Monday, 6 July 2009

Do Whites Possess a Culture?

The answer is obviously yes but what is the nature of that culture?

The central issues of White Culture are as follows:

  1. Self definition in terms of Negatives - not Positives;
  2. lack of Cultural Validity;
  3. reality evasion;
  4. blandness;
  5. false unity.

Whites think They have no culture because They do not use the qualifying adjective White when They talk about culture - as in White Culture. However, the only exception is that this is never true when Whites talk about race - as in White Race.

The idea that Whites have no culture really means Whites define Their culture solely in negatives. Negatives such as not being like those non Whites murdered to create the US in the first place - a homeland They know is not rightfully Theirs. Not having great music nor great athletes, not wanting to listen to (or even see) Blacks. In other words, a culture based on guilt as well as the superficialities, such as ways of talking, pets, blue jeans, rock music, hamburgers, baseball and Starbucks.

Whites feel a sense of rootlessness because, although Their culture is widespread, it is widespread precisely because such widespreadedness is an attempt to valorise such a superficial culture by spreading it thinly. This, instead of rooting it more deeply in the soil in fewer geographical areas. As when someone does not really believe what they are saying, because they have no evidence to back it up. They then tend either to raise their voice and/or to make personal attacks to compensate for the intellectual, moral and experiential emptiness of their comments.

That a culture is powerful is not proof of the validity of such a culture. Again, Whites use power as a solace for Their ethical emptiness rather than as proof of Their cultural rootedness. The use of power without an enemy is always the mark of the insecure who can achieve anything by no other means. It proves Whites have no culture other than through the use of naked force. White attempts to destroy other cultures are really fits of jealous rage when confronted with something that is built upon much firmer rocks and is therefore destined to be longer lasting.

The basic problem US Blacks have is that They have no culture independent of Whites because They were cut off from Their African roots. At least the Natives still have access to their heritage because They still live on the lands of their fathers. This is why, for example, Whites today claim that there were no civilisations in Africa before White men went there despite the mass of archaeological evidence to the contrary. Whites want to believe Blacks have no culture to justify slavery and racism. The partial solution here is to utilise what is good from White culture and reject the rest.

Whites feel threatened by the depth and breadth of other cultures because Their own is so lacklustre by comparison. Look at how self-confident south Asians are. Despite the relatively short-lived intrusion of the British Empire, Asians possess a culture going back thousands of years to largely explain that self-confidence. The reverse is true for most Whites whose genealogy will not go back more than 500 years.

The items listed as markers of White culture are actually markers of what was appropriated from other cultures, especially Whites' major religion being a Levantine import and not indigenous/endogenous to Their culture. Whites have tried to get around this fact of their essential paganism by pictorially claiming biblical characters, especially Jesus and God were/are White. The same is true for Their language (originally Sanskrit) and numbering system (Arabic). Whites have made these things part of Their culture precisely because they fill a hole that was there to begin with. White cultural appropriation continues in the absence of Their inability to deepen Their own culture so that ethnic minorities now provide the best US entertainment. That Whites flock to consume such material proves the lack in Themselves. When Whites mimic such music, we end up with Elvis Presley, Slim Shady and The Rolling Stones - literally pale imitations of their antecedents. This shows where Whites are lacking in crucial areas that They have to copy others to make up for the dearth. The only new White musical form was punk rock - that expresses nothing more than White anger at a culture that offers Them little more than the opportunity to copy others rather than articulate something authentically White.

White authenticity is essentially racism - like the KKK - and there is no doubting the depth of their race hatred and the sincerity of such groups in this regard. Whites would prefer to conceal this bedrock racism as much as possible; meaning that for Whites to be accepted as Whites they have to renounce their humanity (by becoming racist) in order to benefit from the resulting White privilege. This is not only to avoid being treated like Blacks - who are always shown to other groups as examples of what will happen if you do not conform to Whiteness - but also to create a culture of false unity. A false unity that is based not on shared values – Whites possess no deep-seated values – but on mutually agreed hate. If Whites hated no one, Their culture would collapse because then the hate filled cement that keeps it together would vanish. This counterfeit harmony also helps avoid being labelled as "Nigger Lovers" and of being treated as badly as Blacks are.
These serious White culture gaps are filled with a culture that lacks pride in itself because of the inherent fear of others built in. This is done just in case Their shallowness is seen; hence, the loud audio volume of Their culture because empty vessels make the most noise. The racist responses to your own blog reveal how loudly White racists proclaim Their self proclaimed ethical right to be racist while never once advancing a moral argument to sustain such a position. The fact that Whites see Themselves as "generic" (ie, to have transcended a Whiteness that was never used as a negative accusation against Them) proves that They are trying to be seen as a universal culture. A culture that everyone else should aspire to in order to avoid the nagging sense that Whites are essentially superficial. This explains why Whites spent so many centuries exporting a religion They did not believe in, to what we now call the Third World. And why They now try to spread the pseudo religion of democracy and feminism abroad when oligarchy and sexism are rife in their own countries. The fact that They must use violence in spreading Their culture means They know others will not willingly accept it.

