- Site Info
- Being Human
- Business Success
- Cultural Identity
- DVD Region Codes
- Daily Routine
- Human Activity
- Memorable Passwords
- Mental Health
- Uncommon Common
- Optical-Media Care
- Email Subject Lines to Attract Readers
- Trusting Christians
- White‑Devil’s Dictionary
- Hints & Tips
- White Guilt
- Caucasian Confusions
- Social Media
- Affirmative Action
- Cultural Appropriation
Thursday, 30 November 2006
All of a sudden, White Parents don't want Their children to experience a religion that is 'not their own'. Why now? Why not many years ago, when such experiences were first undertaken?
The answer to these questions is obvious and is given away by the following statement from head teacher Alexander Clark: 'It is not racial prejudice. It's nothing to do with that. [You can't prove a negative so presumably he thinks that if you negate twice that's as good as the proof he isn't presenting.] I think if it had been a Sikh temple or a Buddhist temple it would have been the same reaction'. If this were truly the case, then he should be able to point to previous school visits to such temples as proof of what he's saying. The fact that he can't proves that he's simply evading the issue. And that is that no matter what anti racist policies school's put into place: '[T]he school ha[s] to respect the wishes of [racist] parents'.
This simple fact completely invalidates any anti racist policy you can think of and shows them up as the mere sham that they are and are designed to be. In any case, if it isn't racism, then what – precisely – is it?
A highly intelligent understanding of the problem of equating with race with culture.
It also provides a neat explanation of the differences between cultures without falling into the fallacy of assuming different races to be at differing levels of evolutionary development. It doesn't fall into the trap – inherent in all discussion of race – that some races are more equal than others.
It also hints at the Classic White Mistake of assuming that because Their science and technology is superior to anyone else's (as is the economic system – capitalism – that made such advances possible), that They – as a race – must be superior. Particularly this, '...some continue to cling to [a racial explanation of difference] because their pitiful excuse for self-esteem is bound up in it'.
Saturday, 18 November 2006
'THE WRITER of a new play containing the N-word in its title has been attacked for ignoring pain and history associated with the word'. What 'pain'? What 'history'?
Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past. George Orwell (1903–1950), British author. Nineteen Eighty-Four, part one, chapter three (1949), Ingsoc party slogan.
'African-American comedian Reginald D Hunter was lambasted by Lee Jasper, senior race advisor to the London Mayor Ken Livingstone, who attacked the word for contributing holding the black Disapora back (Sic)'. How can a word hold anyone back, unless they let it?
'The word is imbued with so much pain and anger that has not been resolved'. Get over it!
'It's past properly understood, and there are people who are not strong enough to be able to handle it'. There will always be weak people. Does this mean that we, the strong, have to be held back by you, the weak, because you refuse to toughen up? Fuck you, loser!
If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face—forever. George Orwell (1903–1950), British author. O’Brien to Winston Smith, in Nineteen Eighty-Four, part three, chapter three (1949).
'There are black people across the world who have to live with the consequences of that word (Sic). I find it difficult to conceptualise that the use of this word is somehow an advance for black people worldwide.' This is a deliberate confusion with words that arbitrarily label objects & actions and those objects & actions themselves. It's a pathetic attempt to make whites feel collective guilt, forever, for something that happened before they were born. It is an attempt to make racism the Original Sin of the white race – a blot that can never be removed without a Black say so. Disgustingly hypocritical Black Racism (ie, Doublethink)!
Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them. George Orwell (1903–1950), British author. Nineteen Eighty-Four, part two, chapter nine (1949), extract from Goldstein’s book.
‘I don’t want that word to have power over me and to stop me from living my life. Hiding the word will not make the world a better place.' This is fine, but attempts to elude the fact that making such a statement proves that 'that word' still does have precisely that effect over him. Otherwise, why make the statement? What happened to Frank TALKER when He was a child, He has now gotten over, so why talk about it now – in full adulthood? Unless, of course, he is specifically asked about it by someone with a sincere interest in Him. The solution here is, therefore, that when it comes up in conversation: Fine; discuss it. When it doesn't, don't push other people's faces into it because that would prove you haven't gotten over it and are, therefore, self disempowered by your own cowardice. Does this mean that the upcoming remake of "The Dam Busters" must call guy Gibson's dog "N****R"? How, exactly, does one pronounce that?
'Producers for the show fear the advertising ban could severely affect ticket sales'. This is Black, Racist wishful thinking since a similar ban had no such effect on 'The Spy Who Shagged Me' some years ago.
