- Site Info
- Being Human
- Business Success
- Cultural Identity
- DVD Region Codes
- Daily Routine
- Human Activity
- Memorable Passwords
- Mental Health
- Uncommon Common
- Optical-Media Care
- Email Subject Lines to Attract Readers
- Trusting Christians
- White‑Devil’s Dictionary
- Hints & Tips
- White Guilt
- Caucasian Confusions
- Social Media
- Affirmative Action
- Cultural Appropriation
Friday, 15 December 2006
'Lee Jasper [My Favorite Martian (Sic)], race and policing advisor to London Mayor Ken Livingstone, said: "The Prime Minister talks about adopting British values, but when you look at the statistics on discrimination you can see these values are not applied equally". What this alien doesn't understand is that the reason these values aren't applied equally because 'British values' are quintessentially inegalitarian. If immigrants adopted 'British values', they'd have to become as racist as the host population. This, inevitably, would lead to a perpetuation of the racist malaise forever haunting Whites. This moron. Jasper, doesn't understand this because he wants to be liked by Whites; because he doesn't like himself. Discrimination doesn't matter – only whether or not others are hindering you. You can't force Whites to like you – no matter how much you need Their love.
Professor Tariq Ramadan, president of the European Muslim Network, commented: "...[Blair] seemed to say 'if you are [an indigenous] citizen you don't have to integrate'. This is precisely what Tony Blair IS saying: There's one rule for Whites; another for Blacks. How long did it take this Muslim idiot to figure that one out? Whites will only accept Blacks so long as Blacks not only behave like Whites but also start thinking like Them. And even then Blacks will only ever be granted Honorary Citizenship (ie, Honorary White) status. Blacks will always be racial suspects to Whites if this simple condition isn't met; the implication being that White Culture is so inherently and self evidently superior that Blacks must be crazy (ie, inferior) not to want to be just like "Us".
'Prof Ramadan added: "I'm not scared about the rise of the far-right. I'm scared about the normalisation of their discourse in mainstream society".' This prick hasn't lived here long enough: He's putting the cart before the horse. Racist discourse hasn't become normalised; it was there all the time – you merely choose not to identify the source of your personal and politically correct pain. The far right are a product of this discourse and its manipulator; they are not the creator of it: We all are! If racism were not a fundamental part of White Culture, there would be no far right and no increase in racial attacks on Blacks. And this intellectually lazy slob calls himself a professor!
Karen Chouhan, a trustee of the human rights group The 1990 Trust, commented: "A lot of what Tony Blair said was flawed and contradictory.
"He failed to recognise the contribution of Muslims to society and didn't mention the role of foreign policy".
Whites aren't interested in the 'contribution of Muslims to [White] society' since Whites no more believe in Society than anyone else. Whites only see that Muslims do not contribute to THEIR society; that is, Their belief in Their inherent racial superiority. If Muslims openly came out and supported the White Belief in Their genetic superiority, They'd find that Whites would welcome Them warmly. For Whites, foreign policy is simply an extension of the racism practised domestically: If Whites see nothing wrong with home-grown racism, why would They alter Their racist attitudes abroad?
Tony Blair is right to rule out a link between 'ethnicity and disadvantage'. This link can only exist in the minds of those so called disadvantaged who want the world to owe them a living because of their simple refusal to grow up. This applies equally to racists and anti racists and is the only true equality that will ever exist between the races: An equality of fecklessness. '[C]ountless government studies across many areas of public policy' merely show that those who claim to be disadvantaged are loud and clear only in their claim for special privileges at the expense of those they claim have disadvantaged them. Such studies only prove that Whites discriminate against Blacks (to vainly prove Their racial superiority) not that Blacks cannot overcome White Racism to be successful on Their own terms as, say, the Jews have. As always with the cap in hand brigade, they refuse to face the fact that, by not working hard, they've done this to themselves and so spend their lives with their begging bowls out in hope of obtaining manna from earth. That is, a paradise that they don't have to die first to obtain – a paradise on earth. This is the essential tragedy of the poor all over the world, not a poverty of money, but a poverty of spirit.
'The Prime Minister ended with the message: "Our tolerance is part of what makes Britain, Britain. So conform to it; or don't come here". Needless to say, this is a typical expression of White Intolerance. To be fully tolerant one must also tolerate the intolerant – unless they're hindering your life. Whites willingly tolerate White Racists and call this freedom of speech, but Black Racists are (for obvious racial reasons) never to be tolerated. Clearly, we have here a racist Prime Minister but then, when have we never had such a thing?
Simon Woolley of Operation Black Vote, 'referring to Blair's comment that funding should be redirected away from voluntary organisations that fail to promote the government's integration agenda, Woolley writes: "The measures would only serve to dramatically undermine the genuine efforts by many of his ministerial departments and others to tackle race and religious inequalities". The 'government's integration agenda' is an inherently racist one since it wants to be a one way process wherein Blacks must become like Whites - never the other way around or a compromise between the two. Whites have decided this for Their own racial benefit not that of Blacks. Therefore, 'genuine efforts' by Whites to tackle racism only exist in Simian Woolley's mind, not out there in the real world.
'The 1990 Trust also believe that these comments would have caused an outcry if they had been directed at womens' groups or disability organisations'. Correct, but Whites always believe that moral principles and ethical axioms are only to be applied piecemeal so as to avoid being fair and just. Avoiding equity means more of the world's scarce resources for Whites and less for Blacks. This is why, for example, it's not a crime to discriminate against someone on grounds of class, because the Whites' class system is very important to Them and making it a crime would mean having to dismantle it or, more likely, more effectively conceal it. This is something Whites are never going to do because, like racism, it's how They define and identity Themselves; without such social navigational aids, Whites'd be completely lost because Whites possess no other source of identity. This allows Whites (They think) to make comments that in one context would cause an outcry, while in others They meet Widespread White Agreement. Whites never let the right hand know what the left hand is doing so as to avoid Their rampant hypocrisy and the guilt that is a necessary part and an inevitable cause of such hypocrisy.
'While Blair said the need to promote integration was a requirement for black groups to get government funding, Blair did not apply the same standard to white organisations'. Of course not, because 'white organisations' are not seen (by Whites) as requiring to integrate. Whites define integration as not meaning conforming to the facts of reality in a rationally ordered universe, but doing the White Man's Bidding. The latter is White Wishful Thinking; the former, the ethical ideal that the vast majority of the world's population evade – even, and most especially, those Blacks who claim to be condemning it but whom are, in reality, doing nothing more than building a lucrative career for Themselves and Their kind, by the continued existence of such racism.
Article copyright © 2007, by Frank TALKER. Permission is hereby granted to reproduce and distribute it electronically and in print, other than as part of a book and provided that mention of the author’s Website/log http://franktalker.blogspot.com/ is included: E mail notification requested. All other rights reserved. Frank TALKER is the author of Sweaty Socks: A Treatise on Body Odour (East Cheam Press: Groper Books, 1996) and is University of Bullshit Professor Emeritus of Madeupology.
Wednesday, 6 December 2006
‘The immigration minister, Liam Byrne, said the extra requirement was being imposed on those applying for indefinite leave to remain because a good grasp of English was essential to play a full role in society and properly integrate into British communities.’ This is the Usual White Blather to evade the fact that white immigration controls are always inherently racist since they seek to keep blacks in the minority which, in a democracy, means permanently underprivileged. The only real means by which any black can ‘play a full role in society and properly integrate’ into Britain is if Whites would renounce racism. But notice, in this entire article, the fundamental underpinning of White Culture – racism – is only ever mentioned in order to dismiss it as effectively irrelevant. This is because Blacks are being implicitly blamed for Their unwillingness to put Their heads into the White Man’s Noose by having anything to do (ie, integrating) with those who only know how to judge others by skin colour.
The idea of a ‘Britishness test’ is fundamentally predicated on an attempt to evade the real issue - Britain for the Whites – behind the cowardly evasion: Britain for the British. This is obvious since Whites implicitly define Britishness as being synonymous with Whiteness. The test is not of one’s Britishness but of one’s Whiteness; which is to say one’s ability to act (although obviously not appear) White – as Whites define this. This means having to be acceptable to Whites; presupposing a one sided concept of integration. This is as doomed to failure as would be a one sided marriage wherein the husband has to approve of the wife but the wife doesn’t have to approve of the husband. Such marriages either end in divorce or, more likely, never take place in the first place. (This is especially hypocritical given the White Man’s alleged disdain for forced marriages – what integration actually is.)
‘...[P]ublic anxiety over immigration is closely linked to economic deprivation rather than racism.’ This is clever but not clever enough. It rather poorly tries to evade the issue that racism is primarily motivated by ‘economic deprivation.’ In other words, ‘economic deprivation’ and racism are, in a very real sense, the same thing because the former is an excuse for the latter. The attempt to separate the two issues here (as if they were in no way connected) then begs the question that is racism isn't the result of 'economic deprivation', then from whence does it spring? Whites, as always, are trying to claim two things here. First, that racism isn't the issue when it clearly is. And, second, that Blacks are just as racist as Whites, so that justifies White Racism.
'...[W]here competition over scarce and finite resources is the greatest, relations with newcomers are likely to be negatively affected'. This is true in all circumstances, in all times and in all places. It's quite meaningless since it doesn't highlight anything specific about the problems discussed. For example, it's very common for the lower classes to receive a poorer educational experience than the middle classes, no matter how intelligent they are. The middle classes don't want the extra economic competition that an educated poor would imply because those poor would then compete for traditionally middle class jobs; making it harder for the middle classes to retain them. In what sphere of human life does such competition NOT take place? Which resources that we value are NOT 'scarce and finite'. Whites again are claiming that it's OK to be racist in order to protect resources that Whites believe They should have a permanent monopoly over.