Such inappropriate aggression is also based on the ultimate hope that if everyone else is made in Their own image, there would then be no-one around to criticise Them since then all criticism would be silenced. This is the ultimate goal of claiming Whites are better than others - concealing moral emptiness by trying to destroy those that point it out. The same was true of the Roman Empire that has given us little of any lasting value to admire except their military prowess. And yet that is the empire Whites model Themselves on not, for example, the more intellectual Phoenicians nor the more spiritual ancient Egyptians.

Another issue for White culture is that Whites are unwilling to share what little culture They possess. They are frightened that others will come to see Them as They truly are if They do. A culture unwilling to share resorts to boastfulness as a vain substitute for a pride that likes to share itself with others and become self valorising in the process. But since Whites have historically done much for which They are now guilt ridden and ashamed, They pretend Their culture is superior and that only equally superior people are allowed in. That is, only those who share the same guilt feelings They can empathise with. This is the quintessential sense of inferiority to Blacks that Whites feel since Whites know that Blacks do not feel guilty about racism. This, despite various White attempts to make Blacks feel such guilt by claiming, for example, that Blacks are as racist as Whites.
Whites see Their own political imperfections very clearly. Whites are not blind to Their own racism since when you point it out to Them, They become very angry that you have done so; proving that you have struck a raw (not a hidden) nerve. Whites hope others will not notice: They simply do not wish to be reminded of what They already know. After all, every man knows where his own shoes pinch. To get around this metaphysical problem, Whites preach substantive issues as if They were a fundamental part of Their culture: Capitalism, democracy & individuality, for example. But these are only practised when it suits Whites, so that each should realistically be prefixed with the word "White" when used - White Capitalism, White Democracy & White individuality.

Most talk about whether Whites have a culture avoid the points made here; leading to much confusion about what the question really means. Modern Whites do have a culture but it lacks roots (not having been around long) and a moral centre (being materialistic); explaining why social hypocrisy is so common in the West and all the other disproportionate ills it leads to. These are child molestation, pornography, divorce, adultery, motiveless murder, loveless sex, sexism, racism, classism, emotional repression, etc.

The other issue with White culture is its blandness: Country & western and folk music are a joke. Actually talking to a White gives one the strong sense that one is talking to the persona and not the character and that one is learning about Them rather than from Them. Their often lack of overt body language and speech modulations only strengthens this impression. Cultural discourse is limited to what benefits Whites. When others claim equal treatment from Whites, They become hysterically angry and pretend equality has always existed and that Blacks are merely "playing the race card" to get special privileges not open to Whites.

Although many alien elements are now firmly part of White culture, they never lost their alienness (it is still possible to trace their origins) because they could never become deeply rooted in a culture that, itself, lacks deep roots.


Copyright © 2009 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.

Friday, 12 June 2009

Acceptable Blackness

There is a profound experiential and logical flaw to this piece. And it is the fact that there is no such thing as acceptable Blackness – which the author surely knows. Such a claim is misusing English to mean something else since acceptable, in this context, really means tolerable because non threatening. One cannot claim that one accepts the presence of a wild animal, which can kill, unless it is caged and one is outside the cage. To talk about others in terms of threat is to implicitly admit that one thinks of others in the negative – regardless of their behaviour – and that they should be caged and controlled. Thus, Whites here are not talking in terms of a contrast between threatening and worthwhile, They are talking in terms of threatening and non threatening. And it is Blacks' job to prove They are non threatening before Whites will even to pretend to find Blacks acceptable. Yet, Whites never say how anyone can prove a negative nor why Blacks have such an obligation that Whites do not. Nor do Whites demonstrate how Blacks can make Whites feel comfortable in Their presence when Blacks cannot change the source of White discomfort – skin colour. Blackness is never acceptable, it is merely conditionally tolerable.

The article itself makes this clear by claiming Blacks are required by Whites to conform to an impossible stereotype based on the fact that Blacks are judged by Whites as a group; Whites are judged by Whites as individuals. No White individual is to be considered as typical: Stereotypes of Whites are not allowed and so attempts are made to vigorously suppress any by Whites.

The concept of acceptable Blackness (when no similar concept exists for Whites) is that Blacks are not acceptable unless They do the impossible – eradicate White negrophobia by not reminding Whites of White prejudice. This, ultimately, is the goal of all White anti racism. The very fact that Whites require this of Blacks proves Blacks are not acceptable to Whites - and never could be. If Blacks were acceptable – as such – and if good Blacks were acceptable while bad Blacks were not, then why erect an extra behavioural hurdle for Blacks, over and above the usual ethical criteria for acceptance as being morally good?

This article answers this question by demonstrating that Whites are still terrified of Blacks and require Them not so much to conform to good ethical behaviour but to behaviour Whites will not find frightening. Yet, there is also no such thing as unacceptable Black behaviour since Whites regard all Black behaviour with suspicion. And Whites are suspicious for no better reason than the behaviour They fear is enacted by those with darker skins than Whites choose to find acceptable. The issue with Whites is not acceptability of behaviour, but the skin colour of the person exhibiting the behaviour. With Whites, behaviour is always a secondary consideration in Their ethical assessments of those who do not look like Them. If this were not the case, there would be no phenotypism and their attitudes and behaviour would judge bad people - not their skin colour.

