Saturday, 15 December 2007

‘Some good news from Iraq’

(2007)



Iraq occupation in the eye of the storm is an article that refutes this classic example of White wishful-thinking from a paper that supports capitalism, but not the laissez-faire kind. To do the latter would mean having to accept that oil is not to be purchased at the point of a gun, but by trade. The willingness to use violence is proof of the pseudo-capitalist nature of such people.


Copyright © 2007 Frank TALKER. Permission granted to reproduce and distribute it in any format; provided that mention of the author’s Weblog (http://franktalker.blogspot.com/) is included: E-mail notification requested. All other rights reserved.

Tuesday, 11 December 2007

Why there must be no free speech for Nazis

Although a very good article, it misses important points. 1) Whites would much rather debate with racists than with Blacks about racism, since that allows all Whites to profit from racism by pretending racism is worthy of debate and therefore a valid point of view; a) Moreover, it's easier to win a debate with a racist because racists are quite stupid, so such debates are always straw man debates to make alleged anti racists look good but which only make the latter look just as stupid; 2) Free speech implies the responsibility of free listening. Because racists aren't listening, they're not so much engaging in free speech as in mere mouthing off! They affectively deny others the right to free speech while indulging in it themselves; 3) There's a flaw in our democracy that's exploited by the BNP. The mentally ill (eg, white racists) are allowed to speak freely while those who also endanger lives by making hoax telephone calls or who shout "Fire" in a crowded theatre are not; 4) "No Platform" policies drive racists underground, where they're harder to see and destroy. Although a necessary evil, this fact should not be evaded; 5) White, racist free speech tourists want to frighten blacks into accepting second class citizenship. This is a cover for an institutionally racist culture and an attempt to legitimate it, rather more than an attempt to legitimate the BNP (the tip of the iceberg of white racism). It's proof of how deep-rooted racism is in white culture and, therefore, of how painfully difficult it is for most whites to renounce it; 6) Because racism provides whites (racist or not) with obvious advantages; they're perfectly happy to debate with racists – behind the cover of free speech, because of the covert desire to maintain these unearned benefits. Racism doesn't effect whites negatively, in the short term, as apartheid didn't; 7) Debate is a euphemism for negotiation: About how openly racist whites will allow themselves to be and how much legalised racism blacks will be required to accept. Negotiation here is a euphemism for appeasement: Such discussions are pointless because if racists could be reasoned with they'd hardly be racists in the first place; 8) Racists believe in free speech only for themselves: They must control the debate to continue to benefit themselves and disbenefit blacks. Discussion with racists (but not discussion of racism) is merely a form of racism since all debates inherently legitimise their subject as fit for discussion; allowing racism to continue to be practised. Any debate with a racist privileges the racist as a rational thinker; like trying to have a rational debate about schizophrenia with a schizophrenic! 9) Such a debate implies it's perfectly legitimate to deprive people of their human rights simply because they are less white than those engaged in the debate. Whites are certainly much exercised about positive discrimination for blacks while hypocritically allowing it for themselves – via racism. The debate itself valorises racism when the only real thing to debate is a) how to destroy racists; or, b) when are racists going to renounce racism: The two are mutually incompatible. After all, would you debate with a paedophile about access to your kids? 10) Only racists claim racists have a right to free speech; as only paedophiles claim the same right; 11) '…[O]ur resistance [to white racism] should not be confined to legal… means…' Does this mean the targeted assassination of known racist ringleaders? 12) This is all part of the backlash against free-speech stifling Political Correctness. Not to engage in something better, but merely for whites to use their democratic political advantage (they're the majority) to express their racism and call it free speech. Racist whites think it's OK to abuse others (as in Nazi Germany) and now wish a return to their open championing of such overt behaviour; 13) Freedom of speech is only applicable to those who believe in it and practise it; it is not applicable to those who only wish it for themselves and to those who only wish it for whites. For racists to proclaim the value of free speech which they would be only too happy to deny to others is canting, racist hypocrisy; 14) Whites always try to get around any of their unethical behaviour by making it legal. Discussion is a way of making racism tacitly legal and ethical: That way no one need ever feel guilty abut behaving badly, because it's the law. By making it legal, whites think they make it ethical; thereby evading moral issues. This is why the British Empire, Nazi Germany and apartheid South Africa flourished on the back of the racism that was so important to their former success.

Sunday, 9 December 2007

Black Voluntary Sector under Attack

The most telling aspect of this piece: 'Gilligan’s column subtly plays to the fears some have of Black people getting organised and empowering themselves, and underhandedly advocates for cutting and undermining support [which] Black organisations have earned and deserve'. Whites are terrified because a) they fear Blacks will take their revenge for 500 years of White Racism. And, b) Whites fear that their unearned privileges - accruing from this racist legacy - will have to be shared with Blacks; cutting the throat of the goose that lays Whites their golden eggs. The White Race is, in essence, a race of panhandlers and parasites who couldn't stand on Their own two feet without the necessary emotional crutch of racism. (Witness the anger of recent White Arrivals from South Africa who are bitter that They can't earn as much here as They could under apartheid.) Even those who aren't overtly racist still obtain the benefits of White Privilege in an institutionally racist culture like that obtaining in the UK - and the West, in general. Try to remove this crutch and Whites will fight tooth and nail to ensure you don't, even if it means They will have to destroy it for Themselves to prevent you from obtaining it. Thus, Whites are slaves to Their profound intolerance of others. The fact is that Whites don't have to give up Their unearned privileges – and They know it – because, in a democracy, They can always pass laws to keep Themselves in the majority; such as immigration controls. The greatest danger facing Blacks is that Whites don't feel guilty about Their racism, so long as They can hide it from Themselves. This is why it must always be pushed into Their faces – at every and all opportunities – to ensure They never get away with any of it.

Thursday, 29 November 2007

Wednesday, 28 November 2007

‘Golly Doll Sales Spark Anger’

When will white people ever learn their lesson?

Imagine the outcry if paedophiles marketed dolls of naked little children!

This retailer is a racist with whom no rational debate is possible because the differences between those who practice racism and their intended victims are irreconcilable. This can only lead to a continuance of the current racewar. Or, in other words, kill or be killed.

Hopefully, this shopkeeper's sales will be poor and/or his shop will be firebombed - preferably with him inside it.

The only good racist is a dead one.

Friday, 2 November 2007

Britain: how to cope with becoming a nation of immigrants for the first time

‘Great Britain at the start of the 21st century wouldn’t be half the country it is today without the men and women, often fleeing poverty and persecution, who have moved to its shores in recent years.’ This is meaningless, really; since it’s true for every country in the world. After all the usual twaddle about how wonderful immigrants are, we get the catch. ‘But mass immigration has now reached such levels that it threatens to overwhelm Britain’s inadequate public services and housing stock; they will need to be reformed and expanded to cope.’ This would be true even with zero immigration, since the population is rising from within also, and yet we still have inadequate housing for our own citizens. The nonsense continues. ‘For immigration to remain a net positive in the years ahead – and for the public’s mounting concerns over national cohesion to be assuaged’; that is, for racists to be appeased, ‘Britain will need to rethink how it copes with newcomers, adopting a much more American approach to integration.’ The paradox here is that there’s no such thing as national cohesion - save that provided by the false dawn of white racism. The very thing that creates such cohesion among whites is the very thing that will have to be destroyed in order to avoid disrupting such false cohesiveness! This means treating migrants as social inferiors, thus lessening the benefits of migration; while pretending – as this editorial does – that you’re doing no such thing. There’s no discussion here of the point of integration, it’s simply accepted as a good thing. I need hardly say that integration is a racist concept, but I shall anyway. It implies that ‘newcomers’ must integrate or be treated as inferiors; that is, it’s a form of racist emotional blackmail. Because of this, it would be very foolish indeed, for anyone to integrate with whites, as it would be foolish for the rape victim to integrate with the rapist or the Jew to integrate with the Nazi. “Integration” is nothing more than a code word for “Discrimination”. ‘Britain now resembles America, the quintessential nation of immigrants, when it comes to immigration; but it doesn’t have… a unifying national vision.’ Strange to use America as a model for racial integration when they slaughtered 96% of the native inhabitants and still view blacks as no more than freed slaves. Nevertheless, that’s all too typical of the white men who think and write this racist garbage. Worse, the claim is made that we don’t have a ‘unifying national vision’. We do, it’s called institutionalised racism – the kind represented by this editorial. The racism that says foreigners must (be) like us – or else. ‘Britain must also articulate a liberal national culture and identity to which foreign and native-born alike can subscribe and be proud of.’ A nice idea but hopelessly impractical, of course. It’s only whites who wish to determine which values everyone lives by since whites have a very bad history of asking those who are expected to conform what they might think about it. This attitude can, therefore, only lead to the use of force against immigrants in the hope of creating a new style British Empire (modelled closely on the old one) but this time exclusively within the borders of the UK, rather than without. As usual with whites, they will use force to achieve any end because they know that reason cannot be used to justify racism. And then they have the cheek to wonder why they’re so hated in the world. The culture we live in is primarily divided along racial, sexual and class lines. The truth is that blacks have little to do with whites, or their values; and vice versa. No one is saying that the poor should integrate with the rich, so how - exactly - can this monocultural project ever be brought to fruition in a country that’s never had it before? No answer! ‘…[I]n part this will also mean moving away from the fashionable anti-Britishness and negativity towards this country and its traditions, history and institutions that permeates the bien-pensant elite, which dominates thinking in everything from academia to the BBC.’ This ‘negativity’ is inevitable given the profoundly racist history of the UK and the resultant white guilt that sustains such ‘negativity’. Until whites get over the loss of their empire and their negative feelings for those less white than themselves, this country is doomed to slow, economic decline – like all previous imperial powers. This writer is pulling his own pud: If this is liberalism, Frank TALKER’s a monkey’s uncle. History is here being used as an ideological tool to flatter whites with narcissistic, self righteous fantasies. And, these denials of effective inherent racism are crucial to the imperialist project of those who refuse to honestly confront the present. The writer tacitly admits that immigration can't be stopped so reluctantly accepts it. But ameliorates his displeasure of immigrants by claiming that whites have a right to demand that immigrants conform to our values; forgetting that those values were perhaps the reason they came here in the first place. This means the old racist slogan: When in Rome do as the Romans do. Nevertheless, when do the immigrants become Romans who can decide which values they wish to pursue? Never, obviously; at least by the standards of Integrationists. Once again, in all the cosy “fair play” rhetoric there’s a juicy racist stinger: ‘This is not a matter of… stamping out differences but of fostering an understanding of how Britain’s liberal values are a product of its history and culture.’ It’s rather difficult to foster something that doesn’t, nor ever did, exist. A culture that enslaved twenty million blacks and unethically ruled a third of the world and vigorously refused to allow many Jews into the country to escape Hitler’s hordes?! How is it liberal to continue to treat non whites as less than human? Beats Frank TALKER! ‘…[A]s well as making sure that everybody learns to speak English’. Not to better the speakers’ communication skills, but so that white paranoia is not revealed when whites think everyone not speaking the only language they can talk is really talking about them. Trust me, white folks, when Hindus speak Hindi, the last thing on their mind is you! Strange that whites can’t speak the language themselves, given our 20% illiteracy rate. Since racism is designed to provide whites with positive discrimination, it’s hard to see why whites would want immigrants to speak English when this can only increase the competition from non whites? Perhaps this is the price they’re prepared to pay for the idolatry of their own language? ‘…[I]t also needs to be accompanied by a crackdown on Islamic extremists and on anybody who seeks to deny women from ethnic or religious minorities the rights taken for granted by the rest of the population.’ A nice idea but why single out Muslims in this racist way? Why not simply crack down on all extremists – or does this ‘crackdown’ only apply to whomsoever the white race hates at any given moment? ‘The biggest danger associated with immigration is… it becomes an excuse not to tackle the… problems… created by the welfare culture, with migrants used as substitute labour while a British-born underclass is paid not to work.’ It’s pointless to complain about social welfare, since it was created by the very guilt feelings motivating this writer. It was designed to assuage the poor’s tendency to rebellion while keeping them resolutely poor and in their place by subtly implying that you never need to work nor pay your way so long as you do what you’re told. Now the price of such bread and circuses is skyrocketing and whites are now panicking over the social Frankenstein they’ve created. ‘Pretending that levels of immigration are much more modest than they really are, or that they are not causing any problems, is no longer a tenable strategy.’ Nor is pretending that racist ideas like “integration” will actually work when they’ve never worked in the past. European Jewry was well assimilated into Weimar Germany but that didn’t prevent six million of them from being gassed. Vacant eyed utopianism never came more vacant and it always leads to rivers of blood.


