Thursday, 22 June 2006

Blears admits voters turn to BNP

RESPONSE TO ABOVE ARTICLE:

‘Labour Party chairman Hazel Blears says the British National Party made gains in May's local elections because voters felt ignored by mainstream politicians’. Whites are amazing, aren’t They?

The real reason the British National Party (BNP) made such gains is because their voters are racist. It is as simple as that.

The increasing success of racist parties like the British National Party (BNP) is now increasingly frightening mainstream White Politicians. They know They will have to mimic racist policies even more than They currently do in order to get the votes that the mainstream parties are now haemorrhaging to presently-marginal political parties. This is the truth underlying the ‘major concern’ of which Ms Blears so dishonestly speaks.

Ms Blears elaborates upon her Escapist White Fantasising: ‘Extremist politics flourishes where mainstream politics leaves a vacuum’. The fact is that mainstream politics has always been a vacuum. The difference now is that there are many more Blacks than there used to be in the United Kingdom and this gives Whites the required set of scapegoats to blame Their endemic economic failures upon.

Consider: There are 1,500,000 foreign workers living in the UK now. This almost exactly matches the current unemployment rate of 1,400,000. In other words, these new migrants take-up-the-slack that the native population is unwilling to fill; thereby, ensuring that those unemployed remain unemployed since their services are now that much less likely to be required. (It also shows that immigrants tend to be harder working than the indigenous population because of their inherent desire to succeed. This is demonstrated by their uprooting themselves from their own native soil to live in the nationalistically-hostile environment of the UK.)

The vacuum at the heart of UK politics lies in the fact that no alleged social problems ever get solved. This is because politicians are actually powerless to change anything. They only talk about change to provide themselves with jobs-for-life – and the success of their careers is not measured in terms of achievement but in terms of verbal commitment to achievement. In other words, they are evaluated in terms of trying – not doing.

Neither poverty, economic decline, crime, racism, misogyny, etc have ever been successfully tackled. This has meant that politicians have had to create another alleged war – this time upon the terrorism that Whites Themselves have created – in order to galvanise the public into working towards a common goal. This is a vain attempt to resurrect the wartime spirit that supposedly defeated Hitler. (In truth, Hitler was a masochistic nihilist who ultimately defeated himself by over-reaching ambition for self-destruction. A wartime spirit among the British is just the way that Brits love to flatter Themselves: It has nothing to do with reality.) The problem with this is that it stokes the very racism (against Muslims, specifically) that the very same racist politicians now decry! Stupit iriots! This is the true meaning behind Ms Blears statement that ‘[a]ll parties must take the responsibility for this’. She tacitly recognises that Whites are to blame. Not only for the improved electoral showing of the BNP, but also the racist War on Terror and the profound inability of politicians to solve genuine political problems in a country still mourning the loss of its Empire. And crying over spilt milk, in this Characteristic White Way, proves that racism is the only way Whites can conceive of living in the world with the 75% of the world’s population whom are irretrievably Black.

Ms Blears reference to ‘estates’ proves her inane belief that only the lower classes are prone to racism. This clearly implies that she – and her kind - are not. This also proves that Whites still cling to Their economically indefensible and Pyrrhically-inflexible class system. (Indeed, any successfully-applied racist system is always a Pyrrhic victory for racists; compare with the Holocaust.)

‘The BNP could, however, be "turned back" and "driven out" through better organisation and by educating people about what the party stood for, she said’. This is errant nonsense: The BNP are an irrelevancy! The issue here is that the United Kingdom has lost its political way since 1945. This is reflected in the fact that UK politics is now a ‘vacuum’ into which nihilists - like racists, environmentalists, anti-globalists, etc – can pour their misanthropic poison. Note that all such groups are essentially anti-Man – as the morbidly-inclined and death-worshipping communists were before them.

‘Ms Blears also insisted most voters did not like what the BNP stood for, arguing that it was merely a refuge for protest votes’. White self-delusion, of course. Whites speak this kind of claptrap because They don’t want to face the quintessential racism of Their moribund Culture. How typical of a White like Ms Blears to deny the inherent racism of her own genetic coevals.

Ms Blears is correct here: ‘But crucially, we need to remove the conditions in which they can thrive’. It’s difficult to be wrong about this since it’s blindingly obvious. But her solution is pathetic – as one would expect from a White Politician.

Only a politician would self-servingly claim that ‘[w]e need to rebuild our local democratic institutions, so there can be no democratic vacuums’. Of course, since that provides more jobs for more feckless and otherwise unemployable politicians! What would you expect! It’s typical of Whites to claim that we need more of the poison that’s killing us in order to save us from being killed by poisonous White Politicians.

‘We need a lively community spirit on every street and estate’. We’ve always needed this but the anti-capitalist and anti-poor socialists have no policy for achieving it. ‘We need well-funded political parties’. Of course, to provide more political jobs for White Politicians! This political scum wants us to pay for their pensions while not doing a hand’s turn for it to benefit us! ‘We need mainstream candidates in every ward’. More jobs-for-the-boys!

‘Only where mainstream democratic politics fails, can fascism take hold’. It’s only when the economy fails that fascism takes hold so this simply isn’t true. (‘[M]ainstream’ here is a synonym for White since most people in the UK are Caucasian. Whites here are simply trying to puff Themselves up.) This means that the only solution to racists is capitalism and globalisation – which the socialists and their bottom-feeding apparatchiks are keen on hindering in order to achieve a White World Hegemony. Freedom costs, and only capitalism can bring it about because the more productive ability you have, the more political freedom you can produce. Poor men are rarely free, after all. This is why such calls to political action will always fail to tackle fascism effectively because they are designed to provoke the very fascism that timeserving politicians can use to aggrandise their positions and keep them in well-paid employment. Politicians are more to blame than anyone else for the parlous state of UK race-relations.

Architects in uproar as candidate for president revealed as BNP member

RESPONSE TO ABOVE ARTICLE:

This is typical White Hogwash about the supposed monopoly the poorly-educated have regarding racism. whites who claim not to be racially snobbish are perfectly happy being socially snobbish in the implication here that only the poorly-educated can ever be racist. And that somehow well-educated whites have – by virtue of being well-educated – immunised themselves from being racist. Where is the evidence for this outside the diseased minds of well-educated racists?

This proves Whites don’t understand that racism isn’t so much a political philosophy as a mental illness. Whites aren’t prepared to admit that Whites are capable of being racially ill in this way even though They are prepared to claim that there’s such a thing as Black Psychosis. The latter of which enables well-educated White Psychiatrists to lock up harmless Blacks because of the racist views of the well-educated White Psychiatrists. This view is, itself, racist.

Pretentious, self-aggrandising White Racism is revealed here: ‘The lofty, quietly studious corridors of the Royal Institute of British Architects in Portland Place, London, may seem a million miles from the rightwing extremes of the British National party’. Why would any rational, man-of-the-world ever believe any of this nonsense? Why would any institute with a royal charter be somehow exempt from the stigma of racism? we are never told, but Frank TALKER knows.

In the end, it’s just that well-educated people are better at hiding their racism, that’s all there is to it!

Self-righteous sanctimony: ‘The news [that a White professional is a racist] has thrown the profession into uproar’. In reality, it’s the fact that Mr Phillips’ has not been able to conceal his racism that is the problem – not the fact that he is a racist. This is proven by: ‘I know him only too well and I have despised many of his views for a long time’. In which case, why have his views only now come to public light? This just goes to show how little concern Whites have for the problems caused for Them by the racists in Their midst (the enemy within), because They don’t believe Their own racist and racial complicity negatively affects Them. Worse still: ‘It is shocking that someone like him is in our midst’. So, why tolerate him in your midst?

‘No doubt he would not have received the 60 nominations necessary if those who nominated him knew of his political affiliations’. Really? Where’s the evidence for such a stupidly anti-racist assertion?

Look at how repetitively desperate Mr Phillips’ fellow Whites are to say they deplore his attitudes: ‘Absolute outrage has been expressed by everyone on council I have communicated with. No doubt that is a united feeling among the profession’. No doubt!

More hogwash about how sad Whites are that there’s a racist in their midst: ‘His views are totally countercultural to the profession, and absolutely antipathetical (Sic) to what the vast majority of our profession are interested in’. Where is the evidence for these statements? Why are there no more black architects than there are, for example?