By trying to make Blacks think there is such a thing as acceptable Black behaviour, Whites are still trying to control the behaviour of Blacks by distracting Them from the real fears of Whites – the alleged inferiority of Blacks. Whites wish to replace this genetic defamation with the absurd claim that Whites judge Blacks by Their behaviour - not Their skin colour. Whites wish to make this assertion regardless of the fact that all descriptions of Black behaviour are always prefaced with the qualifying adjective "Black" and the fact that there are no intolerant epithets not referring to skin colour. If the skin of the person judged is not the issue, then why mention it at all?

This Affirmative Action for Whites is all part of the current politically correct White culture of denial that seeks to blame Blacks for not being acceptable by saying that They must behave properly; that is, identically to Whites. But, since skin pigmentation is not affected by behaviour (nor is it biologically causative of any behaviour), Blacks can never actually come to be seen as White (or, indeed, fully human) - unless Whites renounce narrow-mindedness. This is, therefore, a means for Whites to continue in Their injustice while only appearing to accept Blacks as human; allowing Whites to indulge Their bigotry while vainly assuaging the resulting guilt. It fails in this because it still overtly singles Blacks out for differential treatment from Whites since the standard of acceptable behaviour is still different for Whites.

Whites neophobic fear of difference is behind all attempts to make everyone else the same, but flops because it requires an impossible to achieve perfection – much like Christianity. Since the behaviour of Whites and Their mores change over time, Blacks would be led by the nose by Whites - in perpetuity – and would then be obligated to copy every custom, attitude, practice, belief, etc of Whites. This would ensure Blacks never develop nor perpetuate Their own culture – the ultimate aim of such a practice. If Whites want Blacks to conform to White standards and to integrate, the only solution is for Whites to renounce intolerance, but this is precisely what Whites are being avoided here. It is harder than giving up smoking, drinking, or illegal drugs, but it can be done.

To buy into the dogmatism of acceptable Black behaviour is to buy the fanatic line of Whites completely. It is to become acceptable (really, tolerable) without ever really being accepted. Ultimately Whites - alone - want to decide what is acceptable and that fact alone makes the concept of acceptable Blackness fundamentally bigoted. This is an ethnic protection racket within which Blacks are required to pay Whites a "Racism Tax" in order not to be politically abused by Whites by becoming Uncle Toms – the latter being a form of self enslavement.


Article copyright © 2009 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.

Friday, 5 June 2009

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION - Racial Preference in Black & White (2005)

100%


A brilliant examination of the value of Affirmative Action (AA) for ethnic minorities in racist cultures likes the United States (contrasted with the de facto AA for Whites). The author, Tim WISE, talks in detail about racism today (2005) set against the context of the historical events that made the USA what it is today. In such a society, de facto AA is customary for Whites while de jure AA is frowned upon for Blacks, in all areas of life such as jobs, housing & education. Yet, 80% of US Whites today claim racism is no longer an issue. They thus believe they can then claim AA is "reverse discrimination" against Whites without presenting evidence for this; implicitly asserting the absurdity that no White receives a benefit from racism.

Yet no White claiming to believe in so called reverse discrimination ever sends their children to schools in Black neighborhoods where, they claim, Black kids are getting advantages denied Whites. They know perfectly well that such advantages do not exist because institutional racism always trumps AA; making it less useful than it could be in minimizing racial discrimination. Thus, the very Whites complaining about any kind of AA are the primary beneficiaries of it!

The only means of justifying racism is to become overtly racist – in the absence of scientific data to prove anyone's genetic inferiority – otherwise the system of racial discrimination collapses when this simple biological fact is pointed out. It is necessary to make the intended victims of racism fear racists in order to exploit them otherwise the intended victims are unlikely to just accept second class citizen status. This is why racist behavior always comes before attempts to justify it – retrospectively; thus proving it has no basis in biology.

WISE makes more telling observations.

Data suggests US Whites are becoming more overtly racist as their unearned race privileges are eroded through being exposed for what they are – de facto apartheid.

Norm referenced standardized testing (Whites being the norm) guarantees educational inequity, presently, in the US. Moreover, "ability tracking" blatantly favors Whites since low tracked students are never taught how to rise above the remedial classes into which they are dumped. They have been placed there because it is believed they cannot – and never will - rise above the stereotyped (& stereotyping) race thinking of Whites. The allegation that Whites are superior and that Blacks are the cause of their own problems is a self fulfilling prophecy.

Hardly surprising then that 26% of US high school science teachers believe Blacks inferior to Whites despite the lack of scientific evidence to support such a view. And that White teachers punish Black students three times more than their White counterparts despite the lack of evidence that Blacks are any more disruptive.

The entire purpose of such racism is to claim the problem of racism has nothing to do with Whites. This basic White denial of the existence of their own racism is simply more of the same racism and also serves to conceal class and gender hostilities and, thereby, provide Whites with false unity.

WISE's book concludes that Whites decry AA for Blacks because they want to entrench unearned White racial privilege by exploiting pre existing racial resentment among Whites toward Black advancement. And is nothing less than an attempt to reap the benefits of US White Supremacy in perpetuity. What this book does not do is analyze why Whites would want a racist polity in the first place and why They are prepared to go on living with the inevitable race guilt it inspires. However, that would be a subject for a different, more psychologically oriented, book.