‘...[S]ix key factors limit the integration of new migrants: lack of language skills and recognised qualifications; moving too often from place to place; lack of knowledge about the system, such as how to find a home or a school; hostile public attitudes; public services unable to meet migrants’ needs; and legal barriers because of their immigration status'. Again, no mention of White Racism as a problem at all! Presumably Whites aren't racist anymore, in which case why aren't Whites proclaiming this self evident renunciation of Their former ways from the rooftops? Answer: Because They haven't and this is merest eyewash.
'...[T]he challenges faced by refugees and other new migrants are as much to do with poverty, exclusion and racism as with the fact that they have just arrived in the country'. No rational person denies this. However, having just arrived in the country is a temporary problem as the new arrivals get used to their new home. Poverty can be dealt with by working hard. But the intractable problems of exclusion and racism can't be solved by these new arrivals, it is the indigenous people who must act to deal with them and they show no willingness whatsoever to do so. In this way these latter – more permanent – problems become generational; making integration not only extremely unlikely but also quite impossible. The Pathetic White Conflation of temporary issues and permanent ones just shows what a way They have to go before They admit to the true nature of Their own racism and begin taking active steps to deal with it sensibly. And not just blame the new arrivals for the pre existence of White Men's Prejudices.
Copyright © 2007, by Frank TALKER. Permission is hereby granted to reproduce and distribute it electronically and in print, other than as part of a book and provided that mention of the author’s Website/log http://franktalker.blogspot.com/ is included: E mail notification requested. All other rights reserved.
Thursday, 30 November 2006
All of a sudden, White Parents don't want Their children to experience a religion that is 'not their own'. Why now? Why not many years ago, when such experiences were first undertaken?
The answer to these questions is obvious and is given away by the following statement from head teacher Alexander Clark: 'It is not racial prejudice. It's nothing to do with that. [You can't prove a negative so presumably he thinks that if you negate twice that's as good as the proof he isn't presenting.] I think if it had been a Sikh temple or a Buddhist temple it would have been the same reaction'. If this were truly the case, then he should be able to point to previous school visits to such temples as proof of what he's saying. The fact that he can't proves that he's simply evading the issue. And that is that no matter what anti racist policies school's put into place: '[T]he school ha[s] to respect the wishes of [racist] parents'.
This simple fact completely invalidates any anti racist policy you can think of and shows them up as the mere sham that they are and are designed to be. In any case, if it isn't racism, then what – precisely – is it?
A highly intelligent understanding of the problem of equating with race with culture.
It also provides a neat explanation of the differences between cultures without falling into the fallacy of assuming different races to be at differing levels of evolutionary development. It doesn't fall into the trap – inherent in all discussion of race – that some races are more equal than others.
It also hints at the Classic White Mistake of assuming that because Their science and technology is superior to anyone else's (as is the economic system – capitalism – that made such advances possible), that They – as a race – must be superior. Particularly this, '...some continue to cling to [a racial explanation of difference] because their pitiful excuse for self-esteem is bound up in it'.
Saturday, 18 November 2006
'THE WRITER of a new play containing the N-word in its title has been attacked for ignoring pain and history associated with the word'. What 'pain'? What 'history'?
Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past. George Orwell (1903–1950), British author. Nineteen Eighty-Four, part one, chapter three (1949), Ingsoc party slogan.
'African-American comedian Reginald D Hunter was lambasted by Lee Jasper, senior race advisor to the London Mayor Ken Livingstone, who attacked the word for contributing holding the black Disapora back (Sic)'. How can a word hold anyone back, unless they let it?
'The word is imbued with so much pain and anger that has not been resolved'. Get over it!
'It's past properly understood, and there are people who are not strong enough to be able to handle it'. There will always be weak people. Does this mean that we, the strong, have to be held back by you, the weak, because you refuse to toughen up? Fuck you, loser!
If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face—forever. George Orwell (1903–1950), British author. O’Brien to Winston Smith, in Nineteen Eighty-Four, part three, chapter three (1949).
'There are black people across the world who have to live with the consequences of that word (Sic). I find it difficult to conceptualise that the use of this word is somehow an advance for black people worldwide.' This is a deliberate confusion with words that arbitrarily label objects & actions and those objects & actions themselves. It's a pathetic attempt to make whites feel collective guilt, forever, for something that happened before they were born. It is an attempt to make racism the Original Sin of the white race – a blot that can never be removed without a Black say so. Disgustingly hypocritical Black Racism (ie, Doublethink)!
Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them. George Orwell (1903–1950), British author. Nineteen Eighty-Four, part two, chapter nine (1949), extract from Goldstein’s book.
‘I don’t want that word to have power over me and to stop me from living my life. Hiding the word will not make the world a better place.' This is fine, but attempts to elude the fact that making such a statement proves that 'that word' still does have precisely that effect over him. Otherwise, why make the statement? What happened to Frank TALKER when He was a child, He has now gotten over, so why talk about it now – in full adulthood? Unless, of course, he is specifically asked about it by someone with a sincere interest in Him. The solution here is, therefore, that when it comes up in conversation: Fine; discuss it. When it doesn't, don't push other people's faces into it because that would prove you haven't gotten over it and are, therefore, self disempowered by your own cowardice. Does this mean that the upcoming remake of "The Dam Busters" must call guy Gibson's dog "N****R"? How, exactly, does one pronounce that?
'Producers for the show fear the advertising ban could severely affect ticket sales'. This is Black, Racist wishful thinking since a similar ban had no such effect on 'The Spy Who Shagged Me' some years ago.
The 1990 Trust should spend its scarce resources taking positive actions regarding those they claim to represent, rather than focussing on words that can't be erased from their Newspeak dictionaries any more than they can from the minds of racists. It's a fallacy to believe that banning a word can ban the actions usually associated with it. This is the philosophy of the totalitarians described in Orwell's "Nineteen Eighty-Four": Dumbass Niggers!
More proof of the institutionally-racist nature of White Culture. Do you need more? Well, Frank TALKER always says: "The more the merrier!"
The most telling and repeated aspect of this political mess is the commonplace White Standby of self fulfilling prophecy. If '95% don't get asylum' then Whites jump on this self created fact as proof of Their racist lies and mythologizing. In reality, such a statistic is proof of the fact that such asylum claims are believed to be invalid BEFORE their considered – leading to such a high rejection rate.
Decision-makers are "unaware of practices or events which are the basis for the fear being expressed by many unaccompanied children". Yet, many of these children have experienced 'violence, torture, detention and the death of parents'. This wilful blindness is based on the racist assumption that Blacks are better able to put up with abuse than Whites because Black bodies are better developed for manual labour than for intellectual work – abuse that Whites regularly hand out, as here. This means Whites assume Blacks don't suffer the serious after effects of such abuse - as Whites do - because Blacks lack the imaginative faculty to experience such effects.
'There is a plethora of other legislation under which they could be given protection, but isn't being used'. This is an important statement since it means that whatever laws Whites pass against Their own racism, they'll never be enforced. The conclusion: Blacks can't ever rely on Whites.
If Whites had any guts at all, They'd simply admit They don't like Niggers and that would be an end to all Their attempts to pretend that They've forsworn centuries of racist abuse. But They lack the courage to do this because it would then be a hostage to fortune for Blacks; perhaps resulting in centuries of Black Retribution. In the form of various compensations and reparations; leaving Whites the inevitably poorer inhabitants of a country that would then be no longer Their own. It's hard to feel sorry for Whites given Their tendency of stealing other people's countries that weren't Theirs.
Not so much a 'A lapse of humanity', more a revelation that Whites have none to begin with.
Wednesday, 15 November 2006
The usual politically-correct rhetoric one has come to expect from The 1990 Trust. A fundamentally‑disgraceful piece of nonsense.
'RACIAL HATRED will run rampant unless new laws are brought in to halt the tide of Islamophobia...' Racial hatred already is rampant or don't these fools read the news?
'...Muslim communities WILL face further marginalisation (Sic) in society, including the jobs market, and will lead to more violent attacks on Hijab and Jilbab-wearing women'. Although true, this is not because of the British National Party (BNP), this is because of the institutionally‑racist nature of White Culture – of which the BNP is merely a figurehead and spokesman. Does The 1990 Trust really believe that if the BNP were gagged, there would somehow be less racism in the UK? If they do, That would be like saying that censorship of pornography would produce less rape. The confusion here is over causations. It's not porn that causes rape; it's the desire to rape that causes porn. It's not the BNP that cause racial violence; it's racial violence that causes the BNP. It's time to stop putting the cart before the horse.
'Griffin should not have been allowed to misrepresent the court acquittal as a “victory of free speech” propaganda line'. A completely meaningless injunction since Nick Griffin has the free‑speech right to do just that, as the legal case he has just won has shown. The jury was fundamentally‑correct in noting the difference between justifiable criticism and race‑hatred, as well as the difference between authoritarian, racist anti‑racism and free speech: These "twelve good men and true" are to be applauded [If there's one thing far worse than the BNP...]. Nick Griffin won't represent this victory as one for free speech, you stupid fool, so much as he will use it to gain sympathy (& supporters) for those who are prepared to voice the views of the majority against the politically‑correct tendencies of the minority. And he'll get a lot of that, which he wouldn't have gotten if this foolish prosecution had never taken place.
When you degenerate Communist, fellow‑travellers finally realise that free‑speech means the right to say things that you don't agree with, then The 1990 Trust will actually start making inroads into defeating racists – but not before. Blacks will never stop from shooting Themselves in the foot over racists, I'm afraid to say.
Islam, like all religions, is an evil and wicked faith. Anyone who believes in that which cannot be proven is as worthless as anyone who believes that there are different races of Man. The religious don't believe in god, they merely believe that they don't have to demonstrate the validity of their beliefs – as others do – thereby putting themselves above others. The religious do not worship God, they wish to become God.
