Tuesday, 23 January 2007

BB reflects our everyday experience

This piece is very good. However, let Frank TALKER deal with the problems first. '...[T]he trauma of racist bullying scars victims for life'. This is clearly untrue and only becomes so if the person concerned wants it that way. They would want it that way to claim that the world owes them a living so that they could spend their whole lives with their begging bowls out rather than roll up their sleeves and do an honest day's work. Experiences are to be learned from. Be they good or bad; they're all potential learning experiences. When people use the word "trauma" in the context of their personal experiences, they're really trying to hide the tacit admission - implied by such a statement – that they refuse to learn the lessons from the allegedly traumatic experience. It is this worship of the denial of reality which makes it traumatic, not the experience itself. Instead, they seek to blame the other person(s) 100 percent for a negative outcome, when we all know that it takes two to tango. This is the single biggest reason it can be very painful to learn from bad experience: The fact that we are nearly always 50 percent responsible. Such so called traumatised people, therefore, are refusing to take personal responsibility for their lives. They do this for the simple reason that they claim it is the duty of others to care for them. It is, however, never their duty to get a life for themselves. Such people are parasites. 'The scars, pains and trauma of the racism suffered are still with me today... 'Fortunately, I have been able to remain dignified in the face of the... bullying suffered and I have pride in not wanting to be portrayed as a victim'. This is self contradictory gibberish and psychobabble. If you are dignified and prideful then what, exactly, is the nature of the trauma you claim to have suffered. Here comes the worst: 'I was still at school when the socially responsible film 'Roots'... was televised... yet, despite its implicit and explicit messages, awareness and education, it only intensified the racist bullying that I experienced...'. Here is the central failing of anti racism: It's belief that racists can be educated out of their racism. Because racists are not the most intelligent of people, this so called education will always fall on deaf ears. It is, therefore, a complete and utter waste of time, food, energy, space and money – as, indeed, are racists. Any cultural artefact that deals with racism will always be taken, by racists, as a valorisation of their views; as those who are pro diversity will take such products as valorisation of theirs. Racists will identify with the racists in a teleplay like "Roots"; they won't side with the Abolitionists. When will these anti racist pricks realise that there can be no anti-racist education until the nature of the uses to which ordinary human beings put their communication to is understood? It's possible, after all, to make an anti porn documentary – that includes pornographic imagery – that will be used by the defenders of this material for masturbatorial purposes. Moreover, there were racists who believed that Alf Garnett and Archie Bunker were right, no matter how much their views were parodied in their respective sitcoms ('Til Death Us Do Part & All in the Family). Racists are people – like all of the mentally ill – who just don't get it and never will. Nevertheless, Claudia Webbe does get it right often. 'I did not know who was worst, the bully or those whom did not directly participate in the bullying, observed but did nothing to intervene, colluding instead with the bully in the abuse suffered'. This is extremely important because most of the UK has not complained about the racism of a "Big Brother" contestant nor most of the tv programme's viewers – only a minority. The majority is perfectly content to go along with the racism contained in the show - as UK Whites are in real life in the world outside of television. Few Whites possess the guts to put Their heads above the parapet to risk Their careers, spouses, mortgages, etc for minorities – after all; they're only Blacks. (Compare this with the White Racist Hypocrisy of claiming that UK Muslims must condemn Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorism more, when the selfsame Whites refuse to condemn racism more.) 'The current Celebrity Big Brother story reflects the very core of the Black experience in Britain that we have deep race and racism problems resting firmly in our institutions and at the heart of some of our neighbourhoods'. Although true, this is a fact Whites will never accept. The fact that every single UK black has experienced as least one personal incident of racism directed at them from a white is a truth too terrible for Whites to face. (The corollary being that very few whites have ever experienced black racism - proportionately – despite their claims as to its widespread existence.) Because White Culture is based upon judging others on the sole criterion of birth circumstances, it takes a tough minded white to go against the flow of his own culture to see others (& self) as they really are. And there are very few tough minded whites: No more than 10 percent A good example would be Channel 4 Chief Executive, Andy Duncan, claiming there is no evidence of OVERT racism. He knows perfectly well that there rarely will be. He also knows that the subject under discussion here is really COVERT racism. (He also implies that COVERT racism is somehow acceptable.) To put it another way, what Mr Duncan's saying is that when accusations of racism are levelled at Whites it's merely an allegation. However, when allegations of terrorism are levelled at Blacks it's trial by media and it's even OK to shoot them dead – despite he absence of proof. Whites long to believe that if you can't see it, it doesn't exist; because that's the only way They can continue being racist in the hope that this won't be noticed. It also allows Whites to pretend that They are the benchmark for objective reality in that They determine its facts; if Blacks disagree, it's only because They're Black. In other words, Blacks are always wrong when Whites disagree with Them; Whites always right when Blacks disagree with Whites. Laws passed by Whites against Their own racism only deal with the problem overtly. Such laws are (& can't be, because you can't legislate for love: Only lonely people believe this) designed to deal with COVERT racism. This is the kind of racism with which all Whites secretly agree. A racist freemasonry, if you will, that will wring its hands in faux shock at the racist antics of Jade Goody, et al, as these can be used to occult their own racism. Only Blacks Themselves can successfully deal with White Racism by the simple expedient of having as little to do with Whites as is humanly possible.