Article copyright © 2009 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.

Saturday, 21 March 2009

James Watson (1928-)



An interesting attempt at justifying White racism but not a very clever one

'Not too long ago scientist James Watson made a (Sic) waves by announcing that he had conducted a scientific study which concluded that Black people are not as intelligent as other people.' This means Blacks are claimed to be intellectually inferior because they are Black, not for any other reason.

'So by stating that African’s are not as intelligent as other ethnic groups, which considering his past problems with social interactions, he more then likely also stated this information in a cold scientific way which came across as hateful bigotry.' Well, of course - because it was 'bigotry'. If one of Hitler's scientists had said Jews are less intelligent than Aryans, then his scientific status would be irrelevant, merely the fact that as a Nazi, his view was very unlikely to be scientific. That Doctor Watson is a scientist is unimportant, it is the kind of scientist he is that matters – objective or subjective. You crazily admit he is the latter while claiming that his subjective statements are worthy of consideration as if he were the former.

You concede Dr Watson is prejudiced, yet consider his statements scientifically detached - as if they have no actual consequences in a real world that the scientific community has a habit of denying really exists. Scientists do this to avoid personal responsibility for the foreseen political consequences of their statements.

'I simply want to express my opinion that his current statement is not only important enough to be worth mentioning, but also completely pointless to be angry about.' Of course, a White would say that, wouldn't he; given that a) he benefits from racism; and, b) because racist laws are not passed against him – nor ever have been. Whites never get angry with issues that benefit them and such opinions are designed to get people killed – let us hope it is you next.

'However most people are far more prone to illogical and irrational reactions then to open debate of scientific study.' This author being a perfect example of such irrationality since he posits no evidence in defense of his position, only his racist desire to occupy that position.

'He apologized for offending anyone unintentionally, though I still feel he has nothing to apologize for, so for a moment I’m going to hypothetically assume that what he stated is in fact 100 percent true.' This unjustified statement proves that both you and Dr Watson are unevolved racists who deserve nothing better than the mortal fate you will ultimately reap.

'One of his points was that it is simply illogical to assume that various ethnic groups’ intelligence would evolve in exactly the same way despite being geologically separated for long periods of history.' This assumes that evolution is a scientific fact – a conclusion open to doubt. If true, there is no evidence that humans evolve differently from one another despite geological separation (Sic). (Dr James Dewey Watson is a biologist not a geologist, who shared a 1962 Nobel Prize for advances in the study of genetics – yet another factual incorrectness from this fatuous writer). If there were, there would be more than one species of human being, which there is not. Because there is only Homo sapiens (the only extant species of the primate family Hominidae), there can only be a single evolutionary pathway. This is merely a feeble attempt to justify hundreds of years of White racism by implying that it is, in fact, natural when it is only natural to a racist. This is the same as a pedophile claiming under age sex is normal – well, he would; wouldn't he?

'Our body structures differ greatly, so why wouldn’t our brains also differ when compared to one another?' Again, there is not the slightest evidence for this wholly unscientific latter conjecture, despite your claim to be concerned with scientific correctness. Not a single human skull throughout all of the history of medical science has revealed a single brain evolved differently from any other brain. This conjecture is not, therefore, worthwhile even as conjecture. It is simply White racist wishful thinking to assume their brains are superior to others for want of any evidence that they are. Certainly, the author of this Blog is not one of the more intelligent Whites.

'…[M]ost people already know that the idea of everyone having an equal chance at excelling is a fairy tale.' Where is the evidence that most people think this? 'Most of our future capability is decided at conception by the genetic code given to us by our parents…' There is no evidence that this is because there is more than one species of human being. There is only evidence that some human beings are born less intelligent than others are, as some are born less good-looking. (Have you looked in the mirror, lately?) There is also no evidence that the non existence of equality between members of the human race has anything whatsoever to do with phenotype despite your desire to believe it is so. Only a mountain of documentation that White culture has evolved a deep-seated resentment of Blacks and has determined that they should be discriminated against for no scientifically valid reason.

'Another important thing that Watson stated was that while he found this to be the norm, there were still lots of African people that greatly excel in intelligence. He was trying to talk about genetic predisposition, not make a sweeping statement that all Africans are the dumbest people on earth.' Claiming that some phenotypes possess a 'genetic predisposition' to inferiority is making a 'sweeping statement' about others, especially as those who make such 'sweeping statements' never make them about the phenotype to which they, themselves, belong. One could just as easily claim that saying Whites are genetically predisposed to be racist was not a 'sweeping statement' and that not all Whites are like that. Some Whites may simply be better at fighting their self hatred through self discipline than others. But no Black – as you admit - could be more intelligent simply by effort or willpower, so this is clearly a 'sweeping statement' meant to traduce all 'Africans' as thicker than Whites. You simply change the meaning of the phrase 'sweeping statement' to suit your racist purposes. (By the way, since all human life originated in Africa, every human being is of African origin, although you try to imply that Africans are a different species here by calling Blacks 'Africans'.)