Article copyright © 2007 Frank TALKER. Permission granted to reproduce and distribute it in any format; provided that mention of the author’s Weblog (http://franktalker.blogspot.com/) is included: E mail notification requested. All other rights reserved. Frank TALKER is also the author of Sweaty Socks: A Treatise on the Inevitability of Toe Jam in Hot Weather (East Cheam Press: Groper Books, 1997) and is University of Bullshit Professor Emeritus of Madeupology.

Wednesday, 24 October 2007

Dr Watson


Dr Watson – The response of Equality Campaigners is ethically right, logical, tactical, justified and effective

Three cheers to The 1990 Trust for pointing out that racism can never be justified under the guise of free speech. That is how racism usually gets its foothold on the thoughts of the weak and feeble minded White Race and eventually leads to rivers of blood - ethnic minority blood. What makes Whites inferior is the fact that They cannot demonstrate that They are anything else. This makes Them good and mad and racist. Because Whites cannot convince others of Their superiority through argument – nor Themselves – They resort to a racist ideology that can only flourish through the use of force. Reason is not something Whites have historically practised, as one can find few examples – even in the history books written by Whites, Themselves. Whites have a lot invested in Their racism and will protect that investment – by any means necessary. This is a 500 year investment and protecting your investment is the first rule of any business. For Whites, the question is: “What’s in it for me?” With racism, the economic and psychic answer to this question is obvious: Unearned wealth and the self serving belief in one’s genetic superiority as a vain attempt to justify the unearned wealth. Nobody kills the goose that lays the golden eggs, after all; that would mean having to work for a living. And, who really wants to know that they cannot succeed with an unfair and perpetual advantage? Certainly not White People. If an activity makes you money why would you stop doing it? For Whites to admit that racism is nonsense, would mean also for Them to admit that They are stupid. Why would Whites do this? The last place Whites would want to look for a solution to Their millennial fear of Blacks is Their abundant fear of life (Their fear of sex, women, children, etc). The pain racism causes Whites is manifest in Their guilt over it; while this pain would be increased if They formally admitted that guilt. Racism tries to conceal wherever Whites don’t want to go – into the future with Blacks as equals. Yet where Whites don’t want to go is where They already are: Fearful of anything different from Themselves. Whites claim this pain doesn’t exist – except in the minds of race card playing Blacks - but it is Their sole reason for living! To protect Themselves from Their fear of the truth, Whites try to make you fear Them even more than They fear Themselves. The bully always being more scared than the so called victim. What perpetuates White Racism is that there is only a single Race-of Man, this fact fills Whites with the nameless dread that They are nothing special. Racism is the hate that dare not speak its name. Anti racism merely makes the racial situation worse because if you try to save Whites from Themselves, They’ll try to destroy you to save Their precious racism – Their only friend in the darkness. The paradox is that to protect racist practise, the existence of racism must be denied. But, how can Whites deny the very thing They’re so desperate to continue practising? The denial itself is racist! This is why euphemisms like “free speech” are peddled. Whites want to be everyone’s game to evade the fact that the moment They embraced racism, They lost the game. Not only must Whites prove They’re not racist but, simultaneously, that racism is natural and that to refuse to discuss this is a threat to “free speech”. And that Blacks invented so called racism by virtue of Their natural inferiority. Without racism, Whites are nothing. They have painted Themselves into a corner with it and find They cannot escape because that would mean having to admit that They can find nothing else to replace Their racism with. They have to stick with it or end up with nothing. Hence, Their desperate and increasingly despairing searches for means to express Their racism and make it sound almost respectable – as, for example, Charles Darwin and his cronies successfully did in the nineteenth century. This proves that Whites still believe in Their inherent, genetic superiority; while still looking that all elusive scientific proof – about as pointless as a Christian looking for God in a test tube. The second most important aspect of this article is: ‘The notion of free speech is rarely explained properly. It carries with it the caveat that it must not harm others’. However, this does not mean merely being emotionally offended, since: “Sticks & stones will break my bones but names will never hurt me.” The important thing to recognise is objective – not subjective – harm. Otherwise, Blacks simply become overly-sensitive to all racism and render Themselves ridiculous, thereby. The rule here is that you must change the rules on what controls you, to change the rules on what you can control.


Article copyright © 2007 Frank TALKER. Permission granted to reproduce and distribute it in any format; provided that mention of the author’s Weblog (http://franktalker.blogspot.com/) is included: E mail notification requested. All other rights reserved. Frank TALKER is also the author of Sweaty Socks: A Treatise on the Inevitability of Toe Jam in Hot Weather (East Cheam Press: Groper Books, 1997) and is University of Bullshit Professor Emeritus of Madeupology.

Friday, 19 October 2007

squarepeg and racism 3

Like all racism-denying white trash who are found out, you waffle-on about trivia in the hope that your essential guilt-induced emptiness won't be noticed. You obviously have a chip on your shoulder the size of your rampant white ego, to disguise the fact that you have never achieved anything in life without evading the reality your existence so despoils. Like all bitter, resentful, shame faced goons (ie ‘lame ducks’ – your parapraxis, not mine), you just can’t resist opening your mouth to reveal the truly cavernous space that lies in the gap between your ears. You revel in your illiberal version of free speech because it allows you to talk codswallop without – you hope – ever being shown up as the living mouthpiece for the affective disorders of an entire race, that you really are. I condemn you as I would anyone who was objectively wrong. I would have done the same if you were a homosexual, a paedophile, a communist or a welfare scrounger. The last is, in fact, something that you effectively are since white racism is social welfare for whites who can’t make it in life without unfair advantages. That you should be so annoyed that someone has pointed out the lies you tell yourself, tells all that you are perfectly well aware that you have not achieved solely by your own merits but by the white privileges you seek to maintain at the cost of the blacks you so despise. If you wonder why blacks hate you, then you are more self-hating than you look. (By the way, just to show how legally-ignorant you actually are, no-one needs to read the terms & conditions on any Website since these must always conform with the laws of the land in which the particular server is located. If one is aware of these laws, there’s no point in reading these conditions because they must never be ultra vires. If not, they can be challenged in civil courts in the UK under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977. Additionally, in common law, a letter becomes the copyright of the recipient as soon as received, so your comment about “intellectual property” is unimportant. You should have studied law at that third-rate university you went to.) Those who can, do; those who can't, talk. And Frank TALKER never makes the mistake of assuming that a fool can be taught to understand anything. Let them sit at the back of the class – where they belong – with their mouths firmly shut.

