Tuesday 26 June 2007
Wednesday 20 June 2007
Big Brother once again exposes UK racism
(2007)
'A HUMAN RIGHTS charity has claimed Big Brother evictee Emily Parr proves how deeply ingrained racism is in British society'. This is quite right but doesn't tell the whole story. Racism is absolutely fundamental to the survival needs of Whites; without it, They'd starve. It not only explains the North Atlantic Slave Trade and the British Empire, it also explains the current economic decline of what was the world's first superpower. Without the ability to openly express and act upon Their racist imperatives, Whites have nothing to do and nowhere to go – neither ethically nor politically. Karen Chouhan, head of The 1990 Trust: '[T]hat this contestant has used such a vile racist term [Nigger] highlights... that we still have a mountain to climb to challenge such attitudes'. There is no such mountain. Challenging attitudes is as pointless as King Canute trying to make the waves do his bidding. Fascists like La Chouhan never want to accept that people are free to think exactly as they wish; no matter what she might like them to think – especially about her. Challenging attitudes is a rationally purposeless process that comes down to nothing more than trying to get people to like the challenger – because he doesn't like himself. If there ever were such a mountain, it would have no peak; and you'd be climbing forever - fruitlessly. The issue, as always, is not challenging the attitudes of others, but your own. Why try to force others to think as you do when you cannot demonstrate the benefit to them of doing so or otherwise convince them to change? Or, worst of all, know that their attitudes have changed given that telepathy is a fallacy? Therefore, such an attitude challenging attitude can be nothing more than fascist philistinism of the worst and most politically reprehensible kind. What a pity the so called anti racists are as militantly freedom hating as the racists – perhaps they're one and the same or, even, two sides of the same coin. 'Racism affects all classes but we know people like these girls are more likely to end up in powerful positions where they can exercise their prejudices'. If blacks know this cannot alter, then why whinge on about it? There's nothing to be done when Whites bring Their own children up to share Their racist ideology – unless you want to control, by force, the way Whites bring up Their children? Somehow, I can't see Whites letting you do that, can you? A black overseer watching all of the households in the land through a "Big Brother is Watching You" telescreen! Like Orwell's novel ("Nineteen Eighty-Four"), this is science fiction, I'm afraid, and not very good science fiction at that. In any case, Whites won't allow blacks to keep Them under surveillance; one of the basic imperatives of White Racism is that blacks are kept under surveillance by whites; for example, identity cards. It would be much better for Blacks to refrain from bringing up Their own children as inferior to Whites. However, that seems just as unlikely, doesn't it? 'Whether they become personnel managers or City high flyers, racism plus power is a lethal combination'. Because Whites don't think it's lethal for Them, They're hardly likely to change Their racist ways. If They could and thought There was something to be gained by changing, then They'd have changed a long time ago. 'It shows how much education in multiculturalism is needed'. This has been tried and failed for the very simple reason that Whites don't believe in multiculturalism. If They did, They wouldn't be racist to begin with. By giving Whites nothing to replace Their racism with save the politically correct emptiness that is multiculturalism, Blacks ensure that Whites remain firmly of the opinion that blacks are lower on the evolutionary ladder than Themselves. 'We will be contacting Ms Parr inviting her to spend some time with The 1990 Trust in order to help her overcome her harmful attitudes'. This won't help blacks any more than the Cohens inviting Adolf Hitler to tea was ever going to. Because negative racist attitudes are ingrained (as this article points out but refuses to face the implications of) it's not the behaviour of the hated group that matters to racists, but the pre existing racist attitudes of the racists. Whites avoid contact with blacks precisely to avoid having Their prejudices challenged because racism is self perpetuating – like all fallacies. To claim that racists associating with those they hate will persuade them to be loving is as fallacious as saying that NOT having intercourse with those of a different culture will produce racial hatred. Racial hatred has nothing to do with who one's friends are but who one is. It has nothing to do with the behaviour of the hatee but of the hater. And, it's this that determines who one's friends are – not the other way around. (Only those who actually have friends are aware of this.) Putting an ailurophobe in a room full of cats won't