'My biggest complaint about being be (Sic) made about this isn’t even that they just simply shouldn’t be made at a scientist for simply being a scientist and stating something that could be fact.' They are not made because he is a scientist; they are made because he is scientifically wrong – unless, of course, you believe scientists are allowed to make fools of themselves by publicly pronouncing self evident falsehoods? Anything 'could be fact', as saying two and two equals five could be - yet the fact remains that it is not a fact, no matter how much you attempt to enshrine someone's freedom to believe it is.

'My complaint is that is (Sic) statement, be it true or false, does not alter or change a single IQ of anyone on earth. Finding out that a certain ethnic group might now be as gifted in the brain as another doesn’t make any member of that group less intelligent then they were prior just as it doesn’t make any other ethnic group more intelligent then they were previously.' This is the single greatest White delusion of all the bigoted delusions of this entire post. The issue is not whether statements made by racists do in any way modify people's IQs, but whether cultures are so structured as to disfavor those against whom such statements are made. Only a complete ivory tower moron would not be able to make the connection between statements and their impact in political reality. Even if it were true that Whites were inferior to Blacks (strongly suggested by their propensity for hating others on the basis of physical appearance), that would not, in itself, be a justification for persecuting Whites. (It would be more of an excuse for feeling sorry for them.) You deliberately avoid the political implications of racism as if it had no effect in the real world outside of your obviously limited life experience. You deny not only the existence of objective reality but also any possibility of reaching conclusions about life on the basis that anything could be true. Reality itself proves you wrong - in this regard - and that you must have gone to a very poor school and are, in fact, one of the intellectually inferior people you claim exist.

'It’s so petty to be angry at something that you have no control over…' Blacks are not angry because they are less intelligent than Whites, something you claim is not being said when it clearly is. They are angry (as you would be in their place) because you claim that they are not in an inferior position because Whites are racist but because it is somehow natural for them to be in such a position. Anger is always the result of unjustified statements such as: A woman's place is in the home, when the woman concerned desires a career. After all, what is the point of educating Blacks (or, indeed, women) as well as Whites if Blacks cannot benefit from such an education because of their alleged intellectual inferiority? This simply justifies educating Blacks less well than Whites and causes the discrimination - politically - that you claim exists naturally. Blacks do have control over racists like you by the simple expedient of armed self-protection groups, as in the former apartheid South Africa. 'We set up rules in society under the assumption that everyone basically understands and thinks on the same exact level…' There is no evidence that any 'society' in history has ever been based upon such a concept, except on paper, so which 'society' are you talking about here? Not one that you would like to live in, obviously.

'Hopefully one day we can get over ourselves and begin to accept and work with our various differences instead of bicker over them.' Of course, that would be nice. However, since the 'various differences' are preordained – according to you - what on Earth would be the point?

You present no scientific proof that there is more than one human species and rely instead on claiming that those who do not agree with you are hysterical despite your own claims hysterically lacking any foundation in reality. Like Dr Watson, you lack something in your personal life that you believe will be compensated for by hating most of the world's population. Racists like yourself always make statements that favor the statement maker; they never make objective statements, despite your vapid pretence to scientific rigor.


Article copyright © 2009 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, 17 March 2009

Banking hypocrite Maxine Waters


The most revealing quote: 'Wait ’til she starts beating them over the head with the race card. It’s worked for decades.'

Michelle Malkin is an interesting example of a White racist in her claim that any complaint made by a Black about White racism is automatically invalid because it is simply playing the so called Race Card. This is meant to mean that there are no White racists – only Blacks with chips on their shoulders; specific details do not have to be gone into because Black are less credible than Whites like Malkin. This excuses Whites from ever having to listen to Blacks – a goal they have always had on their political agenda. This is what Malkin really means by the expression: 'Culture of corruption', that all Blacks are automatically corrupt. This is why she continually whines on about Black skin color, which she would not do if the corrupt person were White.

Claiming others are playing a/the race card, without evidence, is itself racist - as is mocking Blacks for pointing out the simple fact that Whites tend to be racist towards Blacks. Malkin attempts to redefine racism as Black behaviour unacceptable to Whites when it has always been about skin colour unacceptable to Whites – regardless of behaviour.

Michelle Malkin's fear is of a Black behaving in a supposedly uppity manner toward a White, since what Malkin says counts for less than the way she says it. She believes Blacks need to learn their "Place". When Whites behave in a similar manner, they are rarely criticized for being rude or peddling their race – this is simply assumed.

(Another good example of this hypocrisy would be that affirmative action for Whites [ie White racism] is never used against a White to explain his rise to any form of power or success. However, it is always used against a Black, if they happen to achieve anything Whites disagree with. When a White politician is bad, it is because he is bad; when it is a Black one, it is because he is Black. Whites never complain about affirmative action for themselves – only for Blacks.)

Historically, Whites have been the greatest race hustlers in history; relying on their skin color and phenotypy laws and cultural practices to provide them with unearned privileges at the expense of others. Yet, Malkin derides other people for engaging in the same racist acts her antecedents engaged in and with which she is currently embroiled herself. There is also a frustrated attempt to blame Blacks here for the failing US economy, despite their comparatively small numbers in the West.

