Thursday, 27 April 2006

A caricature of free speech in the West - Nasser Amin's case

RESPONSE TO THE ABOVE ARTICLE:

free speech noun The right to express any opinion in public without censorship or restraint by the government.

Axiomatically, the problem with free speech is that we all want it for ourselves, but woe betide anyone who wants it for their selves – especially when they won’t agree with us!

Axiomatically, universities are no more bastions of free speech than the average UK public-house.

Axiomatically, racism has its fashions and, at the moment, the vogue is for traducing Muslims and besmirching Islam.

The liberty of the Press is the Palladium of all the civil, political and religious rights of an Englishman. Junius (fl. 1769–72). Pseudonym of English political writer. Dedicatory notice in The Letters of Junius (1772).
It amuses Frank TALKER to see that the BLINK Website – not known for its tolerance of free speech – should pretend to be much interested in the free speech of a Black but not that much in the free speech of Whites. Why the discrepancy?

The racist British National Party (BNP) is as entitled to free speech as much as anyone else, but The 1990 Trust doesn’t behave as though this is so. And thus they do not support the Voltairean proposition that one should fight to the death for the free-speech rights of others – no matter how much you might violently disagree with them. Even though they vainly struggle to pretend that they do.

Axiomatically, when you bite the hand that feeds you, do not be surprised if you go hungry. There’s no way that a state-funded educational institution is going to allow any member from among those who use its facilities to criticise those providing the funds. To believe otherwise is suicidal political naivety. The kind of disingenuousness that pervades this entire article.

When a man says that he is Jesus or Napoleon, or that the Martians are after him, or claims something else that seems outrageous to common sense, he is labelled psychotic and locked up in a madhouse. Freedom of speech is only for normal people. Thomas Szasz (born 1920), US psychiatrist. The Second Sin, “Schizophrenia” (1973).

The fact is that no-one will ever fight to the death to preserve the rights of others – especially when those rights are in direct opposition to not only one’s values but one’s ability to survive on this earth. If a Black supports a racist in spouting racism, then He clearly makes his own life that more difficult to the extent that he (masochistically) supports racial hate-speech. Blacks do Themselves no favours when They pretend to be morally superior to Whites in this rather feeble way; which is to say, quoting the rather idiotic and feeble-minded Voltaire.
Freedom of Speech:
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. Voltaire (1694–1778), French philosopher, author. Paraphrase of Voltaire’s sentiments in his Essay on Tolerance, as stated in: Evelyn Beatrice Hall, under the pseudonym S G Tallentyre, The Friends of Voltaire (1907). However, in February 1770, Voltaire wrote to M. le Riche: “Monsieur l’Abbé, I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write.”

Africa: the Chinese Takeaway

RESPONSE TO ABOVE ARTICLE:

As always, with this particular writer, one always hears how bullying and oppressive Whites are, but not a word on how desperate to be bullied and oppressed Blacks tend to be. Nor of the fact that Blacks are unable to renounce Their tribalism while also not being able to repeat the technological nor political achievements of the West. Africa is a basket-case because of this and because most Africans possess a stone-age mentality coupled with the benefits of modern living that had to be purchased from the West because they couldn’t make them at home.

Blacks have a personality disorder because They want the advantages of modernism, but Their cultures tend not to be able to live with the inevitable consequences of such. They live in cultures that are simultaneously trying to retain the cultural traditions of the past while only feebly understanding what actions are necessary to ensure a sustainable future.

This is true in every country in the world. But on the continent of Africa the problem is writ large because cultural and political change is required much faster than it was in the West – which had centuries to evolve after the Industrial Revolution.

‘CHINESE PRESIDENT Hu Jintao is touring Africa, but is the continent being stripped of its natural resources to fuel China’s economic boom?’ In order to create wealth, resources must be exploited. There is no talk here of colonial theft, only of mutual trade to mutual advantage. Therefore, how else can Africa enrich itself? An economic illiterate poses the question!

I do not approve of anything that tampers with natural ignorance. Ignorance is like a delicate exotic fruit; touch it and the bloom is gone. Oscar Wilde (1854–1900), Anglo-Irish playwright, author. Lady Bracknell, in The Importance of Being Earnest, act one.

The fact is that anyone who allows themselves to be exploited deserves to be exploited since the experience is designed to teach lessons – as with all experience, otherwise what would be the point of experience? So long as African nations strike a mutually-beneficial deal with the Chinese there’s no ethical problem presented here, unless – as the author implies – the problem is with the very nature of capitalism, itself? However, there is no other means of generating wealth and sustaining economic growth other than capitalism so such a problem doesn’t really exist. The fear is that Blacks are innocents abroad who will be ripped-off by those more astute than Themselves. They will be ripped off, but these are learning experiences that will make Blacks as astute as everyone else and help end the endemic culture of dependence on foreign aid and bob Geldof-style racially-motivated so-called charity.