This nonsense will rebound on Blacks when Whites eventually claim that there are things Blacks cannot say – no matter how true.
'Racists up and down the land will believe they have a green light to call Muslims “cockroaches” and their faith “evil and wicked”'. Yet again, they don't need such a green light since racists already do this – or wasn't The 1990 Trust aware of this? The 1990 Trust is wilfully unaware that we don't see more racism now than ever before, merely more overt racism. The quality and nature of this racism is exactly the same as it ever was: Nothing fundamental has changed about the basically‑negative attitudes White People have to those whose skin is a darker shade then Their own.
'We urgently need to stop the tide of Islamophobia and racism turning into a Tsunami (Sic)'. It already is a tsunami. Moreover, the author proposes no workable solution, save this indigestible nonsense: ' Unless we make it an offence to spread racial hatred WHEREVER THERE IS AN AUDIENCE, the BNP’s engine-room of hate will have limitless scope to infect wider society'. How then is one to stop the spread of racism within the family home? No answer! Again, The 1990 Trust believes that the BNP is a highly‑contagious disease that somehow must be kept in quarantine and eventually destroyed – like polio or smallpox. The problem is that because the BNP is caused by the racist society in which it is housed, one would then have to destroy that very society in order to stop the spread of the disease. Sorry to have to tell The 1990 Trust the bad news: Whites won't let you do this without a racist fight, and there are ten times as many of Them as there are of You!
It's clear The 1990 Trust has been infiltrated by Anti-Racist Whites bent on perpetuating the myth that only obvious and overt racism exists. And in perpetuating the lie that the quintessential racism of Anti‑Racism (telling Blacks what to do about White Racism) is not, in itself, a form of racism. Worse, that The 1990 Trust is filled with Racist Black Collaborators, bent on sucking‑up to the White powers‑that‑be. How low can you get? What the impractical Communards at The 1990 Trust want is to exploit White Racist guilt in order to provide themselves with a lucrative career in the race‑relations industry (eg, the ultimate White‑Man's Nigger, Trevor Phillips). While lining Their own personal pension pots in the process and, simultaneously, doing sweet FA for Blacks.
As Peter Klein says:
'...[E]xceptionally intelligent people who favour the market tend to find opportunities for professional and financial success outside the Academy [or Politics] (i.e., in the business or professional world). Those who are highly intelligent but ill-disposed toward the market are more likely to choose an academic [or a Political] career.
'This also leads to the phenomenon that academics [& Politicians] don't "know" much about how markets work, since they have so little experience with them, living as they do in their subsidised ivory towers and protected by academic tenure. ...This absence of direct responsibility leads to a corresponding absence of first-hand knowledge of practical affairs. The critical attitude of the intellectual arises... "no less from the intellectual's situation as an onlooker” in most cases also as an outsider” than from the fact that his main chance of asserting himself lies in his actual or potential nuisance value."
'...[W]e must [also] realise first that academics [& Politicians] receive many direct benefits from the welfare state, and that these benefits have increased over time.
'...[T]here are many benefits, for academics [& Politicians], to living in a highly interventionist society... [They then end up playing] active roles as government advisers, creating and sustaining the welfare state that now surrounds us' [Why Intellectuals Still Support Socialism]. The most degrading and disgusting example of this is the UK's Race Relations Act and its Commission for Racial Equality; making it illegal to incite a non‑crime: Racial Hatred! The ludicrousness of such a position shows not only the perfidious nature of Albion but the sheer gullibility and stupidity of Blacks for not attacking such nonsense. Both subsidise White Racism while buying‑off Blacks into believing that Whites are actually doing something positive, productive and constructive about White Racism – apart from throwing a few more crumbs from the High Table towards those Whites deem as natural‑born inferiors.
'Home Secretary John Reid was wrong to instantly pour cold water over the prospect of further legislation.
'This is a man who, as Health Secretary, announced he does not believe in the concept of institutional racism.
'In his new job he is presiding over institutions that clearly practice the very evil he cannot see'. The preceding three paragraphs illustrate precisely the wrong-headedness of The 1990 Trust's approach. They're aware that Whites refuse to admit to the institutional racism within White Culture, yet still demand that that very culture pass laws against itself! And, even if such laws were passed, The 1990 Trust can do nothing better than acknowledge that such laws would be enforced by institutional racists which, The 1990 Trust knows perfectly well, means that such laws won't be enforced at all!
The other more serious issue for Blacks is that They don't enforce the laws that already exist – in Their desperate attempts to suck‑up to Whites by not punishing Whites for Their racism. The Commission for Racial Equality's unwillingness in this area proves this (Trevor Phillips was in the pay of White Racists). Coupled with the fact that Blacks need such a commission because They won't do for Themselves what They should be doing for Themselves. (More proof, perhaps, that Blacks are inferior to Whites?) When a man wants others to do his work for him, it will never be done well (if at all) or, to put it another way, if a job's worth doing, it's worth doing yourself.
Strengthening existing laws and/or passing new ones will make almost no difference since the unwillingness to enforce laws means that such laws become instant dead‑letters. For White Racists this is a great benefit since it allows Them to claim that They are doing something about Their own racism (by passing laws against it), while actually doing nothing at all.
Laws do not stop bad actions from occurring – in any way whatsoever – they merely punish those who commit them that you can catch. Let's not fall into the rather obvious trap of thinking that the law – as such, in and of itself, simply by virtue of its existence – is going bring about the paradise on earth that anti‑racists desire: Their political hegemony over White Racists They refuse to tolerate.
'A programme to challenge Islamophobia as it manifests itself in lack of opportunities and outward hostility towards Muslims is essential to reducing the feeling of injustice'. No. Racial segregation is the only way to do this. When there are no opportunities, you make them for yourself – you don't burn cars! In other words, there are always opportunities, so long as you can think and act for yourself. If the so‑called inferior Jews can do this, then why can't Muslims? Who helped Jews in Their various settlements around the world but Jews Themselves? Or, are Muslims merely an inferior Semitic race of big‑nosed Ragheads?
Sunday, 5 November 2006
An interesting example of the ways in which white racism transmutes itself into something whites consider more acceptable, but which nevertheless perpetuates the white obsession with the alleged superiority conferred through the mere possession of white skin. White racists have got to have a group they can treat as sacrificial victims - even their fellow whites!
Friday, 3 November 2006
This piece is very naughty, indeed. Blacks not wishing to be abused by Whites - and so banding together for protection - cause ghettoes (ie, communities).
This kind of nonsense plays into the hands of racists by pretending Blacks aren't happy to live in ghettoes (ie, defensible spaces). It does this by pretending Blacks actually want to integrate with Whites because Blacks believe White Culture to be superior and worth integrating into. Whites already believe such racist nonsense and now Blacks are pretending They agree with it!
White Racism largely causes White Flight. This fact Lord Ouseley conveniently bypasses. Any movement from one area to another is always caused by a belief that the grass is greener elsewhere - otherwise why move at all? Conversely, any unwillingness to move (even if practicable) is always caused by a belief that the grass is worse elsewhere. Blaming Whites for doing exactly what Blacks would do in the same circumstances isn't turning the tables on those "Perfidious Whites"; it's just more of the same racism.
Lord Ouseley is also deliberately dishonest in not accepting that the reason so little attention is paid to Whites moving away is because property values decline in newly-settled immigrant areas. And Whites (like everybody else) don't want to see Their prize investment lose it's value because of the introduction of Blacks. This is why so many Whites don't want Blacks as neighbours. If the tables really were turned, Blacks would have exactly the same attitudes. It's racist hypocrisy to say otherwise; designed to make Blacks appear morally superior to Whites.
The plain fact is that we live in an inherently divided society. No amount of social engineering is ever going to change that for the simple reason that no-one - no-one - actually wants it to be otherwise. If there are no differentials between people how will we know - in comparative terms - whom we are. (This is difficult enough to determine absolutely - in terms of our objective achievements.) Let's be clear, we are not "sleepwalking into segregation" we are already segregated: by Race; by Class; by Gender; etc. the person maikng this tsatement is sleepwalking since he doesn't yet live in the real world.
What Blacks really want here is for Whites to love and accept Them (they won't) for free. And for whites to stop running away from Them as if Blacks had some terrible infection (the lurgi of racial inferiority) that could easily be caught by Whites. Both races are desperately trying to obtain something from the other that neither group can provide for itself. If White racists didn't exist, Blacks would have nothing to carp-on about; if Blacks didn't exist, Whites would have to look harder for something as good as a sense-of-superiority to fill the emptiness of Their days.
Thursday, 2 November 2006
'When academics call for diversity, they’re really talking about racial preferences for particular groups of people, mainly blacks'.
Quite right! Well said, Mr Williams.
Monday, 30 October 2006
Americans have become enemies of much of the world.
Americans have destroyed the global climate, caused harm to food supplies, sneered at freedom and democracy, bullied smaller countries and taken sides in disputes that did not concern them. There are bound to be many who are aggrieved.
When the Americans attacked Iraq in the Gulf War of 1990, they deliberately bombed the country's water supplies. Then, after the so called end of that war, the United States of America helped ensure that new water purification systems could not be imported into Iraq.
Thousands of Iraqis died: The United Nations estimates over a million, half of whom were children, died because of these sanctions directly resulting from unclean water. Bacteria develop in unpurified water, epidemics occur the manufacture of safe medicine is compromised and food supplies are affected. This, despite the fact that civilian infrastructures are essential for health and welfare and their destruction a violation of the Geneva Convention.
None of this has helped improve the image of America in the Arab world.
America has done more to damage freedom than any other nation in history. And America can never win against terrorists because there are more terrorists prepared to risk their lives in killing Americans than there are Americans willing to risk their lives in killing terrorists.
