Police Brutality in Hollywood

Unprotected Sex Isn't Very Smart

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.

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.

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.

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.