Tuesday, 11 November 2008

Can you tell me why?

The answer is that because White Culture is endemically racist, the less respected aspect of Barack Obama's origins will tend to mitigate the more socially-acceptable side. Another way of saying this is that despite the many good things Hitler did for his country, it is the murder of six million Jews for which he is remembered. The bad always outweighs the good, even if - as in this case - there is nothing bad in being Black.

Article copyright © 2008 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.

Thursday, 30 October 2008


'It's a shame to see [MBPA] opposing the Met [in no longer encouraging Blacks to join the Met], and a greater shame that if you are white and heterosexual in certain settings, then you have nobody to speak for you'.

the above quote is the kind of profound ignorance that bedevils Whites are their burden of guilt and shame over their racism. it's difficult to see in which 'certain settings' one could ever change one's skin colour, political affilaiations or sexuality! wosre, it's impossible to imagine Whites with no-one to speak for them when they are constantly speaking for themselves and have organisations that also do this on their behalf. just because it's unusual for Whites to establish organisations without using the qualfier White does not mean that an insititionally-racist orgnisation like the uk police service does not speak for whites. the very racism poijnted-out in the macpherson report is that such organisations spek for Whites in a de facto sense - they do not speak for all. if they did then they wuold not be racist. this is yet another example oif the White whinging tendency that says that any complaints from Blacks about Wite racism are simply attempts by Blacks to racialy-segregate and obtain special privielges in so doing. yet this is what Whites do in claiming that no-one speaks for them when the entire culture of the uk does so. this comment is racism that pretends not to see the racism inherent in the comment and in the wider culture commented upon.

Article copyright © 2008 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.

Tuesday, 28 October 2008

Jihadi Child Porn

Depraved World of Jihadi Child Porn

The usual, extremist race hatred from Whites. There's no such thing as 'Jihadi child porn' – only terrorists who happen to use porn sites for communication purposes. The idea of a sexual link is unproven and remains just a correlative, political one – not a sexual, causative linkage. 'Besides their well-known penchant for anti-Semitism, misogyny and nihilistic violence, Muslim extremists...' This could also just as easily be said of Roman Catholics so no real point is being made about the nature of terrorism. Odd, given that this is an article supposedly about terrorists, but this is really a piece about the racial rage of its author. This writer refers to terrorism as a 'deviant' behavior when it is really no more than the result White Christians can expect when crusading against Muslims. To try to pathologise freedom fighting, in this way, proves that name calling is the only weapon this writer has in his armory. This comes from his ultimate realization that terrorists usually get what they want because they are difficult to root out of their home bases and impossible to separate from the terrorism inflicted upon them by Western Whites. The idea that defaming your enemies will 'help [Western] security agencies understand the terrorist mindset and prevent future attacks' is the worst kind of wishful thinking and proves the failure to deal with the threat either curatively or – better still – preventively. In truth, there is no way to cure terrorism, once it has arisen; it can only be prevented in the future by not interfering in the political situations of others. 'Police say they are already noticing a similarity in methods Muslim terrorists and pedophiles use in manipulating and grooming young people for their corrupt purposes'. Again, the words 'corrupt' and 'deviant' are used to conflate two separate activities as if they were the same thing; while simultaneously admitting that there is a similarity of technique, not a similarity of aim. 'When arrested, Abdelkader Ayachine... possessed almost 40,000 child pornographic movies and images, a number far exceeding any need for encoded communications'. This author does not proffer what he considers the right number of movies and images needed for 'encoded communication'; thereby invalidating his point. The problem here is that no objective definition of child porn is used in this article because the age of majority varies from state to state so that no such definition can be arrived at. Therefore, this piece merely attacks those cultures that allow marriages at an age that would be deemed far too young in the West. This is not objective reporting but an attempt to racialistically claim that Western culture is superior because of its sexual mores. Nevertheless, no objective evidence for this is ever offered. Moreover, this writer claims the existence of a 'demonized female form', yet this is also true in ostensibly Christian countries where female nakedness arouses many men to anger rather than to desire. And is covered to protect women from attack from the angry ones - as is done in Muslim countries. And he perpetuates his ignorance by claiming that women are 'forced' to wear' 'body-encompassing clothing', even though this is only true of a minority of Muslim countries. Oddly, he then goes on to say that '[i]n such a gender segregated environment, homosexual behavior develops, especially towards boys'. Of course, a Westerner raised on the Western Christian tradition would inevitably assume such a thing since it is also true, for example of celibate Western priests and monks. Here the writer reveals his homophobia when it claims that homosexuality is de facto 'sexploitation' of boys. Criticizing pederasty in Afghanistan as an 'accepted social norm' means he believes that it should not be. But, where does he get the right to make such a claim about the behavior of others in countries not his own? The author never explains. 'Sexual exploitation of boys in Muslim countries also has a long history'. So claims this author, but he offers scant evidence for this religious defamation. For this author, homosexuality is a 'grotesque phenomenon', but why is homosex between consenting partners 'grotesque'? He claims the Koran itself promises to put 'pre-pubescent boys at the service of Jihadi martyrs not interested in the female virgins awaiting them in paradise' - the usual subjectivist interpretation of texts serving the defamer's purpose. He does not show that such boys will be exploited for sexual purposes nor that the 'female virgins' are also 'pre pubescent'. Worst of all, this writer claims that Islamic culture is a de facto breeding ground for sexual deviance that inevitably leads to terrorist atrocities. Again, the same could easily be said of Roman Catholics and their fear of the vagina and all its works. Moreover, of the Catholics' millennia long tendency to support imperialist racism abroad – to express their 'sexual rage', since there was much sexual abuse in the days of the White empires of Europe. 'Such sexually traumatized Muslim boys are predisposed to become involved in terrorism as a way of expressing their sexual rage' and yet we find no numbers quoted. Is this all Muslim men – as implied? Most? Or a minority? The conclusion: 'A way of finding who the extremists and terrorists are is to go through the child porn sites'. The basic fact is that because terrorists use child porn to further their ends does not automatically make them pedophiles. That kind of correlation would be like pretending that because some terrorists eat halal that one merely has to keep halal meat shops under surveillance to catch them. As with all attempts at demonizing a race or a religion, there is a lack of causative evidence here of the empirical kind.

