Thursday, 30 October 2008

Hairspray



'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
(2008)

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

(2008)

'...[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.

About Us:

My photo

Frank TALKER - Truth-Teller