You cannot destroy terrorism unless you also destroy freedom. This is because you also have to destroy yourself in the process; as being the worst terrorist causing the terrorism being visited upon you in retaliatory response. The war on terrorism is in reality a war on freedom. It enables politicians to suppress dissidents and political opponents. This is the same as saying: "That's a nice (freedom) vase you've got there. I'll smash it for you so that no one can damage it". Such a war also allows Whites to wage a racist war on Muslims since Whites fear that Their cultures are being Islamified.
America is the most imperialistic and colonial power since Rome. They have seized countries and bits of countries when it has suited them. Florida, Cuba and the Philippines from the Spanish; Texas and California from the Mexicans; and, the United States itself from the Native Americans. Americans have also interfered in the internal workings of countless nations around the world.
Americans helped keep the civil war going in Ireland (by funding and appeasing Sinn Fein) and they have caused chaos in Serbia and Kosovo.
A yearning for freedom that Americans pretend to possess caused the 11/9 attacks on the USA. Yet, terrorists have a much clearer definition of freedom than Americans do. When Americans talk of defending freedom and democracy, the smell is nauseating, sanctimonious and hypocritical.
The terrorist attack on America in 2001 was well organised and extremely effective. In contrast, the American response has been vindictive, vengeful and an indiscriminate shambles.
Americans believe that everything can be solved by violence. Locally, they deal with problems by shooting one another. Internationally, by starting wars.
Although Americans are bullies at heart, they're neither good at wars nor very useful in a crisis. The fact that America has established various concentration camps around the globe proves that Americans are simple, racist, primitive people who have not yet, as a nation, earned the right to describe themselves as civilised. No country can call itself civilised when it treats captured prisoners to torture, starvation and brainwashing. The means and the end must be in harmony or the ends won't be achieved. The arrogance, conceit, racism and blindness to the needs, hopes, aspirations, expectations and rights of the rest of the world will create for Americans an isolated and fearful future.
Friday, 27 October 2006
This is the real reason the UK should leave the European Union as-soon-as-possible. The problem with unelected bureaucrats spending other-people's-money is that it doesn't feel like a loss to those that spend it; it effectively grows-on-trees.
The UK should adopt the old American Colonies' rallying cry of no taxation (in this case Value-Added Tax) without representation!
Wednesday, 25 October 2006
I couldn't've put it better myself! Gary North reminds me of myself, so he must be a genius!
Although true - generally - this article is also very relevant to the White Race's needy and dependent attitude toward Blacks. It explains Whites' degenerate desire to achieve political and cultural goals through exploiting Blacks.
Saturday, 21 October 2006
Clearly this headline is irrational - in the light of actual experience of objective reality - since, if true, it would mean that the White Hatred of Muslims was caused more by 'Woolas comments' than pre-existing White Racism. Woolas would then be leading-the-pack rather than following it - for personal political advantage. Yet this the author admits by referring to Woolas as engaging in an 'opportunistic intervention'!
This writer is confused as to the basic issue of cause-and-effect, here, and merely wishes to make an 'opportunistic intervention' of his own by slagging-off a White Racist. Not that that's a bad thing, but if it's the only thing you do, you will achieve very little.
'The 1990 Trust are today calling for a code of conduct on dealing with "Muslim issues" to halt the overly-simplistic approach… contributing to the demonisation of all Muslims'. This statement is so irresponsibly naive that I hardly know where to begin in castigating it. More Muslims will be killed if any of Them EVER believe that Whites will EVER abide by a code-of-conduct pertaining to any peoples that Whites consider inferior. Whites have NEVER done any such thing in the past, why would They start now?
'Politicians have a responsibility not to worsen race relations for political gain, and every party must have a duty crack down on Islamophobia within their ranks'. Problem is of course that to do any of these things politicians must first, in a democracy, get elected. This means doing precisely the things mentioned in this quote in order to obtain the popular support to achieve that end. Does the writer of this claptrap not live in the same world as you and I? I think not! Or does he secretly not believe in the democratic process; favouring perhaps the totalitarian desire to control Whites by force?
'In the current climate, Muslims are very much under attack...Why is there so much emphasis on what they wear?' For the same reason that we're obsessed with what homosexuals do to (& with) each other in private: We want to know precisely what makes them different from us and, thus, precisely what we can use as weapons against them in our desperate fear that the difference might mean that our way of doing things was somehow inferior to theirs. In other words, we fear that the differences are not equal or equally-valued, but demonstrative of actual cultural inferiority regarding certain aspects of each respective culture. This raises the worrying possibility that our culture is actually inferior to theirs – God forbid! If, for example, homosexuals are having more fun in bed than us superior heterosexuals, then maybe there's something to being gay after all?!
'Woolas’s comments are incredible given his role in talking to Muslim groups as part of the Commission for Integration and Cohesion roundtables around the country'. On the contrary. His comments are completely explicable in this context since the whole point of this Commission is to present Darkies with a stark choice: Be like us or fuck off! Does this writer truly not know this?
'The 1990 Trust believes that politicians are steering the debate towards the view that diversity is only valued in direct proportion to how similar you are to a white British norm'. I wonder how long it took the morons at The 1990 Trust to figure that one out?! Of course, everything Whites do is based on the implicit assumption that They are the norm around which Everyone else rotates and against which Everyone else is to be judged. Much like the medieval Catholic Church believing that the earth was the centre of the universe with the church at the centre of the earth. This is the basic racist principle against which The 1990 Trust pretends to be fighting and yet can't see the wood for the trees to see this clearly!
'The "superiority psyche" [really an “inferiority psyche” which Blacks could so easily exploit if They had the sense They were born with] allows politicians to shift the debate from developing policies which challenge institutional and personal racism in society'. White politicians will never develop such policies because that would mean an end to White Society, as it is currently constituted. Why would any White destroy his own culture in exchange for an uncertain future? Would a Black do this if the positions were reversed? Of course not!
'...[T]here is almost no support for terrorism amongst the Muslim community'. Of course, there's no way of telling how truthful respondents to such surveys have been and, therefore, no way of telling the value of such surveys. This is because of that well-known social phenomenon when dealing with unpleasantness: "Well, they would say that wouldn't they?"
'Many mainstream polls have shown higher rates of support for extremism... The difference is explained by the way questions are phrased'. This is true but still doesn't address the fundamental fact mentioned in the previous paragraph, as well as the fact that surveys are commissioned precisely as an attempt to prove pre-existing prejudices. You can bet your bottom dollar that The 1990 Trust would be reporting differently on this survey if it had concluded that Muslims secretly-harbour terroristic thoughts.
'The 1990 Trust survey believes that British Muslims have tried very hard to integrate into society, but daily media attacks - such as controversy surrounding the Niqab veil - have increased feelings of isolation'. As always with The 1990 Trust, They claim that Blacks are trying hard to integrate into a racist society that They acknowledge as racist! This means they accept that racial integration is a form of political (self-inflicted racist) masochism. If so, then why engage in it? They surely can't be so lonely as to want to be on friendly terms with racists, can they?
Because Whites are very unlikely to believe the results of this survey, for the reasons above, it's very hard to know what The 1990 Trust believes it can achieve with it, save Their desperate hope that Whites will one day learn to accept Muslims as equals - some hope!
Thursday, 12 October 2006
It's sheerest hypocrisy to criticise the White Media for doing the very things that the Black Media refuse to do – be honest about their racist hypocrisy.
The 1990 Trust is all about trying to get Whites to change their spots and become better people. It engages in this pointless task because the Blacks who run it lack the courage to think of themselves being successful in a racist country without White help. The 1990 Trust never explains precisely how this idiotic goal is to be achieved.
The real, unstated goal of the Trust is to sell-out the vast majority of Their own race for lucrative political careers criticising Whites for their racism while simultaneously, They hope, as a direct result of this, being able to conceal Their own. The proof of this is contained in the previous paragraph.
We've seen exactly the same thing when the more intelligent members of the lower-class claim to represent their own, for example, and become shop stewards and trades' union officials. In the end, these are being paid-off to commit class-treason as the more intelligent and more unethical members of the Black Community commit race-treason. As lower-class whites "made good" condemn the class from whence they came, Blacks accepted by Whites ritually slag-off Their own and claim that Whites aren't as racist as claimed. Both groups have to do so or they won't be accepted by those who pretend to relax the rules of entry to White Culture.
And, in the end, it's acceptance that's sought-after here, not a genuine change in the culture. Whites are effectively given permission by Blacks-sucking-up-to-Whites to continue to be racist. After all, expecting Blacks to suck-up to Whites is just another form of racism that Blacks are only too willing to engage in, in Their desperate and despairing inferiority complex.
When Frank TALKER sees The 1990 Trust talk honestly about its own racist 'double standards' then He'll've seen the promised land of racial tolerance and civility. This He knows full well is impossible given the fact that no White has ever come clean about His hypocrisy in print. Therefore, there can be very little likelihood of Blacks doing likewise – especially given that Blacks are most keen to mimic the Whites They secretly worship and while claiming that They are just as good as Whites; meaning just as bad.
Why don't Blacks explicitly claim to be better than Whites as this article implicitly claims? Why are Blacks just as dishonest as they claim Whites are?
The problem for Whites here is how to continue to be racist undercover of political correctness. The problem for Blacks is how to claim racial superiority over White Racist Hypocrisy while demanding equality. If Blacks want equality with Whites then They'll have to be just as hypocritical, surely! Which this article proves They already are. If Blacks do nothing but condemn Whites for Their racism then They are effectively claiming to be superior to Whites – how racist is that?
It's hypocritical for Blacks to condemn White Racist hypocrisy while never condemning Their own.
The statement above is symptomatic of the schizophrenia of Blacks. Why do They strive to make Their 'best efforts' to integrate with Whites when even They admit that Whites are institutionally racist? Are these Professional Niggers masochists, or what?