Thursday, 18 October 2007

squarepeg and racism 2

Although you claim to resent positive discrimination, you do not resent it when it's to your benefit. You do not begrudge the BNP for forming racially-exclusive groupings - only that blacks should not be allowed to do the same. The proof of your racism here is the implication that we should be heading towards a colour-blind society. This proves you recognise that we do not currently live in such a society; meaning that, since birth, you - as a white person - have benefited from white racism since whites are not going to exclude themselves from such benefits. You evade the existence of the benefits of positive discrimination for whites by claiming they should not also exist for blacks. Hypocrite! You run away from the implications of White Racism, for your social and economic well being, as well as the consequences of your tacit admission that we live in a racist society. White people are major beneficiaries of white racism - a fact you only dimly accept as true. To criticise this racism would mean criticising yourself – and whites make poor self analysers, as their postings demonstrate. It would mean facing the guilt that white achievements are not solely the result of their abilities but partly and/or mostly the result of their skin colour. Such honesty is a bridge too far for one such as yourself. All whites are faced with this dilemma. It’s not the positive discrimination, so much, that is the punishment for your racism; it’s the guilt that you can never get over. You desperately evade the accident-of-birth of being born white because you would hate to admit to yourself that you are secretly glad not to have been born black in a society that you implicitly recognise is racist. You covertly wish to not only evade the guilt that such a recognition would bring, but to perpetuate white privilege just in case nearly all of your success in life was down to nothing more than skin pigmentation. You’d then have to face the fact that you are nothing much: The ‘lame duck’ you claim not to be (while simultaneously & racialistically implying blacks to be), but about which you offer no proof. All whites are faced with this challenge. Whites who criticise racism (& those who don’t) are guilty of the sin of omission of not facing up to the benefits they reap from the fact of racism. As those whites who didn’t complain when their integrated and assimilated Jewish neighbours were taken away, were just as guilty of the horrors of the gas chamber as the men who actually committed those crimes. It’s only those whites (the very rare ones) who choose to renounce the benefits of white racism who possess any ethical and political credibility whatsoever in the current racewar. No white can live with the knowledge that he is an accessory before, during and after the fact of racism, without having some kind of nervous breakdown. And it is this fear and self-loathing that motivates all white complaints about positive discrimination for blacks (but never that for whites). You dare not criticise white racism for fear that white racists would lump you in with blacks - and treat you likewise (ie, as a Nigger-Lover). You’d then have to renounce your white privilege; that is, the positive discrimination for whites that is the institutional racism of which you so approve by virtue of the fact that you never criticise nor renounce it yourself. It’s in your interests to condemn positive discrimination for blacks since that’s the only way you have of sustaining the benefits you enjoy springing from white privilege. What white, after all, is going to kill the goose that’s laying golden eggs marked “Whites Only”? Because the vast majority of whites have never renounced the unwritten white privilege they all enjoy, overtly-racist or not, the vast majority of whites are racist – either as a sin of omission or of commission. Every white person automatically benefits – in a racist society – from the positive discrimination inherent in such societies. The only way to run away from the ethical and emotional morass this leads whites into is to claim that positive discrimination is bad. Coupled with the usual fatuous denials that they ever benefit from same – when they clearly do – from their own grudging admission that we do not live in a colour-blind society. This is the hopeless and incorrigible bigotry of those who decry the fact we do not live in a colour-blind society; while doing everything they can to benefit from that fact by simply denying that they are benefiting from it. The greatest privilege white racism confers on whites is their ability to deny the existence of that very privilege. This is the only way whites can ever hope to ensure that such privilege is never taken away. Such denial allows all whites to sham fairness while revelling in their racial inequity. Wasn’t the greatest trick the devil ever played, convincing the world that he didn’t exist - as you try to do here? This makes the work of the devil that much easier to undertake. In truth everyone experiences life differently depending on skin colour size, good looks, age, social status, etc. Only whites who have the racist arrogance to assume that their experience of life is all-encompassing so that any criticism of their culture is not seen as valid criticism but a critique of every white person. Whites do not like their myopia revealed because it would then undercut their incessant claims to racial superiority. This is why, for example, it is impossible for a white man to represent a black in a criminal trial. The white has no experiential basis for arguing for the black man’s rights if the police or those who are speaking-out against him have racially abused the black. The white would have to step outside his experiential frame of reference to see things as other people see them – and this is the very thing whites find so difficult. Their history proves this since despite their world travel, they remain utterly parochial. Whites do not want to face this simple fact because it would then mean that there are aspects of life not open to them about which they could understand little. This would hurt their pathetic little egos no end and lead to their racism moving from coversion to oversion – as it does from time to time; particularly during an economic downturn. The concept of a colour-blind society continues to posit the notion that skin colour has a bearing on character. And is therefore a product of the typical white obsession not only with the skins of others but with their own and with how they can make it a signifier of superiority. Such a concept is inherently racist. It allows whites to be the judge of who is to be viewed in a colour blind fashion and who isn’t – the criteria always being the closer to white values the judged is, the less black we’ll notice him as being. A protection racket for white culture, in other words. Whites talking about a colour-blind society are the least colour-blind since such a society would be inherently as racist as the present one. Whites are such inbred racists that in order for them to take blacks seriously they first have to deracinate them, in their own minds, to pretend they’re not really black. This is like trying to remember to forget something! It merely leads one face to face with the fact that the man’s skin colour you are trying to forget is darker than yours is; resulting in an even more pronounced obsession with skin colour as a determinant of character. It means that whites will only treat blacks properly if whites can sufficiently caucasianise blacks – in their own minds, at least. The entire deracination process further implies that whites are already deracinated and non ethnic (when they are merely another ethnicity), and that they represent the pigmentary standard by which all other races are to be judged. Although blacks were here first, whites still think of themselves as the default race - to which all others must aspire. To accept blacks as they are, as opposed to what whites can make them into, is quite impossible for anyone of Caucasian extraction, obviously. Are whites emotionally deficient, in some way, one wonders? This white skin fixation is perfectly summed up by the moronic statement whites often make, to the effect: “I don’t see you as black – I see you as human.” If so, then you’re implying blacks aren’t human – they only become so after a process of deracination! (Presumably a process akin to fumigation?) Or, another classic from the racist dictionary of claptrap: “I don’t notice your skin colour.” Then how did you obtain a driving license if you are that blind? Imagine the uproar if blacks went round saying to whites: “I don’t see you as white – I see you as human.” The Caucasoids would be pretty cheesed off then, wouldn’t they? Colour blindness is a purely theoretical concept with no practical application whatsoever – except for guilt ridden racists who wish to evade their guilt. It’s designed by whites to fool blacks into thinking whites are no longer racist when the very concept is. Blacks cannot afford the racist luxury of deracination since their very lives are at stake from the fact that whites have, historically, been the racist race. Blacks use skin colour judgements precisely because they are more likely to be knifed by a white racist than a black one. There have, after all, been no prosecutions of blacks for racially attacking blacks. Blacks inevitably, therefore, feel much safer in their own company – as whites do: Whites because they are racist paranoiacs; blacks because they fear the predations of these very white racist paranoiacs. White Racism is unjustifiable; black racism is based on the principle of self-defence – a principle whites would love to deny blacks by claiming that all racism is bad. Only a white racist who preferred blacks dead would think otherwise. If you really want to know why the Black Lawyers’ Society exists, you can do no better than write to the following: The Society of Black Lawyers (SBL) c/o Peter Herbert Tooks Court Chambers 8 Warner Yard London EC1R 5EY And let’s see if you have the courage of your racist convictions, to deal successfully with the answer. You obviously went to Martin Bormann Grammar School – as did Frank TALKER – along with the University of Madeupology. It took your Uncle Frank years to get over the white supremacist hogwash he was taught before He came to realise what His true abilities were, rather than those He was told He possessed as of birthright. Why do whites struggle to solve problems that aren’t problems for whites? Because they’re trying to ward off the fear, and prevent the eventuality, that those who have these problems will figure out who’s causing the problems and come for their revenge. The try this by using white man’s juju, such as political correctness, colour blindness and positive discrimination. South African blacks, who are currently taking their revenge on South Africans whites are the role model for this deep rooted white fear: A fear produced and exacerbated by the fact that this particular desire for revenge is fully justified. The other fear is that whites will have to stand upright on their own two feet in a world where white skin confers no competitive advantage. Whites have never done this for the past 500 years and it will certainly be a shock to their system. You only have to listen to the Moaning Minnie whites who’ve left South Africa in their drives now that whites no longer rule a roost that was never theirs to begin to see this immaturity in action. I repeat the main thrust of my original comment, with additions: You are a canting, racist hypocrite who dare not face the tacit approval she gives to all racist practice. If you’re not a racist then neither was Adolf Hitler.


Article copyright © 2007 Frank TALKER. Permission granted to reproduce and distribute it in any format; provided that mention of the author’s Weblog (http://franktalker.blogspot.com/) is included: E mail notification requested. All other rights reserved. Frank TALKER is also the author of Sweaty Socks: A Treatise on the Inevitability of Toe Jam in Hot Weather (East Cheam Press: Groper Books, 1997) and is University of Bullshit Professor Emeritus of Madeupology.

Monday, 15 October 2007

squarepeg and racism

‘Of course, it goes without saying that no white man, no matter how disadvantaged, is able to take advantage of the training and free motorcycle on offer in order to gain "the knowledge"’. But can squarepeg tell us in what way whites are more disadvantaged compared to blacks – especially given the fact that the UK is institutionally racist? ‘I cannot understand how this is permissible under the race laws…’ This is because squarepeg doesn’t understand the law – race or otherwise. ‘…I do not understand either how there can exist a society of Black Lawyers, which would seem to me to fly in the face of any sort of anti-discrimination legislation’. Needless to say, squarepeg doesn’t say how the existence of such an organisation discriminates against whites – as he implies it does – because (as already noted) he doesn’t understand the race laws. Why does he not criticise the fact that (white) organisations for lawyers currently discriminate in favour of whites? Because squarepeg would not like to see an end to positive discrimination for whites, which he – no doubt - does NOT see as flying in the face of anti discrimination legislation, since he never condemns it. The fundamental problem with racists like squarepeg is that they never condemn positive discrimination for whites (ie, white racism) only the discrimination – his included – aimed at those less white than himself.