If, David Nyekorach-Matsanga (head of UK-based think-tank Africa Strategy) suggests, ‘terms of trade were unfair to Africa’, whose fault would that be but the Africans for not negotiating better deals? The Chinese are under no ethical obligation to pay more for African resources than they are worth to them or to bend over backwards to enrich Africans. The rule of business is that you want the best deal for yourself, not for the other guy. China can never be seen as being a neo-colonial power, therefore, unless it, for example, invades with military force.

Better be ignorant of a matter than half know it. Publilius Syrus (1st century BC), Roman writer of mimes. Sententiae, number 865.

When Whites bought Manhattan from the Red Indians for next-to-nothing this was only from the Whites’ point-of-view. To the Indians the baubles and trinkets they were paid were of inestimable value otherwise the trade would not have been made. To assume otherwise is to play the age-old White Racist Game of assuming that anyone who isn’t White is intellectually inferior. And that Whites are so superior in Their cunning that They will always find a way to screw you financially – which you can do nothing about. Believe that and you’re as inferior as the average White Racist is in His inherent cultural ethnocentrism!

If the Indians felt they were cheated, then that’s their lookout – they weren’t forced into the deal and, so, could’ve backed out. If China wants to impose political strings (such as not recognising Taiwan’s independence) to these deals, they can; those they deal with can easily back out of such deals if they’re not to their liking. They always have that choice.

In business, nothing is personal; it’s purely fiscal. Shoppers, for example, want the lowest prices and they don’t really care about sweatshop labour or so-called Fairtrade. Only those with more money than sense seek to buy off their guilt-ridden consciences by spending more for something that they could easily obtain for less. (These people are guilt-ridden because they know they achieved their affluence by hindering others – Blacks, Women, the Poor, etc – not buy any especial talent on their part. It’s guilt money that proves they have some difficulty looking themselves in the mirror every morning.)

There is natural ignorance and there is artificial ignorance. I should say at the present moment the artificial ignorance is about eighty-five per cent. Ezra Pound (1885–1972), US poet, critic. Interview in Writers at Work (Second Series, edited by George Plimpton, 1963).

‘Today Bob Geldof urged the West to speed up efforts to eradicate poverty before Beijing takes the initiative.’ Of course, a racist like Mr Geldof would present such urgings: It tarnishes his crown as the would-be saviour of Africa if the Chinks get there first with their inscrutable semi-capitalism! In truth, anything that enriches Africans, especially if it doesn’t involve Whites, is to be welcomed because of the racist emotional-baggage Whites carry around with Them wherever They go.

‘The newly emerging Asian superpower of 1.3 billion people, a quarter of the world’s population, is poised to overtake Britain as the fourth-biggest economy by the end of 2006’. As a point of fact, China did this a month ago. Britain is now in fifth place. This statement is made in the same tone-of-voice as Whites Against Darkie Immigration (WADI) use when millions and millions of the Black Bastards are swamping Britain. Why are we so frightened of Asians (whoops, sorry, that should be Orientals – it’s less confusing)? Perhaps it’s because we know we can’t compete with them in many economic areas – hence their increasing wealth. Along with the implications of this for our sense of inherent superiority to people who must be inferior because their skin is a different colour. What’s always missed is that they’re much more reproductively successful than we are because there are so many of the little buggers! According to Darwin this means they are, therefore, more fit to survive, so Whites can’t really complain now, can They?

Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity. Martin Luther King, Jr (1929–1968), US clergyman, civil rights leader. Strength to Love, part four, chapter three (1963).

‘China has been accused of going on an oil safari with billion-dollar deals with Nigeria, Sudan and Angola, in addition to mineral mining and timber logging’. Why use the word ‘accused’ if the Chinese have committed no crime? Don’t you like the yellow-skinned devils? Have the Chinese used military force to achieve Their aims as Whites usually do? Blacks can’t have it both ways here. If the slitty-eyed ones want to do BUSINESS with Blacks then they must be ethically-superior to Whites because Whites have demonstrated throughput their short history that They prefer the use of FORCE rather than trade.

‘...China is busy hovering (Sic) up Africa’s oil and other natural resources...’ Again, this is racist because the word Buying is substituted with Hoovering. The writer is obviously a Marxist-Leninist with no idea of how free markets actually work. The writer never explains why China should not be trading with Africa, unless it’s because he just doesn’t like short, yellow-skinned people with slanty eyes.