The 1990 Trust should spend its scarce resources taking positive actions regarding those they claim to represent, rather than focussing on words that can't be erased from their Newspeak dictionaries any more than they can from the minds of racists. It's a fallacy to believe that banning a word can ban the actions usually associated with it. This is the philosophy of the totalitarians described in Orwell's "Nineteen Eighty-Four": Dumbass Niggers!
More proof of the institutionally-racist nature of White Culture. Do you need more? Well, Frank TALKER always says: "The more the merrier!"
The most telling and repeated aspect of this political mess is the commonplace White Standby of self fulfilling prophecy. If '95% don't get asylum' then Whites jump on this self created fact as proof of Their racist lies and mythologizing. In reality, such a statistic is proof of the fact that such asylum claims are believed to be invalid BEFORE their considered – leading to such a high rejection rate.
Decision-makers are "unaware of practices or events which are the basis for the fear being expressed by many unaccompanied children". Yet, many of these children have experienced 'violence, torture, detention and the death of parents'. This wilful blindness is based on the racist assumption that Blacks are better able to put up with abuse than Whites because Black bodies are better developed for manual labour than for intellectual work – abuse that Whites regularly hand out, as here. This means Whites assume Blacks don't suffer the serious after effects of such abuse - as Whites do - because Blacks lack the imaginative faculty to experience such effects.
'There is a plethora of other legislation under which they could be given protection, but isn't being used'. This is an important statement since it means that whatever laws Whites pass against Their own racism, they'll never be enforced. The conclusion: Blacks can't ever rely on Whites.
If Whites had any guts at all, They'd simply admit They don't like Niggers and that would be an end to all Their attempts to pretend that They've forsworn centuries of racist abuse. But They lack the courage to do this because it would then be a hostage to fortune for Blacks; perhaps resulting in centuries of Black Retribution. In the form of various compensations and reparations; leaving Whites the inevitably poorer inhabitants of a country that would then be no longer Their own. It's hard to feel sorry for Whites given Their tendency of stealing other people's countries that weren't Theirs.
Not so much a 'A lapse of humanity', more a revelation that Whites have none to begin with.
Wednesday, 15 November 2006
The usual politically-correct rhetoric one has come to expect from The 1990 Trust. A fundamentally‑disgraceful piece of nonsense.
'RACIAL HATRED will run rampant unless new laws are brought in to halt the tide of Islamophobia...' Racial hatred already is rampant or don't these fools read the news?
'...Muslim communities WILL face further marginalisation (Sic) in society, including the jobs market, and will lead to more violent attacks on Hijab and Jilbab-wearing women'. Although true, this is not because of the British National Party (BNP), this is because of the institutionally‑racist nature of White Culture – of which the BNP is merely a figurehead and spokesman. Does The 1990 Trust really believe that if the BNP were gagged, there would somehow be less racism in the UK? If they do, That would be like saying that censorship of pornography would produce less rape. The confusion here is over causations. It's not porn that causes rape; it's the desire to rape that causes porn. It's not the BNP that cause racial violence; it's racial violence that causes the BNP. It's time to stop putting the cart before the horse.
'Griffin should not have been allowed to misrepresent the court acquittal as a “victory of free speech” propaganda line'. A completely meaningless injunction since Nick Griffin has the free‑speech right to do just that, as the legal case he has just won has shown. The jury was fundamentally‑correct in noting the difference between justifiable criticism and race‑hatred, as well as the difference between authoritarian, racist anti‑racism and free speech: These "twelve good men and true" are to be applauded [If there's one thing far worse than the BNP...]. Nick Griffin won't represent this victory as one for free speech, you stupid fool, so much as he will use it to gain sympathy (& supporters) for those who are prepared to voice the views of the majority against the politically‑correct tendencies of the minority. And he'll get a lot of that, which he wouldn't have gotten if this foolish prosecution had never taken place.
When you degenerate Communist, fellow‑travellers finally realise that free‑speech means the right to say things that you don't agree with, then The 1990 Trust will actually start making inroads into defeating racists – but not before. Blacks will never stop from shooting Themselves in the foot over racists, I'm afraid to say.
Islam, like all religions, is an evil and wicked faith. Anyone who believes in that which cannot be proven is as worthless as anyone who believes that there are different races of Man. The religious don't believe in god, they merely believe that they don't have to demonstrate the validity of their beliefs – as others do – thereby putting themselves above others. The religious do not worship God, they wish to become God.