Sunday, 30 September 2007

Saving a Lost Generation

‘ONLY ONE ISSUE motivates thousands of black parents to shelve the shopping and beat a path to an all-day conference – the future of their children.’ “Thousands” is not enough, to make a real and lasting impact it needs millions. The widespread apathy of blacks needs to be tackled but is never mentioned in this piece by a writer who is somewhat in denial about the real issues. ‘And nothing does more to explode the myth of uninterested parents than the queue, from nine in the morning, snaking around the Queen Elizabeth II centre in Westminster.’ Again, this is not a “myth” since the numbers involved are tiny compared to the size of the challenge. ‘The hunger for solutions to the perennial problems of exclusions, expectations and [poor academic] results…’ Again, this hunger is nothing like the famine it should be because of the lethargy of the Afro Caribbean community. ‘Frequently they are desperate for help as their kid spirals out of control or plunges into exam failure.’ If so, then why do they not homeschool and/or buy their kids good books and an Internet capable computer? It’s because they fundamentally believe that the problem (their fear of Whites) is insurmountable. ‘Hackney MP Diane Abbott, brainchild behind the annual events, is adamant the conferences have forced government to face the issues instead of hiding them.’ Yeah, right! We believe ya, Diane. But a million others wouldn’t. Perhaps this explains why your own children go to a private school, thus evading the problems inherent in the state sector altogether? Or, perhaps you’re just full of it, darling? Frank TALKER read the previous paragraph and realises that “Yes” she is: ‘‘The roots of exclusion often start years earlier. We need to tackle the underlining (Sic) problems, which is (Sic) really children feeling alienated.’ No, sweetheart. The ‘underlining problems’ is that either you or the article writer is functionally illiterate (the subject should agree with the verb in the preceding quote) and that Blacks feel alienated because They’re hated by Whites. The problem begins with the White Rrace; everything else follows on from that. Ms Abbott has spent so much time sucking up to Whites in her bid to succeed in their world that she forgets the existence of racism. The Faustian pact with Whites she has signed to be materially successful is the usual one: “Don’t remind us of how much we hate you and we’ll try to forget you’re black.” This leads to the usual psychological response of such blacks forgetting that whites tend to be racist, especially when Whites feel They can get away with it; that is, when overt White racism is recurrently fashionable. Ms Abbott suggests this nonsense because she doesn’t want to lose the career that White condescension and indulgence gave her. She certainly has no talent for politics save a pronounced survival instinct overriding everything else – especially ethical principle and common sense. ‘Schools also need to work a lot harder to involve black parents in a positive way, not just when their child is causing a problem.’ White Sschools will never do this. Obviously, Whites use institutionally racist schooling to inculcate within Black Minds the alleged hopelessness of successfully combating White Racism. This has been successfully achieved concerning poor whites so why would Whites want to educate those less white than themselves to become employment competitors for their own children. This is the essential purpose of racism: Unearned privilege for the racist. (Whites do not care about the loss of revenue to the exchequer that such racism represents nor the high cost of social welfare or immigration controls. It’s a cost They’re prepared to pay to keep their own children fully employable.) ‘It sounds simple, but what’s required is a major shift in the mindsets of teachers, governors, bureaucrats and ministers – no easy task.’ Again, impossible, since racist leopards don’t change their spots. Why should They? They can have the advantage of the situation. When was the last time you saw a racist stand up in front of others and admit that he was once a racist? And who ever heard of a leopard foregoing a free meal just because it thought the antelope had the same right to life as itself. Frank TALKER never saw that on any David Attenborough wildlife show that he’s ever seen – and neither have you. ‘That means teachers confronting uncomfortable issues of fear and misunderstanding, and breaking out of their denial about treating Black pupils and parents differently.’ Again, if they’re uncomfortable, what incentive could make them face up to what makes them uncomfortable? The whole purpose of “denial” is to avoid that very thing. If you’ve ever seen how difficult it is for a psychoanalyst to get his client to confront a difficult issue, then you’ll know what Frank TALKER means. The denial of racism serves an obvious and inherent purpose for the racist. No racist is ver going to confront their racism really, because that would be tantamount to shooting the goose that laid the golden eggs of White Privilege. Be honest, if you were born with a privilege that made your life better than anyone else simply because of a birth circumstance, would you renounce it? It is Blacks who’re in denial here not Whites. ‘After a few days [the teacher] became aware… she had been avoiding speaking to the African-Caribbean parents.’ This nonsense is a part of the problem. This White Teacher suddenly realises she hates Blacks. She must’ve been pretty stupid all these years for it to have taken her so long to see this. This makes her comments worthless: Who takes an idiot seriously. In addition, Whites only believe what other Whites say whenever there’s a problem. If a Black said the same thing, she would be ignored precisely because Whites believe that Blacks are feckless liars. This teacher should have resigned from her post as being unfit to teach! She did the Afro-Caribbean parents a favour by avoiding them: With racists, one always fears their bigotry will rub off on one. Pilot studies like “Aiming High” are fundamentally worthless because you have to get Whites to agree to being called racists before anything is ever done. So long as Whites insist that They call the shots regarding any anti racist initiative, such initiatives will always be fundamentally racist themselves. They represent yet more attempts to control Blacks as a vain means of controlling inbuilt White fear of Blacks. They’re exactly the same as going to the fox in charge of the hencoop and expecting him to behave in a less fox like manner towards the hens! Self delusion on an epic scale. ‘The government claim the £5m programme has produced stunning results with African Caribbean exam results outstripping other pupils.’ The obvious problem with this, of course, is that it shows Whites that Blacks need White help in order to achieve. This offers aid and succour to the racist view that Blacks are inferior unless their genetic superiors help them. Talk about playing the White Man’s Game! I ask you! ‘We send our kids into an institution that we have no confidence in yet (Sic) and expect it to work, but it doesn’t.’ Black parents are perfectly happy for their children to fail because They want to prove that White People are incorrigibly racist. This explains this apparent paradox. And is used by Blacks to explain their failure to their kids lest their kids should see through their imposture and stop looking up to them. ‘No-one can love your child more than you.’ Blacks need to ask themselves if They really do love their children (“No” based on the available evidence) and if not, why not?


Article copyright © 2007 Frank TALKER. Permission granted to reproduce and distribute it in any format; provided that mention of the author’s Weblog (http://franktalker.blogspot.com/) is included: E mail notification requested. All other rights reserved. Frank TALKER is also the author of Sweaty Socks: A Treatise on the Inevitability of Toe Jam in Hot Weather (East Cheam Press: Groper Books, 1997) and is University of Bullshit Professor Emeritus of Madeupology.

Tuesday, 25 September 2007

Questions Boris Johnson must answer

‘A lot of people have read his journalism and are still offended. The truth is – Boris just doesn’t understand race. He just doesn’t realise why people are upset?’ He understands perfectly – he’s a racist. When has a racist not understood that he is a racist? Never! No racist has ever been able to argue logically that his philosophy is not racist. What he understands particularly is that there are significant numbers of white racists like himself who would be willing to vote for racism. And that is the essence of his political platform. To claim that he is ignorant of-self is to credit him with the disingenuous intellectual ability that he clearly lacks. ‘Is it acceptable under any circumstances to say Africans have “watermelon smiles” and call black children “piccanninies”? Isn’t this further evidence of a colonial mindset?’ Yes – to both. So long as the comments are non derogatory and/or reported speech. ‘Boris reserves the right to make jokes, but when those jokes play on the kind of colonial stereotypes used in tandem with oppression of other countries, can such jokes ever be acceptable?’ (See Frank TALKER’s response to the above paragraph.) ‘Boris has recently reaffirmed your (Sic) belief that colonial rule would be better for Africa. Does he really think Africans are incapable of governing themselves?’ Yes – he’s a racist. Mr Johnson doesn’t really believe – deep down – that Darkies cannot govern themselves; he believes that Wogs won’t do this as Whites would like. In other words, Samboes will govern themselves as they choose, not as Whites would wish. Also, of course, Whites can't earn as much money from exploiting blacks without a return to the British Empire. ‘Does he recognise that Muslims revere the Prophet Mohammad (Sic) to such an extent they are unlikely to roll in the isles at “Life of Mohammad (Sic)?”’ This is an inherently false analogy since “Life of Brian” isn’t “Life of Christ” and is, therefore, not a ridiculing of the Anointed One (a crime currently in the UK), but a ridiculing of religious dogma. Christians would no more find an attack on Christ and his followers pleasurable than Muslims an attack on Islam. To say otherwise is racist hypocrisy. A true analogy would be Gay News publishing a poem implying Christ’s homosexuality that was successfully prosecuted under the UK common law of Blasphemous Libel. This proves what Frank TALKER says about the hypersensitivity of Christians. When Christians can accept a gay Christ, then Muslims can be expected to accept a gay Mohammed. Neither is very likely because of the closed mindset and circular reasoning inherent in all religions. ‘Boris… wrote that Mandela was taking South Africa towards “banana republic poverty” Does he understand why this could be seen as sympathising with apartheid?’ Yes – because he’s an apartheid supporting racist. ‘What is (Sic) Boris’s views (Sic) on the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry? He penned a whole series of articles criticising various recommendations, and does not seem to have had a good word to say about the inquiry. He says it was a “witchhunt” against the police and has whipped up “hysteria.” It sounds like he was against the inquiry’. All racists want their racism normalised NOT pathologized. The only way they can do this is not to argue in favour of racism – which Boris Johnson hasn’t the brainpower to do – but to argue for its concealment and for witch hunts against those who whistleblow. He’s not against witch-hunts – as such – he’s just against witch-hunts that reveal the true extent and nature of UK institutionalised racism. ‘He wrote: “Chinese cultural influence is virtually nil.” Was this another ‘joke’, or does he really believe that?’ Yes – because he’s a racist. ‘His prescription for dealing with racism appears to be to “axe large chunks of the anti-racism industry.” How will this help tackle racism in London?’ Boris Johnson has no prescription for “tackling racism” because he supports the very institution of it. There can be no conceivable circumstance where a White will renounce the very thing (racism) that makes his worldly success more probable than the prosperity of someone more talented but less white than Himself. Therefore, “tackling racism” can never be an issue for Whites: Only its concealment and perpetualised practice. (Inevitably, Whites resent the “anti racism industry” because it’s mostly paid for from Their taxes: A de facto fine, if you will.) ‘Does he believe Eleanor Bland, the Conservative former parliamentary candidate, should have had her membership suspended for allegedly circulating an email… about immigrants…?’ Racists currently enjoy political and social immunity because of their current right to free speech. Mr Johnson is therefore at liberty to post racist e mails without being branded a racist by Whites. He simply claims – correctly – to be a freespeaker. All racists make this claim because they can’t actually justify their hatred and, at the very least, free-speech gives them the semblance of rationality since free speech is rational. This is the most important reason blacks should be vigorous – not in their condemnation of terrorism – but in their condemnation of Whites.