Tuesday, 20 June 2006

People get ready

RESPONSE TO ABOVE ARTICLE:

My scorn and contempt for this nonsense completely defeats me and I have better things to do anyways. Its basic problem is that it pretends that racism can be defeated even though it’s self-evident that the Second World War did not defeat fascism – only fascists. How soon they forget the lessons of recent history.

The worst aspect of this article is as follows: ‘PUSH, which stands for People Uniting to Save Humanity, has been a major force in US political life since 1971 fighting for social change’. This lie is then followed-up by proof that it’s a lie: ‘Mayor of New Orleans Ray Nagin used his keynote address to speak directly to the malaise affecting men of colour, who are at the bottom of the table for work and education opportunities’. If ‘men of colour’ lack the same work and educational opportunities as in 1971, then what – exactly - has PUSH been doing for the past 35 years?

Imagine a soccer team at the bottom of a league division working for three decades to reach the top but that had, after all that time, never left the bottom. You’d then be entitled to ask what they’d been doing in all that time, and to suggest that it was time for a change of management because the present team isn’t doing its job at all effectively.

Monday, 12 June 2006

Rally for Justice
(2006)

RESPONSE TO ABOVE ARTICLE:

‘With the intensification of "terror raids" throughout the country and "trial-by-media" sensationalism, communities are under severe attack and must show unity’. There’s no need for ‘communities’ to show unity since ‘unity’ will have no impact on White Racism – and never has.

Calls for unity are a tacit admission that that unity does not exist; otherwise, why would there be any need for a call for a unity that already exists?

The reason unity does not exist in the Black Community is because Blacks spend most of Their valuable time trying to suck-up-to and appease White Racism. Blacks think They’ll obtain something, now, in this generation that They don’t have the patience and ability to wait and work for in the future. They care nothing for Their kids only for Their present needs. This Blacks call Equality in our Lifetime, which really means: “How Far Can We Get Our Tongues Up the White Man’s Arsehole – in Our Lifetime?”

The reason the police and the wider White Race want to try and terrorise Muslims and Muslim lookalikes is because They know that Muslims are not going to help Them in Their so-called War on Terror. Even if Muslims do help out here, Whites don’t believe that They really are being helpful only pretending to be so as a vain means of deflecting White Racism away from Themselves. This is, in fact, why any Muslim would help a white and proves Muslims haven’t learned any lessons about the mistrust in which Whites regard Them and the mistrust with which They should regard Whites.

The fact that Whites judge everyone by Their own standards only, This lack of trust of others proves Whites can’t be trusted because it demonstrates that White Culture is based upon mistrust. If it were not, why would Whites automatically assume others can’t be trusted? To the good, all things are good; to the bad, all things are bad. Not helping Whites is simply payback for decades of White Racism; while Whites trying to terrorise Muslims is payback for Muslims not accepting Their alleged inferior status with White Culture. At the end of the day, Whites know that if the racial situation were reversed in the UK, Whites wouldn’t help Muslims if Muslims were being terrorised by White Fundamentalists, such as the BNP. (Additionally, up until recently, Whites have refused to get involved with Muslim forced marriages; being imposed by Muslim fundamentalists. Now that Whites do get involved in it, They wish to use it – surprise, surprise – as a means of demonising and pathologising Muslim culture. Much moreso than simply saying forced marriage is wrong and that Muslims need protecting – an attitude Whites can’t manifest without scoring a racist point in the process. Strange that. But not so strange when you realise the essentially racist motivation beneath such a reversed viewpoint.)

The fact is that Blacks have never been united over any issue, as can be seen, for example, in the fact that afro-Caribbeans and Asians hate each other’s guts. There is also the issue that Asians tend to be the most racist people on earth. This accounts for the fact that the brown-skinned are so concerned to distance and differentiate Themselves from Muslims in order to avoid racial abuse that is currently being meted out to Muslims by Whites. Afro-Caribbeans are only too happy to be less likely to be racially-abused by the UK police since they are too dark to be al Quaeda.

Unity, what unity?

Additionally, the White Media are inveterately racist and are only too happy to exploit the White Racist myth that the darks-skinned are here in the UK to destroy White Civilisation – if, indeed, Whites can be called civilised, at all.

‘The heavy-handed tactics of the police are proving counterproductive. Instead of increasing security, high profile police "terror" raids have only spread more fear’. Heavy-handed tactics are always counterproductive so this statement is a tautology. The fear lies mostly in the hearts of those Whites who approve of such terror raids.

Formerly such raids were conducted discreetly but now, in order to show shit-scared Whites that Whites are being effectively protected from Blacks, the police are acting hand-in-glove with the media in a game of White racial public relations. This proves just how scared Whites are of the racist terrorism They have been instrumental in creating as They now rush around like headless chickens on the basis of uncorroborated tip-offs that turn out to be unreliable. It’s funny how Whites believe that leopards don’t change their spots, yet believe criminals when they offer Whites information that can be used for public-relations’ purposes. If such an informant denied in court that he’d committed a crime, he wouldn’t be believed because of his previous record, but if he claims some Muslims are terrorists he will be believed. The issue here is what the believer wishes to believe, not what the evidence indicates.

It should be pointed-out that the idea of a vest as a chemical weapon that the police allege they were searching for is a product of White Paranoia. Such a weapon would achieve little effect and certainly much less than an IED (Improvised Explosive Device).

That someone was shot during the raid shows that armed police officers chamber rounds in their cocked handguns while keeping their itchy trigger fingers on the trigger and not the trigger guard. In other words, the policy is not so much “shoot-to-kill” but “shoot first and ask questions afterwards”. This means that the police actually have no really effective and practical policy with regard to their use of firearms; meaning that Blacks can never, ever trust them. It’s foolish to say that trust between Muslims and the police has been destroyed since such trust never really existed in the first place because there never was any evidence nor proof of its existence.

The opportunity here is for Blacks to exploit the fact that Whites are so scared of dying that they would antagonise the only people who could ever help Them. Usama bin Laden can speak English; how many English speakers can speak Farsi? It’s obvious that Whites need Muslims to help Them understand what terrorists are planning; Muslims do not need Whites. Whites understand this so are resentful of the fact that They (the allegedly superior race) should have come to rely upon those They consider inferior. Even if a message is passed to the authorities by a Muslim that some foreign-language speaking person is planning some atrocity, Whites are so racist that They’d automatically assume that Their Muslim informant was a lying Raghead. This is why the police informant in this case was obviously a White Man since the UK police are far more likely to believe a member of Their own race rather than one of a despised race. Because Whites are going to racially abuse Muslims whether They agree to help Whites or no, it doesn’t matter what Muslims do to try and appease Whites. This means Muslims can do as They please. Think about it!

‘Despite the Government's boasts of a diversified society, the criminalisation of Muslim communities and rising Islamophobia are a direct result of Government policies’. It never ceases to amaze Frank TALKER that any Black would ever believe anything ever said by such an obviously institutionally-racist government as we’ve always had in the UK. These Fatuous Black Bastards have obviously forgotten all about the British Empire and the North-Atlantic Slave Trade and the centuries-old anti-Semitism endemic in British culture. Islamophobia is the direct result of two things. The resentment of Blacks because of the Whites loss of Their empire proving that Whites aren’t as superior as They claim to be. And the Muslims stupid desire to suck up to Whites in the vain hope of appeasing White Racism. It takes two to tango, remember. Muslims are simply evading Their part in the racism They choose to experience.

‘The anti-terror legislation is eroding all of our civil rights and the Government intends to extend police powers without the need for accountability’. These civil rights have only ever existed theoretically. Try to enforce your rights and you will find that Whites don’t agree that you’ve ever had them. The issue of ‘accountability’ is simply a formalisation of the lack of ‘accountability’ that has always existed regarding UK race-relations.

The only way to stop political terror is to stop being frightened of Whites. Believe me, Whites are more frightened of you than you could ever be of Them. Protests like this only prove to Whites just how frightened you people really are. You should stop being concerned with what Whites think about you. You already know as a result of incidents like this!

Six days to influence review into government race policies

‘What is at stake is a once-in-a-generation chance of shaping the legislative framework and organisational landscape on equality’.