Article copyright © 2008 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.

Race Riots 'R' Us

The above is a fascinating example of how shit-scared Whites really are of Blacks gaining ANY kind of political power over them. They're quaking in their beds at the very thought of a Nigger president.

Article copyright © 2008 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.

Tuesday, 7 October 2008

Against Affirmative Action


'...[I]t's hard for many people on either side of the issue to be colorblind'. Whites always say this when discussing positive discrimination that effects them, but never discuss positive discrimination effecting Blacks. This is proof of White racial hypocrisy and resentment since they can’t be anything other than racist because they refuse to be colorblind. When Whites discuss racism they can’t refrain from being racist in the very discussion since they always point out the skin color of those they discuss. The 'many people' referred to are, of course, White and no examples of those for whom color is not an issue are ever cited; making 'many people' really mean: 'all white people'. The paradox is that Whites can now only justify their racism if Blacks agree to it; reducing the negative effects of their bigotry. As usual, Whites judge the skin color of the speaker – not his statements. They are culturally and psychologically predisposed to do nothing else. If a Black criticizes affirmative action, Whites exploit his skin color to allege such discrimination is unfair. Thereby at once professing their racism while trying to deny it - by claiming there's no need for positive discrimination – except for Whites. Talk about trying to have it both ways! Yet, racists would never dare criticize White privilege as a form of affirmative action because they clearly believe it's acceptable – for them. The racial (& racist) inconsistency is clear. 'Ward Connerly, the California businessman on a state-by-state war against affirmative action' is not a race traitor - there's no such thing since there is only one race and he is a member of it - as everyone else is. He is a fool who refuses to accept the existence of endemic White Racism and the persistent White refusal to renounce the unearned economic privileges inherent in such a system of White Supremacy. He's helping to perpetuate such privileges and is, thus, helping to disable not only himself but also all of his descendents - he is doing the KKK's work for them. 'Affirmative action, he said, is an antiquated system that, rather than helping minorities, reinforces the perception they are second-class citizens who need help to succeed'. The same could equally well apply to Whites who use their racism to overcome their second-rate mediocrity and obtain well-paid jobs over-and-above their natural abilities. However, Mr Connerly never mentions the fact that without racism, Whites would be failures. '...[S]chools were picking less qualified minority students'. Yet this has always been the case with majority (White) students who, despite their comparative lack of qualifications, would obtain preferential treatment simply because they were White. He's doing the White Man's whining for him. 'Connerly's proposed constitutional amendments prohibit state and local governments from giving preferential treatment to people on the basis of race, sex, ethnicity or national origin'. This does not apply to Whites since such legislation already exists to allegedly curtail White racism – although this has clearly failed; hence, the existence of affirmative action in the first place. Such legislation always fails because you cannot legislate for love, so a handicapping system (against Whites) was introduced in compensation. Whites only have themselves to blame for affirmative action since, if they were not racist, no such action would be necessary. Kristina Wilfore, executive director of the Ballot Initiative Strategy Center, is right: 'Ward Connerly... [profits] off a campaign to outlaw equal opportunity." He fights against race preferences for Blacks but not for Whites, so his claim to be egalitarian is false. Bizarrely, he also claims: 'I honestly think... Senator [Barack] Obama, in an ideal world, would like to get rid of race as an issue in American life'. Problem is, of course, we do not live in an ideal world and never will. There will always be discrimination and will, therefore, always be anti-discrimination - that's the way of the world since few can resist the temptation to take shortcuts to success by using unfair means. In any case, it's hardly for Blacks to deal with the problem of race since Whites created it and must now learn to stand on their own two feet and solve their own problems. There's also the fact that Whites are less racist to those less black than black. Those lighter skinned, who find greater acceptance from Whites, will always claim affirmative action is unnecessary. This denies their darker skinned brothers the advantages of their skin color in a racist culture, as Whites do this to Blacks, generally, via racism. These light skinned Blacks are simply racists in Whites' clothing and are just as racist. Whites are only against affirmative action when it negatively effects them, not when it negatively effects Blacks. Where were the Whites who believe all discrimination is wrong whenever Blacks remain unemployed because of their skin color? cowering within the emotionally-retarded limits of their racism. They are nowhere to be seen. As always, Whites claim more human rights for themselves than for Blacks and Mr Connerly is racist; hence, his popularity with Whites.

Article copyright © 2008 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.

Tuesday, 29 July 2008

Acute Mental Health Wards are Failing Patients

The real problem here of course is that Blacks lack the sense of neighbourhood identity and personal drive to fund their own community services. They prefer, instead, to go cap in hand to Whites who are not only already racist, but who will continue to believe White racism is justified precisely because Blacks behave in this childlike manner.