This nonsense will rebound on Blacks when Whites eventually claim that there are things Blacks cannot say – no matter how true.
'Racists up and down the land will believe they have a green light to call Muslims “cockroaches” and their faith “evil and wicked”'. Yet again, they don't need such a green light since racists already do this – or wasn't The 1990 Trust aware of this? The 1990 Trust is wilfully unaware that we don't see more racism now than ever before, merely more overt racism. The quality and nature of this racism is exactly the same as it ever was: Nothing fundamental has changed about the basically‑negative attitudes White People have to those whose skin is a darker shade then Their own.
'We urgently need to stop the tide of Islamophobia and racism turning into a Tsunami (Sic)'. It already is a tsunami. Moreover, the author proposes no workable solution, save this indigestible nonsense: ' Unless we make it an offence to spread racial hatred WHEREVER THERE IS AN AUDIENCE, the BNP’s engine-room of hate will have limitless scope to infect wider society'. How then is one to stop the spread of racism within the family home? No answer! Again, The 1990 Trust believes that the BNP is a highly‑contagious disease that somehow must be kept in quarantine and eventually destroyed – like polio or smallpox. The problem is that because the BNP is caused by the racist society in which it is housed, one would then have to destroy that very society in order to stop the spread of the disease. Sorry to have to tell The 1990 Trust the bad news: Whites won't let you do this without a racist fight, and there are ten times as many of Them as there are of You!
It's clear The 1990 Trust has been infiltrated by Anti-Racist Whites bent on perpetuating the myth that only obvious and overt racism exists. And in perpetuating the lie that the quintessential racism of Anti‑Racism (telling Blacks what to do about White Racism) is not, in itself, a form of racism. Worse, that The 1990 Trust is filled with Racist Black Collaborators, bent on sucking‑up to the White powers‑that‑be. How low can you get? What the impractical Communards at The 1990 Trust want is to exploit White Racist guilt in order to provide themselves with a lucrative career in the race‑relations industry (eg, the ultimate White‑Man's Nigger, Trevor Phillips). While lining Their own personal pension pots in the process and, simultaneously, doing sweet FA for Blacks.
As Peter Klein says:
'...[E]xceptionally intelligent people who favour the market tend to find opportunities for professional and financial success outside the Academy [or Politics] (i.e., in the business or professional world). Those who are highly intelligent but ill-disposed toward the market are more likely to choose an academic [or a Political] career.
'This also leads to the phenomenon that academics [& Politicians] don't "know" much about how markets work, since they have so little experience with them, living as they do in their subsidised ivory towers and protected by academic tenure. ...This absence of direct responsibility leads to a corresponding absence of first-hand knowledge of practical affairs. The critical attitude of the intellectual arises... "no less from the intellectual's situation as an onlooker” in most cases also as an outsider” than from the fact that his main chance of asserting himself lies in his actual or potential nuisance value."
'...[W]e must [also] realise first that academics [& Politicians] receive many direct benefits from the welfare state, and that these benefits have increased over time.
'...[T]here are many benefits, for academics [& Politicians], to living in a highly interventionist society... [They then end up playing] active roles as government advisers, creating and sustaining the welfare state that now surrounds us' [Why Intellectuals Still Support Socialism]. The most degrading and disgusting example of this is the UK's Race Relations Act and its Commission for Racial Equality; making it illegal to incite a non‑crime: Racial Hatred! The ludicrousness of such a position shows not only the perfidious nature of Albion but the sheer gullibility and stupidity of Blacks for not attacking such nonsense. Both subsidise White Racism while buying‑off Blacks into believing that Whites are actually doing something positive, productive and constructive about White Racism – apart from throwing a few more crumbs from the High Table towards those Whites deem as natural‑born inferiors.
'Home Secretary John Reid was wrong to instantly pour cold water over the prospect of further legislation.
'This is a man who, as Health Secretary, announced he does not believe in the concept of institutional racism.
'In his new job he is presiding over institutions that clearly practice the very evil he cannot see'. The preceding three paragraphs illustrate precisely the wrong-headedness of The 1990 Trust's approach. They're aware that Whites refuse to admit to the institutional racism within White Culture, yet still demand that that very culture pass laws against itself! And, even if such laws were passed, The 1990 Trust can do nothing better than acknowledge that such laws would be enforced by institutional racists which, The 1990 Trust knows perfectly well, means that such laws won't be enforced at all!