Friday, 29 September 2006
Having obviously given up on the old fallacy that it ain't how big it is, it's what you do with it; Whites now want to scientifically prove Their penile superiority to other races! Why didn't They just do this before? Obviously because Black Cock is better and bigger!
Sunday, 24 September 2006
People are our greatest wealth: More people is a good thing; they are a blessing. They are more brains that might cure cancer; more hands to build things; and, more voices to bring us beautiful music.
The starving masses in Africa are not caused by overpopulation but by things like civil wars and government corruption that interferes with the distribution of food.
Sudan had famine when government militia forces stripped the land of cattle and grain. In Niger, 2,500,000 people are starving because food production is managed by the state. The absence of property rights, price controls and other cruel and stupid socialist experiments currently under way in Malawi, Mozambique, Swaziland and Lesotho are starving millions more. In Zimbabwe, Robert Mugabe's kleptocracy is doing the damage.
Improved technology now allows people to grow more food on less land to the extent that the world now overproduces food. The resulting problem is distribution not sufficiency.
To claim that Blacks must reduce Their birth-rates is a White Attempt to even the global demographic that shows Whites outnumbered by Blacks three-to-one. It also helps reduce White Guilt about the fact that most of the world's problems are caused by Whites by a) exclusively blaming Blacks for Their own problems; and, b) trying to reduce the number of Blacks supposedly reduces White Guilt.
Here's a good example of the murderous rage that informs Whites' attitude to purportedly helping Blacks.
In Uganda, 2,500,000 people a year die of malaria. The chemical DDT (D[ichloro]D[iphenyl]T[richloroethane]) could solve this problem but Whites believe that this drug is dangerous although it is capable of far more good than bad.
White Science has found no evidence that spraying DDT seriously hurts people. There were no surges in cancer nor in any other human injury when DDT was regularly used in the west fifty years ago.
Rachel Carson's 1962 book Silent Spring pointed-out that DDT made the shells of their eggs thin; threatening their populations. Whites care more for animals than they do humans; more for Whites than They do Blacks. DDT became an allegedly killer chemical; needing banning – which subsequently followed in 1972.
The other problem with DDT was its indiscriminate overuse: It was the dosage that mattered not the chemical itself – as with all other chemicals. Only a small amount of DDT will help prevent the spread of malaria. However, racist environmentalists – obsessed with seeking power – have demonised its use in order to ensure the extermination of millions of Blacks.
Although the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) acknowledges that DDT is safe, USAID has a no-funds-for-DDT policy to ensure its allegedly environmentally-correct credentials.
Saturday, 23 September 2006
There's no such thing as 'moderate Islam'.
No religion can ever be moderate for the simple reason that they all rely on the impossible – the existence of the supernatural.
The relationship between faith and force is inextricable. The only means of getting others to believe in the supernatural (anything that defies logic & rationality) is either to force them to do so or to allow them to believe what they wish. The latter is problematic because free spirits might choose to reject the impossible as the basis for a way-of-life. Thus, all religions must use force if they wish to grow towards controlling their host societies. Both in order to increase their power-base; as well as to increase the alleged proof of the existence of god because of the desire among the inadequate to believe in the supernatural. And to pretend that truth is democratic; that is, that the more people who can be made to pretend to believe, the more likely it is that god exists. After all, few would wish to admit their folly in believing in something that doesn't exist, so it's far easier to force other to the same viewpoint. Exactly the same is true of, say, a belief in fairies.
Few are willing to admit such a belief if such a belief is in the minority; but get most people to believe in fairies and, instead of being ridiculed yourself, you can freely ridicule those who formerly ridiculed you. This is the only means of vainly demonstrating the existence of that which rational people not only know does not exist, but which can't. The same is true for the idiotic Theory of Evolution but, if one's career depends upon a certain belief set and/or way-of-thinking, then it's hardly surprising that anyone who believes in such nonsense would not wish to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs by admitting that They didn't believe.
In materialist cultures, the only means of forcing irrational beliefs on others is to threaten them with unemployability if they disagree. Additionally, force is more important than faith since faith alone will not result in the desired growth of the belief-system.
'[R]ooting out' an 'extremist minority' is not only impossible for a White to claim that Blacks should do, it's also hypocritical. If Whites are so superior, why can't They do it; especially since Their behaviour is the major reason of the extremism of which They so vehemently complain.
When Whites are asked to root out the racists in Their midst, They are singularly unable to do so; for example the Invisible Kingdom of the KKK and the British National Party. Yet Whites expect others to do the very thing that They, Themselves (superior as They claim to be), cannot do.
The fact is that terrorism is a majority practice – practised by most of us. The temptation to force others to accept our beliefs is so strong because it promises a shortcut to the power that most of us crave to have over others in order to allegedly alleviate the inadequacy we so often feel in the face of the facts of objective reality. Because White Western Cultures are quintessentially comprised of lonely, addicted neurotics, such feelings of inadequacy are commonplace; hence, terrorism is also widespread as a direct result of Whites trying to project-and-displace Their terrorism onto others in scapegoating those others.
'Mr Blair vented his frustration at Britain's Muslim community'. This is an admission of that which everyone really knows to be true; namely, that terrorism is unbeatable if based upon a genuine grievance. Yet, Mr Blair claims that it's really no more than a 'false sense of grievance about the west (Sic)'.
As always, Whites like to claim that They are prefect and infallible and never commit acts that annoy, antagonise and try to intimidate others. Whites have to make such vacuous claims otherwise They would have to face the fact that They can't hope to defeat terrorism in any other way. It's not so much White Racists creating terrorism but Their would-be victims for having the guts to fight back against their would-be oppressors. This reminds Whites that They are not as superior as They would like to believe Themselves to be, and is the essence of the White Grievance against the East.
'He [UK Prime Minister, Tony Blair] said too many Muslim leaders gave the impression that they understood and sympathised with the[ir] grievances...' Obviously, any full member of the human race would sympathise with those oppressed for no other reason than their skin colour! Whites are foolish enough to think otherwise, yet continue to do so in a vain attempt to make Their racism morally-acceptable.
Mr Blair claims that sympathy for terrorists would ensure that 'the extremists would never be defeated' – an admission of the Great White Fear mentioned above, about which They can do nothing. It is not terrorism, as such, that Whites fear but the fear of terrorism itself: The secret knowledge that They create this fear, Themselves, in order to have something – no matter how negative – to feel. It is, after all, better to feel something bad, rather than nothing; especially if feeling something good is impossible to you.
Whites will never accept that Their renouncing Their racism would be the quickest and most effective means of countering terrorism because that would mean destroying the very core of White Culture. For all Their manifold and self-destructive faults, Whites are not so overtly lemming-like (in Their self-immolating urge to refrain from renewing Their Culture) as to wish to avoid – at all costs - any alternative to Their neophobic fear of self-betterment. Whites will attempt more of the same old racism before They ever consider renouncing it. After all, such a renunciation would require the desire and the capacity to change.
'...[G]overnment alone could not root out extremism'. Of course not, any more than government can prevent murder by passing laws against it! But governments can – especially in their foreign policies – refrain from exacerbating the situations they inevitably create by their tawdry attempts to interfere in the affairs of others.
The Muslim Council of Britain's spokesman, Inayat Bunglawala: 'Many Muslims across the UK believe that the UK's participation in the wars against Afghanistan and Iraq... have been a key contributory factor in the radicalisation of some young Muslims'. This is profoundly obvious, at least if one has the merest nodding acquaintance with human nature. The fact that Whites won't accept the obvious proves that Whites don't consider non-Whites to be fully-human and that, therefore, such sub-humans are not allowed to react as Whites would in similar circumstances.
Whites also don't want to accept that Their wars have negative consequences for Whites; leading to the inevitably-racist search for scapegoats which merely serves to make the fear of terrorism greater – and the racewar worse.
The shadow attorney general, Dominic Grieve: 'If we are to succeed in promoting better integration, and with it a reduction in Islamophobia, this requires a major effort'. Where is the evidence that this is so? And where is the evidence that integration has ever taken place, given that Whites are not integrated with one another because of Their class system?
Somehow, Whites still cling to the notion that if Blacks become more White, White Racists will learn to love Blacks more! As always, Whites continue to blame Blacks for the racism that Whites choose to inflict on Blacks. Islamophobia, after all, isn't caused by White Racism (perish the thought!) it's caused by all these Darkies who don't want to talk, act and think like us. Because it takes two to tango, this cannot possibly be true and yet Whites desperately want to avoid shouldering the blame for Their mistakes because, let's face it, Whites don't make mistakes - do They?
Wednesday, 30 August 2006
They also shed a great deal of light on why Whites behave they way They do today.
Sunday, 27 August 2006
Regarding your racist editorial "Failing to confront the enemy within" (13 August 2006, the 'most pressing problem facing the country' is the white man's belief that when his life is threatened all other priorities instantly become secondary.
Where is the evidence that Muslims 'hate the country of their birth' rather than simply white racism? To claim that 'Islamophobia in non-Muslim Britain' is less important than 'civil liberties' is to justify that form of racial hatred. It is also to evade the issue that Islamophobia is the root of Islamist terrorists.
By claiming 'young Muslim men' are 'radicalised after exposure to extreme Islamist elements' again evades the issue that the radicalisation of the darker-skinned is quintessentially predicated on white racism.
The white racist's evasion of the essentially racist nature of white culture is expressed when he claims that said culture is based upon 'its own traditional values of decency [pretending that what's above the navel is good & that what's below is sinful], responsibility [blaming the other guy for his failure to live up to those responsibilities we pass off on to him], self-discipline [emotional repression leading to violent attacks on others], hard work [a substitute for a fulfilling personal-life], respect for others [as long as those others are white & agree with us without demur] and the carefully constructed freedoms of liberal democracy [carefully-constructed for whites]'. Only whites ever make such claims about how wonderful they are; those framed to be on the receiving end of the so-called superiority of white culture know better. Whites know this, hence their desire to exploit political-correctness as a means of overcoming their racist guilt and shame.