Friday, 25 July 2008

Symposium on DNA Database


'Open to the general public this meeting will look at why 57% of all innocent DNA in London is from black people and discuss (Sic) community leaders are concerns that the National DNA Criminal Database is criminalising (Sic) a community by stealth'. The answer to this question is obvious: Whites are racist and want to place Blacks under their thumb in a vain effort to stave off the inevitable Black backlash against that very racism. This means that the DNA database is not criminalizing Blacks by stealth – White Racism has already done so – this Database is merely an extension of that process. Thus, removing innocent Black people from this national database would defeat its racist purpose and is not, therefore, going to happen. It is a crime prevention measure not a crime curative measure – it seeks to shut the stable door BEFORE the horse has bolted not AFTER. And this can only be achieved by criminalizing Blacks as scapegoats for the failings and the inadequacies of White culture; particularly those concerned with (non existent) crime reduction. It should always be borne in mind that Whites never consider Blacks to be innocent of anything since Blackness is obviously the White Christian God's punishment for sins committed in a past life – at least according to Ham. Using the word "innocent" here suggests Whites judge Blacks by the actions they engage in - as well as those they don't. Whites don't do this. They judge Blacks by their skin colour – it's really that simple. 'Just being on that database suggests that you are involved in criminal activity. This goes against the original purpose of the database, which was to keep records of convicted criminals . (Sic) Something needs to be done as the Government may change the rules on how this technology (Sic) used which may go against us in the future', Bishop Wayne Malcolm Christian Life City Chair in Hackney East London. Needless to say, the good bishop has his head up his anus. The "original purpose" of the database was never revealed to the public otherwise there would have been an outcry at the time. Now that it has been created it is too late to talk about its original purpose: A complete listing of the entire population – regardless of criminal behaviour. Now nothing can be done to prevent this and this database will certainly be used against Blacks – as scapegoats - "in the future" whenever Whites commit more crimes or whenever the White economy goes belly up as it regularly does. 'If you want the BME communities to trust the police and the establishment then they must be open and transparent… It undermines community cohesion and a lot of good work that has been done,' Pastor Desmond Hall, Christian Together in Brent. Another fool who believes Blacks could ever trust a racist police service policing an endemically racist country. One might as well say that there would come a time when parents could ever trust paedophiles. By the way, there's no such thing as "community cohesion" and one would dearly wish to know what "good work" Pastor Hall thinks "has been done". By whom? When? 'It is a travesty that we have to lobby our government and lawmakers to take action to protect the innocent and some of the most vulnerable groups in society. - Olu Alake, president, 100 Black Men of London.' Whites created "[M]ost vulnerable groups in society" for them to have a pool of scapegoats – in perpetuity. This is why Whites are not keen on helping the poor out of poverty; preferring, instead, to condition them to it via a welfare system designed to institutionalise the condition. Moreover, governments are not concerned with the protection of the innocent but with the apportionment of blame. No matter what folly governments involve themselves in, they never take the blame for any mistakes that they make. Innocence itself is no protection against the predatory nature of Whites – you must expose their racism at every turn to exploit the race guilt the more fully for the benefit of Blacks. 'The recent massive expansion of the DNA database is not helping to solve more crimes, but rather threatening the rights o (Sic) those who have been arrested and have their DNA on the database indefinitely.' It was never designed to do the former – only to give the impression that it could. The same is true of identity cards, which are designed to allow the police to harass Blacks. The threat here is designed to show Blacks that, as far as Whites are concerned, Blacks have less human rights than Whites - and Blacks had better get used to it. Ultimately, there is no argument here to refute the usual White canard that if you have nothing to hide, and are as innocent as you say you are, then what's the problem? The problem, of course, is Whites using skin colour as a metric of character – as they have always done.