Really? Problem is that equality is not a function of law and political institutions (theoretical constructs, all) but of the commitment to devoted labour and work of the individuals concerned – this is also true of inequality. To say otherwise is to admit that equality is impossible unless those who hate you allow you to be equal by passing laws to restrict their own racism. But why would such people allow or undertake any such thing given their belief that their inequitable practises provide them with an advantage? Since when has anyone sacrificed an advantage over another man – in all of human history – without demanding a countervailing sacrifice in return: Thus perpetuating the inequality complained of?

If race inequality actually exists, the sacrifice required of the unequal to remove such inequality has to be one-sided. This will never happen.

When Blacks complain of inequality, They admit that they are dependent upon Whites to achieve whatever Blacks do achieve in life, rather than upon Their own efforts. This proves the Black Inferiority that Blacks implicitly claim does not exist in their implication that inequality is inherently unfair. In such a case, there can be no good reason for Whites to stop being racist given that Blacks are thus tacitly admitting that They are, indeed, inferior.

So long as Blacks behave as inferiors, They offer Whites an excuse for Their racism. The fact is that you’re either equal (in terms of being just as human as anyone else) to others when you’re born or you ain’t. And if you’re not equal when you’re born then you won’t be equal even after you’re dead – it’s a self-fulfilling prophecy.

‘This root-and-branch review could determine how effective, or otherwise, governments are in tackling inequality’. Because inequality (outside of deliberately racist laws) only exists in the minds of the unequal (ie, the objectively inferior), it is not governments who are best able to tackle inequality, but the psychiatric profession. There is also a refusal here to admit that the ‘governments’ being implicitly criticised here are White Governments’ since Caucasians have traditionally been egregiously racist.

There must come a time when Blacks stop whinging about White Racism. And then for Them to accept that there will always be racists and racism and that the only solution to such people and such practises is to get on with your life and succeed upon your own terms – not theirs. This will prove – apart from anything else – that Blacks are just as capable as Whites; while leaving Whites with no ammunition with which to berate Blacks. Whites will continue to be racist no matter what Blacks achieve, but will be ineffective so long as Blacks don’t practise Their dependence upon White Racists.

‘To get this wrong will mean that even if governments have the political will to aim for equality in our lifetime, they may not have the mechanisms to achieve it’. The ‘mechanisms’ to achieve equality exist firmly within the minds of individuals. This means not worrying about keeping-up-with-the-Joneses or comparing cock-sizes and then deliberately finding oneself deficient in some way because what he’s got is somehow bigger and better. It means accepting that human beings have different capabilities and that they are born, live and die unequal because of these fundamental, biological differences.

Blacks are here using equality as a euphemism for Marxist-Leninism. This means that equality can only be achieved when everyone is born in the same house, stays in the same house and dies in the same house as everyone else. Under such a system, all differences in character and temperament are to be abolished (ie, evaded) in order to protect the insecure, the feckless and the useless from a profound knowledge of their insecurities, their fecklessness and their uselessness. Such knowledge would upset them, after all, as it would force them to face their quintessential inferiority – and who wants to face that? This means athletics’ races starting from the same line; competitors running line abreast; and, then crossing the tape together – no winners and no losers! The least able would win medals while the most able would gain no advantage from being more able. Who, then, would compete in such a race since there would be no advantage to doing so since the very concepts of winning and losing would lose their all-important meaning?

There is no way to achieve this kind of so-called equality except with objective measurements. This means making everyone the same, but not equal. Frank TALKER doesn’t feel equal to an Einstein or a Shakespeare – he feels inferior. He doesn’t have a chip on His shoulder about this because he simply accepts – as all grown men must – that however clever He is, there’s always someone cleverer.

This definition of equality inevitably punishes the able as a sacrifice to the inferiority complexes of the less able. Such complexes become superiority complexes because self-styled victims always think they’re superior to those they look down their noses at (their actual superiors in ability). While such victims conclude that they’re not responsible for their alleged victim status - only that those who’re actually better than them are responsible for this. This is why state education produces mediocrities because it’s based upon such a dumbing-down of cultural and political life. It frustrates the clever while deluding the more dumb into thinking that they’re quite clever, after all. Such people usually become alleged artists and alleged politicians and alleged commercial entrepreneurs.

‘The issues go to the very heart of the campaign for race equality’. They don’t. They go to the very heart of the philosophy that proclaims: “The world owes me a living”.

‘There are many areas of public life where the realities of institutional racism are clear - anti-terror laws; asylum and immigration; citizenship; the criminal justice system, to name but a few’. While true, the fact is that Blacks do little to combat these injustices. Such as ensuring their children are educated to deal with White Racism more purposefully than merely whining about it. As well as setting good examples and being adequate role models for their offspring. Moreover, when Blacks complain about White Racism, They never also admit Their own culpability in the racism of which They tacitly approve. Approval based upon the fact that White Racism affords Blacks the opportunity to avoid the work necessary for successful living and demand racial alms from Whites through emotionally-blackmailing Whites for being racist.

‘Unless the government recognises racism - its causes and effects - it will never be able to get to grips with the challenge of making Britain an equal society’. As before, Blacks never explain why Whites would address such issues especially since Whites conceive that racism provides Them with a political benefit. And who ever renounces a benefit without demanding something in return? This proves just how unrealistic Blacks are.

‘We believe the Equalities Review has not analysed race properly and there are major flaws in its methodology’. This could just as easily be said of Blacks and the way in which They approach White Racism. A cultural match that will ensure racism remains at large – the only true equality ever possible between the races.

‘The Equalities Review is wrong to criticise campaigning and activism’. Of course, but that review was written by Whites who don’t want to be reminded that They condemn slavery but never condemn the British Empire – although both were based upon the evil of racism. Whites just don’t want Their dirty laundry washed in public – who does? This is why Whites ‘criticise campaigning and activism’.

There is no incentive for the middle-class to abolish poverty (since this would deprive them of a means of self-identification-in-comparison-to-the-poor – it would effectively abolish the lower-class & make the middle-class the new lower-class). So Blacks remain judged by Whites as inferior because then Whites would have no-one to feel superior to – the sole source of the White Superiority Complex.

Whites won’t renounce racism unless Blacks are prepared to give Whites something in return. Because racism is morally wrong, except in self-defence, it follows that Blacks needn’t offer anything in return for renouncing racism. Any more than a rape victim needs to offer a rapist anything in return for him giving up the practise of rape. Whites actually consider this implicit demand an actual quid pro quo rather than the emotional blackmail it really is!

In any case, even if Blacks did accept second-class citizenship status in exchange for abolishing the alleged need for anti-racism legislation from Whites, Whites still wouldn’t renounce racism. They’d carry it on in an increasingly covert manner.

True cost of meters

RESPONSE TO ABOVE LETTER BY Jim Wedgbury:

Here we have a typical example of White Racism: ‘The answer is to stop population growth, particularly in the south-east. By definition a smaller population uses less water.

‘The real issue is uncontrolled inward migration into the UK and policymakers have got to accept that, at some point, we will have reached the optimum sustainable population for this country and that we have already exceeded that number of people in the south-east’.

Most of the UK’s population growth is caused by the indigenous population so, as is usual with White Racists, this man claims that problems Whites created for Themselves can blamed on Blacks. If ‘population growth’ were the real issue then the author would have to accept less people being born and eventually paying less in taxes, therefore. This would mean higher taxes or a fall in his standard of living – and that of his children. Factors he never mentions because he seeks actively to evade them via his racism.

Immigrants coming to Britain must learn English

RESPONSE TO ABOVE ARTICLE:

He argued that people entering the UK should "play by the rules" and that means learning the language in order to get work, the chancellor says.

The problem with playing by the rules is that Whites wrote them and is, therefore, inherently designed to benefit Whites-only; that is, the rules are racist.

There’s little point in immigrants learning English if the native population continues to treat them as inferior consequently. Migrants might just as well stay resolutely within their own communities and continue to speak their own native tongue. The only rational incentive Whites can offer migrants in this regard is the wholesale White renunciation of racism: A not very likely outcome. What Whites evade is the fact that few wish to speak the language of racism, which English most definitely is. Anymore than schoolchildren in Soweto, south Africa, in 1976 wished to be taught in the language in which apartheid was enforced: Afrikaans.

