Wednesday, 24 October 2007

Dr Watson

Dr Watson – The response of Equality Campaigners is ethically right, logical, tactical, justified and effective

Three cheers to The 1990 Trust for pointing out that racism can never be justified under the guise of free speech. That is how racism usually gets its foothold on the thoughts of the weak and feeble minded White Race and eventually leads to rivers of blood - ethnic minority blood. What makes Whites inferior is the fact that They cannot demonstrate that They are anything else. This makes Them good and mad and racist. Because Whites cannot convince others of Their superiority through argument – nor Themselves – They resort to a racist ideology that can only flourish through the use of force. Reason is not something Whites have historically practised, as one can find few examples – even in the history books written by Whites, Themselves. Whites have a lot invested in Their racism and will protect that investment – by any means necessary. This is a 500 year investment and protecting your investment is the first rule of any business. For Whites, the question is: “What’s in it for me?” With racism, the economic and psychic answer to this question is obvious: Unearned wealth and the self serving belief in one’s genetic superiority as a vain attempt to justify the unearned wealth. Nobody kills the goose that lays the golden eggs, after all; that would mean having to work for a living. And, who really wants to know that they cannot succeed with an unfair and perpetual advantage? Certainly not White People. If an activity makes you money why would you stop doing it? For Whites to admit that racism is nonsense, would mean also for Them to admit that They are stupid. Why would Whites do this? The last place Whites would want to look for a solution to Their millennial fear of Blacks is Their abundant fear of life (Their fear of sex, women, children, etc). The pain racism causes Whites is manifest in Their guilt over it; while this pain would be increased if They formally admitted that guilt. Racism tries to conceal wherever Whites don’t want to go – into the future with Blacks as equals. Yet where Whites don’t want to go is where They already are: Fearful of anything different from Themselves. Whites claim this pain doesn’t exist – except in the minds of race card playing Blacks - but it is Their sole reason for living! To protect Themselves from Their fear of the truth, Whites try to make you fear Them even more than They fear Themselves. The bully always being more scared than the so called victim. What perpetuates White Racism is that there is only a single Race-of Man, this fact fills Whites with the nameless dread that They are nothing special. Racism is the hate that dare not speak its name. Anti racism merely makes the racial situation worse because if you try to save Whites from Themselves, They’ll try to destroy you to save Their precious racism – Their only friend in the darkness. The paradox is that to protect racist practise, the existence of racism must be denied. But, how can Whites deny the very thing They’re so desperate to continue practising? The denial itself is racist! This is why euphemisms like “free speech” are peddled. Whites want to be everyone’s game to evade the fact that the moment They embraced racism, They lost the game. Not only must Whites prove They’re not racist but, simultaneously, that racism is natural and that to refuse to discuss this is a threat to “free speech”. And that Blacks invented so called racism by virtue of Their natural inferiority. Without racism, Whites are nothing. They have painted Themselves into a corner with it and find They cannot escape because that would mean having to admit that They can find nothing else to replace Their racism with. They have to stick with it or end up with nothing. Hence, Their desperate and increasingly despairing searches for means to express Their racism and make it sound almost respectable – as, for example, Charles Darwin and his cronies successfully did in the nineteenth century. This proves that Whites still believe in Their inherent, genetic superiority; while still looking that all elusive scientific proof – about as pointless as a Christian looking for God in a test tube. The second most important aspect of this article is: ‘The notion of free speech is rarely explained properly. It carries with it the caveat that it must not harm others’. However, this does not mean merely being emotionally offended, since: “Sticks & stones will break my bones but names will never hurt me.” The important thing to recognise is objective – not subjective – harm. Otherwise, Blacks simply become overly-sensitive to all racism and render Themselves ridiculous, thereby. The rule here is that you must change the rules on what controls you, to change the rules on what you can control.

Article copyright © 2007 Frank TALKER. Permission granted to reproduce and distribute it in any format; provided that mention of the author’s Weblog ( 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.