Wednesday, 23 July 2008

Mayor's Report: Lee Jasper Responds

Like so many Blacks who believe Whites can change, Lee Jasper is dangerously naïve and politically unsophisticated. For Jasper to claim that his reputation has been 'badly damaged' is purest whining of the basest kind. Only among Whites can a reputation be damaged since Whites assume all Blacks genetically corrupt to begin with such that Blacks can never actually possess a good reputation – no matter how hard they try. Therefore, the reputation of any Black can never be damaged among Whites since a Black with a good reputation cannot possibly exist inside the racist mindset of Whites. Lee Jasper needs to seriously consider what his constituency really is since such damage to his reputation can only occur among Blacks. (Incidentally, 'false allegations' is a semantic solecism since allegations can only ever be true, otherwise they would not exist in the first place! It is only the lack of evidential support that can make them false, not the allegations themselves.) Jasper claims that when Whites talk about 'waste', they're really talking about Black organisational funding. This is more whining. Blacks need to finance their own development from their own hard work & effort and stop relying on Whites, as such, and White Race guilt to help Blacks out. The latter merely contributes to a racist White backlash against anyone with the so called temerity to remind Whites how racist they are. Only by independence can Blacks learn to stand on their own two feet and stop feeding the White racist propaganda machine that says Blacks are incapable of separate development, on their own. Jasper goes on to claim that Whites seek to 'demonise' London's Blacks. Obviously, however, they do not seek to do this since they have already done so – at least in their own minds – for the past seven centuries. In reality, Whites seek to exploit the already existing White view that Blacks are a demonic threat to the alleged superiority of White culture. Lee Jasper here implies that Whites are morally empty, easily led fools when, in addition, they are merely already replete with easily exploitable race hatred. You cannot 'demonise' anyone who's already seen as demonic. Despite the complete absence of evidence of fraud on Lee Jasper's part, he cannot be nearly so ingenuous as he implies he is since he must know full well that Whites believe that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The racist smoke Whites create by the very activity they call racism is precisely designed to allow Whites to falsely claim: "There's no smoke without fire". Bizarrely and stupidly, Jasper believes Whites should be honest about their racism! Clearly, this will be no more the case than a force of terrorists giving the West prior warning of a terrorist outrage! To openly admit to being racist would undermine the very racism Whites seek to perpetrate on their betters. Because Whites need the feelings of superiority that come with being racist it's hardly likely they are going to make it obvious that they are using underhand methods to achieve political advantage. Especially when Whites make such a play of their self willed belief in their own ability to engage in "fair play". The truth is that Whites lack the intellectual development and the morality to justify their racism, which is precisely why they'll be as covert about it as possible. Lee Jasper simply wants a level playing field of racist practice which, since racism is decidedly inegalitarian, is a ridiculous admission of his own inability to spot White Racism when he's confronted with it. In which case, what kind of Race Advisor can such a man really be when he so profoundly misidentifies the real issues at hand.

Sunday, 9 March 2008

BBC still ‘hideously white’