The only two reasons Whites want immigrants to learn English are so that Whites will be able to force them to speak English in public. This is because of the conventionally racist White fear that these non-English speakers are plotting terrorist acts behind Their backs. Or belittling whites by using words that the English – famously inattentive to foreign language studies – are not in a position to respond to. This is proof that Whites know full well that Their behaviour most often invites such responses – otherwise why would anyone think that just because someone else was conversing in a foreign language that they were talking about them. Is it paranoia or narcissism – or both?

The fact that the UK has the highest rate of illiteracy in Europe (20%) among native-speakers of English also eludes Mr Brown. When will he be saying that the English should also learn to ‘play by the rules’ and speak English before they can obtain their benefits!

In reality, most immigrants do learn English in order to further their chances of employment and business success. Immigrants are ambitious and want to learn what is the common (indeed global business) tongue, because it makes sense - in as far as it is a necessary skill that is relevant to a person’s life and career. It is a dirty racist myth for Mr Brown to suggest that immigrants have to be forced to do what they do anyway as a matter of course.

The other, all-important reason is so that when Whites refuse to employ a proportionate number of well-educated foreigners – conversant in the English language – Whites can then blame this unemployability upon the basic inferiority of those foreigners. The whole idea is yet another vacant White attempt to blame foreigners for simply being foreign and different which, being foreign, they can’t help – neither should they. Whites want to make everyone a carbon copy of Themselves in order to vainly reduce Their endemic fear-of-difference.

‘[Mr Brown] told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that those who refused to learn English should be made to do so’. This is impossible, of course, any more than it’s been possible to educate the native-born into the practicalities of learning to speak their own tongue adequately.

‘Immigrants should also be given an understanding of British history so they could learn values of freedom, liberty and tolerance, [Mr Brown] said’. These are not, however, the values actually underlying UK culture. The real ones are dog-eat-dog; every-man-for-himself; and, fuck-the-foreigner. What Mr Brown is doing is setting-up foreigners to be exploited by UK natives with this rose-tinted claptrap which is no more than propaganda for the supposed superiority of the White Race and its political institutions.

‘[Mr Brown thinks] that understanding British history is part of [learning to speak English]’. A true rendition of British history would prove to foreigners – better than Frank TALKER can – of how racist UK Whites are and of how little Whites actually value Their alleged virtues of ‘freedom, liberty and tolerance’. A non-whitewashed version of British history would, in fact, be the best proselytising for never bothering to speak the language of people with such contempt for human life.

‘[Mr Brown] said people could be part of a global economy and benefit from it, but also have a "huge pride and patriotism" in their own country’. Because migrants are never accepted in the UK as being truly British (unless they’re White to begin with, of course) it’s very hard to imagine why anyone would experience ‘huge pride and patriotism’ for a country that tries to regularly abuse them for racial reasons. Mr Brown obviously thinks Darkies are inferior because They’re inherently masochistic, racially. In any case, in a global economy the theory and practice of the nation-state becomes a moribund redundancy from a time long past. This is a rather sad attempt to mitigate the effects of a global economy, which is decreased patriotism, and pride in one’s country and increased pride in one’s own individual achievements. This gives governments less political power and it's this that such idiotic and racist rantings are prompted by.

‘If someone is unemployed who doesn't speak English, they should have to learn English to make themselves employable’. Does this also mean Whites renouncing the racism that is actually the much more likely cause of a non-White being allegedly unemployable? I bet it doesn’t! In which case, yet again Blacks are being blamed for their inability to find employment among largely racist employers by it being declared that their English skills are to blame. Even though most illiterate people in the UK are actually White.

‘If you take preachers coming into this country, they should be speaking the English language and not refusing to speak the English language’. Does this mean that Catholics can no longer preach in Latin? After all, we all know that the Romans maintain caches of firearms and explosive in the basements of their churches for the inevitable day when the Protestants come to massacre them! (And what about the Hebes not doveening in Hebrew [or Yiddish]?)

"I won't rest until we declare heterosexuality the official sexuality of the United States."

Saturday, 10 June 2006

1990 Trust Response to The Equalities Review Interim Report

RESPONSE TO ABOVE ARTICLE:

‘The Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, has slammed the Interim Report of the Equalities Review Panel...’. Here is the fundamental problem with Blacks: Their reliance on Whites to state Their case for Them. They realise that Whites aren’t going to listen to a word They say about White Racism, so need to find Whites to hide behind in order to avoid being ignored. This just goes to show how dependent Blacks are on Whites to achieve anything and, therefore, how inferior.

When Blacks realise that this approach never works because it presupposes inferiority, then Blacks will have achieved full independence from not only White Racism, but also institutionalised Black fear of Whites. Otherwise, iIt means Blacks relying on so-called well-meaning Whites for Their achievements in life, rather than Their own skills, abilities and talents.

So long as Blacks behave like inferiors, They’ll be treated like inferiors. Not that such behaviour actually warrants such treatment, just that Blacks will never be treated any better and therefore can’t expect to be so shouldn’t be disapointed when They’re not. Just as rape victims can most often be shown to be masochistic in nature, Blacks ask (but never deserve) to be abused.

'It is bizarre that a report meant to examine the causes of inequality barely mentions discrimination and comes close to implying people choose to be unequal or that their culture somehow holds them back’. This is Black Hypocrisy. Hhere Blacks are Themselves refusing to acknowledge the very things They imply Whites-only evade; namely, a cultural self-image that posits one race as somehow superior to the other which Blacks believe makes Them inferior and Whites superior. The fact is that many people DO choose to be unequal.

To claim that Blacks are largely responsible for White Racism is the same racism Whites are trying to promulgate with this report. The responsibility for White Racism lies firmly with Whites and no-one else – to pass the buck in this way on to Blacks is just so much more White Racism.

It’s inevitable that Whites ultimately believe that the cause of racial discrimination is Their own racial superiority. They need to believe this because it helps lessen Their race guilt. It does this by suggesting that treating Blacks as inferiors is somehow normal and that White Race Guilt is nothing more than the kind of sentimentality one feels for a young animal before destroying it. It means never having to renounce racism simply by suggesting it’s the natural way for any White Culture to be organised and structured.

Whites can’t deal effectively with Their race Guilt – as They can’t do so with Their racism – the former being far more painful to Them than the latter (about which They care almost nothing). If it weren’t for Their guilty consciences, the Race Relations Act would never have been passed into UK law. Whites are now fed-up with being continually reminded by Blacks about White Racism: It’s painful to be reminded of one’s cultural inferiority, after all. This is why Whites now wish to blame Blacks for White Racism, in the same way that paedophiles and rapists always blame Their victims for the rape and the abuse such people choose to mete out. And in the same way that burglars believe they can invidiously blame those they burgle for having more material possessions than they have themselves. Such is the way of the guilty ones.

This annoyance at Blacks for reminding Whites of White Racism is never going to go away any more than White Racism is going to go away. Every time a White sees a Black, he’s reminded of how negative and hostile He feels toward Him. And then to have Blacks remind Whites of this simple, everyday fact is really too much for Weak-Willed Whites to bear. To accept that White Culture is institutionally racist is to accept that one has to change. Since Whites, Themselves, believe that leopards don’t change their spots, Blacks are daydreaming when they think White Culture is going to change. Whites would much rather destroy Their culture than let Blacks allegedly swarm all over it. In imitation of a Soviet-style scorched earth policy practised against the invading Germans in the Second World War; to deny the Nazis any benefit from the territory they were temporarily conquering.

'The negative attitude of the report to equality movements is also a real cause for concern’. This is no more true of this report than of Whites, in general, since it merely proves the complete lack of commitment to treating Blacks as equals that Whites routinely manifest. On the contrary, this report should be a cause for joy and celebration. It makes clear that Blacks have nothing to gain from associating with nor from trying to appease Whites (the latter being no more that an emotionally-blackmailing protection racket for Whites). The report also proves that a backlash against Blacks (especially for Blacks having the temerity to remind Whites of Institutional White Racism) is now going to be more overt.

Once Whites are pushed into a corner where They can do nothing but hysterically reveal Their abject fear of Darkies, then Blacks’ll have Them by the balls. There’ll be no going back to the days when Whites could play the race card by claiming Blacks were doing the selfsame thing. This would allow Blacks to throw Overt White Racism back in the face of Whites whenever Whites claim to have any commitment to race equality.