Friday, 19 October 2007

squarepeg and racism 3

Like all racism-denying white trash who are found out, you waffle-on about trivia in the hope that your essential guilt-induced emptiness won't be noticed. You obviously have a chip on your shoulder the size of your rampant white ego, to disguise the fact that you have never achieved anything in life without evading the reality your existence so despoils. Like all bitter, resentful, shame faced goons (ie ‘lame ducks’ – your parapraxis, not mine), you just can’t resist opening your mouth to reveal the truly cavernous space that lies in the gap between your ears. You revel in your illiberal version of free speech because it allows you to talk codswallop without – you hope – ever being shown up as the living mouthpiece for the affective disorders of an entire race, that you really are. I condemn you as I would anyone who was objectively wrong. I would have done the same if you were a homosexual, a paedophile, a communist or a welfare scrounger. The last is, in fact, something that you effectively are since white racism is social welfare for whites who can’t make it in life without unfair advantages. That you should be so annoyed that someone has pointed out the lies you tell yourself, tells all that you are perfectly well aware that you have not achieved solely by your own merits but by the white privileges you seek to maintain at the cost of the blacks you so despise. If you wonder why blacks hate you, then you are more self-hating than you look. (By the way, just to show how legally-ignorant you actually are, no-one needs to read the terms & conditions on any Website since these must always conform with the laws of the land in which the particular server is located. If one is aware of these laws, there’s no point in reading these conditions because they must never be ultra vires. If not, they can be challenged in civil courts in the UK under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977. Additionally, in common law, a letter becomes the copyright of the recipient as soon as received, so your comment about “intellectual property” is unimportant. You should have studied law at that third-rate university you went to.) Those who can, do; those who can't, talk. And Frank TALKER never makes the mistake of assuming that a fool can be taught to understand anything. Let them sit at the back of the class – where they belong – with their mouths firmly shut.