cure his phobia because his fear is not produced by the behaviour of the cats, but by his own psyche. (This is why it's always racist for Whites to say: "Some of my best friends are Black". This doesn't prove They're not racist only that They wish to judge those They know by Their skin colour and, in so doing, use them as political pawns to prove the unprovable – a negative. If that's friendship, then Frank TALKER must be very lonely, indeed. Only a racist would ever contemplate doing such a thing.) Here, The 1990 Trust falls into the trap of thinking that negative behaviour toward others is produced by those others - like saying that women who're raped deserve it and that experience of those others would confound it! This proves a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of prejudice. It's not produced by the ordinary ignorance of lacking experience but by a wilful disregard for one's experience; otherwise known as choice or free will. Racists are not compelled to be racist, they choose to be so. And it is free will that political correctoids hate; hence, their toe tapping totalitarianism. Whites will always look for signs of inferiority within Blacks They know and reject signs of equality – so it makes no difference to Their racism if Whites actually know any Blacks. Angela Jain, Big Brother commissioning team head at Channel 4, said: 'I think people watching the show tonight will agree that Emily spoke carelessly rather than maliciously.' This is a racist parapraxis because Ms Jain knows perfectly well that, since Whites aren't going to renounce Their racism, the issue now is not changing such attitudes but ensuring they're not visible to blacks. Ms Jain thus accepts racists attitudes so long as they remain overtly unexpressed. The implication being that she feels they're acceptable if implicit rather than explicit. She's lying to protect racists, so must be one herself. Aside from all the anti racist rhetoric, there's also this: 'Emily, a drama student from Bristol, is a Tory voter and admits to being right wing'. The socialistic implication here is that Tories are somehow more likely to be racist than anyone else! Where is the evidence for this? It gets worse: 'She lives with her parents - chemical worker Roger and mum Mandy - at their £350,000 large detached modern house in the city...' Why is the cost of their house relevant? Is this the green eyed monster of Niggerdom? Isn't the politics of envy just another way of expressing racial hatred toward whites? I think we should be told!
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 Toe Jam (East Cheam Press: Groper Books, 1997) and is University of Bullshit Professor Emeritus of Madeupology.
Sunday 17 June 2007
Health body says (Sic) "black people are naturally mad".
'RACE EXPERTS hit the roof after an institution claimed figures showing Black people (Sic) 18 times more likely to be mentally ill was an "under-estimate"'. But, what is a "race expert"? They can't be very expert at anything since ANY official statistic is - by its very nature - an under estimate because many cases relating to the given statistic are never reported. Or, do these so called experts believe that all social phenomena are 100% reported! It is simply a statement of fact at which they balk and such a balking shows that they, themselves, are mentally ill. Clearly, the Institute of Psychiatry is itself infected with institutional racism if they view the racist practice of White Mental Health Workers as being indicative of non racism. The problem with psychiatry like, for example, socialism and sociology, is that it is not based on observable phenomena but the personal prejudices of its practitioners. So called professionals in such disciplines can say anything they like - in appealing to any pre existing prejudice they choose - to remain in lucrative employment. Ultimately, psychiatric practice is solipsistic since it provides no scientific proof of its validity. It, therefore, resorts to the unprovable claim that any attempt to deny any ridiculous claim it makes is de facto proof of the schizophrenia of the person making the denial. An unprovable assertion meant to prove an unprovable assertion, in order to vainly hide the unprovability of both. Nevertheless, this universal get out clause never applies to them when they deny the self evident statements of others that are actually based upon the observable behaviour of Whites: A hypocritical double standard. With racism, Whites have gotten Themselves into an impossible position. They wish to openly practise Their racism whenever They can, while also openly seeking to deny this fundamental desire. This can be summed up as follows: "I'm not a racist, I just hate blacks!" This pushes Them – in Their evasive desperation - to try to prove a negative, best summed up in that age old nonsense: "Some of my best friends don't have white skin". As if skin colour has anything to do with the values associated with friendship! Why mention the skin colour of one's friends