‘Equality movements have played a vital role in the fight for equality in this country’. They haven’t: They’ve merely been a means of concealing the Endemic Black Fear of White People behind a pseudo-respectable mask of the struggle for race equality. None of these groups ever explains the need for racial equality – as Karl Marx never explained the need for equality, as such. The real reason egalitarianism is proclaimed is so that the less equal can steal a share of the achievements of the more equal; allowing the weak to steal from the strong – the poor from the rich.

‘This report is a travesty and should be withdrawn'. (A travesty of what, one wonders?) Of course, it never will be. And, indeed, the response to it is also a ‘travesty’ – as indicated above.

'This review blames the victims of discrimination for their fate, saying “a true attempt to remedy an unjust [in]equality (Sic) may appear to be the action of self-interested groups to close gaps for which they in part are themselves responsible”. Clearly, the report doesn’t FULLY blame the alleged victims of racism for the racism they experience. Nevertheless, admittedly even partial blame will be used by White Racists to let Themselves off the hook when it comes to apportioning blame for White Racism. The essential problem with this complaint is that it posits Blacks as victims, and the victim position is always the inferior position. If Blacks could stop thinking of Themselves in this way then Their racial problems would be largely solved. After all, there’s no point in a girl walking down the high street late at night wearing a low-cut top and a short skirt and then complaining afterwards if she’s sexually assaulted.

The simple fact is that Whites consider Their racism to be normal and natural - and woe betide anyone who thinks they’re gonna tell Them otherwise. White Racism is thus viewed as the default position from which all other politics must - by order of the (White) management - manifest itself. It is essential therefore, for Whites to deny the fact that Their racism is part of the warp and weft of Their culture without which Their culture would falter – unless prepared to change.

Bizarrely, Whites try to deny Their racism by being egregiously racist, since denial of existing racism is just another form of racism. And even more bizarrely, Blacks associate with Whites because They believe Whites are racially reformed rather than just getting on with Their own lives and leaving Whites to stew in Their own racist juice.

Both sides of the race debate are fully committed to perpetuating racism. Both need it to inform Them of whom they are because without it neither would possess the means of self-definition through individual achievement. They’d be left only with the fatuous hope that assuming political postures within the safety-net confines of skin-colour groupings can make either into fully-functional human beings. Blacks want to believe Whites corrigible as a compensation for Black incorrigibility – the usual hypocrisy of expecting others to do what you cannot do.

‘After representations from equalities groups were rejected at the review panel's London consultation meeting, David McFarlane of the National Coalition of Black-led Organisations and the National Black Police Federation, said: “I just can't understand the scathing attack on groups like ours”. This man is an idiot! He doesn’t understand the very racism he claims to be against! How then could he ever hope to prevail against such racists given that understanding your enemy is a prerequisite to defeating them? Perhaps he thinks Blacks will win the race-war by luck rather than using Their brains? Or is it just that Blacks don’t have any brains?

Whites want to abolish the very reason for the existence of the CEHR (Commission for Equalities and Human Rights) by claiming there’s no real need for it. And that Blacks should just pull Themselves together and accept that They were born inferior. The CEHR is an organisation committed to its own abolition not through abolishing White Racism, but by convincing Blacks They’re inferior. It reverses its ostensible purpose of tackling White Racism by being nothing more than White and Racist. That Blacks don’t realise this just shows how They focus on the details because They lack the mind to see the bigger picture.

Whites want to abolish Black pressure groups (out of unresolved race guilt) and to replace them with the CEHR – and then abolish that. The endgame and main purpose of this is for Whites to then claim that the problem of racism has been solved (by superior Whites, of course). And that We (the Superior White Race) no longer need the CEHR, nor any organisation remotely like it. Anyone (Black) who disagrees (lodges a formal complaint against White Racism which, by then, will no longer exist, of course) is to be viewed as “objectively mad”. They will then be Sectioned under the Mental Health Act until They recant the heresy that White Culture is an essentially racist culture. While Whites furiously evade the fact that such a demand is proof that White Culture remains fundamentally racist. This also benefits Whites when They’re not believed when They claim that racists are just a few hardcore nutters now – as opposed to being the tip of the iceberg of an institutionally racist culture. Because there will then be less and less people (Blacks) around to disagree with Them.

Whites need to pathologize race complaints and allied political activity because They know that – without racism – Their culture has no core or meaning. A racist house-of-cards implodes without the quintessential belief in its own superiority to all other cultures and races. This is why the British Empire failed - it was weak against those it claimed inferior.

It should also be noted that in all other political contexts, when various lobby groups petition government for whatever it is they seek, few are accused of being part of the problem - even when they’re violently disagreed with. It is only the White weakness for racism that produces such accusations.

The corollary of Whites’ Institutionalised-White-Denial-of-Their-Own-Core‑Racism is the fact that Whites aren’t going to abolish anything that provides Them with a job-for-life. They will only abolish anti-racist pressure groups that provide such jobs for Blacks; knowing that White Racism can be very lucrative for Blacks who are able to exploit White Race Guilt and, thereby, play the Race Victim successfully. Whites see no reason to ever experience the consequences of Their racism by ever providing and allowing such race-based employment to those They fundamentally hate. Whites do this by making it a crime - punishable by Sectioning - to criticise the resulting Racist White Regime. This is why the inevitable Black distrust of Whites is blamed on Blacks not upon White Racists. This simply swaps Black Victimhood for White as Whites can then claim that Blacks are a threat to Whites – as all racists do. Here, Whites can then play the part of Victims of alleged Black Racial Oppression; making White claims that Blacks are largely responsible for White Racism not only racist but fundamentally hypocritical.

This is the best that one can expect from a racist culture – White Victimhood (White Racism) as a replacement for Black Victimhood (Black Racism). Whites propose no higher benchmark for Their culture than a reinforced and newly-buttressed White Racism; playing the selfsame race card They accuse others of playing.

This all ties in with the current Great White Desire to abolish the Human Rights Act – in other contexts. This act denies Whites the privilege of practising Their racism openly – as They’d like. Therefore, attempted abolition or reform of such laws is no more than a White attempt to claim the existence of a right to be racist.

The only sensible way to deal with White Racists is to exploit Their guilt if They threaten you in any way. After all, if They weren’t racist, such exploitation wouldn’t be possible – so only racists need fear being manipulated and used. This is justified in terms of self-defence.

Friday, 9 June 2006

BBC diversity ‘champion’
(2006)

A white person cannot fulfil this role because, if they could, the role would then become instantly unnecessary. Whites would then be able to understand Their own tendency to stereotype – rather than comprehend – those different from Themselves. Whites wouldn’t then need to present Blacks in a bad light in the first place because They’d have more insight into what Blacks are really like – as well as insight into Themselves.

But, there you go, such jobs are always racial self-contradictions that the Blacks (& it’s always Blacks – to make the White Employers look good & all fired up about pro-diversity) who fill these oxymoronic roles who will be destroyed by them. Destroyed because no-one can live a non sequitur for enough time to be useful: About the length of time it takes to realise that the job is self-nullifying. Self-nullifying because every racist stereotype removed will be hailed by Whites as a victory for pro-diversity, rather than what it really is: Proof that Whites still hate Blacks because They’re still presenting stereotypes - and not people – in Their media.

Will the programme-makers resent being told by a Black that they are racists and try even harder to get covert racist messages into their programmes as a form of feeble protest about being told the awful truth about themselves? Will the Diversity Executive be tempted to appease White Racism by passing racist representations of Blacks in order to keep her job? And what happens when the BBC – not the Diversity Executive – decides that diversity has been achieved and there is no longer any need for a Diversity Executive? She will then become redundant and more overt racist messages will return to the BBC’s output; prompting calls for a Diversity Executive! Whites can then pat Themselves – yet again - on the back about Their self-evident, yet false, enthusiasm for racial diversity.

A diversity executive is merely a racial placebo behind which Whites can attempt to conceal Their racism behind a stance of anti-racism. As in La Ronde (Arthur Schnitzler 1862-1931 Austrian writer known for his psychologically penetrating and sometimes erotic novels and plays, particularly La Ronde (1896)), this is no more than a merry-go-round that goes nowhere and constantly repeats itself.