'Has the Beeb demonstrated that while its talk a good talk about equality events of late show that its not free of racist basis in its employment practices and its programme output. (Sic)' This has always been the case for race issues as it has always was – and always will be – for gender, sexuality and class issues. The BBC is a white propaganda organisation for the dissemination of lies about how wonderful White People are. It is an arm of government for precisely that purpose; establishing its fraudulent credentials by claiming to be objective, fair and impartial while never providing objective, fair and impartial definitions of these terms nor of what they mean by them. 'The objective was clear the BBC wanted to find evidence of corruption, fraud or anything else that could be used to discredit Lee Jasper former Senior Policy Director of the Mayor of London Ken Livingstone.' Obviously, when Whites are found fiscally corrupt, news of this is always downplayed in White Media outlets such as the BBC. Whites must teach a high profile pointer-out of White Racism like Lee Jasper a lesson because They are fed up with their negrophobia constantly being pointed out to Them because of the White Guilt it makes Them experience. Mr Jasper troubles the White Conscience and he must be destroyed in order to regain the racist balance required if Whites are to continue enjoying the unearned benefits of racial privilege in an institutionally racist country like the UK. 'The BBC London team used its vast resources on line (Sic) and radio combined with television to engineer a sense of manufactured crisis around Lee Jasper on (Sic) of the most senior black figures in the United Kingdom and its news reports sought to suggest impropriety and high corruption.' The more important issue is that whatever Whites want to talk about dominates the news agenda of supposedly objective news reporting. The very fact of talking about it is designed to create a "no smoke without fire" atmosphere in which Their fellow Whites will automatically and eventually assume that no matter the lack of evidence, there must be something to all this otherwise why would it be reported so extensively? Few Whites openly state that this is a self fulfilling agenda in which people are allegedly found guilty on the basis of nothing more than unprovable racist allegations – allegations repeated as allegations precisely because They cannot be proven. The most surprising thing here is that evidence against Lee Jasper has not been planted to put him on trial – but we may have that yet to come. This mirrors the fact that racism itself is an unprovable fallacy that Whites continue to believe simply because They wish to, not because They have found any evidence of actual Black inferiority. 'The BBC harassed anyone connected with Lee Jasper including the charity the 1990 Trust whom it recently accused, without a shred of evidence of failing to properly account for project funding received some five years ago.' More of the same racist muckspreading. The issue here is that racism is designed to create a one size fits all approach to racism in that all Blacks are tarred with the same brush if only one is found malfeasant. This is the collective punishment favoured by racists like Adolf Hitler and the present Israeli government. Whites are trying to provide Themselves with an age old justification for judging all Blacks by the worst examples of the race; all Whites by the best since when a White fucks up, it's claimed he's merely a rotten apple, not an exemplar of the entire contents of the barrel. 'The record of the BBC in employing black people in senior positions is a disgrace and the constant downgrading of black presenters within BBC London, their failure to invest in them and recognise their skills and expertise is evidence of the level of institutional racism at the Beeb.' The problem Whites have here is that They cannot allow Blacks to rise to senior positions precisely to protect White racist privileges. And to conceal from Blacks the fact that such privileges exist. The latter is impossible because racism only works in overt mode; making its presence self evident, as here: 'A climate of fear and intimidation has developed at the BBC and many staff feel deeply intimidated by the racism that has been unleashed by the BBC.' 'As on (Sic) young black man said recently "BBC in London is in real danger of being known as the British Broadcaster for Caucasians"'. This is naïve in the extreme since the BBC has always been this.