Article copyright © 2007, by Frank TALKER. Permission is hereby granted to reproduce and distribute it electronically and in print, other than as part of a book and provided that mention of the author’s Website/log http://franktalker.blogspot.com/ is included: E mail notification requested. All other rights reserved. Frank TALKER is the author of Sweaty Socks: A Treatise on Body Odour (East Cheam Press: Groper Books, 1996) and is University of Bullshit Professor Emeritus of Madeupology.

Saturday, 13 January 2007

No to Fascism and Racism at the Ballet

'Art is central to the human condition and its flourishing relies on freedom of artistic expression. The Nazis destroyed such freedoms of artistic expression. The rise of Nazism involved such infamy as public book-burnings, the flight from Nazi territory of thousands of artists, scientists and cultural figures, the abolition and destruction of institutions of so called degenerate art such as abstract and expressionist art and institutions like the Bauhaus. One of the many victims of the Nazi holocaust was choreographer, Rene Blum who was murdered in Auschwitz in 1943, he was also the founder of the Ballet de L'Opera Monte Carlo. It is in those people's memory that we should oppose all forms of fascism. Those artists - and everyone else - who defend the BNP should tell us if they defend the full reality of its politics: claims of ignorance are no defence'. An interesting ethical and political stance, but the metaphysics is sadly lacking – as are the historical facts. If 'freedom of artistic expression' is 'central to the human condition', then what about the 'artistic expression' and freedom of racists? Why do racists have no such freedom and why is there no debate about this all important issue. Are so called anti racists frightened that racists might, after all, have a point. And doesn't this then mean that such people inevitably become as blinkered and as bigoted – in their own way – as the racists they affect to condemn? What The 1990 Trust – and its Communistic fellow travellers – desperately need is a clear definition of what freedom is before hypocritically attempting to deny it to others. If They, for example, claimed that artistic freedom was only available to those who commit no objective harm nor hindrance to others, then the above quote would be beyond reproach. The only exception to this would be that clearly Simone Clarke has committed no demonstrable harm by her racist views. Instead, we are left to guess the real, hidden agenda of The 1990 Trust. This is its obvious desire to completely control UK public discourse in order to undermine White Culture (such as it is – & it ain't much, admittedly) and replace it with Their own culture of entitlement for Blacks. All the while condemning the public discourse not of those they can prove fallacious in their attitudes, but merely of those with whom they strongly disagree. By raising personal prejudice to the level of objective fact – in this way – one undermines free discourse (as well as discourse about free discourse). This is no more than one form of racial tyranny fighting another, for racial supremacy. By the way, the Nazis never destroyed artistic freedoms, they only tried to destroy the freedoms of those against whom they were fundamentally opposed – as The 1990 Trust is doing here. So who out there is going to call The 1990 Trust Nazi sympathisers? Oh well, I guess it might as well be Frank TALKER.


Article copyright © 2007, by Frank TALKER. Permission is hereby granted to reproduce and distribute it electronically and in print, other than as part of a book and provided that mention of the author’s Website/log http://franktalker.blogspot.com/ is included: E mail notification requested. All other rights reserved. (Frank TALKER is the author of Sweaty Socks: A Treatise on Body Odour [East Cheam Press: Groper Books, 1996] and is University of Bullshit Professor Emeritus of Madeupology.)