It's always interesting to note that the Catholicism, which was used to nurture IRA terrorists, was never demonised as cruel and inhuman. Additionally, no mention is made of the politically-correct attempts to buy-off the IRA (& the Catholic minority) in Northern Ireland in order to achieve "peace in our time" there. Funny how white terrorists are always treated better than brown ones!
The basic reason white culture is in decline is because their imperial projects failed – as they always do – and white racists have found no adequate replacement to hold their increasingly fractured societies together – except hatred of foreigners with dark skin. But such racist loathing was precisely why the British Empire failed – because to hate others is to ultimately hate oneself.
You mention – in passing – the 'ghettoisation of immigrants and religious minorities' but never apportion blame for this on white racism, although you thereby contradict yourself by claiming whites take responsibility for their actions. Clearly, however, whites never take responsibility for their racism.
Your paranoia is revealed when you refuse to use the word "alleged" when discussing the British government's recent claim of having foiled, through arrest, an alleged series of terrorist atrocities. This is very poor journalism since it reveals your belief that to release all suspects without charge (& they are suspects, not convicts) would be the 'final humiliation' for the white race regardless of issues of innocence or guilt.
Clearly, you believe that being a Muslim should be criminalized.
You claim that 'nobody had suggested' that these arrests were an 'attack on the Muslim "community" [there is such a thing, using quotation marks won't make it go away as much as you'd like]'. This completely evades the issue that the police have been shown to be institutionally racist and would like nothing more than to continue to abuse ethnic minorities with the laws' arms around them. It is not the suggestion but the action itself suggesting these arrests are racially motivated. You contradict yourself by claiming that a pattern of Islamic fundamentalism is emerging for all to see (even the 'wilfully blind'), yet refuse to accept that Muslims also see the pattern of white racism against them going back decades - Islamophobia.
If the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were not 'anti-Muslim military campaigns', then what were they? There was no reason to topple Saddam Hussein; especially since erstwhile Western sanctions were killing more people than he was. Nor did the alleged purging of Afghanistan have any meaningful long-term depressing effect on terrorist activity. Such wars merely gave Western governments the delusion that something useful was being done about a problem that was largely of their making.
The fact is that most terrorism is fully justified as a means of military response to genuine attack. Whites use it just as much as anyone else and they're hypocritical to say otherwise. That they do so is a measure not of the failure of so-called political elites to confront the alleged enemy within, but of their fundamental realisation that – like the IRA – terrorists are almost impossible to defeat. They are our Frankenstein, and to defeat terrorists means to destroy part or all of ourselves because they come from us. Hence, the recent attempts at a significant diminution of UK civil liberties and the exacerbated racist-paranoia resulting therefrom. A war on terror must, by definition, use terror as a means; meaning that the issue is not an end to terrorists but a simple answer to the question of who is the most terrifying. This editorial demonstrates that we are the most terrified and have already lost this war.
The only way to defeat terrorists in the end is to stop creating them; prevention being better than the placebo offered here. Although 'institutional political correctness' is a bad thing, it is better than the institutional racism you falsely pit it against. It offers blacks more legal rights than whites that, in a racist country like the UK, is only a fair and proper rebalancing of things.
Saturday, 26 August 2006
As doomed to failure as 'multiculturalism' itself is, in fact.
Multiculturalism posits the lie that one country can have many cultures. If so, then why have countries at all?
'Ask ordinary people about multiculturalism and they'll tell you about good examples of interaction between different communities - of celebrating diversity. Interculturalism is a fact of life'. Sounds good, doesn't it? Problem is, of course, that none of these 'good examples' are given here! Why not? Answer: Because they don't exist except in the febrile imaginings of anti-racist scumbags. "Interculturalism", like "multiculturalism", is a word that points to an empty concept and a non-existent phenomenon (a lot like the word "God", really.)
'What we are very bad at is putting in place policies to force the public and private sectors to stop discriminating against Black communities in employment, education, health, housing, education, (Sic) and every other area of life'. It's impossible to force anyone to stop from discriminating against others: You cannot legislate for love. If it were, the UK class-war would've ended decades ago. (Incidentally, this is why UK Socialists had to become more Conservative in order to be elected. They had to ditch Their poorer supporters because there is, in fact, nothing that can be done for the poor that they cannot do for themselves, given enough self-motivation.)
The fact that there are no laws against discriminating on the grounds of social-class proves that Whites don't feel They need to hand a sop to the poor. The existence of anti-racist legislation (although not anti-racism laws, notice) proves that Whites want to exploit Black racial-insecurities and pretend to be helping Blacks. In exactly the same way that social welfare (which keeps poor people poor) is used to give the impression that Whites care about poverty and the poor when, in fact, they care about neither.
In truth, all that you can do against any form of discrimination is to punish it AFTER the event - if you can demonstrate its occurrence. By claiming otherwise, Blacks claim the non-existent right to live in a protected world where They – especially – are subject to particular protection, BEFORE the event, which no other group (particularly the lower class) possesses. Nice work, if you can get it!
'The 1990 Trust believes that the focus should be on the causes of extremism, foreign policy and impact of anti-terror measures, not just on its consequences'. Although there is much truth here, the problem lies in the means of expression, particularly the word "causes".
The cause of all existential phenomena is choice. There is no other. If a man chooses to be a terrorist, he has chosen to be so and no amount of special pleading will protect him from the fact that this is so. He cannot, therefore, claim that he had no discipline over his own actions and/or that he couldn't help himself. The proof of this is that most Muslims choose not to become terrorists. To say otherwise helps Whites justify Their racism and Islamophobia; a clear case of Blacks shooting Themselves in the foot.
Once you start treating human beings as if they were mice in a laboratory experiment who will always behave in predictable ways given the same stimuli, you fall into the same trap White Racist Scientists fall into. They talk about genes for this kind of behaviour and genes for that. The issue isn't genetic; it's a matter of personal responsibility – which few people are prepared to take – especially by those who claim human behaviour is caused by anything other than free, personal choice. Such a negative view attempts to undermine our humanity exactly as racism tries to.
Black Culture has an inbuilt political inability to avoid falling into the same racist-in-principle arguments that Whites traditionally employ to justify Their claim to superior treatment. This is why the race-war will never end because it's not designed as a war to end racism, but to finally determine which race is the superior. A flawed endeavour, of course, because the answer is neither; meaning that the race-war is, itself, racist.
Ruhul Tarafder, from The 1990 Trust, said: 'How are we going to integrate communities when the global families of those very communities are being blown up daily in Iraq, Afghanistan and most recently in Lebanon?' The truth is that racial integration is an impossible dream precisely for the reason Mr Tarafder states. That is, that the various races are, and always have been, at war with one another – and always will be. How and why could it be otherwise? In this context, Whites demand complete, unswerving and undivided loyalty to Them. They will accept nothing else or label Muslims as the Enemy Within. This means Muslims can't integrate into a culture that effectively demands They renounce Islam. (Even if Muslims did take such a drastic step, Whites would never believe the renunciation sincere. They'd assume it was only done to curry political favour with Whites on the racist assumption that Muslims will continue to practice their faith in secret.)
'What is required is a commission to look at how these policies has (Sic) resulted in radicalising thousands of young people.
'In addition, the BNP has 50 councillors and racist attacks are rising. If we are looking at people who do not integrate, maybe that could be a starting point'. This would certainly be an excellent 'starting point'. However, care should be exercised in admitting that 'thousands of young people' have become radicalised. That would be tantamount to admitting that Whites are right to think in terms of an Enemy Within and that racial abuse of that Enemy is, therefore, fully justified. A clear equality must be established between White Extremists and Black, in order to prove that both are equally capable of "extremism". Otherwise, Whites will simply claim that Their extremists aren't that extreme. And that, anyway, White Extremists will continue to be protected by the vacuous free-speech theorising of: I disapprove of what you say, but will fight to the death for your right to say it. Better to let Whites die for Their beliefs than Blacks if Whites really believe such nonsense.
Friday, 25 August 2006
'Black-led human rights organisation The 1990 Trust believe the initiative is the wrong answer to the question of citizenship'. This so-called question is really a statement. It implies that it's "Citizenship" which helps that abstraction we call "Society" cohere, when it's really allowing people to pursue their self-interest that does.
All rational men will be loyal to a society of self-interest simply because it's in their self-interest to do so: This will automatically create coherence. Claiming citizenship is the problem is to put the cart-before-the-horse when the problem is that at present no-one has any real vested-interest in being loyal to a culture that doesn't put their self-interest at its heart. And no rational entity ever works for the self-interest of others as well as they do for their own.
This is simple human nature – and a society not based on human nature needs to enforce citizenship by law and propaganda - as the former communist regimes had to. (It should be noted that all these failed as societies. And for good reason.)
Karen Chouhan, 1990 Trust trustee: 'The government needs to stop viewing Black communities as the problem, which is simply not true when you consider the contribution we make to society and the efforts we put in to get on'. This comment is entirely irrelevant and falls into a White Racist Trap. White Racists don't view Blacks in terms of Their achievements but in terms of Their skin colour. This, White Racists believe, allows Them to exploit that coloration as a signifier of genetic inferiority. No matter what Blacks achieve, Whites will always treat them as inferiors. Whites are always going to consider 'Black communities' as a problem simply because They are Black, not because of attempts to integrate or contributing to wider society.
Such naive and ignorant comments concerning the nature of White Racism betray the stupid and idiotic view that appealing to Their reason can appease Whites. And yet racism is a largely unreasonable viewpoint; proving that Blacks such as these are merely sucking-up-to, and effectively apologising for, White Racism. Such Blacks can't stand on Their own two feet and need Whites to help Them; proving that They are, indeed, as inferior as White Racists claim Them to be.
