't get a bird, they get drunk. The basic problem with abusing people is that once you get a taste for it, you forget why you chose to be violent in the first place; eventually being enacted simply for its own sake.

Most Whites believe it's better to crap in other people's backyards; explaining why it's not Democracy we're exporting to Iraq, but sexualised, racial violence. (We get enough of that here; I'm sure the Iraqis could well do without it.) These photographs are most Whites' way of saying: "You ungrateful Ragheads! Without us you'd be nothing!"

The reason photographs are taken is the same for why paedophiles generally like to record their exploits with little kids. The record enables the abusers to relive the experience later, because they can hardly believe their luck in being allowed to get away with it - and don't expect to be given many more chances. However, because photographs have an evidentiary purpose, paedophiles tend to wear masks during their shenanigans.

The abusers' refusal to conceal their identities makes one wonder whether they secretly wish to be punished for their crimes. Most criminals want to be caught because this will provide them with the attention they never received as children. This is why most criminals boast of their crimes. Additionally, the emotionally-barren have only their faces (& their skin colour) to serve as the basis for their identity - cover that and you've erased all they have; resulting from the generally lacklustre nature of Whites' internal-narrative.

That the abuse has been recorded also shows that those who commit it lack the ethical sense to know it's wrong. Because most squaddies are recruited from the White lower-classes - who tend to be the most violent section of the UK population - it's no surprise their hostility expresses itself when abroad. White, English soccer hooligans do this all the time, after all. (This is mostly a safety valve for the White class-war.)

Most White violence is a cry for help. It's the learned helplessness of those who choose (stress: Choose) to unthinkingly obey orders. In an unwinnable war (Operation Iraqi Freedom, the sequel to Operation Enduring Freedom), when a man is faced with an outcome independent of his responses, his responses often become independent of any outcome. Whites are thus expressing their realisation of how helpless they are in a highly-dangerous situation - despite their superior military-firepower - within the pseudo-sanctuary of inappropriate aggression. If Whites can't deal with surviving in a combat zone, then they should've thought of that before starting wars. Twits! Criminals can't be let off their crimes simply because much criminal behaviour is dangerous, after all.

An excellent career for most Blacks would be psychiatry. It would be an act of Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Sikh, etc charity to help the majority of poor, lonely Whitefolks who find their emotions so difficult to discipline. Whites in Iraq are getting a taste of what it's like to be surrounded by different-coloured hostiles - as Blacks experience it in largely-White countries. I doubt most Whites have the cranial capacity (opined by Darwin) to learn constructively from the experience. Most of this war's survivors will return to Blighty and experience unpleasant flashbacks of their racism every time they see a British Muslim on the high street.

White politicians fall over themselves to claim how "disgusting" these photographs are while denying that their actions made them inevitable. They fall into the usual White racist-trap of trying to prove a negative in alleging that most Whites in Iraq aren't abusive. Legally-trained types like Opposition-Leader Michael Howard should really know better - but there's always an inherent conflict-of-interest between a career in law and one in parliament. Funny, most Whites don't claim most Muslims aren't terrorists when those same Whites are terrified of al-Qaeda; revealing their racist hypocrisy when their fellow Whites behave badly.

The White assertion that legal action against such abuses proves White Culture superior leaves Iraqis with nothing more than a choice between two evils: The abuse of low-ranking White soldiers or the former regimes' abuses. A Hobson's Choice. Whites are trying to occult their essential bestiality behind a myth of their own nobility; making the so-called insurgents look more like freedom-fighters than terrorists. (Only Whites can do this and keep a straight face.)

It's also cold comfort, for example, to tell a woman who's been brutally and repeatedly raped that at least her attacker has now been punished. She'd much rather the abuse hadn't happened to her in the first place. As usual, Whites claim superiority AFTER the event, when acting BEFORE it would really prove their superiority - as the pre-emptively-racist attack on Iraq was supposed to achieve. Most Whites shut the stable door after the horse has bolted, in this way.

These pictures are exact records of what most Whites would love to do to Blacks given official sanction and protection. It's getting harder for Whites to live in a Black World so Whites are clearly returning to the primeval swamp from which they claim to originate. And, if they still behave like prehistoric cavemen, it's about time they got their calendars fixed. History is, indeed, the symptom of their disease.

Oh man! Look at those cavemen go/It's the freakiest show.David Bowie

About Us:

My photo

Frank TALKER - Truth-Teller