If this Blog had simply represented Maxine Waters as ethically corrupt – without reference to her skin color – this critique would not apply. However, racist Whites simply cannot resist the opportunity to engage in the selfsame race baiting of which they accuse others. (The venal, themselves, always claim that others are corrupt to evade their own immorality.)

The threat here for Whites is that they will have to accept that they possess unearned privileges. And, worse, must renounce them in order to prevent the Black payback that they fear more than anything else, as well as the fact that Whites are still emotionally crippled by the legacy of their own culture's racism.


Article copyright © 2009 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.

Londonistan Rising

Everything you say here also applies to Christian attitudinising; hence, your bizarre conclusions lack any empirical evidence to back them up. Never in human history has any country ever experienced a state within a state and you never explain why one should occur now – unless it is the result of separatist White racism. Unlike the United States, the UK possesses no ethnic minority ghettoes nor does it countenance no go areas. You should come here and see how the land lies before claiming the UK is going to the dogs because of ethnic incompatibilities.

The numbers of Muslims you say represent a possible threat equates to 0.1 per cent of the UK Muslim population. You never talk about white extremists like combat 18 or the British National Party, despite the fact that there are far greater numbers of them – at least 14,000. Of course, such groups are not threats to Whites, so are discounted by them as not worthy of consideration. Accommodations for Semites have existed in the UK since at least 1970, and if it was not a threat then it is not one now. Moreover, it is noticeable that you rarely quote non White, Western news sources favourably despite the fact that such White sources are very much in the minority. You clearly believe, in the absence of any real evidence, that the Western world is the sole purveyor of truth in a benighted world. In addition, given your inherent racism, you have the cheek to wonder why those who do not think, act and talk like you have little fellow feeling for you.

Whites hold on for dear life to the pure and invariant categories of Good and Bad. Keeping them apart and unambiguously distinct, helps us retain a reassuring infantile fantasy of safety, order and certainty. The non concept of Race lends itself well to this splitting process. Imagined as fundamentally unlike us, the racialized other becomes the perfect receptacle into which we are free to project all the wishes, impulses and longings that we cannot bear to see in our ethnic group or ourselves. In other words, racism allows us to be all-good because there is someplace outside of us to put the bad.

This is nothing more than one sided, shrill, paranoid, out of proportion and anti Semitic ranting because the culture of the West is changing in ways that are unpredictable to dogmatic mindsets such as yours. Your argument is essentially along religious lines, not nationalist ones, since it allows you never to develop the imagination to see any non Christian, non White as patriotic. And you fear that these developments will take away your unearned White privileges that were never going to last forever, let's face it, any more than the 'Thousand Year Reich' did.


Article copyright © 2009 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.

Saturday, 7 March 2009

WHITE SUPREMACISM AT FILM4

View the Cut Sequence here.

A really good showing spoiled by the removal of the best joke in the film and a racist epithet. That Whites consider it reasonable to remove humour that might upset someone shows just how touchy they are now about these things. The joke of a White pretending to be Black was hilarious when I first saw this movie as it accurately depicted how Whites see Blacks in a way that the wiser Whites would realise was a sarcastic comment on their own racism. Perhaps the White racists who made the silly decision to cut this amusing comedy should resign since they are not fit to make rational determinations on issues of phenotypy.


Article copyright © 2009 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, 26 February 2009

Some Illegal are Criminals

Difficult not to resist responding to this one from the racist National Policy Institute. Here the writer is so concerned to appear to be not racist that he ends up giving away the fact that he very much is. Rather than say all illegals are criminals (in case it is said that all Whites are racist) he simply states that some are – although no attempt is made to estimate the size of the problem. Of course, one could pick any group and claim that some are criminals: Whites, lesbians & Christians, for example. This is merely a statement of the obvious that offers us no more information than we already had. No more information that a reasonably well educated child would not surmise without having to take a good, hard look at the reality outside of hit head. And herein lies the problem; it is the reality inside the head of the writer that is being exposed – not a rational analysis of the actual, external situation. The writer simply revels in his racial prejudices and his desperate attempts to pathologize all immigrants as somehow natural born offenders. The statement only makes sense when you realize he's trying to say that only illegal migrants are criminals – not all migrants. The final nail in the straw of this writer's intellectual credibility is simply the fact that the statement is illogical. Illegal immigration is a criminal offence in the United States and so being an illegal immigrant is proof that one has broken the law. Therefore, "All Illegals are Criminals" would be a much more rational statement to have made in the circumstances. Racists are clever in their use of words as a means of evading their true meaning in relation to reality - as the title of this article proves. However, such a misuse of language always rebounds on the misuser. English is obviously not this person's first language.


Article copyright © 2009 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.

Black businessman spars 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 by only attacking Black racial privilege but not White.

'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 © 2009 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.