Article copyright © 2007 Frank TALKER. Permission granted to reproduce and distribute it in any format; provided that mention of the author’s Weblog (http://franktalker.blogspot.com/) is included: E mail notification requested. All other rights reserved. Frank TALKER is also the author of Sweaty Socks: A Treatise on the Inevitability of Toe Jam in Hot Weather (East Cheam Press: Groper Books, 1997) and is University of Bullshit Professor Emeritus of Madeupology.

Friday, 7 September 2007

You're having a laugh

‘Asked to explain an article in the Spectator where he argued for the return of colonial rule in Africa, he said: You feel such a sense of despair when you see suffering like that that you wonder whether some of these things were better under a different system’. Nice try but colonial rule would only substitute one form of suffering for another because Whites have never shown any altruistic tendencies and would expect something in return for all the help They would be pretending to give. And that would ultimately be a return to the good old days of slavery. In any case Whites caused much of the suffering Mr Johnson refers to, in the first place. Strange that his “sense of despair” is such a superficial one. ‘Further demonstrating his colonial credentials he has also claimed that… the test of how integrated Muslims were was "when you could expect a Bradford audience to roll in the aisles at Monty Python’s Life of Mohammed’. The REAL test is when Whites stop racially abusing Muslims: A test Whites will always dismally fail to pass. Oh, and by the way, racial integration is a racist concept because it means that someone you can’t stand is required to change so that you CAN stand them. That would be like demanding that the woman you’d like to marry change into someone you can love or the wedding’s off. This kind of emotional blackmail explains why Whites have such a high divorce rate. By claiming that others must be like us, you implicitly admit that you don’t like them and that they are, therefore, not welcome. This fundamentally makes integration impossible precisely because it’s being called for. ‘Denise Bowry, a Blink reader, emailed in to say: "I think it is disgusting to think that this man will be allowed to stand in the elections. It's a disgrace to think that people would even vote for him. Totally outrageous"’. Correct, of course. But outspoken racists are protected by the principle of free speech in a way that their would be victims are not. So long as Whites remain stubbornly racist, They will always vote for any man who offers Them the opportunity to maintain White Privilege. It is this fact that must be dealt with not the pompous racial vanity of individual racists like Boris Johnson.


Article copyright © 2007 Frank TALKER. Permission granted to reproduce and distribute it in any format; provided that mention of the author’s Weblog (http://franktalker.blogspot.com/) is included: E mail notification requested. All other rights reserved. Frank TALKER is also the author of Sweaty Socks: A Treatise on the Inevitability of Toe Jam in Hot Weather (East Cheam Press: Groper Books, 1997) and is University of Bullshit Professor Emeritus of Madeupology.

Blueprint for action against the threat of international terrorism

‘IT HAS been six years since the atrocious, epoch-defining terror attacks of 9/11…’. Why is it that when hundreds of Blacks were killed in East African embassies at the end of the last century, this was not described as “epoch defining”, but when thousands of Whites are killed it is? The answer is racism – the very thing that caused the terrorism in the first place. ‘…[I]t seemed as if we had entered a new era in which mass fatalities from terrorism would become routine in Western cities’. This is racist paranoia since the very purpose of terrorism is to spread terror through the threat of fatalities not the actuality of same. It is, therefore, not necessary for terrorists to kill large numbers of people. Only conventional wars require this because they are ultimately based on attrition. ‘Yet there is a real danger that electorates on both sides of the Atlantic will draw the wrong lessons from the failure of al-Qaeda and its terrorist allies to inflict more 9/11s’. Again, why would terrorists want to do this when it cannot ever be their technique or purpose to do so? ‘Without a combination of luck, clever policing and successful intelligence work, there would have been many more lethal attacks in the West’. The police have shown themselves to be basically lacking in good intelligence, not very clever and fundamentally unlucky. Again the word “atrocious” appears showing that this bigoted writer lacks a good thesaurus: ‘[H]undreds of deaths in atrocious circumstances in a nightclub on Ladies’ night’. This smacks of the White belief that it is Their women who must be protected from Johnny Saracen. ‘…[We should not forget the numerous terror attacks by Islamic extremists in the rest of the world, causing far more deaths in total than 9/11 ever did…’. And yet Whites forgot these attacks because they killed few of Their own race. This is one of the main reasons Whites have such a hard time learning the lessons of terrorism and of Their fundamental complicity in it. ‘The awful truth is that the world is even more dangerous for liberal democratic capitalism than it was six years ago’. It always has been dangerous because liberal democracies ain’t that liberal nor democratic. This is why terrorists exist and why we, ultimately, are the greatest danger to our own survival. Why is there a problem with dark skinned people possessing nuclear weapons – if that is their wish? The truth is that Israel will have to live with the threat of a nuclear Iran – as we had to during the cold war regarding the Soviet Union. Life still went on then and it will now. ‘Relying on mutually assured destruction to keep the peace in today’s Middle East truly would be mad’. And yet it kept the peace in Europe after 1945! ‘Polls consistently show that at least 10% of British Muslims believe that terror attacks are justified’. Hardly surprising since Whites consistently believe that attacking Muslim countries for no reason is justified and that White British racists have a right to free speech. ‘There is a real danger that America will learn the wrong lessons from Iraq and turn in on itself in the mistaken belief that isolationism is the easiest way to escape trouble’. And yet political “isolationism” is the easiest way to avoid trouble since it avoids annoying your neighbours. ‘There are five broad policies that all Western countries must urgently pursue if there is to be any hope of grabbing back the initiative from the terrorist radicals’. This “initiative” is ultimately trying to make the entire world a carbon copy of White Culture because Whites have consistently shown that They cannot abide difference of any kind. And it is this intolerance that produces the very terrorism of which Whites are so terrified. Perhaps Whites enjoy being terrified because it makes up for something They lack? ‘Perhaps most pressing of all, General Pervez Musharraf, Pakistan’s dictator, must be persuaded not to declare a state of emergency in Pakistan’. ‘Mr Musharraf must be told that the military and financial aid on which his regime depends will only keep on flowing if he renounces his military uniform…’. When you put these two sentences together you more fully appreciate the hypocrisy of the writer. “Persuasion” and “emotional blackmail” are not going to solve anything anymore than interfering with the internal affairs of sovereign states. This will simply produce more terrorism – which we will fully deserve. ‘The second challenge is to deal with Iraq as it is today; while the invasion was a disaster, one cannot turn back the clock’’. This is a moral evasion that avoids learning lessons from mistakes. Effectively, it’s an attempt to deny that invading Iraq was a mistake since it contains no admission that the invasion was a mistake. ‘…[T]he new US strategy, which has succeeded in cutting sectarian killings in Baghdad in half, should be given time to succeed. It is important to remember that Osama bin Laden acquired his belief in the West’s decadence from the American retreat from Somalia in 1993-94’. There’s no evidence for either of these two statements. The real, face saving, truth is contained here: ‘To leave Iraq now would encourage al-Qaeda in its belief that the West lacks the stomach for the fight and would turn those who would be perceived to have defeated the sole superpower into the heroes of extremists everywhere’. This is the real fear for which this writer is prepared to sacrifice the lives of its young men. ‘It is a sobering fact that the only successful terrorist attack on British soil since 9/11 was carried out by British citizens’. It’s funny how when dark skinned people here do bad things they’re called British (ie, traitors), but when they do well for themselves they’re resented as unintegrated immigrants who only come here to do well for themselves. The fact is that they're not fully accepted as British citizens because of their skin colour so feel no loyalty to an institutionally racist country like the UK. ‘To defeat this threat, the government must offer unstinting support to the Muslim moderates who oppose the use of violence to pursue political objectives in a democratic society’. The problem here is obvious. This idea is a classic example of crying over spilt milk. Because unstinting support to Muslims was never offered before 9/11, Muslims divided into two groups: Extremists and moderates. If Whites had been a little less racist and a little more welcoming, such a schism might never have happened. Too late now: Once bitten; twice shy. Muslims now know what Whites are really like and it’s impossible to “turn back the clock”. This writer fully realises this but evades the political implications. White people are like bad parents who then wonder why - when their kids grow up - their kids then disown them. ‘For its part, the Muslim community must become more proactive in its co operation with the police’. Of course, this is never going to happen and is payback for White Racism. After all, we see few examples of Whites being “proactive” in the War on (White) Racism (because Whites don’t see this as Their war). The reason Muslims don’t care if Whites get killed is because Whites don’t care if Muslims do. Whites know this perfectly well, which is why They are now more prepared to become overtly and desperately racist to terrorise Muslims into this so called co operation. ‘Peter Clarke, Deputy Assistant Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, recently bemoaned how few anti-terrorism prosecutions had resulted from community intelligence’. How can a white man who works for an institutionally racist organisation have the sheer effrontery to “bemoan” the fact that Muslims no more care if Whites are killed by terrorists than Whites care if Muslims are killed by racists?! This is the kind of stupidity led policing we’ve come to expect in the UK. ‘Our final plea is for a renewed push for economic and political liberalism in Islamic countries’. More White Interference that will ensure more terrorism. ‘Ultimately, terrorism will not be defeated until it has been starved of the oxygen of despair, which is its life force’. The “life force” of terrorism is the White Racism demonstrated by the belief that Whites have the God-given right to tell others what to do. ‘The past six years have seen many mistakes…’. But not so many as the past 500, in which Whites tried to fashion the world in Their own racist image; causing the terrorist backlash of which They so childishly bemoan. ‘…[W]e are in this for the long haul…’. Of course, and so are the terrorists. The same was said during the Vietnam War but that was still lost by the so called ‘forces of freedom’. This nonsense is the recipe of perpetual racewar abroad and totalitarian security measures at home. What Whites need from non Whites is someone to hate because it gives Them a goal above and beyond simply making money and cheating each other. This editorial simply attempts to give Whites the excuses They need to do what They do best: Interfere. There is, as always, no “blueprint for action against the threat of the international” racism that is being proposed here: A return to a British Empire run by the Yanks.