‘...[T]he minister should be looking at far-right extremism, and how their agenda of attacking multiculturalism and immigration has made it to mainstream thinking, and what effect this is having on community relations'. '...[A]ttacking multiculturalism and immigration' has always been 'mainstream thinking' in the White communities. How else can you explain, for example, the British Empire, the North Atlantic Slave Trade, racist immigration controls and the existence of the BNP (British national party)?
What is called here 'far-right extremism' is simply the tip of a racist iceberg; proving again that Blacks think They can blame White Extremists for the racism They experience. There's no meaningful difference between this and Whites thinking They can blame Muslim Extremists for Their endemic White Fear of Muslims. Both groups are equally racist in Their mutual desire to scapegoat someone who isn't Themselves, so what's the difference? The truth is that – in essentials - there isn't one. Both groups want to control men's minds for political gain and for political expediency – to line Their own pockets in so doing.
‘Nobody has tried harder than Black communities to integrate'. The truth here is that 'Black communities' have – instead - tried very hard to buy-off the protection racket that is White Racism by trying very hard to renounce Their own culture and act White. This is not integration, it's arse-kissing servitude.
'The issue is the fact that society as a whole continues to discriminate against them'. Yes, of course: It always will. There is no reason for it to adopt any other approach since Blacks offer no alternative and Whites can't conceive of culture without self-interest being its basis. All that can be done is to show Whites that it's not in Their self-interest to continue being racist – but no Black ever does this. Blacks Themselves can't imagine a culture not based on racism because Blacks are just as racist as Whites, and are simply blaming Whites for Their own racist tendencies.
'Let’s look at why surveys find 9 out of 10 white people do not have a Black friend, or why 4 out of 10 white people do not want a Black neighbour. This is the problem with citizenship and integration today'. These are not the problems, themselves – merely proofs that White Culture is endemically racist. When one starts considering the evidence one has of a given phenomena as the problem, then one can easily start to think that the solution is simply to hide or destroy the evidence. Whites already do this and Blacks are trying to do just the same by evading the actual problem.
Friendship is chosen. One doesn't want friends foisted upon one because that merely leads to resentment – not friendship. Only the lonely think otherwise. In any case, there aren't enough Blacks (only 8% of the UK population, after all) to go around for every white to have at least one black friend.
Again, if Whites don't want Black neighbours then that's Their preference – to which They are fully entitled so long as it's merely an expressed preference and is not legally-enforced. A man of self-respect wouldn't want to live where he's not wanted. This is why we have countries and communities, in the first place. So those of a like mind can then congregate together and enjoy each other's company and not be offended by the presence of those one considers undesirable – for whatever reason. Such preferences can only affect Blacks if Blacks actually want Whites to like Them. And if They want that, then They truly possess the desperation of the constitutionally lonely. '...[T]he problem with citizenship and integration today' is that political airheads think these things can be forced upon the citizens. This is communist totalitarianism, not liberty and justice. Do Blacks really believe that They can force Whites to legislate for love? If They do, then perhaps Whites are right to section proportionately-more Blacks than Whites under the present Mental Health Act since love is, by its nature, a voluntary act?
'The 1990 Trust believes that Ruth Kelly (Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government DCLG) should be turning her attention to tackling the root causes of race inequality instead of problematizing Black communities'. Yes, but 'problematizing Black communities' is easier to achieve for the same reason that it's easier to hate a man than to love him. And why would Whites not take the path-of-least-resistance and do what's easiest? Blacks certainly wouldn't!
The 'root causes of race inequality' are that it's easier to hate than to love and that it's easier to blame others than accept personal responsibility. Blacks do this every bit as much as Whites do, the hypocrites!
'What is needed is not another talking shop producing a report which sits on the shelf, but real action to tackle the problems identified by previous research'. Fine, so why don't Blacks take this action Themselves rather than waiting for Whites to do so? Answer: Because Blacks are dependent on Whites to accept Them as equals and would fear a White Racist Backlash should Blacks one day have the guts to go it alone and be successful on Their own Black terms. (Emotionally-inadequate Blacks live in paranoid fear that if, in a racist culture, Blacks drives expensive cars, They'll always be the targets of invidious racist-abuse. To avoid finding-out if this is true or not, Blacks find it easier to be resolute social failures and then have the cheek to blame this on White Racism when the root cause is Their own fear of Whites. This merely produces the very racism They fear occurring.) So long as Blacks continue to choose-to-fail, They tacitly convince Whites that Blacks really are racially inferior and that inactive talking-shops (White Propaganda) are all that Blacks need be offered to keep Them quiet.
If Blacks chose-to-succeed, They'd find that Whites are more frightened of Them, than They could ever be of Whites. Whites know this, which is why They spend a great deal of time and money trying very hard to make Blacks fear Them. Whites do this mostly through foreign military adventures designed to make Blacks cack Their underpants in the presence of the allegedly God-like might of White Technology. That this doesn't work, annoys Whites no end because They have no other gambit.
'We know what the problems are: a failure to make real progress in creating true race equality in Britain, such as equal outcomes in employment, education, housing, health etc'. This is communist horse-manure because human beings are not created equal.
'The problems are not: they are not (Sic) due to a failure of Black communities to integrate. Instead (Sic) much of the blame must be laid at the failure of indigenous communities to willingly embrace multicultural Britain'. This is the same scapegoating this press release hypocritically accuses Whites of doing!
'With so many committees, commissions and toolkits - the delivery of race equality will drown in a managerialist framework that cramps resources and efforts into the managing of processes not outcomes'. More communist horseshit! Outcomes cannot be managed in the facile way envisaged here. If they could there'd be a helluva lot more happy parents with loving children following successful careers as a result of well-managed childhoods. In reality, we have (for example) fantastic abortion, teenage pregnancy, illiteracy and alcoholism rates; proving that most people's upbringings – no matter how well-managed – produced outcomes that rational men would not logically desire.
Stop whining; start living.
Monday, 21 August 2006
‘The 1983 Act has caused so much damage to our community over the past 23 years and will only get worse without a proper review of this legislation, which takes into account the discrimination suffered by Black service users’.
‘Excluding race from the rewrite of a piece of legislation that has destroyed countless Black people’s lives makes it clear how committed the Government are to addressing this issue.’
The above quotes are the result of a Black Inferiority Complex. The fact is that if you allow people to label you as inferior, it's because you are. None of this is the real issue here.
The central issue here is that Blacks want Whites to love Them. When Whites don't, Blacks turn-in on Themselves and start whining about the fact that They're obviously so worthless as a race that Whites won't lower Themselves to offer Blacks unearned respect.
If Blacks don't want to be abused by Whites, then the answer is simple: Have nothing to do with Them and never turn your back on Them. Moreover, make sure you and your kids study the four basics. History - to teach Whites how racist They are. Law - to punish Whites for abusing Blacks who're foolish enough to allow Themselves to be abused & to teach those Blacks not to be so foolish in future. Psychiatry - to understand how Whites really think. Business - to become self-employed &, therefore, not dependent upon Racist White Employers for those jobs that Whites won't do.
The 'DoH has been entirely fraudulent in its handling of these reforms, we have had eight years of debate over mental health legislation and millions have been spent on committees and consultation with very little of what the professionals... working in this area have said being taken on board'. The reason for this is that ultimately Whites want to claim that all Blacks are mentally-ill because this is what They actually believe. Whites still can't get over Their innate belief that Blacks are intellectually-inferior to Whites. Therefore, the views of Blacks aren't wanted – it's just that Whites want to give Blacks the impression that they are. Whites hope that Blacks will be tired-out by years of consultation and then, while Blacks' eyes are droop-lidded from exhaustion, Whites will legalise White Racism – Their ultimate goal.
'Mental Health law should be seen as disability rights legislation rather than was (sic) we are currently seeing which is more akin to criminal justice legislation.’ This furthers my point that Whites wish to criminalise being Black, since it allows Whites to lock-up Blacks for behaving differently, which Blacks do anyway since Their culture is different. Whites want to prohibit difference in the way that They've done within Their own culture given the fact that Whites behave like clones of each other.
‘The crisis in BME mental health is a public disgrace and it beggars belief why it is not being looked at properly.’ What really 'beggars belief' is that any sane, experienced person should be surprised that mental heath for Blacks is racist. Don't these people know that White Culture is racist and that the basic fact of UK culture is that Blacks are tolerated here not accepted?
‘Tinkering with legislation is not going to address the fundamental problems of institutional racism within mental health services. What we need to see is a royal commission on mental health which looks... [at] every aspect of this issue if we are to see any lasting fundamental change.’ This would be just more talking with White Racists who do not intend to renounce the racism that is Their only reason for existing. This is why there can be no 'lasting fundamental change'. The simple, practical solution here is for Blacks to only use Black psychiatrists and for Blacks to have separate mental clinics from Whites.
Whites are terrified of the mentally-ill because They fear that that is what They could so easily become if They let go of Their many emotional repressions (these are the only things that make White Culture possible to begin with). And Whites don't wish to be reminded of the possibility that they, someday, will lose control not of whom They actually are, but of whom Their racial fantasises tell Them They are. Combine this with Whites' endemic fear of Blacks and it's all-too-easy to see why Whites want as many Blacks locked-up as They can possibly manage – with the racist law's arms around Them. Combined with high custodial rates for Black Criminals and it's easy to see that the UK is becoming a penal colony for people who smell differently.
‘All too often Black people have under estimated the power they can wield when they stick together'. This is the usual fallacy that people are stronger together. In fact, they're weaker because they then never learn to stand on their own two feet. They also have to learn to work with people they don't necessarily agree with for the sake of togetherness. Such togetherness is a fake and ultimately leads to the collapse of the ensemble because of internal dissension.
Friday, 11 August 2006
More proof that Trevor Phillips is a White Man's Nigger.