Will a Black President Really Heal the Racial Divide

In essence, this piece is bigoted. It's not the responsibility of Blacks to heal the so called racial divide when this divide was created (& is maintained) by Whites. It's not the rape victim's responsibility to cure the rapist of his misogyny, after all. If Whites no longer wish to suffer the double burdens of guilt and shame that their prejudice brings them, then they have (& have always had) the option of renouncing it as a political practice. The implicit assumption here is that it is (& always has been) the job of Blacks to solve the problems of Whites. The author (TD Jakes) claims Barack Obama is the 'first man of African descent to ascend to the presidency'. Because all human beings are thought to have originated in Africa, all presidents have, ultimately, been of African descent. This statement is typical of how endemic bigotry is in the West in that such radical disconnects from objective reality are possible. And that implying Blacks are fundamentally different from Whites is still possible – albeit in this kind of fairly obvious coded statement. '[M]inority of any ethnicity' perpetuates the same KKK mythology that there are different races of men. Yet, the article, as a whole, pretends to be dealing with the problem positively while continuing to use the same bigoted terminology of its alleged enemies. To do this is to tacitly admit one still thinks in terms of skin colour while claiming one doesn't. 'Senator Barack Obama has proved to be a biracial icon who can mobilize blacks and whites alike'. This is rather unlikely since it is the Black side of President Obama's phenotype that Whites focus on at the expense of the White. He is never referred to positively as half white but as half black – except in the sense that he is somehow trying to hide his Whiteness. Whites still think of themselves as default humans, with others being merely tainted variants of the norm. This despite the fact that a) Whites are a world minority; and, b) that the first humans were almost certainly Black. 'Perhaps his mixed parentage gave him the multicultural background needed to be culturally bilingual, creating the dialogue that may bridge our divide.' Of course, Whites love to use phrases like 'mixed parentage' only in relation to their unscientific conception of "Race" and "Ethnicity". They never speak disparagingly of 'mixed parentage' when a child is the product of a French mother and a German father, say. This is because Whites' political idea of 'mixed parentage' only relates to skin colour (along with their concept of religion as being part and parcel of one's biology) never to differences in hair or eye coloration. The further implication is that President Elect Obama is culturally schizophrenic, so that Whites will claim his White half as their own; Blacks his Blackness. Of course, this is ludicrous since the two sides are firmly conjoined. One ends up in the same situation as a divorcing couple trying to divide a single property when they can no longer live at the same address for personal reasons. 'Our national demographic has metamorphosed into a darker-hued population, which is changing how America plans for the future.' The writer never explains how skin colour can affect one's 'plans for the future', unless he accepts that skin colour has an impact on thought processes – a White bigotry ideal. In fact, it's culture and the logical reaction to White negative stereotyping of those whom Whites wish to find inferior that determines this, yet this writer lacks the courage to say this in explicit enough terms. 'But before we light candles and sing "Kumbaya", it may be wise to adjust our expectation to a realistic depiction of attainable goals'. '[R]ealistic' in whose terms? The implication is that these are White terms; making the goals nothing more than the appeasement of White prejudice, not its reduction. 'No one man's appointment will end all racial tension'. No, partly because this writer lacks the sense to point out the tension in the expression 'racial tension' itself. Such phrases are quintessentially White ways of avoiding the real source of tension – cultural differences – by implying that since skin colour cannot be changed but culture can, these tensions are immutable. 'In fact, the economic crisis facing the country demands that the Obama Administration move past the pettiness of race matters with… haste…'. First, this writer complains of the 'residual bitterness inherent in a [racist] society', then claims that 'race matters' are petty, despite their profound impact on the economy that this writer sees as politics' main problem. 'Tomorrow we will not care about the colour of the driver nor the pronunciation of his name'. This is nonsense motivated by a wishful thinking need to eradicate so called racism by pretending that skin colour (the basis of all phenotypical distinctions & discrimination) will somehow become irrelevant even though this article itself is about this very alleged irrelevancy. It would be better to talk about important issues rather than petty ones since this gives one more credibility. Wishful thinkers always imagine that pretending some issues are unimportant can solve the very issues that self importantly obsess them. In which case, why raise them. This writer is clearly confused by and about his own theme and has clearly spent too much time with Whites who are also just as confused and disturbed by their own learned bigotry. He does not suggest when any of his mentioned changes will ever happen nor why. 'But most blacks have not been blinded by race... To think that this election was a shoo-in for [Barack Obama] among blacks because of our affinity for our own people is disingenuous at best and at worst insults our intelligence... No other black candidate amassed black support the way Obama did'. The writer doesn't suggest how President Elect Obama did not appeal to blacks because of his skin colour – and his implied understanding of their issues (with Whites) arising therefrom. Yet he previously claimed that skin colour had little do with this. Perhaps TD Jakes ought to decide what the real issues are before committing any of his loss of contact with reality to print. Barack Hussein Obama will not be 'merely the President of blacks who admire him nor leave him indebted to whites who assisted him.' What exactly does this mean? Shouldn't one always be grateful for any genuine help given, no matter the skin colour of the giver? When commentators stop talking in terms of skin colour, only then will the 'racial divide' begin to cease to exist. However, this isn't going to happen anytime soon on the available evidence because, like Whites, such commentators can't escape – in their own minds – the fact that the West is endemically bigoted. This piece is a classic example of internalised prejudice.


Article copyright © 2009 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.