Article copyright © 2007 Frank TALKER. Permission granted to reproduce and distribute it in any format; provided that mention of the author’s Weblog (http://franktalker.blogspot.com/) is included: E mail notification requested. All other rights reserved. Frank TALKER is also the author of Sweaty Socks: A Treatise on the Inevitability of Toe Jam in Hot Weather (East Cheam Press: Groper Books, 1997) and is University of Bullshit Professor Emeritus of Madeupology.

Thursday, 6 September 2007

WHITENESS

Apart from his idiotic, anti-capitalist comments, Dr Jensen is more right than he really knows. (The problem with criticising capitalism is that it is the only economic system that allows blacks to prosper; democracy, on the other hand, favours only the majority and is, in itself therefore, inherently racist.)

Tuesday, 7 August 2007

MPs attack Boris Johnson

'TWO BLACK Labour MPs said that Boris Johnson was unacceptable as Mayor of London because of his past comments on race issues'. Well, they would say that, wouldn't they? Problem is that since we live in a democracy where racist views are tolerated (by Whites) his racism might not make him as 'unacceptable' as these two would dearly love to think. On the contrary, his 'comments' might just make him the most acceptable candidate as far as Whites are concerned. Doreen Lawrence: 'Boris Johnson is not an appropriate person to run a multicultural city like London'. In reality, London is a collection of villages rigidly demarcated by race. More of the same twaddle: 'Think of London, the richness of London, and having someone like him as Mayor would destroy the city's unity'. What unity? If there were unity, Boris Johnson wouldn't even be in the running. 'He is definitely not the right person to even be thinking to put his name forward'. Who is? Only those you agree with? 'A spokeswoman pointed to articles in support of Sir William Macpherson written by the would-be mayor in 2001 and 2002, in which he said that the retired judge saw racism as an evil that must be actively confronted, and added: "I am not sure that he is wrong"'. In truth, he really isn't sure. But then racists never are, are they? Dawn butler is right: 'These are disgraceful comments that shame Boris Johnson and... the Conservative Party. This is the... language of the colonial past [showing] that the Tory party is riddled with racial prejudice'. Quite right; it is.


Article copyright © 2007 Frank TALKER. Permission granted to reproduce and distribute it in any format; provided that mention of the author’s Weblog (http://franktalker.blogspot.com/) is included: E mail notification requested. All other rights reserved. Frank TALKER is also the author of Sweaty Socks: A Treatise on the Inevitability of Toe Jam in Hot Weather (East Cheam Press: Groper Books, 1997) and is University of Bullshit Professor Emeritus of Madeupology.

Boris solution for Africa - bring back colonialism

Needless to say, the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan prove that colonialism never went away. There's an attempt by Whites here to test the water of public opinion by putting up a racist White Politician to see if a sufficient number of whites will vote for him. If they do, then Whites will feel They have enough support to press for more racist legislation to halt the forward and upward march of the ethnic minorities in the UK. Not towards equality (there's no such thing) but the greatly feared superiority over Whites. The main technique here is to condemn past racism in order to claim that racism is on the wane and then simply claim blacks are self oppressed and that White Racism is not an issue any more. In which case, why bother to make the claim. What's the point of continually saying it's stopped raining if it has? Are Whites trying to convince Blacks that this is true – or convince Themselves? By so doing, Whites hope to conceal present day racism. (Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t Mr Johnson coming to look increasingly like that late celebrated thespian Charles Laughton every day? Minus Mr Laughton's not inconsiderable acting ability, however.


Article copyright © 2007 Frank TALKER. Permission granted to reproduce and distribute it in any format; provided that mention of the author’s Weblog (http://franktalker.blogspot.com/) is included: E mail notification requested. All other rights reserved. Frank TALKER is also the author of Sweaty Socks: A Treatise on the Inevitability of Toe Jam in Hot Weather (East Cheam Press: Groper Books, 1997) and is University of Bullshit Professor Emeritus of Madeupology.

Doreen Lawrence savaged by Tory bloggers

As usual with Whites, They cannot bear the awful truth about Themselves. '...Doreen Lawrence told The Guardian: “Once people read [Boris Johnson's racist] views, there is no way he is going to get the support of... the black community”'. This is somewhat silly since he does not want such support and, in fact does not need it because blacks are in the minority in London. In a first past the post democracy, it's the majority (whites) who will seize all the power and impose White Majority Rule on blacks. Notice how the response of Whites is so different when it comers to sex crimes rather than race ones. When mothers campaigning for a Megan's Law to out paedophiles in their neighbourhoods, no one dare say that those women are embittered by the sexual murder of their children. This is because Whites consider the lives of Whites more important than the lives of Blacks. And also because most whites are complicit in racism since they refuse to act against it. By not doing so they demonstrate a classic sin of omission giving their more active racist brethren the belief that the silent majority of whites is behind them and will support them in racist practices by not speaking out against them. They're correct; they won't. '[Doreen Lawrence's] comments unleashed a wave of hate-filled personal remarks in the blogosphere'. This suggests that Doreen Lawrence is the cause of White Racism. No, Whites are the cause of Their own negative feelings for blacks. Racism has nothing to do with the behaviour of blacks but with the colour of blacks – which blacks cannot change. The various attempts to claim Stephen Lawrence was a drug dealer are typical white attempts to evade the issue of the racism of the people making such claims. Chris Paul: 'I have no idea whether what you say about Stephen is true or not'. This clearly shows that Whites don't even care if Their negative assertions are correct only that they can be used to evade the fundamentalist racism underlying such assertions. 'ToMTom wrote: “It doesn't take much to wind up Ms Lawrence... who, it seems, has very little to say about the astonishing number of blacks who murder fellow blacks”'. Strange to say, few whites have much to say about the 'astonishing number' of whites who have sex with their own children which whites think they can deal with useless advice like: "Don't talk or take sweets from strangers".


Article copyright © 2007 Frank TALKER. Permission granted to reproduce and distribute it in any format; provided that mention of the author’s Weblog (http://franktalker.blogspot.com/) is included: E mail notification requested. All other rights reserved. Frank TALKER is also the author of Sweaty Socks: A Treatise on the Inevitability of Toe Jam in Hot Weather (East Cheam Press: Groper Books, 1997) and is University of Bullshit Professor Emeritus of Madeupology.