Sunday, 24 February 2008

What will it take to end Child Poverty?

The problem here is that the reason for pretending to want to alleviate poverty is to increase the tax take, rather than altruism, and to cut social welfare costs. This is the hypocrisy caused by the fact that the welfare state has failed, and that there is to be no simple political admission of this for fear of losing votes from supporters. This is also an attempt to blackmail the affluent and the wealthy into paying the poor an increased proportion of their income in order to avoid their having to pay more in future, if they don't, from ever increasing social costs such as crime, visible poverty and even, perhaps, social revolution. However, these proposals never refer to the fact that most poor choose to be poor precisely because they can always rely on social engineers (ie, charitable mugs) to pay their bills for them. Charities and the poor are mutually corrupt because they're mutually dependent: The poor exploit charity to avoid work; the charitable exploit the poor to evade their own lovelessness. This is the true reason the poor have reduced employment prospects, not the unwillingness of governments to stump up the cash to keep the poor alive & kicking. No matter how much money you give to the poor, they will always want more, since such ethical corruption is always a bottomless pit into which the guilty (those who claim the poor are disadvantaged; ie, not as good as us, really) are always tempted to drop finite resources. You can always get a pint out of a quart pot, after all. The solution is to abolish social welfare altogether. The only way to empower others is to stop calling them disempowered by claiming they need your help because they're inferior. If true, then no attempt at empowerment can ever help anyone since that would be like claiming that a one legged man could grow a second leg and become an Olympic athlete. Such has never happened and never will. The idea that we could ever live in a share and share alike culture is naïve since it's obvious that we live in a dog eat dog; every man for himself one. Such a political change would require such a fundamental realignment of people's attitude to life that they would have to become the leopards that changed their spots. Can anyone suggest a historical epoch in which such a change has ever happened? No, of course not! The only way to end child poverty is to kill all the poor children, to take those poor children into care as a punishment for their parents not working hard to achieve productive goals or to sterilise the poor to reduce their birth-rates.

Saturday, 23 February 2008

Recycled Communism & Nazism


Here is the essence of White Culture laid bare with great brevity. Notice that Whites have always vigorously championed all of these political phenomena in Their instinctive desire to recreate the world in Their own image. Problem is that to do this, first the majority of the world's population must be defined as inferior so that they can be removed to make way for a world largely run by and for Whites; largely comprised of Whites.