The other more serious issue for Blacks is that They don't enforce the laws that already exist – in Their desperate attempts to suck‑up to Whites by not punishing Whites for Their racism. The Commission for Racial Equality's unwillingness in this area proves this (Trevor Phillips was in the pay of White Racists). Coupled with the fact that Blacks need such a commission because They won't do for Themselves what They should be doing for Themselves. (More proof, perhaps, that Blacks are inferior to Whites?) When a man wants others to do his work for him, it will never be done well (if at all) or, to put it another way, if a job's worth doing, it's worth doing yourself.
Strengthening existing laws and/or passing new ones will make almost no difference since the unwillingness to enforce laws means that such laws become instant dead‑letters. For White Racists this is a great benefit since it allows Them to claim that They are doing something about Their own racism (by passing laws against it), while actually doing nothing at all.
Laws do not stop bad actions from occurring – in any way whatsoever – they merely punish those who commit them that you can catch. Let's not fall into the rather obvious trap of thinking that the law – as such, in and of itself, simply by virtue of its existence – is going bring about the paradise on earth that anti‑racists desire: Their political hegemony over White Racists They refuse to tolerate.
'A programme to challenge Islamophobia as it manifests itself in lack of opportunities and outward hostility towards Muslims is essential to reducing the feeling of injustice'. No. Racial segregation is the only way to do this. When there are no opportunities, you make them for yourself – you don't burn cars! In other words, there are always opportunities, so long as you can think and act for yourself. If the so‑called inferior Jews can do this, then why can't Muslims? Who helped Jews in Their various settlements around the world but Jews Themselves? Or, are Muslims merely an inferior Semitic race of big‑nosed Ragheads?
Sunday, 5 November 2006
An interesting example of the ways in which white racism transmutes itself into something whites consider more acceptable, but which nevertheless perpetuates the white obsession with the alleged superiority conferred through the mere possession of white skin. White racists have got to have a group they can treat as sacrificial victims - even their fellow whites!
Friday, 3 November 2006
This piece is very naughty, indeed. Blacks not wishing to be abused by Whites - and so banding together for protection - cause ghettoes (ie, communities).
This kind of nonsense plays into the hands of racists by pretending Blacks aren't happy to live in ghettoes (ie, defensible spaces). It does this by pretending Blacks actually want to integrate with Whites because Blacks believe White Culture to be superior and worth integrating into. Whites already believe such racist nonsense and now Blacks are pretending They agree with it!
White Racism largely causes White Flight. This fact Lord Ouseley conveniently bypasses. Any movement from one area to another is always caused by a belief that the grass is greener elsewhere - otherwise why move at all? Conversely, any unwillingness to move (even if practicable) is always caused by a belief that the grass is worse elsewhere. Blaming Whites for doing exactly what Blacks would do in the same circumstances isn't turning the tables on those "Perfidious Whites"; it's just more of the same racism.
Lord Ouseley is also deliberately dishonest in not accepting that the reason so little attention is paid to Whites moving away is because property values decline in newly-settled immigrant areas. And Whites (like everybody else) don't want to see Their prize investment lose it's value because of the introduction of Blacks. This is why so many Whites don't want Blacks as neighbours. If the tables really were turned, Blacks would have exactly the same attitudes. It's racist hypocrisy to say otherwise; designed to make Blacks appear morally superior to Whites.
The plain fact is that we live in an inherently divided society. No amount of social engineering is ever going to change that for the simple reason that no-one - no-one - actually wants it to be otherwise. If there are no differentials between people how will we know - in comparative terms - whom we are. (This is difficult enough to determine absolutely - in terms of our objective achievements.) Let's be clear, we are not "sleepwalking into segregation" we are already segregated: by Race; by Class; by Gender; etc. the person maikng this tsatement is sleepwalking since he doesn't yet live in the real world.
What Blacks really want here is for Whites to love and accept Them (they won't) for free. And for whites to stop running away from Them as if Blacks had some terrible infection (the lurgi of racial inferiority) that could easily be caught by Whites. Both races are desperately trying to obtain something from the other that neither group can provide for itself. If White racists didn't exist, Blacks would have nothing to carp-on about; if Blacks didn't exist, Whites would have to look harder for something as good as a sense-of-superiority to fill the emptiness of Their days.
Thursday, 2 November 2006
'When academics call for diversity, they’re really talking about racial preferences for particular groups of people, mainly blacks'.
Quite right! Well said, Mr Williams.