Saturday, 4 August 2007

Bigotry of bumbling Boris

'The Tory higher education spokesman previously claimed the Stephen Lawrence inquiry was a “witchhunt”'. He's right; it was: A hunt for White Racist witches, who actually do exist. '[A]nd that Nelson Mandela’s South Africa was a “tyranny of black majority rule”'. Of course, this is because it's a democracy and the majority of the population are black. Whoever heard of a democracy where the minority was in charge? Oh, yeah. Frank TALKER has, that was called apartheid. Clearly, Mr Johnson would welcome a return to racist minority rule. By definition, all democracies are tyrannous to those in the minority, since their views don't carry the day. Mr Johnson is simply caterwauling like a big baby because those of his own colour no longer run the playhouse. In truth, Mr Johnson only welcomes democracy when whites are in control; he believes that blacks are not fit to control their own destinies. Boris Johnson 'has even claimed the British Empire ended slavery' but doesn't explain how a racist institution can ever do this. '[A]nd blamed “native rulers” for inventing slavery'. A typically racist attempt to blame the victim by claiming White Racism's OK so long as whites weren't racist first. Presumably, this also explains why whites were so keen upon taking up the cudgels of the slavery blacks are alleged to have invented with such enthusiasm. 'And he accused inner city “inhabitants” in Britain of being benefit scroungers'. Perhaps if blacks weren't so economically disadvantaged by White Racists They wouldn't need to claim benefits in the first place. '[A]nd of “pissing on the loyalty” of the indigenous population'. What loyalty might that be? To an endemically racist system designed to disenfranchise non whites? 'Anti-racist activists say Johnson’s views, expressed in a range of articles mainly in the Daily Telegraph and the right-wing magazine The Spectator which he edited, mean he is not fit to run a multicultural city'. Don't fool yourselves. London is not a multicultural city: It is a unicultural one, run for and by Whites. Although it's probably quite true that Nelson 'Mandela was leading South Africa “firmly on the road to banana republic poverty”' it's really no ones business but the south Africans. If that's the kind of country they want, it's their country and they can do with it what they wish. Mr Johnson is just pissed off that apartheid didn't work out for his racial coevals. 'Karen Chouhan, a trustee of The 1990 Trust, said Johnson’s views raised fears he could wreck years of progress on multiculturalism in London'. What progress? ‘I can’t believe the disrespect [Boris Johnson] shows for a world leader like Mandela, especially when a statue in his honour is about to go up in Trafalgar Square'. Mr Johnson can't bear the fact that a Black is revered as a world leader, that's all. Mr Johnson 'is a buffoon who would destroy all the hard work to make sure London is a place where all people are treated with respect’. What hard work and when will this utopian fantasy ever come to pass? No answer. 'Eroll Walters, interim director of the Black Londoners Forum, added: "Boris Johnson is out of touch. He has been, and will always be, insensitive to the issues of concern to Black Londoners". Boris Johnson is not out of touch since his views chime with those of the majority of Londoners who are White. He is not concerned with the concerns of Blacks – if he were, then he would not be so egregiously racist. 'Johnson, as editor of the Spectator, published... columns by socialite Taki George. In 2003 lawyer Peter Herbert called for Johnson and the magazine to be prosecuted for inciting racial hatred over a... George article which called black people “thugs” who were “breeding like flies”. The White fear here is that the non white minority will some day become the non white majority and, as in South Africa, come for their racial revenge. Well, let's be honest, they probably will – and Boris Johnson's descendants will serving fries to Blacks at Macdonald's. 'Johnson has also admitted to being more frightened of black youth than white youth while cycling through parks... “If that is racial prejudice, then I am guilty”. Well, I guess that says it all, doesn't it. 'However in the same article Boris Johnson appears to justify racism by remarking: ‘It is common ground among both right-wingers and left-wingers that racism is “natural”, in that it seems to arise organically, in all civilisations'. Here Mr Johnson is correct, but he fails to understand that the very things he fears will happen under black majority rule will, therefore, come to pass. This is because if it's natural for whites to be racist then it's also natural for blacks. In which case he is entirely hypocritical to condemn blacks for being just as racist as whites. But then aren't all racists hypocrites by definition?


Article copyright © 2007 Frank TALKER. Permission granted to reproduce and distribute it in any format; provided that mention of the author’s Weblog (http://franktalker.blogspot.com/) is included: E mail notification requested. All other rights reserved. Frank TALKER is also the author of Sweaty Socks: A Treatise on the Inevitability of Toe Jam in Hot Weather (East Cheam Press: Groper Books, 1997) and is University of Bullshit Professor Emeritus of Madeupology.

Friday, 3 August 2007

Now Brown must forge a radical role for Britain in new world order

To claim that a new British foreign policy should be '...highly activist on human rights, speaking out, and when appropriate intervening, against oppression and abuses... barbaric practices such as female genital mutilation, while endorsing free speech and individual liberty' is racist claptrap. This is a white man's version of freedom, which says that you can be free so long as you agree with us. It permits the invasion of those countries simply because we don't agree with them – the same as saying you can kill anyone simply because you don't like then. Further: 'It would be as tough as can be on terrorism, both inside and outside the United Kingdom' is simply a typical white attempt to evade the fact that terrorism is a rational response to pre existing white racism. This allegedly new foreign policy would not be a 'break with the past' but a re entrenching of it. The writer lacks the imagination to see that the past is the progenitor of the present – it didn't work then; it doesn't work now; it won't work in the future. As always with those who wish to use foreign policy to run away from domestic issues, this writer assumes the hypocritical approach of saying that rampant corruption in Africa can be solved by the very people who feed rampantly corrupt Africans. The whites who caused much of the problem in the first place. That this won't work should be self evident because of the old white saying that: Leopards don't change their spots. The 'forces of darkness' that this writer alludes to strangely does not include White Racists such as the British National Party, the Front Nationale and Combat 18. When the terror threat was largely white; eg, the IRA, they were rarely referred to as extremist Catholic terrorists. The threat the writer is really referring to comes, in his mind, from those with darker skin than his own, whose cultural practices he abhors – so called 'barbaric practices such as female genital mutilation'. Not for objective reasons, but because he wants his own cultural values to be the prevailing ones in the world. He wants this precisely as the only means of valorising those values since competing values means the possibility that one set of values is just as good as another. For most whites, this is a difficult concept to get their heads around. 'In all cases, Britain should be prepared to act in close co-operation with those nations that share similar aims and goals, wherever they are in the world'. But, what about those who don't share similar goals? As with all utopian dreamers, this author desires and worships the rivers of blood that his ideas will inevitably engender. So long as one person somewhere in the world doesn't agree with his idea of a unified, capitalist world, they are a threat to be neutralised – by any means necessary. And, there has never been a situation in all of human history where everyone agreed – that's why utopias don't exist. Because there are only two ways of achieving anything – persuasion and force – force will be the inevitable means of choice for any alleged utopia; turning it instantly into dystopia. 'Britain must lead by example, welcoming foreigners and immigrants'. Nice idea, but it never happened in the past, so why would it happen now? Why should the UK worry about 'china's human rights abuses' when these don't effect us in any way? To claim that Britain's economy is the fifth largest in the world is to evade the fact that we're declining. That this writer approves of Britain having a permanent seat on the UN Security Council proves he doesn't really believe in equality between nations. Only that Britain should side with the bullies and use this fact to get its own way. 'But Britain cannot expect other countries to keep the peace if it is not prepared to play its part'. But it the very fact of meddling in the affairs of others that causes the wars that this writer believes can be prevented by military intervention. Intervention that would be far less likely to be needed without such meddling. This author is simply justifying the meddling that causes wars to justify increased defence (ie, aggressive war) expenditure to prop up an ailing UK economy. 'Not only would it be wrong to ignore the plight of those who live under despots, it would also go against the great lesson of 9/11, which showed that those who live in internally repressive societies tend to vent their frustrations outwards'. This is the most brazen piece of bullshit in the entire editorial: Sneaked in after all the other nonsense in the hope that it's essential fatuity will be ignored and its premise accepted without question. This writer gives no examples where state despotism has led to using other countries as scapegoats for such tyranny. Such a claim is disgustingly racist because it side-steps the issue of white racist political interventions in the past and disgraces the man uttering it. This is nothing more than a middle class White venting His own culture’s frustrations outwards. Just like in the days of Slavery and of Empire, the current White obsessive missionary zeal with foreign aid and invading weak countries that are disapproved of (ie, bullying), Whites evade their own cultural problems and project & displace them onto others. If you can’t be successful here, at least you can make a mint among the colonies peopled by your natural inferiors. It’s time to get over the loss of Empire and move on. The only purposes of military spending are self defence and prevention. No sensible person pays to install his neighbours security system since their can be little benefit to himself in so doing. This was why the intervention in Sierra Leone was pointless since the rebels there posed no security threat to the UK. Instead of an obsession with the legacy of an Empire whites secretly want back, money and lives could be saved not engaging in such worthless military adventures. Repeating the imperial and imperialist mistakes of the past – via a white world hegemony that this editorial advocates – only produces more terrorism in response. Again, as with the British Empire, the basic aim here is to turn the world into a more than willing market for western goods, values and people, with nothing of any real value ever being offered in return. As usual in declining cultures, this editorial posits cures not preventives – because they’re more lucrative. The central issue of the UK getting over its imperial past and stopping punching above its weight is steadfastly evaded.


Article copyright © 2007 Frank TALKER. Permission granted to reproduce and distribute it in any format; provided that mention of the author’s Weblog (http://franktalker.blogspot.com/) is included: E mail notification requested. All other rights reserved. Frank TALKER is also the author of Sweaty Socks: A Treatise on the Inevitability of Toe Jam in Hot Weather (East Cheam Press: Groper Books, 1997) and is University of Bullshit Professor Emeritus of Madeupology.

Thursday, 2 August 2007

Eugenie in row over "racist" Facebook entry

'PRINCESS EUGENIE was embroiled in a racism row last night after a group she joined on the social networking website (sic) Facebook was branded “offensive” by equal rights campaigners'. Most Blue Bloods' only achievements are based upon heredity, so it's hardly surprising that they'd succumb to the temptations of the very racism upon which their future welfare depends. Their obsession with racial taints belies a fear of future failings should the blood of lesser beings contaminate their bloodlines. 'Lester Holloway, editor of Blink, the black news website (sic) and a member of the 1990 Trust,... said: “It’s... sad to see these... stereotypes being joked about in this way by people who should know better"'. How can they know better when they're so obviously and inevitably obsessed with bloodlines, since bloodlines are the sole source of any social advantages that they possess? Their very existence on this earth is predicated on not knowing any better! Racism is an inevitable result of the political syndrome known as the "Chinless Wonder" or the "Hooray Henrietta". He continues: 'Most of society these days recognises that these terms are inappropriate'. Where is the evidence that most people in the UK think and act in accordance with such "recognition"? 'It’s a pity Princess Eugenie and her friends are stuck in a time warp; they need to get in the 21st century'. They already are 'in the 21st century', since these ideas are still very current. The thing that really pisses me off is that Frank TALKER's blog (franktalker.blogspot.com/ POLITICS?) is not called racist – it least responding to such condemnation would make a pleasant diversion from re arranging the fridge magnets.