Hide our ignorance as we will, an evening of wine soon reveals it. Heraclitus (circa 535–circa 475 BC), Greek philosopher. Herakleitos and Diogenes, fragment 53, part one (translated by Guy Davenport, 1976).

‘With Chinese businesses way more efficient than African textile factories, many businesses in South Africa, Ghana and other states have closed with thousands of jobs losses’. More Marxist-Leninist garbage. This is how free markets work. Less efficient businesses lose out to ones that are more efficient: That’s how consumers are continually benefited with ever-lowering prices. And the lower the price the more the poor are benefited because they are then able to make their meagre capital go further. (Those who lose their jobs must seek other employment in those expanding fields made possible by the capitalist trade with China.) Communists seem to think that keeping the price of goods artificially inflated somehow benefits poor people. I’d like them to explain how they come to such a bizarre conclusion.

‘Another complaint against China is its importation of labour rather than developing African skills’. China is under no obligation to develop ‘African skills’ – that’s the job of the Africans themselves. Are Africans always going to be on the lookout for handouts from their betters; or are they going to start standing on their own two feet like real men with real testicles between their legs? It’s obvious that these complaints come from those who want Africa to always be poverty-stricken so that they can use this poverty to berate White neo-colonial racism rather than the Africans themselves for their fecklessness. (It also allows such complainants to appear to be compassionate and altruistic when they pretend to step in to alleviate problems that they secretly want to perpetuate so that they can perpetually step in to alleviate such problems.) The Chinese are being very sensible here because they possess more of the skilled workers they need who speak Chinese and are probably cheaper to employ in order to bring such projects to completion themselves. They don’t want the unnecessary extra expense of training people they simply choose not to employ. To assume otherwise is to assume Blacks MUST be employed regardless of Their qualifications for the jobs that need doing! Talk about assuming the world owes Blacks a loving! I ask you!

Ignorance is the mother of devotion. Dean Henry Cole (1500–1580), English prelate. Disputation with the Papists at Westminster, 31 March 1559.

‘The Chinese are not shy in playing the anti-colonialist card’. This is meaningless since you play the cards you have in order to win the game you’re playing. Everyone of sense does this because it makes no sense not to. To do otherwise is simply to deliberately and volitionally lose the game - in which case why play the game in the first place? (It’s not the taking part; it’s the winning.) It also makes a useful counterbalance to the fact that Western Whites aren’t shy in using the colonialist card.

‘Esther Stanford, convener of the Forum of Afrikan (Sic) Descendents Against Racism, said: “This is a development that we must watch with keen eyes. Ultimately we do not want to exchange one oppressor with another”’. These are the blatherings of a paranoid/schizophrenic. Where is the oppression involved in doing deals with others? No-one’s being forced to engage in these deals! This is thinly-disguised anti-capitalist hogwash.

Ignorance is not innocence but sin. Robert Browning (1812–1989), English poet. The Inn Album, canto five.

This moron goes on: ‘She said there were many potential advantages to China’s involvement in the continent but the terms of trade must be determined by African leaders’. No, the terms of trade are dictated by mutual agreement not by one side. This bitch is against exploitation in one breath while in the next she implies that Africans must only engage in one-sided commercial deals!

‘Experts say Africa is grown-up enough to be aware of potential pitfalls in its relationship with China, but concerns remain that patterns of exploitation by the West could be repeated from the East’. Entirely correct! Nevertheless, exploitation only ever really and truly works if those being exploited have a deep-seated and masochistic need to be exploited.

The ground for taking ignorance to be restrictive of freedom is that it causes people to make choices which they would not have made if they had seen what the realization of their choices involved. A J Ayer [Sir Alfred] (1910–1989), British philosopher. The Meaning of Life and Other Essays, “The Concept of Freedom” (1990).

The sheer, volitional ignorance of how the world works that his article demonstrates just beggars the imagination. And I’m quite imaginative!

Legal eagles grounded

RESPONSE TO ABOVE ARTICLE:

Naive as always.

‘...[C]ivil servants [have been ordered] to clear the way for public authorities to prevent legal firms from getting lucrative work if they do not publish figures on workforce diversity’. This will achieve little except reveal more clearly how racist White Firms tend to be: This we already know. If it doesn’t convince White Firms that it’s best for Them to employ on merit rather than skin colour, then what’s the point?

Because the revelations as to the institutional racism within the UK Police Service have done nothing whatsoever to root out racism in the UK police, it’s impossible to see how ordering the publication of workforce diversity statistics will make any difference. Especially when one considers that the UK civil service is also held back by profound institutional racism. Maybe Blacks think that it takes a racist to catch a racist? In truth, it takes a racist to protect a racist.

