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.

Wednesday, 25 July 2007

Don't mind your language Lucy – Ofcom

An attempt to effectively get the tv show Shipwrecked banned because it does not like the views of those that appear on it – talk about BLINK confusing the message with the messenger. That would mean the Royal Mail should be censured for obscene articles sent in the post and British Telecom criticised for obscene telephone calls! Obviously, BLINK doesn't believe in any kind of free speech; save their own. It's obviously acceptable to call for black people to be 'reinslaved' (sic) because it's acceptable to call for racists to be gassed. Frank TALKER would be the first to drop Zyklon B crystals into a shower room filled with British National Party members – as eager as a parent regarding a room full of paedophiles. (By the way, "reinslaved" should be "re enslaved".) One longs for an objective definition of free speech from The 1990 Trust because their comments imply that free speech is only for them - and their fellow travellers. Worse, the implication that whites always possess less right to free speech than blacks. Really? By what objective, ethical standard?


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.

Mental health law given Royal assent

'THE CONTROVERSIAL Mental Health Bill has received Royal Assent last Thursday to become law despite cross-party criticism'. It must be faced by blacks that such 'criticism' was never going to cut any ice with Whites because Whites want to pathologize the Black Communities that Whites have no desire nor means of accepting as fully human. 'Widely condemned as reprehensible by human right (sic) and community groups the changes introduced within this new Act of parliament will, health experts have warned, pose real "dangers" to black communities'. These "dangers" are the whole point of such legislation – to give racial discrimination, based upon alleged mental inferiority, a legal basis: Apartheid in all but name. ‘I think this will inevitably lead to an increase in the number of Black men who find themselves sectioned under the Mental Health Act as this new law allows many more health professionals to authorise forced detention'. Again, this is the whole point of such racist legislation. It also allows Whites to claim that blacks are more prone to mental illness simply by claiming – rather than proving with evidence – that they are. This will also allow White Health Professionals to apply racist pressure on Their Black Colleagues to come to the same conclusions about blacks or face racial discrimination in the competition for jobs and promotions within that profession. It is thus a test of how easy it is for blacks to sell out there own race for thirty pieces of silver. If black mental health professionals openly revolt against racism in the health service, Whites will have misjudged the willingness of blacks to accept permanent, second class citizenship status. Needless to say, Blacks will accept the ethical compromises involved with working within a racist health system for the sake of career paths Whites will continue to deny Them. After all, if these appeasing blacks desire appeasement so much, this proves to Whites that blacks can still be racially exploited – and will, therefore, continue to be thus exploited. '"This adds up to licensed discrimination under mental health service provision", Lee Jasper chair of the African Caribbean Mental Health Commission said'. Correct. That's what Frank TALKER just said! ‘It’s a sad day for mental health in the UK especially from the BME view[point]'. It always was a 'sad day' since mental healthcare for blacks has always been racially discriminatory. 'It was clear from the advice from the Commission for Racial Equality and the Race Equality Impact Assessment Steering group that this Act will be discriminatory'. This is getting a little repetitive: The purpose of this act is precisely to be 'discriminatory'. Why else would Whites pass such laws? Professor Kwame McKenzie: 'My worry is that it will drive a further wedge between MH services and black communities as the fear of forced treatment will keep people away from the services and so make the mental health of the Black community worse'. It's really this fear, itself, that makes the mental health of blacks worse than usual: The untreated fear that Whites mean to lock up all blacks. The only treatment for such a fear is to face reality. It is, in truth, much more likely that, since UK mental healthcare for blacks is designed to label blacks as more prone to mental illness and, therefore, less well adapted (ie, evolved) to survive - whites being somehow fitter – that avoiding White Psychiatry and it's fellow traveller Complicit Black Psychiatry will help keep more blacks on a more even mental keel. Blacks won't then become – by the usual process of White Self Fulfilling Prophecy – the very nutjobs Whites secretly wish to make them. This should encourage self help among blacks, to their own betterment, and keep White Racists at bay. To claim otherwise is to suggest that blacks are as mentally inadequate as Whites say they are – needing care which is institutionally racist. ‘"This is clearly a missed opportunity and not in keeping with the Government stated (sic) intention of joined up legislation", mental health lawyer Chinyere Inyama said'. This is infantile. Any black that believes any white's political promises is not living in the same real world that Frank TALKER inhabits. When will blacks learn that Whites just can't be trusted? Never, apparently! 'It shows a lack of regard in relation to race equality'. When have Whites ever shown anything else? '"The Act is a major step back for race equality and for community mental health in general"’, professor Sashi Sashidharan said'. Actually it represents an opportunity for blacks to cure their own ills rather than rely on Whites they know to be institutionally racist. But, of course, the fundamental problem Blacks have is their endemic dependency on whites liking them because Blacks don't like themselves very much. But this liking is really: "Fear us less" – a form of racial appeasement that only shows the weakness that creates the very racism it seeks to avoid. 'The most erudite minds within this profession have advised the Government on how these changes would [affect] ethnic minorities when this Bill first went to parliament. They warned them that it is discriminatory, but they wouldn’t listen. 'The Commission for Racial Equality have (sic) made it public that this Bill will increase discrimination against black patients. But the Government would still not listen'. Again, Whites are never going to 'listen' to those who are not in a position to stop what Whites wish to do. Blacks are always going to be outvoted in a first past the post electoral system because they are in the minority – and Whites want to ensure, by laws like this, that this situation always remains the case. The mentally ill, after all, are in no position to reproduce effectively and so such laws will help reduce the black birth-rate.


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.

Tuesday, 17 July 2007

Sunday, 15 July 2007

Far from Heaven (2002)

The critiques below sum up well the fact that it is a facile product of institutionally-racist minds. http://www.nycny.com/movies/far_from_heaven/index.html http://uk.rottentomatoes.com/m/far_from_heaven/articles/819243/1.php

About Us:

My photo

Frank TALKER - Truth-Teller