Thursday, 18 October 2007

squarepeg and racism 2

Although you claim to resent positive discrimination, you do not resent it when it's to your benefit. You do not begrudge the BNP for forming racially-exclusive groupings - only that blacks should not be allowed to do the same. The proof of your racism here is the implication that we should be heading towards a colour-blind society. This proves you recognise that we do not currently live in such a society; meaning that, since birth, you - as a white person - have benefited from white racism since whites are not going to exclude themselves from such benefits. You evade the existence of the benefits of positive discrimination for whites by claiming they should not also exist for blacks. Hypocrite! You run away from the implications of White Racism, for your social and economic well being, as well as the consequences of your tacit admission that we live in a racist society. White people are major beneficiaries of white racism - a fact you only dimly accept as true. To criticise this racism would mean criticising yourself – and whites make poor self analysers, as their postings demonstrate. It would mean facing the guilt that white achievements are not solely the result of their abilities but partly and/or mostly the result of their skin colour. Such honesty is a bridge too far for one such as yourself. All whites are faced with this dilemma. It’s not the positive discrimination, so much, that is the punishment for your racism; it’s the guilt that you can never get over. You desperately evade the accident-of-birth of being born white because you would hate to admit to yourself that you are secretly glad not to have been born black in a society that you implicitly recognise is racist. You covertly wish to not only evade the guilt that such a recognition would bring, but to perpetuate white privilege just in case nearly all of your success in life was down to nothing more than skin pigmentation. You’d then have to face the fact that you are nothing much: The ‘lame duck’ you claim not to be (while simultaneously & racialistically implying blacks to be), but about which you offer no proof. All whites are faced with this challenge. Whites who criticise racism (& those who don’t) are guilty of the sin of omission of not facing up to the benefits they reap from the fact of racism. As those whites who didn’t complain when their integrated and assimilated Jewish neighbours were taken away, were just as guilty of the horrors of the gas chamber as the men who actually committed those crimes. It’s only those whites (the very rare ones) who choose to renounce the benefits of white racism who possess any ethical and political credibility whatsoever in the current racewar. No white can live with the knowledge that he is an accessory before, during and after the fact of racism, without having some kind of nervous breakdown. And it is this fear and self-loathing that motivates all white complaints about positive discrimination for blacks (but never that for whites). You dare not criticise white racism for fear that white racists would lump you in with blacks - and treat you likewise (ie, as a Nigger-Lover). You’d then have to renounce your white privilege; that is, the positive discrimination for whites that is the institutional racism of which you so approve by virtue of the fact that you never criticise nor renounce it yourself. It’s in your interests to condemn positive discrimination for blacks since that’s the only way you have of sustaining the benefits you enjoy springing from white privilege. What white, after all, is going to kill the goose that’s laying golden eggs marked “Whites Only”? Because the vast majority of whites have never renounced the unwritten white privilege they all enjoy, overtly-racist or not, the vast majority of whites are racist – either as a sin of omission or of commission. Every white person automatically benefits – in a racist society – from the positive discrimination inherent in such societies. The only way to run away from the ethical and emotional morass this leads whites into is to claim that positive discrimination is bad. Coupled with the usual fatuous denials that they ever benefit from same – when they clearly do – from their own grudging admission that we do not live in a colour-blind society. This is the hopeless and incorrigible bigotry of those who decry the fact we do not live in a colour-blind society; while doing everything they can to benefit from that fact by simply denying that they are benefiting from it. The greatest privilege white racism confers on whites is their ability to deny the existence of that very privilege. This is the only way whites can ever hope to ensure that such privilege is never taken away. Such denial allows all whites to sham fairness while revelling in their racial inequity. Wasn’t the greatest trick the devil ever played, convincing the world that he didn’t exist - as you try to do here? This makes the work of the devil that much easier to undertake. In truth everyone experiences life differently depending on skin colour size, good looks, age, social status, etc. Only whites who have the racist arrogance to assume that their experience of life is all-encompassing so that any criticism of their culture is not seen as valid criticism but a critique of every white person. Whites do not like their myopia revealed because it would then undercut their incessant claims to racial superiority. This is why, for example, it is impossible for a white man to represent a black in a criminal trial. The white has no experiential basis for arguing for the black man’s rights if the police or those who are speaking-out against him have racially abused the black. The white would have to step outside his experiential frame of reference to see things as other people see them – and this is the very thing whites find so difficult. Their history proves this since despite their world travel, they remain utterly parochial. Whites do not want to face this simple fact because it would then mean that there are aspects of life not open to them about which they could understand little. This would hurt their pathetic little egos no end and lead to their racism moving from coversion to oversion – as it does from time to time; particularly during an economic downturn. The concept of a colour-blind society continues to posit the notion that skin colour has a bearing on character. And is therefore a product of the typical white obsession not only with the skins of others but with their own and with how they can make it a signifier of superiority. Such a concept is inherently racist. It allows whites to be the judge of who is to be viewed in a colour blind fashion and who isn’t – the criteria always being the closer to white values the judged is, the less black we’ll notice him as being. A protection racket for white culture, in other words. Whites talking about a colour-blind society are the least colour-blind since such a society would be inherently as racist as the present one. Whites are such inbred racists that in order for them to take blacks seriously they first have to deracinate them, in their own minds, to pretend they’re not really black. This is like trying to remember to forget something! It merely leads one face to face with the fact that the man’s skin colour you are trying to forget is darker than yours is; resulting in an even more pronounced obsession with skin colour as a determinant of character. It means that whites will only treat blacks properly if whites can sufficiently caucasianise blacks – in their own minds, at least. The entire deracination process further implies that whites are already deracinated and non ethnic (when they are merely another ethnicity), and that they represent the pigmentary standard by which all other races are to be judged. Although blacks were here first, whites still think of themselves as the default race - to which all others must aspire. To accept blacks as they are, as opposed to what whites can make them into, is quite impossible for anyone of Caucasian extraction, obviously. Are whites emotionally deficient, in some way, one wonders? This white skin fixation is perfectly summed up by the moronic statement whites often make, to the effect: “I don’t see you as black – I see you as human.” If so, then you’re implying blacks aren’t human – they only become so after a process of deracination! (Presumably a process akin to fumigation?) Or, another classic from the racist dictionary of claptrap: “I don’t notice your skin colour.” Then how did you obtain a driving license if you are that blind? Imagine the uproar if blacks went round saying to whites: “I don’t see you as white – I see you as human.” The Caucasoids would be pretty cheesed off then, wouldn’t they? Colour blindness is a purely theoretical concept with no practical application whatsoever – except for guilt ridden racists who wish to evade their guilt. It’s designed by whites to fool blacks into thinking whites are no longer racist when the very concept is. Blacks cannot afford the racist luxury of deracination since their very lives are at stake from the fact that whites have, historically, been the racist race. Blacks use skin colour judgements precisely because they are more likely to be knifed by a white racist than a black one. There have, after all, been no prosecutions of blacks for racially attacking blacks. Blacks inevitably, therefore, feel much safer in their own company – as whites do: Whites because they are racist paranoiacs; blacks because they fear the predations of these very white racist paranoiacs. White Racism is unjustifiable; black racism is based on the principle of self-defence – a principle whites would love to deny blacks by claiming that all racism is bad. Only a white racist who preferred blacks dead would think otherwise. If you really want to know why the Black Lawyers’ Society exists, you can do no better than write to the following: The Society of Black Lawyers (SBL) c/o Peter Herbert Tooks Court Chambers 8 Warner Yard London EC1R 5EY And let’s see if you have the courage of your racist convictions, to deal successfully with the answer. You obviously went to Martin Bormann Grammar School – as did Frank TALKER – along with the University of Madeupology. It took your Uncle Frank years to get over the white supremacist hogwash he was taught before He came to realise what His true abilities were, rather than those He was told He possessed as of birthright. Why do whites struggle to solve problems that aren’t problems for whites? Because they’re trying to ward off the fear, and prevent the eventuality, that those who have these problems will figure out who’s causing the problems and come for their revenge. The try this by using white man’s juju, such as political correctness, colour blindness and positive discrimination. South African blacks, who are currently taking their revenge on South Africans whites are the role model for this deep rooted white fear: A fear produced and exacerbated by the fact that this particular desire for revenge is fully justified. The other fear is that whites will have to stand upright on their own two feet in a world where white skin confers no competitive advantage. Whites have never done this for the past 500 years and it will certainly be a shock to their system. You only have to listen to the Moaning Minnie whites who’ve left South Africa in their drives now that whites no longer rule a roost that was never theirs to begin to see this immaturity in action. I repeat the main thrust of my original comment, with additions: You are a canting, racist hypocrite who dare not face the tacit approval she gives to all racist practice. If you’re not a racist then neither was Adolf Hitler.