‘Diversity is now very much a mainstream issue and legal firms are beginning to understand they need to make this a priority or ultimately it will effect their bottom line’. No company has a truly transparent recruitment practice because successful firms – not unnaturally – assume that if they are successful, they merely need to employ people like themselves, from the same backgrounds, schools, social class, etc. They assume that they merely need to proceed as they always have. That they are wrong in such assumptions - because of the basic fact that markets change – doesn’t matter to such people because we all tend to assume that in the long run we’re all dead. In which case why change the habits of a (racist) lifetime?

In the world of work, few care about the ‘bottom line’ more than their status. This means creating whole classes of people – the poor, women, the disabled, Blacks, etc – who are overtly or covertly excluded from the high table precisely to maintain such a false and inflated sense of status. Status, by its nature, is not based on whom one includes, but upon whom one excludes. Who is going to employ someone who is cleverer than they themselves are without running the risk that that other person will someday deprive them of their job because they end-up being able to do it better than the employer? The blow to the Insecure White Ego would be too much to bear and is, therefore, rigorously avoided.

Status is why ‘resistance to change’ isn’t based on ignorance – it never is. It’s based upon a clear view that those groups who can prove that they’re just as valid as any other represent an economic threat to those groups who think they’re superior.

It’s always terribly ignorant to claim that your enemies are ignorant because you run the very real risk of indulging in the very same demonising and pathologising that they practice in your direction. Was it ever thus? Racists know exactly what they’re doing (convincing others that they’re inferior without evidence or proof) otherwise, they wouldn’t be so successful at doing it. Only truly ignorant people fail at the game of life. And it does tend to be ignorant Blacks who fail as has been demonstrated by countless statistics proving Black failure in such fields as education and employment, for example.

Blacks need to think a bit more carefully about being the pot calling the kettle black.

Whites don’t care if Their racism undermines respect for the legal profession because Whites have no respect for Blacks. Whites respond to this (non-)danger by such things as doing Their best to ensure that more Blacks are sent to prison as a proportion of the population than Whites. Along with other attempts at demonising Blacks such as labelling Them as potential terrorists (in our midsts) and locking Them up in mental institutions because Their public behaviour is different from Whites.

Whites are happy to increase a sense of social exclusion among Blacks because Whites expect that this will result in a violent response from Blacks; leading Whites to call for increasingly draconian legal measures to be taken against Blacks. A self-fulfilling prophecy as to the nature of Black cultural inferiority when these Blacks can’t control Themselves and behave like civilised (ie, White) people. This is the age-old prophecy always practised by those who hate you made true by those who fall into its net.

The fact is that the legal profession is one of the institutional arms of the country specifically designed to foster a disrespect against the White Legal System within Blacks. This can later be used against those same Blacks. And is deliberately designed to create the social exclusion that Whites can use to pretend to Themselves that Blacks are inferior because Blacks can’t seem to make Their own way in the world.

‘Michael Webster, a director of the Black Solicitors Network and editor of the 2006 Diversity League report, told Blink that the profession had no choice but to face the reality of multi-racial Britain’. Mr Webster doesn’t explain why the White Legal Profession has to do any such thing; especially given the fact that few Whites - in Their heart-of-hearts - really believe in a ‘multi-racial Britain’.

The fact is that racism isn’t everyone’s business, it’s White Racists’ Business – it’s up to racists to effectively deal with the racism in Their own hearts. All that Blacks have to do is to protect Themselves from such racism and to punish those who practice it. To claim otherwise is to claim that Blacks need to work together with Their would-be oppressors in the fight against racists. Obviously, White Racists are not going to do this since They would then have to be fighting Themselves. This, racists are already doing by virtue of being racist since racism is, as this article points out, a classic example of a self-inflicted wound. For example, if a Black could cure cancer, this would be less likely to happen if Blacks are denied the requisite educational opportunities. Such a view ties Blacks to those who would wish Them ill which cannot possibly do Blacks any good.

It’s clear, therefore, that Blacks are masochistically wedded to White Racism because it provides Blacks with an excuse for Their cultural failings: Blame it all on Barbylarn.

The ideas expressed in this article deal with White Behaviour towards Blacks but without any means of ensuring that this deals with Their attitudes.

The only real solution here is for Blacks to establish Their own legal firms and advertise as Black Legal Firms to show that Blacks are more likely to get justice than They would from White Legal Firms. Such organisations wouldn’t need to exclude Whites because it’s very unlikely Whites will seek the services of a Black lawyer.