if that signifies nothing to you. Negatives can never be proven, so this report contains no substance since it merely denies – it posits nothing. Blaming cannabis for the racism of Whites towards Blacks lacks any factual underpinning. Attempting to move away from the blame game means that no one is to blame and, therefore, that no one need take personal responsibility for his actions. This latter point is matched by the mentally ill themselves, since the whole point of choosing to be mentally ill is to do just that – avoid blame and responsibility. Was it ever thus: The psychiatrists are madder than their patients! (When psychiatrists spend too much time with mad people [ie, other psychiatrists], the madness tends to rub off – or, is it that the pre existing madness is finally laid bare? After all, what normal person would want to associate with mad people in the first place?) Most Black and Asian professionals are inevitably going to deny racism in the organisations within which they work, otherwise they'd have to admit they willingly work for racists. Moreover, that they, therefore, tacitly approve of racism in lacking the personal drive for self employment. They would then have to admit that they could not secure any kind of employment (especially from Whites) without trying to renounce Their own skin and Their personal experience of White Racism. That's the so called Catch-22 facing all members of minority groups in any culture: To go along with the mainstream - and risk never developing any moral integrity - or to develop moral integrity through ones own, unaided achievements. The justified fear of such so called professionals is that they won't be able to progress in their careers if they do not Toe the Racist White Line. Secretly, Blacks & Asians understand that this racial self denial (ie, self hatred) is the only proof that Their personal experience provides Them that the UK's mental health services are rife with racism. Whenever a Black and Asian professional speaks out against White Racism, he finds it very hard to obtain future work from Whites. Blacks are openly criticised by Whites when they point out White Racism; praised when They claim it does not exist. (Similarly, when Whites approve of something Blacks are saying, you just know that that's because what's being said is a negative for blacks; and when Whites don't approve, it's because what's being said makes whites look bad.) This, in itself, is proof of racism. As is the fact that Blacks and Asians claiming no racism is the very proof that it exists: If it did not exist, why bother to deny it? You cannot prove a negative, and Whites Themselves say that there's no smoke without fire. 'Prof Murray said that psychiatrists were less likely to diagnose Black people with mental illness because they were afraid of being branded "racist"'. Why would anyone care if they were branded a racist, if they were not? This proves that psychiatrists are very much aware of the ethnic origins of their clients and that their treatment is based on that origin rather than actual medical need. Such psychiatrists would much rather, therefore, that a Black go untreated than themselves be branded a racist; proving that that's the very thing (racist) that they are in denying treatment because of a man's skin colour. The fear of being labelled a racist leads to different treatment for blacks; making the racist labelling feared inevitable. (White Racism, here, rebounds upon the racist because it's the very fear of being called a racist that proves one is a racist.) If a man fears being labelled racist it can only be because he fears that the label is true – no matter what his psychological evasions to the contrary. This proves Whites spend a great deal of time worrying what others think about Them because They can't hope to obtain self respect the normal way – successful, productive achievement; in harmony with objective reality. And, when Whites can't control what others think, They inevitably brand those others as mad, bad and dangerous to know. Professor Murray proves again that being well educated is not the same as being highly intelligent. '[Prof Murray] also alleged that dangerous psychopaths like Christopher Clunis who killed Jayne Zito in 1992 - were being released into the community because health professionals wanted to reduce the numbers of Black patients'. This quote also makes the same point as the previous paragraph. If Whites sincerely believe that a black man is dangerously ill, They should not release him no matter how racist that makes Them appear; otherwise, that makes Them appear the racists They claim They're not. Do these Whites possess no integrity as people at all? Obviously not; hence, the black inability to trust them. Blacks are here being denied medical care because of Their skin colour, yet mental health professionals claim that this racist activity is proof of the non racist nature of their profession?! You can't get madder than that now, can you? White Psychiatrists need to