Sunday, 10 February 2008

You need friends in high places

Hereward: '…[I]n future regional public health bodies will (Sic) be told that international medical graduates shoul (Sic) be eligible for posts only if there was (Sic) no suitable graduate (Sic) from Britain.' 'Falling educational standards [in England] and a politically correct policy of employing third world people over local graduates.' The first paragraph above is racist nonsense by Whites that wish to maintain the unearned privileges of being White in racist countries like Australia and the UK. The issue of who should be selected to fill any job is down to nothing more than whom is the best person to do so. Racist Whites always assume it can only be Whites that are best in all and any circumstances. The sheer ignominy of a White person having to compete with someone less White than himself is enough to crush his ethnocentric ego. Only a morbidly skin obsessed White racist could ever possibly imagine that being operated on by second rate British doctor would be preferable to being operated upon by a first rate foreigner. It is to be hoped that Whites with this attitude will die on the operating table, as soon as possible under the scalpels of members of their own benighted ethnicity. The second paragraph simply isn't true – why would any government spend money training an expensive doctor and then not use the skills and abilities so created? Racists will believe anything that allows them to attack those not blessed with their sacred skin coloration. The basic issue here is that racists can no longer appeal to patriotism, nationalism and chauvinism as a source of identity, since the nation state is in decline both as a concept and as a practice. They have no way of knowing whom they are without being able to use their skin colour to pretend it makes them superior to others. Without this, they will have to actually engage in adult achievements rather than attack those foreigners having the guts to do same – what Whites are not prepared to do. After all, if Whites seriously wish employment, then they must – like everyone else in the world – be prepared to look overseas. Racism is simply a tariff on employment designed to ensure Whites remain employed, regardless of ability, and to ensure they don't ever face the fact that they're just as good as anyone else – not better. Without racism, Whites wouldn't survive in the wild since racism offers them no survival skills (only the delusion of superiority) that could ever ensure they stayed alive when surrounded by those more streetwise than themselves. It's an emotional crutch for those who can't stand on their own two feet as much as calls for duties on cheap imported goods are attempts to subsidise failing industries that can’t compete. Ethnic Whites are members of a failing race peopling a failed political economy that has never really gotten over the loss of its many Empires, so grieves for their respective return.

Thursday, 31 January 2008

Canada Pulls out of UN Anti-Racism Conference

A classic example of White Racism in that brown skinned countries are required to renounce racism before a debate on racism can begin, while white skinned countries are not. It's common for Whites to claim that Blacks should engage in debates with White Racists in order to defeat Their arguments, but when the shoe is on the other foot, Whites – themselves - lack the courage to practice what They preach. 'Last week, Bernier apologised to Israel after his ministry published an internal document that included Israel and United States in a list of countries were prisoners risk torture. He ordered the mistaken entry to be edited out.' This is typical of White Racism in its attempt to deny that both Israel and the US are supporters of torture, when they manifestly are. Typically, Whites want to control the agenda of any meeting where Their racism is being discussed in order to control those dark-skinned humans they claim superiority over. This is why all such discussions with Whites are doomed to failure because They can't resist being racist in the very context of a discussion of racism. Because racism provides Whites with manifest advantages, this will remain so until there are no more Whites on the Earth or They choose to freely renounce racism. There's also the claim that Cuba, Iran and Libya are racist countries because their representatives are. This is, in itself, racist. The Durban conference is, in reality, better off without those who refuse to address their own racism; preferring instead to project and to displace it onto others they label as inferior.

A Vicious Campaign – Jeanette Arnold

All this reminds one of claims that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction as an excuse for war, only to find that these claims were totally unfounded years after the war began. The real problem here is that there's a racial Midlothian question raging. Whites don't want Blacks making political decisions affecting Whites – They'd much rather it remained firmly the other way round. Such an eventuality is more likely in London because of its high ethnic minority population. Whites fear laws will be passed to benefit Blacks, yet make no complaint when laws benefit Whites. These racial slurs are an abuse of democracy. They prove Whites would be very happy to advocate the abolition of democracy to avoid Blacks gaining political power – but not open advocacy, as that would give the racist game away. This is why Whites have been against Proportional Representation in the past because They know that it will give Blacks more political authority over Their own lives. Whites claim that fascist political parties will also gain from PR to scare Blacks into accepting the current, white biased, first past the post system. (The simple solution there would be to outlaw fascist political parties; easy to do given their anti democratic credentials.) Now, in Their hysterical fear of Dark Skinned Gentleman, Whites flail at any Black target; knowing that in Their culture there's no smoke without fire – especially when They've lit the fire Themselves.

About Us:

My photo

Frank TALKER - Truth-Teller