Come to that, it amazes me that Blacks don’t establish trust funds precisely to encourage Blacks - by paying grants to Them – to do just this. The fact that Whites don’t do this just goes to show how little real commitment They have to the issues outlined above.

Proud brothas and sistas show their strength

RESPONSE TO ABOVE ARTICLE:

(First of all, just to get this off my chest. There’s nothing Frank TALKER hates more than this noble language being assailed by pointless mispellings like brothas and sistas - and so does my spellchecker. There’s no need whatsoever for these new spellings so what - exactly - is their purpose? It’s the same childish growing pains girls often go through when they hit adolescence and decide to change the spellings of their names! Politics is not a game for children, so please grow up, Blacks.)

The rest of this article doesn’t get that much better.

‘TOGETHER WE'RE STRONGER’. In reality, a chain is only as strong as its weakest link. This means that unity attracts weak people who can only feel a (false) sense of self-esteem by congregating with others. One sees this with football hooligans, notice, who’re cowards alone; the bravest oft he brave together. When was the last time you saw a lone football hooligan cutting-up rough?

‘PROUD (People from diverse Racial Origins Uniting the Department)’. Well, this labels every single person in the country, doesn’t it? And yet this organisation is described as ‘a support network for Black and ethnic minority staff working at the department for constitutional affairs’. Whites are also of diverse origins, are They not? Was this acronym invented simply for the purposes of a clever acronym? I think we should be told!

What follows is the usual rubbish you hear from Whinging Blacks:

‘...[D]iscrimination occurred in many forms and guises and took away people's confidence and self-worth, respecting no one’. Funny how history is replete with examples of people overcoming such obstacles as discrimination to become successful against all the odds, isn’t it? The fact is that if you’re held back by discrimination then you have no self-confidence and self-worth to begin with and the only pride you have is in the loudness of your self-pitying whining. Haven’t you Black Bastards ever heard of Robert the Bruce? If at first you don’t succeed... if you can’t find any suitable Black role models then use White ones; Whites have plenty to go around and certainly more than They need.

The fact is that self-respect comes not from complaining about discrimination and demanding that it be given you without any necessary work, but from overcoming it.

‘If unchallenged, it impacted hard on the lives of the people at the receiving end, their families, and their working environment’. Obviously, so why aren’t you Blacks challenging it, then, rather than just whining?

‘...PROUD and other corporate staff networks existed to help the department, to make life better for everyone’. If you waste your time and energy helping strangers, then where are you going to obtain these qualities to help yourself? Let’s have some enlightened self-interest here, shall we, otherwise you’re not challenging discrimination. You’re trying to get those discriminating against you to love you because you’re frightened that if you do effectively challenge their discrimination you’d discover they had no intention of loving you. And, in fact, will even use fatal violence against you to continue discriminating against you. Altruism - pacifism - is simply the philosophy of cowards.

‘People do need support’. Only weak people need support. ‘I want people to feel free and talk about their experiences’. This is arrogant nonsense from someone who wants to alter people feelings about themselves - even psychotherapists aren’t trying to do this. This is really an attempt at totalitarian control of the weak - control with a smile on its face. However, the basic problem here is that talking about experiences is only of value if you’ve properly understood them. This article proves that Blacks have a long way to go in this regard such that such talk amounts to nothing more than a circle jerk.

‘Valerie Willer told delegates she came from a strong family of Black women and had always been encouraged to do anything she wanted to, adding: "I did not have a to deal with any form of harassment or discrimination".’ Yippee! Someone who’s proud of what she hasn’t done! Perhaps she’d like to tell us what she has don that she’s proud of since it’s impossible to be proud of a non-achievement!?

‘Her advice to delegates was to obtain as much knowledge about their field as they could, go on training courses and set personal goals’. Useless advice because what really needs to be done is to understand how subjective prejudice actually works. Especially because many educated Blacks can’t find jobs no matter how “expert” in Their fields They are! Without such a critical appreciation, all education is wasted.

The one fully-correct statement is that racism is “carefully taught”. (Whites groom Their children as paedophiles groom theirs.) But this is not followed-up with any means of challenging such teaching effectively. ‘Everybody has responsibility to do something about racism’. Great! How are you going to convince racists of this?

The entire tenor of this piece is that Blacks need mollycoddling because They have even more fragile egos than the Average White Racist (the only true equality between both groups). Blacks need an emotional crutch like PROUD like They need a hole in the head.

Proud brothas and sistas show their weakness.

Wednesday, 12 April 2006

Your Community Needs You

What is the point of Blacks voting in an election that Whites will always win so long as Whites remain the overwhelming majority?