get over Their fear of Their Black Patients and start treating those who need Their help – regardless of skin colour unless, of course, They wish only to service white clients. But Whites have shown – for at least the past 500 years – how difficult They find it not to do the very thing that marks Them out as so profoundly racist: Judge others transparently, consistently & equitably. When Whites try to prove They're not racist, that's precisely when They are openly so. What self-respecting man really cares what others think, unless he can't prove his claims about himself – as in this case? That Black and Asian professionals are queuing up to racially abuse their own race (&, by implication, Themselves, since They must be more prone to madness than Their White colleagues) speaks to the real problem here: Internalised racism. Over the issue of Their skin colour, Blacks feel inferior because They've been fed with little else than the White Propaganda that black skin equals genetic inferiority. And, They make the mistake of believing it. It might make anyone choose mental illness rather than stand on his own two feet when he's told that his own genes are against him regarding any ambitions he may have for himself, his friends and his family. Especially true when members of his own race are telling him this. Whites have been clever in perpetuating the myth that birth circumstances determine future outcomes by the simple expedient of creating social structures which have such beliefs factored into them and the way they function. Thus, for example, a lower class person is automatically provided with a poor standard of state education in the UK because it's implicitly believed that to offer him anything better would be a waste of precious and finite resources. The poor realise they're being thrown onto the scrapheap at birth – precisely because of that birth – and that there's little point in trying to better themselves, when their culture is so set against them. After all, if the lower class were truly capable of bettering themselves, then social snobs would have to alter their cultural underpinnings and admit they're wrong. It's much easier to engage in self fulfilling prophecy than do that, since one is then able to imagine one is proved right without the self respecting effort of providing evidence &/or proof. Such effort requires the facing of reality (& one's true self) – a fearsome activity at the best of times. That many poor people achieve success is testament to those poor who can see beyond the negative beliefs of others to achieve self determination – rather than be determined by those others. Psychiatry is a pseudo science precisely because it indulges in such non objective nonsense as the claim that one's future is determined by birth circumstances – so it is hardly surprising that it would become the handmaiden of state sponsored racism, as here. Like Roman Catholicism – which also despairs of humanity by claiming humans are born with a propensity to evil called Original Sin – psychiatry believes humans are fatally flawed by such activities as sex obsession and power madness. Of course, religious people usually claim to be above Original Sin, as psychiatrists claim to be beyond sex obsession and power madness themselves. It's only those inferior others (with the dark skin and the lower class birth) who really need constant watching, since they are less evolved versions of themselves. But, who watches the watchers who believe that most people are born with effective birth defects? Aren't those born and bred as racists the most defective? And, where is free will in all this? The attempt to murder human agency or free will explains why psychiatry has always been moving in the direction of genetic determinism. It cannot really explain human behaviour any other way – any more than sociology can explain criminality. If human behaviour is caused by choices, what is the purpose of psychoanalysis (or religion) when human behaviour thus becomes unstoppable, since minds cannot be read and, therefore, actions not predicted. It's the fearful lottery like nature of human nature that makes it so interesting yet so unpredictable. And, psychiatry is nothing more than the attempt to make human behaviour predictable to counter the psychiatrists' (both lay & professional) fear of others' choices. This attempt to quell individual human liberty explains the existence of "Soviet psychiatry" during the Cold War to repress Russian dissidents as schizophrenic – rather than as politically astute. This allows psychiatrists to pigeonhole others to meet their unfulfilled ego needs. Psychiatrists (like the religious) want human nature to be pre determined in order to make us all as inhuman as they. They do this by trying to punish us for their failure to be fully human, since our enjoyment of our humanity resentfully reminds them of the very joy they lack. But, since it's impossible to avoid choosing, the people they try to pigeonhole will still do what they wish since it