Mr Phillips has learned from UK Prime Minister Tony Blair's relationship with US President George W Bush that being another man's poodle certainly has its advantages. The fat cat here has taken his 30 pieces of silver and made off with it.
However, the real question with this article is who is the "Us" of its title?
Obviously, those racist critics of racism who judge themselves by their skin colour and allow (in the interests of equality) others to do likewise - thus exacerbating racial tensions between communities? (Tensions exacerbated because those behaving in this way have no other means of self-identification, so that the tension is really within themselves rather than between themselves and others.)
Alternatively, is it those who think they speak for Blacks just because They, Themselves, are so coloured? Aren't They falling into the same trap of assuming that only a Black can head the Commission for Racial Equality and its institutional successors? Isn’t it racist to assume Whites can’t understand and effectively fight racists? On the other hand, do those who make such insinuations really and truly believe that all whites are so racist that only legislation can be used to effectively punish them for their sins?
I think we should be told.
How disgustingly hypocritical to attack Whites for thinking in racist terms of a homogeneous “Them”, when Blacks are perfectly prepared to think in terms of a homogenous “Us”. The Commission for Racial Equality wasn’t established as a Black Man’s personal fiefdom against White Racism; it was established to combat all racists. Blacks forget this and make Their racism all the more obvious, thereby. It would have been more consistent with this principle if this article had been entitled: “Fat cat Trevor won't fight for racial equity”. However, one can’t expect Blacks to be any more consistent with the facts of reality than Whites are – can one?
Friday, 28 July 2006
Ruth Kelly wants Trevor Phillips because he is a White Stooge and will do what Whites want - willingly. He will ensure that the CEHR is completely ineffective – politically - as Whites wish it to be. Mr Phillips is unemployable otherwise.
This proves that working with Whites will only have the effect (which Whites want it to have) of making Blacks the political, cultural & commercial slaves of Whites. Lord Ousely himself is little better. A Black Man accepts a peerage from Whites can’t be all that keen on being Black for he will inevitably be led to feel that he should be a Grateful Nigger for such a dubious honour. That, after all, is the entire purpose of bestowing such honours upon Blacks in the first place.
The only rational way to deal with White Racism is to attack it from without not from within. Spending time with Whites will only taint Blacks with the stink of White Racism since racism is the most infectious mental-illness known to man. If Whites were as keen to lock up White Racists in secure mental-institutions for being the clear-&-present danger they are to others (as Whites are keen to lock up Blacks for being inappropriately Black) then the White Racism problem would never arise as often as it does.
The fact has to be faced – especially by Blacks - is that Trevor Phillips is a racist. He is a racist because he recognises - after working with Whites for an extended period - that Whites will always be racist and that nothing, therefore, can be done effectively about White Racism. His philosophy is therefore, in reality: If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.
Blacks need to realise that Whites aren’t going to invite them onto the high table without Blacks relinquishing claims to equality – the rest will only get the crumbs from this table, if anything. It’s time for Blacks to start going their own way in life and stop being poodles of the Whites – as current UK Prime Minister Tony Blair is poodle of current US President George Bush. Complaining about White Racism is never going to help.
Blacks must take effective action – if They truly wish for true equality - and this doesn’t mean joining the great Whitewashing White Bureaucracy which Blacks, themselves, admit only ever serves White Racist ends. How masochistic can you get?
Friday, 21 July 2006
Another Black Moron speaks her Empty Mind: ‘MS DYNAMITE claimed racist oldies are a write-off. It's the younger generations who must be educated’.
The obvious problem here is that these ‘oldies’ are emotionally attached to those “newies” she wishes to educate; that is, indoctrinate in the so-called philosophy of multiculturalism. How are the two generations to be separated? Perhaps the old racist-parents can be separated from their new anti-racist offspring in the passing of laws that enable social workers to take the children of White Racists into care? Alternatively, perhaps a simple crowbar would suffice?
As always, Blacks think They can change the world through political hallucinations like multiculturalism. They fail to see that life is like a relay race in that the older generation always passes on its values to the young: Impressionable minds become, in their turn, impressioning ones. This is why, for example, one tends to vote for the political ideology supported by one’s parents.
It is simply no use declaring the older generation to be write-offs and then hoping – without role models and/or a rational political philosophy – that the younger generation are simply going to adopt the new way of thinking-and-acting automatically. That would be rather too reminiscent of what the Nazis tried to do with Their young through the Hitler Youth. This was also tried in the sixties, and the hippies never changed the world for the better – and they won’t now. As history shows, the same ‘oldies’ Ms Blow Up claims are a write-off - in the absence of anything better or nearer - will influence the young.
Only the dead or the moribund are ever written off – the rest effect and affect their influence as Ms Blast attempts to do here. She may be ‘multi-award winning’ but obviously not for her brains nor her acceptance of the basic facts of objective reality. Like all megalomaniacs – the kind of characters actor Kevin Spacey specialises in, for example – she wants the world refashioned in her own image; the image of her own self-delusions, self-hypnosis and self-willed political somnambulism.
The truth is that this obsessive focus upon the future via the young of today is simply our way of avoiding the present. Particularly the present of whom we are ourselves. We thus tacitly admit that we cannot change ourselves and so our children must undertake this very necessary work for us – in our stead and by proxy – to make for our own deficiencies in this regard. They are to do what we ourselves have not the courage to do because we are cowards.
No wonder teenagers wonder why they should bother trying to be better than their parents when their parents are trying to live thorough their children! Such parents and such teachers are parasites!
How will our children achieve what we have failed to achieve if we have failed to achieve it? How will we be able to teach them to play pianos if we, ourselves, have not the first idea of scales? The teachers never tell us this, which is why most teachers can only teach (fuck all) while those who cannot teach do!
‘Many of the older generation were stuck in their ignorant ways and would not lose their racist attitudes, she said’. Exactly the same could be said for the experientially obtuse, ahistorically vapid and ignorant-of-reality stupidities of anti-racists like Ms Dynamite. What – exactly – is the difference between claiming that racists are leopards that never change their spots; and, White Racists claiming that Blacks are all the same and equally inferior to Whites? To claim that a whole class of people cannot change (because of how the person making the claim defines that class) is simply racism by another name. In this case, it is also the worst kind of ageism.
In truth, this line of pseudo-reasoning undermines the entire concept of anti-racism, as such, since if those who fit into the Racist class cannot change, then what hope has anti-racism got of achieving anything at all?
Oh boy and there’s worse: ‘[Ms Dynamite] said racism would be defeated by the young generations, but for their parents and grandparents it was “too late”’. This is the most ethically-disgusting trash Frank TALKER has read for years. A pathetic attempt to turn White Kids against Their White Parents simply for being White. This will lead to a lot of work for Black Psychiatrists in Their vain attempts to unpick why Whites are so racially screwed-up.
Imagine the outrage; picture the uproar if Whites declared that those Afro-Caribbean kids who are the offspring of welfare-dependent babyfathers should renounce their parents baleful influence and... Well, and what? Ms Explode offers no political follow-through here and simply offers a prescription for the complete undermining of White Culture. This would not be such a bad thing but two issues at least have to be faced. One, if Whites aren’t happy about this there will be a nasty, racist backlash; and, two, one should be honest that one is attempting to do just that - undermine. Frank TALKER is honest about his attempts to demoralise White Culture – by telling the truth about it, to it – and he hasn’t suffered any negative backlash. This is because he has learned to protect himself against such things – because he knows from experience what Whites are really like, underneath, when They think nobody’s looking. If Whites complain, Frank TALKER simply says that he was honest about his motives so Whites should’ve been more observant – as one is required to be when crossing the road, for example.
If White Kids do reject their antecedents where will They go – culturally - apart from the psychiatrists chair? It’s for certain that they won’t become Token Blacks to assuage the negative attitudes of Niggers With Attitude like Ms Detonate. After all, when Whites adopt Black Lifestyles, mannerisms and dress codes it is, for Them, merely a form of slumming among Their alleged inferiors.
‘I'm not here to tell those who are already ignorant and riddled with insecurity and self-hate to change their ways because, if I'm honest, I feel that for most of those that came before us it's already too late’. Who is ‘riddled with insecurity and self-hate’ – the speaker or their subject? ‘The star [told] the assembly: “It takes a very weak and ignorant person to generalise a whole entire people”. Does this proof of weakness and ignorance also include generalising a ‘whole entire’ age group?
‘She told Blink: 'At the end of the day I don't really feel [too much feeling, not enough thinking], especially in London, that we really have any excuse to be racist. We can't say "well, I haven't grown up around black, Asian", or whatever’. This proves Ms Wreck’s own ignorance of the nature of racism.
Racism is not the product of ignorance – as she points out in the pervious paragraph – but of self-hate. Therefore, the number of Blacks you know – or do not know - does not determine your racism or otherwise. Not only is she inconsistent here, but she also falls into the racist trap of thinking that because someone appears different, they are different and that therefore only first-hand experience with those you label different will remove this belief. Blacks and Whites have been intermingling for centuries – as proven by the number of half-caste children alive today – and nobody can demonstrate any lessening of racism in the world.
What Ms Destroy and her ilk never realise is that it’s the belief that someone is different which is the problem – not the talking with someone one has labelled different. It is the insecure need to categorise that causes problems, and the false categories this creates, not experience of difference. It is easy, after all, for anyone to understand a member of another race by the simple expedient of understanding oneself since, in essence, all human beings are identical. Even Blacks don’t understand this, obviously.
If there’s anything worse than a White Liberal Do-Gooder, it's a Black Redneck Bimbo. If Blacks really want to succeed, they should stop obsessing about White Racists and start focusing on the habits of industriousness, thriftiness, family solidarity and reverence for education. These play a far greater role in the success (or otherwise) of ethnic minorities than do civil-rights laws or majority prejudices.