This piece makes the usual mistakes Blacks always make; primarily, in not specifying what changes are required and in what way, precisely, any change will benefit Blacks. Still, doing something is always better than doing nothing. At least it uses-up unused energy and time that could be better spent doing more productive things – if only we could find more productive things to do. And this is the issue here; the lack of courage and insight into UK culture such that few can ever see clearly what actions would have the most impact on self and the world.

‘...[T]he trendsetting organisers have reclaimed the Lord Kitchener iconic symbol used to sign-up soldiers during World War One’. Odd that this should be thought worthy of praise since the original was used to convince millions of naive young men that their lives would be well-spent walking upright into German machine bullets! (Dolce et decorum est pro patria mori)

The plain fact is that representation is irrelevant if the vast majority of Whites hate you for being black. This hate will not diminish simply because all eligible Blacks are voting. No one who thinks it will, understands human emotions – especially the more neurotically-charged ones.

Similar campaigns were tried in the United States and still Blacks claim to need Positive Discrimination to achieve certain of Their goals: Representation made no difference. What next? Whites with one hand tied behind Their backs to create a level racial playing-field?

Zambian-born dipstick Hil St. Soul sez: 'I feel it’s important that our voice is heard as it’s the only way we can implement change and improve the quality of our lives’. Where is the evidence for this gibbering monkey-talk? I feel Blacks ought to get Their heads from out of Their arses first before They start talking about changing things around here. How – exactly – do Blacks think They’re going to move Entrenched White Values that proclaim that only Whites make the decisions that effect Them? Remember the Midlothian Question? It is a racist question, yet Blacks can’t see this. If, in a United Kingdom, Scots can’t make decisions that only effects the English, then why bother having a United Kingdom? This is why Whites are perfectly entitled to make decisions that effect Blacks unless Blacks are preaching some form of extreme racial segregation – a racial devolution, if you will!

Mr Stevenson sez: 'If we do not entice all marginalised groups into the political process then the extremist groups will’. How typical of Blacks: Engage in a pointl4ess activity simply to stop other negative people from winning! Pathetic. If you think you’re marginalised, then you are – deservedly so.

'To do nothing is not an option’. In truth, doing nothing is not possible – except to a corpse. This is Blackspeak for “If you don’t do what we say and what we agree with then you’re effectively doing nothing”. ‘Inclusion in the political process will give these disaffected young people a sense of purpose, pride and belonging’. Really? By what mysterious process will it do this, pray? If you want a sense of purpose – get a job. If you want a sense of pride – shower every day and wear clean clothes. If you want to belong to a racist culture – see a psychiatrist (immediately)!

'Exclusion from this [democratic] process will do the opposite and will be to the detriment of everyone.' How will Blacks not getting involved in the democratic process deleteriously effect Whites, exactly?

The reason so many Blacks don’t vote is because They’re realistic enough to know it makes no difference to Their lives. And They’re not going to waste the energy and time doing something that helps Them not a jot.

'Black young people need to be active democrats if issues such as raising educational achievement, reducing unemployment and defeating the racist BNP are to be tackled locally’. This means that the mental illness of racism in White Teachers who refuse to educate Blacks as well as within White Employers who refuse to employ Blacks can be dealt with by democracy! How? Aren’t psychiatric issues best dealt with by psychiatrists? In a democracy, aren’t Whites free to be racist? Is that not Their democratic right? Or is it only Blacks who have democratic rights?

The fact is that the country is run by civil servants – not by politicians. Therefore, it would be better to get your Black Brats through the competitive civil service examinations than anything else would. Either that, or you should teach your little picaninies some entrepreneurial flair because Whites will then have to come calling Black Employers for jobs – and They will not like that, at all!

FOR YOUR RACIALLY-MOTIVATED AMUSEMENT

My Adopted Daughter Is The Most Beautiful Child In The Third World

Wednesday, 5 April 2006

Our Father, who art in Downing Street...

‘The danger, acknowledged by leading pastors, is that Black-majority churches could be viewed on the streets and the pews as being manipulated by a wilting government desperate for new friends’.

No. The danger is that Whites will fear that if blacks achieve any kind of political power They will pass laws that enable Blacks to get Their revenge on Whites for centuries of White Race Hatred. This fear will produce much more overt White Racism than we have now with all the street warfare that usually arises from white phobias about Blacks. We already see this in the current backlash against political correctness because – although Whites invented political correctness – They resent it because it means that Whites have to be very careful what They say in a way that Blacks don’t. In other words, political correctness is just another form of racial discrimination.

Whites can only hope that Blacks are so desperate for the crumbs for the White Man’s High Table that They can be appeased with larger rather than smaller crumbs. However, since White Culture is essentially empty (after the failure of its only hope, the British Empire) a larger percentage of nothing is still nothing.