BNP Barnbrook seals ballerinas' fate

Karen Chouhan, chair of the Black Londoners Forum, said: ''The ENB must sack Clarke... for her vile views, which run contrary to the Arts Council funding criteria...' But what are these 'criteria'? Is it not the case that the organisation concerned must actively promote diversity, but that the personal politics of a given organisation's members becomes irrelevant? This is because no organisation can control against whose names any member chooses to put his "X" against in a secret ballot? The criterion quoted focus on 'their work', not their personnel. If La Clarke had not been outed by the guardian then 'their [ENB's] work' would never have its multicultural credentials attacked in this way. The 1990 Trust has failed to demonstrate that the ENB has violated this criterion; only its deep suspicions that a racist will be instrumental in such a violation. Nevertheless, when one considers the ENB's work, one sees no evidence of this. It's as dangerously socially divisive to punish racists for their views as it is for racists to punish blacks for their skins. One must only punish for actions, not thoughts. Moreover, The 1990 Trust cannot support both democracy and rigid controls on whom one chooses to vote for. That way lies the one party state where democracy only thrives because there's only one state approved political party to vote for. Karen Chouhan demands that 'all publicly-funded bodies... promote good race relations'. What she doesn't explain is how English National Ballet is not doing this. Does this mean that members of any organisation reveal their political allegiances? Has Ms Chouhan never heard of a human right to privacy? Obviously not! Chouhan continues (naive to the last): 'The BNP are seeking supporters in the establishment who aim to quietly undermine multiculturalism. 'The party has been expanding its' membership among the powerful with recruitment drives in places such as Belgravia and Chelsea.' There's no need for the British National Party to do this the so called establishment don't believe in multiculturalism – they only pay lip service to it. The issue for the BNP is that they know they are on fertile ground – with the so called establishment – so are more concerned to get members of this establishment to come out and publicly declare their racism. The British National Party knows that those they recruit are, for the moment at least, merely closet racist. It is not a recruitment drive but a drive to make racism VISIBLY mainstream and acceptable while it remains currently INVISIBLY mainstream and acceptable. This is better for Blacks since They will then be able to more clearly see Their enemies; making it easier to take them down – by any means necessary. Eye of the storm, Simone Clarke, said 'I don't regret anything. I will stay a member [of the British National Party]. This is to be applauded. Anyone who takes a stand for what they believe is to be admired – no matter how objectionable their beliefs. If there were more people in the world like this, we'd live in a much better world. This is not to say that I wouldn't sanction her assassination by contract should her murder become necessary at some future time since, like her, Frank TALKER also stick by His guns – both literally and metaphorically. Let's be honest, if ms Clarke is sacked, it won't be as the result of any moral scruplkes among Whites regarding the employemtn of White Racists, it'll be as a public sacrifice to make the Whites at the ENB look good. This is especially true given the fact that no White Organisation would ever countenance emplloying (or continuing to emply) a Black Racist or one subsequently found to be so. Postscript: the most amusing aspect of this article follows: 'One insider was reported to have said: "The management have got their heads in the sand on this. They know they are facing a backlash against the company, not least from our financial backers, but they are clearly hoping it will just go away'. Is this 'insider' saying that if there is no negative financial consequence of employing a racist that that makes racism OK? He continues: "We are looking at a disaster for the ENB. At a time when funding for the arts is being tightened [yet again, a greater concern for money over morality], who is going to want to be seen giving money to a troupe led by someone who supports a political party considered by many to be racist?" Who, in their right mind, thinks the British National Party is anything other than constitutionally racist? Obviously, this 'insider' is a complicitly racist moron who thinks Arts' Council funding is more important than ethics. Does this mean the ENB is institutionally racist? Of course it does!


Article copyright © 2007, by Frank TALKER. Permission is hereby granted to reproduce and distribute it electronically and in print, other than as part of a book and provided that mention of the author’s Website/log http://franktalker.blogspot.com/ is included: E mail notification requested. All other rights reserved. Frank TALKER is the author of Sweaty Socks: A Treatise on Body Odour (East Cheam Press: Groper Books, 1996) and is University of Bullshit Professor Emeritus of Madeupology.

Wednesday, 10 January 2007

Unite Against Fascism - Stop the BNP

RESPONSE TO ABOVE ANNOUNCEMENT:

'As history shows, fascism stands for the total annihilation of whole communities, freedoms and democratic rights'. As history also shows, campaigning against the democratic rights of a legally constituted political party is also anti democratic rights. Didn't the Nazis do this to the Communists?

'Unite Against Fascism is organising this national conferenceto (Sic) look at the impact of increasing BNP support, to discuss strategies that have been successful in stopping the BNP and to bring together the broad opposition that is needed to halt the rise of fascism including from trade unions, Muslim, Jewish and other faith communities, black, Asian, lesbian, gay and disabled communities and students'. What they're not organising is a 'national conference' to look at the impact of the racism within the groups cited in the previous quotation. Racist hypocrisy and dishonesty.


Article copyright © 2007, by Frank TALKER. Permission is hereby granted to reproduce and distribute it electronically and in print, other than as part of a book and provided that mention of the author’s Website/log http://franktalker.blogspot.com/ is included: E mail notification requested. All other rights reserved. Frank TALKER is the author of Sweaty Socks: A Treatise on Body Odour (East Cheam Press: Groper Books, 1996) and is University of Bullshit Professor Emeritus of Madeupology.

About Us:

My photo

Frank TALKER - Truth-Teller