will still make no difference to how they are viewed. And, choosers don't care how they're viewed, in any case. All attempts at determinist behaviourism flounder on this very point. Politicians who claim their social policies will reduce crime are bullshit artists because crime is not the result of society but of individual choice. And, people will choose to be bad simply because they can no matter what other opportunities exist. This has been proven repeatedly – throughout history. '[Prof Murray] said the causes of mental illness were "unemployment, living in the city, [being] separated from parents", and believes migrant communities are naturally more prone to mental illness'. It's hard to see how this man was ever awarded a professorship. Mental illness – like crime – has no causes, since both are the product of choices freely made by the individual. If unemployment is a problem, then get a job. If living in a city is a problem; live in the country. If parental separation is a problem, integrate with one's relatives – if any. These are not insuperable problems and therefore can be no excuse for the personal moral failure that mental illness represents. The give away here is that Professor Murray picks examples ("unemployment & urban living") which he knows are themselves prone to being caused by racism. Blacks find it harder to obtain work than whites in an institutionally racist culture and that nearly all blacks live in cities and not rural areas – because mixing with Their own is personally far safer than integrating with racist whites. Whites largely cause black unemployment, which They then use as the basis of the claim that blacks are unemployable headcases. It would be interesting if he were to look at other areas of cultural life, which show that Whites are more prone to disproportionate amounts of drunkenness, sexual promiscuity, pornography consumption and divorce. Moreover, it would be even more interesting if he could posit a genetic or a cultural explanation for such Base White Phenomena. But, that would mean treating whites as the equals of blacks, wouldn't it: Not a very likely outcome from a died in the wool racist. The good professor also says nothing about the mental illness rates among the employed, since this would confound his racist theorising - by suggesting that this was caused by employment! Professor Murray pretends it's unemployment itself that causes mental illness when it's really the reason for it that can. Many employed people are mentally ill, after all and most mental illness is not Sectionable; hence, the fact that this fact rarely surfaces. Like all psychiatrists, Professor Murray wants a job for life by claiming that the mentally ill cannot survive without mental health professionals. Of course, he would say that since his livelihood depends upon such propagandised dependency. Psychiatrists are more dependent on their clients than their clients are upon them. It would not help psychiatrists make money to tell their clients that they could solve their own problems, anymore than it would help lawyers to tell potential clients how to take their own cases to court. These so called professionals thrive upon public ignorance to make a living and, as such, are parasites. If a man cannot stand on his own two feet, then he is the mentally ill one. Psychiatrist heal thyself! The dependency is mutual since the mentally ill either seek a scapegoat and/or someone to tell them it's OK to refuse to take personal responsibility through becoming mentally ill. We shouldn't be shocked at the inability of doctors to deal with mental problems. After all, doctors suffer more from mental illness than any other group in our society. Figures published by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys show that doctors commit suicide more often than any other group. Moreover, within the medical profession, psychiatrists suffer more mental illness than any other specialists do; and they kill themselves more often, too. This sums everything up. Would you trust your financial affairs to a bankrupt accountant? Would you trust your motorcar to a mechanic whose own vehicle was constantly breaking down? Until so called White Professionals learn that different cultures have different forms of cultural expression, Whites will continue to claim that Blacks are more prone to mental illness than Themselves. Moreover, that White Culture is the objectively normal benchmark of the psyche against which all others are to be measured and, inevitably, found wanting. For Blacks, the issue is Their belief in Their own inferiority; allowing Whites to continue to perpetuate Their belief in same. White Psychiatry really screws you up! Never trust Blacks who tell you you're mad because you're black, because They must be just as mad as you because They are black! It stands to reason, dunnit?
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 Toe Jam (East Cheam Press: Groper Books, 1997) and is University of Bullshit Professor Emeritus of Madeupology.