‘Bishop John Francis, leader of Ruach ministries, added: 'We're not telling people who to vote for, that's not my responsibility’. Yes, but you are telling them to vote – as such - which IS still telling them what to do. You refuse to accept that not voting is a perfectly valid political choice; while never explaining why they should. The central flaw of democracy and democrats is their unwillingness to accept that those who don’t vote are still voting – against democracy. In any democracy, it’s still possible to vote for another form of government as the racist and undemocratic British National Party (BNP) proves. (Incidentally, this is why the BNP is so politically important because it reminds us of this essential fact; that we do rather tend to want to forget.) You also don’t say why anyone should vote, especially when this has no positive impact on race relations in a majority-white demos; which is precisely why Blacks voting is a waste of time.

‘Baroness Amos said: 'It's an opportunity for government to listen to what the Black-majority church is saying and be critical friends of government in a two-way conversation’. Since when have Whites ever been involved in a ‘two-way conversation’ with Blacks? This woman is either a nidiot or wilfully knave. The fact is that Whites can just as easily enter such (pretend) conversations as They can just as easily withdraw from them. Whites can’t see how such withdrawal effects Them negatively either way, so why should They care either way? This proves there’s no incentive for Whites to engage in any kind of conversation with Blacks – ‘two-way’ or otherwise.

As always, the fundamental issue in all politics is cui bono?

There is no benefit here for Blacks because White Culture is empty without a racist basis. The benefit is all for Whites because such a racial (& ultimately racist) rapprochement helps Them pretend to Themselves that Their culture is worthwhile because Blacks want so obviously to be not only accepted by Whites, but to become like Them. This is where the inequity in the proposed relationship between black & white lies and always will lie.

Monday, 3 April 2006

A sea of white faces

RESPONSE TO ABOVE ARTICLE:

‘Freedom of _expression is the right to offend (Sic)’.

This is a typical expression of White Intolerance.

White Culture is decadent and doesn’t practice nor understand concepts like civility and courtesy. It doesn’t have to because It knows that Its racism makes Whites the most unpopular race on earth and, that being so, there’s no point in being civil to those who don’t (but should?) worship Them.

There are two species of Man to a White: Themselves and Everybody Else.

Such intolerance means that photographs of stiff cocks can be plastered all over public billboards and that is acceptable to these idiots.

But woe betide any Muslim who wishes to express the entirely reasonable view that homosexuality is wrong and a sexual aberration. Such a view would obviously be offensive to the same poufs that think it’s OK to offend Islamists.

Whites believe that freedom of speech is the right to offend non-Whites, but not the other way around.

Stop and search stats show the government is failing to tackle racism

RESPONSE TO THE ABOVE PRESS RELEASE:

‘The 1990 Trust believes the stop and search and criminal justice system figures released today show the “justice gap” between Black and White people is increasing’. Obviously, Whites don’t want Blacks to swamp Their country - this is why Whites instituted immigration controls for Blacks in the first place.

‘From stop and search, to arrests, cautions, convictions and the prison population: the trends are moving in the wrong direction’. Wrong for Blacks but not for Whites. You Blacks need to realise that Whites aren’t going to treat you fairly unless there is a benefit to Them. As of this writing, neither Black nor White has ever come up with a positive benefit in renouncing racism. So these trends are moving in the right direction insofar as the majority of the population of a democratic country are concerned. Democracy, after all, will always support racism so long as the majority of the population remains racist. It could not be any other way.

In any case, given the institutionally racist nature of White Culture there can never be a diminution in the racism of Police Officers because the pool of potential recruits is inherently racist. If you were rid of all the racist Police Officers and stopped recruiting racists, the UK Police Service would be decimated.

‘Equality should be at the heart of government policy’. Why? How does this benefit Whites? ‘We’ve had more than enough rhetoric over the past few years’. If Blacks understand that Whitespeak about race is no more than ‘rhetoric’ (ie, insincere) why did Blacks ever listen to Whitespeakers. ‘These new figures show, once again, that the government is failing to put fine words into action’. Of course; that’s what’s meant by empty rhetoric! What else would you expect from Whites - meaningful rhetoric?

Blacks have yet to understand that politicians can change nothing – politicians can only endeavour to conceal their inabilities in this regard by quoting rhetorical statistics show that change is possible – through a mystical belief in statistics. Outside of technological progress, all that statistics ever show is that the more things change; the more they remain the same. And we all know this, secretly – as do politicians – so all we’re doing when we condemn politicians is scapegoat them for our own political failings and our own refusal to face political reality.

