‘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.
No comments:
Post a Comment