But, this born-again enthusiasm for diversity isn’t for recruiting more blacks to represent blacks in the media but in recruiting blacks to oversee White Output to ensure it doesn’t offend anyone - while still keeping the output resolutely White. A Diversity Executive is a pre-censor who can have racist material removed before it’s broadcast. Not to ACTUALLY make the BBC less racist but to make it APPEAR less so. This is for the simple reason that then we would be far less likely to see the racist material and, the BBC hope, far less likely to view the BBC as racist. But this material still exists – it just hasn’t been shown. And this is always the problem with censorship – you merely brush the dirt under the carpet, you do not actually eradicate it.

A Diversity Executive is thus playing the racists’ game by helping them conceal their racism rather than enabling them to deal with, and finally eliminate, it. This is proven by the fact that Whites have hired a black woman to do this. This not only stereotypes her as a so-called expert – because Whites think one Black (any Black) can speak for all Blacks – since all blacks are assumed to lack the very internal community diversity the BBC claims to be supporting. In addition, Whites need to hire someone to do this job because They cannot see for Themselves when They’re being racist - which just goes to show how far Whites still have to go to deal with Their inbred, acculturated racism.

If Whites renounced racism, the programmes might be better - rather than merely diverse - because a more disparate talent-base would be creating these programmes. But the BBC is merely an organ of the White Race talking to, and among, itself. This is why the post of Diversity Executive is merely a sticking plaster on the gaping wound of White Media Racism.

Wishful thinking if ever Frank TALKER heard it: ‘She will review programmes to ensure they are "culturally authentic".’ Programmes made by white people about white people don’t show us what white people are really like – xenophobic, parasitic, self-loathing, vacuous, alcoholic, sex-obsessed, etc. So how, in fact, are any programmes ever going to be ‘culturally authentic’ when they never have been in the past? There is no call for such ‘authenticity’ because Whites want escapism, not reality.

When was the last time you saw a programme made by Whites that was honest about the endemic failings of Whites? As well as one about the fact that White Culture and its attendant economy are in terminal decline. And that these things are being blamed on Blacks by ludicrously declaring that a small minority of allegedly inferior persons can bring any country of millions of people to its economic knees. How can supposedly inferior people do this, if they really are inferior? No White Frank TALKER knows wants to admit the abject and stupid nature of Their racial views.

Whites can’t even admit that terrorism is the inevitable result of the racist foreign policies of various White Countries; while simultaneously claiming that Whites have a strong tradition of fair play, justice and being welcoming to foreigners! To admit such a thing would be to admit that Blacks respond in similar ways to identical stimuli – to admit that Blacks are just as human as Whites. When have Whites ever done this convincingly?

This is the kind of fantasyland Whites live in but where is this ever mentioned in the White Media? (Even Whites know this, hence Their employment of a Diversity Executive to make it look as if They aren’t such a destructive culture.) The risk is that the person mentioning the negative basis of White Culture would most likely lose their job for giving the game away. As well as being labelled a race-traitor by his Fellow Whites into the bargain.

‘BBC director of TV Jana Bennett said the role reflected the BBC's commitment to audiences.’ No. Only of a desperate desire to convince audiences of the BBC’s ‘commitment to audiences’. Why wasn’t this done years ago since the proportion of Blacks in the population hasn’t changed much in a long time. Answer: Because the BBC doesn’t want to APPEAR racist, it doesn’t care if it really is or it wouldn’t have appointed a Diversity Executive – it would simpler to be diverse to begin with.

‘She said she hoped to deepen the BBC's relationship with all its audience by "opening it up to diverse talents and voices".’ This has been tried before but the BBC still presents a White view of the world while Black views are deemed extreme or irresponsible because They don’t conform with White views. The reason such initiatives don’t work is because Whites aren’t going to hand over a large share of the ability to communicate to the “enemy within” (Blacks). Whites fear that Blacks will broadcast messages antithetical to the White Hegemony Whites desire. (A classic example of this was President Bush’s plan to bomb Al Jazeera and to ban their broadcasts in the US because coded terrorist messages could have been transmitted. White Paranoia, of course.) And also because Whites use such initiatives to blame Blacks for Their own White Racism when Blacks don’t apply (& are rarely accepted if They do) to work for an organisation They don’t trust because it constantly badmouths Their Black Culture.

‘The emphasis will not be on quotas or box-ticking, but on focusing minds on the fact that television audiences are hugely diverse and they rightly expect to see themselves and their life experiences reflected on TV.’ Whites never say why They should address such concerns, unless They’re after increased audience ratings. It’s too late now because the distrust between the races is now so deeply entrenched; in any case, audiences have always been hugely diverse. There have been different religions, social classes and genders in this country since the year dot!

It’s only now that tv ratings are plummeting - despite the despair shown in commissioning crap like Big Brother because the Internet is forcing former broadcasters to narrowcast - that audience diversity suddenly becomes an issue. And, when Whites can use falling ratings for racial effect; that is, as Whites say, “Play the race card”, They will do so with as little racial guilt or shame as they possibly muster. They’ll do this while also trying to make it look as though They’ve been committed to audience diversity all along. This, despite the fact that the BBC has a monolithic, regional structure and broadcasts a single message to the whole country because it is an organ of a single, White Government, not an independent business enterprise.

The fact is that audience diversity is bad for ratings because a diverse audience is a small one. It’s taken the BBC a long time to awake to the reality of the greater choice of tv channels and other forms of entertainment currently available; which diversity reduces their share of that audience. Only uncontrolled immigration and procreating with reckless abandon could ever make the numbers up to the days when comedian Stanley Baxter was scoring an audience of 18,000,000 way back in the seventies.

‘Ms FitzPatrick's previous role at Channel 4 was as editorial manager of cultural diversity’. This proves that Whites have ghettoised this black woman because Whites can’t imagine that a Black could or should perform any other kind of job within a White Organisation. The job she does is itself an example of the lack of diversity within the BBC and within White Culture, as a whole, that the BBC represents. Whites are unwilling to hire Blacks for any other purpose because Whites don’t want Blacks competing with Whites for the greater variety of jobs that are NOT ethnicity-related. Or, to put it another way, the vast majority of available jobs are those that Whites decide are only to be done by Them; that is, that they ARE ethnicity-related – so long as your ethnicity is Caucasian.

The post of Diversity Executive is inherently racist because it’s always going to be reserved for Blacks – as a token of White Racism. This is designed to keep Blacks locked-up in employment ghettoes. This is a tacit admission that Whites can’t scrutinise Their own racism and deal with it effectively by renouncing it. This is precisely why a Diversity Executive won’t work. Because the post is designed to perpetuate the racism of only employing Blacks for certain, pre-defined tasks and to allow Whites to claim that Their incessant racism is not Their fault because They’re not aware of it. Although They’re not aware of it because They don’t want to be because They employ a Diversity Executive precisely to run away from such self-understanding.

It’s not a for a Diversity Executive to tell Whites that They are racist, it’s for Whites to find out about themselves and correct Their own attitudes. No Black Diversity Executive can ever do this for Them since change always comes from within, not without. If Whites can’t see Their own racism, Themselves, then how are Whites ever going to renounce Their racism. Change can only ever take place through self-recognition, not from being told by others that you are wrong. This is why so many addictions are hard to deal with.

The history of the White Race proves that Whites are never going to change Their racist ways.

After all, imagine a surgeon who had to be continually told by a “quality executive” that his operating technique was endangering his patients’ lives. Such a man should be struck off.

The same applies to a quality-control manager in a factory. The very fact you have to have such a manager proves that quality isn’t built into the manufacturing process from the start. All such non-jobs prove that quality assurance is considered to be no more than an expensive add-on to appease those who call for quality in all commercial and political processes for political reasons. They have nothing to do with dealing with the ostensible problems that they were allegedly designed to solve.

If one has to continually tell Whites that Their behaviour is racist and yet They continue to be so, then what is the point of telling Them since it does no good. The iterative pointing-out of White Racism is a waste of time and energy. Deliberately so since it’s designed to keep Blacks busy and away from the vital task of actually dealing effectively with racists. By their nature, racists are too stupid to understand themselves or the world so can’t change. As most criminals never reform, so racists never confront Their own racism.