‘As we approach the 25th anniversary of the Brixton riots it is fashionable for authorities to claim how far policing and criminal justice has come’. Of course, this is merely a fashion for claiming that Black Experience is of less value than White Experience because those making such claims are racists. That is, Whites claiming to have changed Their negative attitudes to Blacks without ever offering any proof. Whites are simply claiming here that the racism They don’t see - and that which They choose to turn a blind eye to - doesn’t exist. ‘On the surface many improvement have been made - we no longer have the “Sus Laws”’ (Sic). Nonsense, of course. We have Stop-&-Search which is just as bad because it allows racist Police Officers to vent their racism with the laws arms around them.

‘After nearly nine years Labour government we expected more to be done to tackle the persistent discrimination and unequal outcomes for Black people in Britain’ (Sic). Why did you expect this - because of the rhetoric you referred to earlier which you label as rhetoric because you regard it as insincere? Are you now regretful to have voted for White Politicians who lied to you about Their commitment to Blacks? You should have been more pragmatic and less inclined to believe White Propaganda about how wonderful They are in being able to transform from an essentially racist culture to an essentially pro-diversity one. There is no evidence that this transformation has ever nor will ever take place – there never can be such evidence because society doesn’t exist and no-one can really know what others think about them.

It’s time to face this simple fact, leave Whites behind and stop voting for Them. Indeed, it’s time to stop taking part in a discredited parliamentary-system for the simple reason that a minority can never have much sway within such a system - even under proportional representation.

Time to stop wasting your own time waiting for leopards to change their spots. Blacks lack courage, in this regard, so will always be treated as inferior because They actually are.

Do you really think Whites are waiting to be accepted by Blacks? Of course not! Whites would like you to accept Their inherent superiority but you obviously won’t because Whites are racist. That’s the basic reason Whites hate Blacks because Blacks – unsurprisingly – don’t appreciate White Racism. The only Choice Whites are prepared to offer you is the one where BLACKS accept that Whites are the best, then Whites will stop being overtly racist. This is emotional blackmail, of course, but since Whites can’t prove Their genetic superiority - They can only posit it without evidence - it’s all They have left to beat Blacks about the head and neck with.

‘Today’s criminal justice statistics are a reminder of how far we’ve got to go, and how little we’ve come’. You’ve got nowhere to go since you will never be accepted as British. Stop relying on Whites to accept you and start accepting yourself. It’s because you haven’t done this that you’ve achieved so little – as will your children who come after you.

Christopher Alder, victim of 'unwitting racism'

RESPONSE TO ABOVE ARTICLE:

No matter what the police say about their non-existent efforts to remove racism from their ranks, the fact is that regularly-occurring incidents such as this prove that the police will always be racist so long as White Culture is.

Given the institutionally racist nature of White Culture there can never be a diminution in the racism of Police Officers because the pool of potential recruits is inherently racist. If you were rid of all the racist Police Officers and stopped recruiting racists, the UK Police Service would be decimated.

The fact that no police officer was willing to come forward to blow the whistles on his colleagues proves that White Police Officers are perfectly happy working for a racist organisation and tacitly or overtly approve of such behaviours. Whites claim to want to learn the lessons from Their racism but Their only real goal is to learn how to more effectively conceal Their inbred hatred of Blacks. This is proven by the fact that whenever White Police Officers are exposed as racists, Their colleagues join forces to cover-up rather than to help in eradicating racism – with the connivance of senior officers.

When a BBC journalist exposed police racism at the training stage recently he was arrested rather than thanked for doing the job that the police themselves should have been doing. This proves the UK Police Service deliberately wishes to remain racist and will spend more time vetting recruits for journalism credentials rather than racist attitudes.

It’s also worth noting that when Whites are caught on camera behaving in a racist fashion, They are much more likely to get away with it than a Black because it’s Whites who decide what the video images mean. Whites decide that Whites Behaving Badly is not a reflection upon all Whites; Blacks Behaving Badly is just what you’d expect from “Coloureds”.

Here endeth the lessons to be learned form this incident, except that: “Unwitting racism” is still racism!

(Qualifying the verb with "unwitting" is merely a Cheap White Attempt to distract attention from the "racism"; while trying desperately to excuse the racism because one is allegedly unaware of being a racist. And yet, every man truly knows where his own shoes pinch. [As paedophiles know that children aren't "up for it"; as rapists know that women don't really want to be forcibly raped; etc.] "Unwitting" is never a justification for "racism" but an explanation of the fact that Whites are so racist that They are barely aware that They are. That Their racism is so widespread and so well-known to Them that, like mobile phones, one becomes unaware of them because of their [& its] very ubiquity.)

About Us:

My photo

Frank TALKER - Truth-Teller