Article copyright © 2007 Frank TALKER. Permission granted to reproduce and distribute it in any format; provided that mention of the author’s Weblog ( 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.

Monday, 15 October 2007

squarepeg and racism

‘Of course, it goes without saying that no white man, no matter how disadvantaged, is able to take advantage of the training and free motorcycle on offer in order to gain "the knowledge"’. But can squarepeg tell us in what way whites are more disadvantaged compared to blacks – especially given the fact that the UK is institutionally racist? ‘I cannot understand how this is permissible under the race laws…’ This is because squarepeg doesn’t understand the law – race or otherwise. ‘…I do not understand either how there can exist a society of Black Lawyers, which would seem to me to fly in the face of any sort of anti-discrimination legislation’. Needless to say, squarepeg doesn’t say how the existence of such an organisation discriminates against whites – as he implies it does – because (as already noted) he doesn’t understand the race laws. Why does he not criticise the fact that (white) organisations for lawyers currently discriminate in favour of whites? Because squarepeg would not like to see an end to positive discrimination for whites, which he – no doubt - does NOT see as flying in the face of anti discrimination legislation, since he never condemns it. The fundamental problem with racists like squarepeg is that they never condemn positive discrimination for whites (ie, white racism) only the discrimination – his included – aimed at those less white than himself.

About Us:

My photo

Frank TALKER - Truth-Teller