If one has to continually tell another man that what he does just isn’t good enough then it would be better for him to be removed from his post. But how many BBC staff will be sacked for being racist? None, obviously, since this would decimate the ranks of the BBC. Also, because it’s cheaper to keep employing racists than to re-recruit and/or to employ more Blacks. Ultimately, the cheapest action is simply to hire a Diversity Executive since renouncing racism is the most expensive option and so is extremely unlikely to be followed.

Such anti-racism is just apolitical ghetto into which Blacks can be corralled – but only with Their approval – by Whites to convince Blacks to waste Their time and energy focussing on White Racism rather than Black Success. This ensures Blacks will be the failures Whites want Them to be so that Blacks aren’t economic competitors and so that Whites don’t have to work harder than They do now to support a good lifestyle. And yet White Racism isn’t a Black problem – it’s a problem that Whites must solve Themselves.

The racism inherent in the post of Diversity Executive is equivalent to telling rape victims that it’s their job to convince rapists that rape is a bad thing to do. And that they should refrain from doing it in the future. The reason Whites propose such ludicrous ideas is that they’re a tacit admission that Whites have neither the desire nor the incentive to renounce the racism that is the fundamental preoccupation and basis of Their culture. In other words, it helps Whites evade a responsibility which is solely Theirs by trying to foist it upon stupid Blacks who then take (pseudo-)responsibility for a problem that They haven’t originated. This effectively makes Blacks take the blame for the racism They experience created by Whites – who are to blame.

This is Diversity Executive idea is all Piss ‘n’ Wind, I'm afraid. What we need now is a white Diversity Executive to ensure that the Catholics get an equal look in! And one minus a foreskin for those of the Jewish persuasion!

Thursday, 8 June 2006

Case for Affirmative Action

(2006)

RESPONSE TO ABOVE ARTICLE:

‘CLAUDIA WEBBE says only affirmative action can break down the barriers to race equality in the workplace’. A deeply problematic statement.

First, there is no real need to break down race inequality in the workplace since Blacks can become self-employed and, thereby, avoid such race discrimination.

Second, only those engaging in the unequal behaviour can break it down; otherwise, Blacks will have to spend Their lives scrutinising every aspect of White Behaviour for signs of inequality. This will hardly leave Blacks with much time to get on with Their careers and actually be equal. Racism is a White Problem. Whites have to deal with it because only They can because it is within Themselves – forever out of reach of Blacks.

Third, affirmative action (a Black Euphemism for positive discrimination) means relying on White Racism for Black Success since, without White Racism, affirmative action can’t be successful – if legalised – or, even, necessary. For Blacks to come to rely on White Racism for Their success is a profound admission of failure; akin to Jews relying on Nazism for Their worldly success.

For affirmative action to work at all it must be seen as the necessary complement and corollary of the current unwritten affirmative action that Whites employ for the advancement of Themselves and Their Own. That is to say, the fact that Whites are more likely to recruit, retain and train those of Their Own Race – regardless of talent, skill or ability. Whites will never see things this way so will do Their level best to sabotage positive discrimination as being inherently racist; while implying it’s only OK for Whites to practise it – and to continue doing so.

The all-important thing to remember here is that anyone who criticises positive discrimination is – automatically – a racist.

Not only are Whites prone to being inequitable as racists, They even wish to practise Their racism more stridently than Blacks. In other words, Whites also don’t want the way They practise racism to be equal to the way Blacks practise it! The racial differential must always be maintained as far as Whites are concerned. This means that positive discrimination for Blacks will lead to Whites calling for more positive discrimination for Themselves.

The basic problem with affirmative action is that there is no way to objectively measure equality. This will therefore result in each racial group traducing the other for obtaining benefits and privileges they (allegedly) haven’t earned. This will produce the kind of workplace and cultural tension that will destroy any concept of equality. It will produce nothing more than an overt display of racial antagonism to replace the current, largely covert, race-war. If Blacks are tough enough to face these challenges, then so be it. If not, then affirmative action is not for Them.

Affirmative action is an excellent idea because it equalises (by counterpointing) Whites discriminating against Blacks with Blacks discriminating against Whites; creating a level playing field of racism. But Blacks need to face the practical difficulties of this that articles like this elide.

Blacks need to realise the positive discrimination doesn’t (& cannot) produce genuine equality between the races but a mere equalisation of the mutual discrimination. It couldn’t possibly produce any other effect. To think otherwise is misguided and a waste of energy squandered on something that will yield less return than Blacks would like to wishfully think.

Blacks are trying to see too much into positive discrimination as if it were a panacea for White Racism. It is, however, possible that if Whites are racially abused via positive discrimination, They will get to know what it’s like to experience such abuse and start to stop doing it Themselves - after coming-to-terms with Their own racism. But it’s more likely Whites will abreact via a backlash - as there has been in the United States. Especially in the implicit and oft-heard claim that any Black who does well for Himself has done so not by ability but by positive discrimination; because He is Black and for no other reason. Whites will never admit that many Whites undertake jobs simply because They are White and not because They are talented and skilled. This kind of criticism is inherently racist because it’s only reserved for non-Whites. (Only in a social-class context are Whites ever prepared to admit that positive discrimination operates in favour of the middle- at the expense of the lower-class) But then that’s the kind of denial that positive discrimination is partly designed to resolve.

The other problems with this article are the tendency to scapegoat White Racism for Black Failure. ‘Path West Midlands Ltd exists because of the significant gap and lack of institutions and bodies to address inequality in employment and barriers to employment as experienced by Black and minority ethnic communities in the West Midlands region’. But Blacks create these problems Themselves, primarily because Blacks are naive enough to think that Whites are going to welcome them as employees with open arms. Experience shows that this will never be the case. And because Blacks believe that the world owes Them a living and that thus They have no need of establishing Their own ‘institutions and bodies’ for the purposes of self-help. Such organisations would not be primarily focused on addressing inequality as an organisational goal, their very existence would do this.

Path West Midlands Ltd is really just a group whose primary focus is the exploitation of inferior Blacks via scapegoating Whites for that very self-induced inferiority. Such organisations exacerbate problems - they do not solve them. In this, they are very much like social welfare – ostensibly designed to help the poor but whose actual impact is to perpetuate poverty. This is because of the violation of a simple axiom: If you give a man money for doing nothing; don’t be surprised when he continues to do nothing. This becomes: If you tell a man he’s failure because of his skin colour, don’t be surprised that he never faces the fact that his failure might be because he’s not all that bright.

Proof of the parasitic nature of Path West Midlands Ltd follows. ‘Our twenty year old organisation exists precisely because Black and minority ethnic communities do not share equal rights with respect to employment and freedom from discrimination’. Everyone has equal rights in the UK, it’s just that many choose not to exercise those rights – and a right unexercised (like a vote not cast) is simply a waiving of one’s rights. That is the problem of the person concerned – not the culture being criticised.

Additionally, it should be said that nobody is free from discrimination and Blacks here are simply trying to place Themselves in a special category of “Most Discriminated in Show”. That is hardly equal.

More problematic statements. ‘We are regarded as a relatively successful black led voluntary organisation [By whom? In relation to which set of statistics?] that focuses on the barriers to career advancement and progression and barriers to professions where Black and minority ethnic communities are not so readily engaged and employed ie where there is under representation’. Is this under-representation the result of Whites not employing Blacks or the result of Blacks not wishing to pursue certain careers? Does it mean that Blacks must pursue certain careers to feel equal with Whites regardless of whether doing so satisfies Them as individuals? Does it mean becoming a barrister, for example, because Blacks need more Black Barristers or because a career in the law is attractive, in and of itself to any given Black? These issues are never addressed because the expression ‘under representation’ has no objective meaning.

The sad truth here is that because the author believes everyone is equal in the numerical sense, there should be a certain quota of Blacks performing certain jobs simply because that matches that proportion of Blacks in the population. This means that all UK companies must have at least 8% of their workforce Black regardless of intellect and education. That this makes no business sense (as well as being thoroughly immoral) eludes such fools. As does the fact that such things as culture and aptitude predispose people to some activities over others. Does this now mean that Whites, who are (by this measure) under-represented in athletics and popular music, should have affirmative action foisted upon Them in order to redress this alleged imbalance? If so, then we obviously need an expensive and pointless publicity campaign to encourage more whites to become boxers because all Frank TALKER ever sees is two black guys going at it in the ring – whites being definitely under-represented there!