Article copyright © 2007 Frank TALKER. Permission granted to reproduce and distribute it electronically and in print; provided that mention of the author’s Weblog (http://franktalker.blogspot.com/) is included: E mail notification requested. All other rights reserved. Frank TALKER is also the author of Sweaty Socks: A Treatise on the Inevitability of Toe Jam in Hot Weather Conditions (East Cheam Press: Groper Books, 1997) and is University of Bullshit Professor Emeritus of Madeupology.

Thursday, 26 July 2007

"Racism"

Britain must reclaim the moral high ground to beat fundamentalist evil

When a man claims anyone should 'reclaim' anything, he's implying there existed a time when the thing to be reclaimed actually existed. This is the fallacy that the past was better than now and that "The Good Old Days" is a logical statement. The fact is that great Britain never occupied any moral high ground at any time in its past: The British Empire and the slavery trade prove this. The basic reason for 'fundamentalist evil' is the white racist evil that preceded it - to which terrorism is merely a natural response. This author admits that the War-on-Terror is 'crippled by disastrous community relations' yet refuses to mention the reason for this: White Racism. If whites refuse to talk to the Muslim Council of Britain, they're trying to decide whom they should talk to. That is, only those they already agree with and with whom there can be no real debate because they already agree with one another. This is just more of the same White Racism that has caused the terrorism problem we face in the first place. Judging minorities you don't agree with by white standards of what's 'moderate' is just more racism. Attacking a particular Muslim (Sayeeda Warsi) for not agreeing with whites is a good example of the tendency to talk about blacks as being a "credit to their race" so long as they agree with whites. What whites desire here is that Muslims renounce both Islam and reality before they can ever be trusted as being "one of us". But, they can't change their skin colour and that's the real problem. Talk about obtaining the help of 'moderate, mainstream Muslims' is meaningless because whites never define these terms to mean anything other than "Muslims who agree with us". Because of the endemic nature of White Racism, there are no such Muslims. The author recognises this implicitly. Yet refuses to face the truth of his own words when he states that no Muslim has come forward to help whites in any of the convictions so far obtained for terrorist offences in the UK since September 2001. This author's denial of reality is made plain when he then goes on to claim that most Muslims are against terrorism. If so, why are they singularly unresponsive to calls to help whites defeat it? Whites renouncing racism is the only means at their disposal of countering terrorism that has any hope of ever succeeding. But, since whites use racism as an economic tool for their own betterment (cf, racist managed migration policies, educational & job exclusion, etc), using racism as a tool of countering terrorism simply creates more of same and can only temporarily cure (not prevent) future outbreaks. Racism is job creation for the security services since more staff are then needed to counter the threat that White Racism has created for whites. White Racism radicalises ethnic minorities not Al Qaeda training videos. The only 'culture wars' exist in the White Racist Mind. Al Qaeda does not want to bring about the downfall of Western culture; it simply wants Western culture to stop interfering with Islamic culture. To claim the existence of such a war is simply to invent a threat justifying the killing of Muslims in foreign lands and the racist abuse of Muslims at home. It is a very common way whites have of achieving false unity by claiming the barbarians are at the gate. And, that we need to stick together to protect a culture so weak it cannot stand without such a false unity. It is, in effect, the social policy of the lonely social outcast who has no other recourse in terms of obtaining human intercourse than to make every one fear for their lives if they don't engage in such intercourse. And, thereby, pay him the attention he couldn't otherwise obtain. Politicians also do this to get votes in Western democracies. Because an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, everything Frank TALKER says here must be blindingly obvious. But, not to those blinded by their racist inhibitions about the dark skinned. This is why prevention is always secondary to whites when cure is so much more lucrative – in the short term. To claim that Britain stands for 'liberal values' is not backed up by any evidence seen by members of the ethnic minorities. This is why racial integration is a non starter and why most whites believe that only white people can ever be truly British. If this were not the case why does an organisation like the British National Party exist? An extremist organisation that this writer never mentions because it makes all whites look bad and is the source of much white guilt. Ridiculously, this author condemns bad aspects of Muslim culture without recognising that these are imported into the country precisely because whites are not welcoming of Muslims. If whites were, then such practices would have fallen out of use as Muslims assimilated the so called 'liberal values' of the host culture. Racism merely ensures that the worst aspects of any immigrant culture become fossilised as valid expressions of that culture; to vainly counter the racist threat from without. Proposing the banning of forced marriages; more police work against honour killings; and, making it more difficult for foreigners to marry British nationals is just more of the same racism that this writer pretends to condemn. This writer's own animus against Muslims is precisely why Muslims are not going to help in the War-on-Terror. He condemns calls for the introduction of a parallel Sharia law yet fails to respond to the reasons for this call: White Racism. In this context, the word "Consensus" does not appear because whites want Muslims to do the white man's bidding. Therefore, neither compromise nor meaningful relationship is possible on that basis. 'Support and build a home-grown Islam which is comfortable with its Britishness and sees itself firmly as a part of a larger liberal democracy'. The problem is, of course, that you only get one chance to make a first impression. And Muslims, know just as much as any ethnic minority knows, that Britain is not a welcoming place for the dark skinned and, therefore, not much of a liberal democracy. It's far too late now – now that whites are living in fear for their own lives because of the desire for revenge White Racism has created in others – to try and pretend that either culture can be friends when they are clearly sworn enemies. And always will be. Once the trust is gone, you can't get it back: Once bitten; twice shy. Once whites stop propagandising for themselves (ie, jerking off) and accept that Muslims don't trust them because they experience profound cognitive dissonance between the white claim that the UK is a liberal democracy and their experience of its rampant racism, some progress may be possible. However, there are no historical precedents for this and there's nothing new under the sun, so there never will be. To claim that violence should be absolutely condemned would mean that the right to self defensive murder would be outlawed; meaning that one would have to allow a murderer to kill you to avoid falling foul of the law. Such impractical gibberish is all too emblematic of white desperation in the face of a threat they created and know they cannot actually defeat. Because they know the threat comes from within their own hearts and they would have to rebuild their racist culture and all its assumptions before they could ever do so. Much better to claim that it is others who must cast out the mote in their eye than the beam in the white man's. Muslims do not claim that they are the only ones being victimised – this is racist nonsense. They merely claim that such hatred comes in waves and that they are now being more openly victimised than before 2001. Whites will always be apologising for their values and way of-life because those same produces the race guilt leading to the apologetic stance towards the ethnic minorities. If whites didn't feel this guilt then why are they so apologetic? The desire for atonement for past sins comes precisely because of those past sins which the Christian faith claims pass from generation to generation – as the sins of the father shall be visited upon the children. And, because of the nonsensical view that Jesus Christ died for the sins of others, that he did not himself commit. Get rid of Christianity and white culture would be driven by guilt and shame a lot less. To claim that the bad aspects of White Culture don't make it an 'evil society' is like claiming that buboes don't indicate the presence of plague. If British culture isn't evil, then why is their so much evil in it? And, why is so much of it turned a blind eye to? And why are so many whites complicit in this evil in the form of overwhelming sins of omission in not properly dealing with this evil? Racism, unwanted pregnancies, welfare dependency, socialism, alcoholism, pornography, drug abuse, etc. To claim that Islamic fundamentalists are not understood is imply to claim that they can be demonised as not being rationally comprehensible (because they're mad) and the real issues they raise not addressed. You cannot beat what you don't understand because you will then fail to see the weaknesses that you can attack. This piece contains plenty of reasons for their behaviour and Frank TALKER's empathy with it. In the final analysis, it is not our enemies that we really need to understand but ourselves: Chiefly, do we have a culture worth defending? This author states nothing that exists in the West that he considers worth defending, save his own shit scared life. You cannot defeat an ideology – only its adherents. So we'd better make sure we have an ideology that's better than theirs or we're sunk in the same metaphysical and political mire as they are. Opponents most often mirror each other's cultural emptiness and wars are usually attempts to destroy the mirror to oneself that one's opponents usually throw up. After all, when one is ugly, it's hard to look into any mirror. Muslims won't help in the War-on-Terror because it's not their war because it was not initiated by them and has no possible benefit for them. It is the poisonous ideology of White Racism that needs to be tackled before there is a hope of winning the war on terrorism; racism cannot be cured by more of the same that this article attempts to perpetuate. Because racism is the ultimate form of human extremism which explains all the others. Whites want sacrifices from Muslims with no white sacrifices in return – especially sacrificing the economic benefits whites obtain from continuing to be racist. To appease white fear of Muslims, whites expect Muslims to appease white fear of Muslims. Rather than admit whites've been wrong all these centuries about non whites, whites wish to try to wash away their racial sins with the blood of the Muslims they kill. At the most fundamental level of this piece is the refusal to accept not only White Racism and its inevitably negative consequences for all whites – not just those who openly practice it – is that all theistic religion is inherently evil. Because based upon the unprovable assertion that that which you cannot - and need not - prove exists, exists. Believe that and you can excuse any nonsense by claiming to have special access to god's will. Eradicate that from culture and you will have achieved something far more worthwhile than anti terrorist legislation you could ever possibly imagine. In the end, such talk only occurs when whites fear their own deaths – not when the threat is directed at blacks. This is why this piece-de-merde is caucasio centric nonsense because it never refers to the terrorist and fundamentalist threat to blacks. It's whites who're in denial here about the real problem. The true fundamentalist evil lies within the white race and its tendency to be racist towards those it cannot stomach.


Article copyright © 2007 Frank TALKER. Permission granted to reproduce and distribute it electronically and in print; provided that mention of the author’s Weblog (http://franktalker.blogspot.com/) is included: E mail notification requested. All other rights reserved. Frank TALKER is also the author of Sweaty Socks: A Treatise on the Inevitability of Toe Jam in Hot Weather Conditions (East Cheam Press: Groper Books, 1997) and is University of Bullshit Professor Emeritus of Madeupology.

About Us:

My photo

Frank TALKER - Truth-Teller