The conflation here – as always with the unworldly proponents of positive discrimination – is between biological inequality and equal rights. Both are facts of life but the latter can never compensate for the former.

‘We take a dual approach to our work, which does not focus on “blaming the victim” [even though it’s often the victim’s fault?!], but instead seeks to work with the employer to open up technical, managerial and professional opportunities via positive action and we further work with these employers to examine their policies, practices, procedures and processes’. Although this is a good idea, where it will encounter problems is in the fact that this approach ultimately means psychoanalysing the employer – and no White ever wants to be told by a Black that he’s a racist. That leads to Whites thinking you’re an Uppity Negro.

‘We have an 80% success rate of individuals gaining... employment as a result of our intervention’. What does this really mean? Is the alleged problem of under-representation really being solved or are employers merely being emotionally blackmailed to hire unsuitable candidates simply because They’re Black? We are never told.

‘We find that an individual’s life events and life experiences are symptoms of racism [Whose? Black, White or both?], rather than a cause of any disadvantage’. This is garbage because it means that one’s experiences don’t influence one’s later experiences. That whatever happens to one occurs in a contextless vacuum of unconnected experiences. This is the same as Whites endlessly claiming, whenever one of the endless examples of Their racism rears it head, that it’s a one-off event - totally untypical. The fact that such events keep happening shows just how typical they really are. Such statements deny the agency of self-fulfilling prophecy in claiming that only White Racism is the problem, but never poor Black responses to it. And such a claim is just as racist.

‘We also find that the barriers to career progression for Black and minority ethnic communities and the under representation of Black and minority ethnic communities in key professions blocks an individual’s right to develop their full potential’. Problem is that an individual’s potential is based on overcoming barriers to developing it, not in having an alleged right to develop one’s full potential. If self-development were easy, then everyone would be well-developed. But the fact is that most people live fruitless, aimless and pointless lives not because they are disadvantaged but because they lack guts. A right to develop one’s full potential means that the gutless can achieve without effort; that is, pseudo-achieve.

Only a recognition of reality can form the basis for achievement – not an attempted tampering with reality that achieves no more than a superficial change; leaving the underlying reality intact.

‘We found that the more qualified Black and minority ethnic people are the more difficult it is for them to find a position commensurate with their qualification’. This is because Whites don’t believe Blacks are Their intellectual equals. Whites try to evade the existence of well-educated Blacks in order to continue believing this self-serving racist delusion on the basis that if intelligent Blacks CANNOT exist – because of Black Biological Inferiority – then They don’t ACTUALLY exist. And clever Blacks can be made invisible (sort of) simply by not hiring them.

The other issue here is that Whites want to make Blacks believe that going to university is a waste of time and money for Them since it gives Blacks “ideas above Their station” about intellectual equality with Whites. Whites hope this will discourage Blacks from going to university; freeing-up more places for traditionally and historically positively-discriminated against Whites.

‘Further, Black unemployment has remained at an unacceptable [by what objective standard?] level across the West Midlands for well over three decades and thus many face generational unemployment through no fault of their own’. It takes two to tango, I'm afraid. To claim that someone has an experience with which they don’t themselves collude is abject self-delusion.

‘Because of this the work that we do only begins to scratch the surface. [The reason for this is that the work that you do is, itself, superficial.] At the current rate of progress generational unemployment will remain for the next 90 years and we will not see any equitable balance in the workplace until at least 2080’.

‘After all the Northern Ireland Fair Employment Legislation, which is based on a form of Affirmative Action has made a difference to the employment of Catholics. Catholics are now more represented in managerial, professional and senior administrative posts’. This is a poor example of equality for two reasons. One, the Catholics you’re talking about are White, and Whites are far more likely to treat Their Own with respect than They are Blacks. Two, the bloodshed in northern Ireland made such equality legislation inevitable. In other words, it was necessary for thousands of people to be killed to achieve this. Is this author suggestion an all-out race-war with Armalites - lasting at least two generations – to convince Whites that Blacks mean business and are no longer willing to be fucked around anymore? Although such a war isn’t a bad idea, does this author fully understand that she’s implying this?

‘[A dearth of employable Blacks] threatens the future prosperity of not just Birmingham, but much of the West Midlands economy and thus the UK as a whole. The cost of this inequality to society is clear’. This statement is naive and proves the author’s complete lack of understanding of White Racism. Whites are perfectly prepared to ruin Their own economy rather than let Blacks take it over. That Black Migrants are needed to prop up both the UK & US economies (because Whites don’t reproduce fast enough & are not concerned with being well-educated), doesn’t stop Whites calling for racist immigration controls. No matter how self-contradictory such pseudo-logic clearly is. This author thinks racism logical! If it were, racists would smile a lot more than they do because they’d be a lot happier than they are.

The UK economy has been in terminal decline since the end of the British Empire precisely because of the failure of this Empire to sustain itself. Whites daren’t admit that this proves They’re not the superior race They think They are. And Whites would rather go to hell in a hand-basket than admit Blacks aren’t Their inferiors and can be just as involved in reviving the British economy as Whites. But this requires renouncing a racism that is the fundamental bedrock of British culture – as it was of an Empire Whites have yet to emotionally repudiate. This explains why the following statement is hopeless hogwash:

‘No progress can be achieved without the dismantling of the structures perpetuating the racism that blocks Black and minority ethnic communities from participating fully in the labour market’. Such dismantling would bring the entire edifice crashing down upon both itself and upon Blacks. This is a recipe for self-destruction unless you can convince Whites to replace Their racism with something more positive. Because the latter is impossible, it’s always been for the best that the races travel along separate paths and have as little to do with one another as possible.

The other problem with threatening Whites with the poorer performance of Their economy unless They repudiate racism, is that Whites think in concrete and not abstract terms. They think about Themselves, Their families and Their friends. They do not consider great abstract concepts like the Economy because They prefer to abdicate Their responsibilities here and leave such matters to politicians. Politicians They – as self-willed parasites – blame when the Economy inevitably goes wrong because of this refusal to deal, personally, with the great abstractions of life.

Whites don’t understand the Economy and don’t want to. Therefore, Whites don’t see a threat to Their economic well-being resulting from Their racism - no matter how much you think you can prove it with statistics. Again, Blacks here have no real understanding of how White Culture really operates – and don’t really want to because Blacks are frightened of that Culture.

The truly odd thing about Path West Midlands Ltd is that they work with organisations they label as racist – otherwise they wouldn’t need to be working with them since their would be little point in working with a pro-diversity organisation. And yet, given this, they somehow hope that these bad organisations aren’t going to be upset or offended by such a claim. In other words, Path West Midlands Ltd also falls into the same trap Blacks usually fall into of thinking that White Racism can be negotiated or appeased away through alleged appeals to reason. But this never works because as soon as you insult someone – no matter how valid your insult – this makes it rather less likely that they will co-operate with you – thus further entrenching the racism. In any case, racism isn’t logical, so racists will never listen to reason – if they do any such thing, then they’d hardly be racists in the first place, now, would they?

Whites should have no problem with the concept of affirmative action (ie, racism) since They’ve been practising it for centuries.

The fundamental reason Whites don't want positive discrimination; that is, the reason They want affirmative action to be Their exclusive racial preserve, is because if the positive discrimination franchise were extended to Blacks, Whites would then have to work harder for the well-paid jobs They believe should only be reserved for Them. Whites would then actually have to BE - rather than merely ACT - the superior people They claim to be. This would require that Whites completely re-appraise Their culture and then embrace pro-diversity. Clearly, Whites have no wish to do this since it requires actual hard work and effort as opposed to comparative ease of racial snobbery.

The economic disbenefits of racism are never quantified here. In any case, even if the White economy fails completely or isn’t a successful as it might be if it renounced racism, Whites will blame this failure on Blacks – never Themselves.

This author doesn't accept that positive discrimination is a form of racism so doesn't really present the case for affirmative action: She merely presents the case for evading the very reality of the political action she so poorly advocates.

About Us:

My photo

Frank TALKER - Truth-Teller