Friday, 20 February 2009

An Overview of "Hating Whitey," Part 1

'…[T]he poisoning of the civil rights movement into an anti-white movement…' This was always an 'anti white' movement. It is impossible to love your enemy since they ultimately wish you dead. Only by hating them with productive anger can you ever hope to defeat them. No White ever loved the rapist of his own daughter so why would any Black do so? Such a claim reflects the White fear that Blacks seek rightful payback for the institutionally racist nature of White culture. Moreover, Whites are so scared of this they condemn any attempt by Blacks to defend themselves such that Blacks must allow themselves to be killed in order to be more moral than White racists. If the situation were reversed, no White would ever do this - and never has. '…[T]he inclusion of [Elijah] Muhammad within the Civil Rights museum he saw… as symbolic of a conflict within the Civil Rights Movement'. There is no conflict; these are merely two sides of the same coin. Only a racist would say otherwise because he is frightened of Black revenge for White racism. Whites want to embrace Black pacifists since Whites believe they will be let off having to pay the inevitable price for White racism – being racially abused themselves. Whites would never accuse a raped White woman of being immoral if she came to hate men, so this argument is merely special pleading for Whites. Sauce-for the gander is always terrifying but, when the jig is up, inevitable. Whites simply have to accept reality, grow up and face the music. Blacks will do to Whites what anyone versed in human nature would do if Whites had done it to them and no attempts to control Blacks with fallacious arguments about moral superiority will prevail here. The attempt is itself racist and proof of how much Whites like Horowitz really hate and fear Blacks for their righteous wrath. A '…racist vision of black superiority to whites that seeks not to unify the races but to lift African-Americans above others'. Blacks are superior to Whites because Blacks have little history of exploiting others because of their skin color. Whites have historically been the racist race and this has so poisoned their culture that they can conceive of no other means of seeing the world. Ask a White if he would prefer to be born a rich Black or a poor White, he will answer the latter. He knows full well how racist his culture is and the challenges naïve Blacks face in such a culture (if they do not recognize it for what it is) and would never wish to experience it himself. At least if you are born a poor White you can work hard and be judged by your behavior more than by your phenotype. No Black actually wants to be equal with Whites since that would prove a lack of ambition: Whites are not shining examples of best behavior given their intense materialism, pornography, sexual promiscuity, high divorce rates, alcoholism, obesity, etc. 'The irrational hatred of America in general, and of white America in particular' is not explained. Why is it irrational to hate racists? Why, when Blacks experience racism everyday, is it irrational to suppose Whites institutionally racist? If this were not so, why does no White ever wish he were born Black? 'Suppose, for example, that the mothers of Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman had authored… "Black America Taught Our Children's Killer to Hate Whites?"' There would be no need to author such a piece since there is no evidence of systemic racism on the part of Blacks against Whites. Blacks are a minority, so it would be impossible for them to have the racially institutionalizing affects of Whites on Whites, even if all of 12 million of them were racist. That would be the very racial paranoia that Horowitz is hypocritically condemning. '...[I]t is worth repeating that this is the only country in the world where children are indoctrinated from pre-school days that racism is morally wrong…' Not only is this not the only country where this is so, it's also worth repeating that what you learn at school is less important than what you learn at home. If your parents are racist, you will almost certainly not wish to go against them in preference to your schooling since that is not the way in which impressionable children work, psychologically. There is also the point that White children, like White adults, do not wish to be born Black, no matter what anti racist indoctrination they receive; proving the innate bias of White culture against Black. 'America is not a racist country'. Proving a negative is metaphysically impossible, so there can never be any evidence whatsoever for this. 'Horowitz acknowledges the presence of racists in America but argues that the populace at large regards such bigotries as intolerable'. Would polygraph tests of this so called majority actually demonstrate this claim to be true? They would not! '…[H]ate crimes can only be committed against minorities'. This same racist double standard says Blacks are inferior to Whites. It is a sobering example of Whites getting a dose of the own medicine. They should welcome it as a chance to learn what it is like to be on the receiving end of such double standards and so prevent them in the future. Isn't this a common lesson responsible parents teach their children? Obviously, this is not a lesson applicable to Whites and is more of the same racist double standard. Horowitz wishes only to abolish the double standard against Whites, not that prevailing against Blacks. Hate crime laws seek to punish Whites – the instigators of racism – not racism itself since, like terrorism, it is not possible to wage war against an abstraction. Only against the people who practice it. Whites know no other way other than the philosophy of Us and Them – as this blog eminently proves as it still ploughs that political furrow. '[O]nly whites can be racist…' This has been historically the case for at least the past 700 years. If Blacks are racist, this has little effect on Whites since there are so few Blacks in America compared to Whites. The number of White racists will, by definition, always vastly outnumber the number of Black. This is not an instigation to hate crimes, since racists are already racist and will always be so – like pedophiles. If one were potentially incitable to gas Jews, one would be very unlikely to do so unless one had a pre existing disposition to act that way. 'Horowitz demonstrates how intellectuals provide the theoretical backing to justify violence toward whites'. Violence toward Whites is perfectly justified so long as Whites remain racist. One does not see Whites staying their hand when it comes to Muslims in far off lands, for example, so why would Blacks be any different? Such a contention is just more White racist double standards and the self created fear of the Negro. '…[B]lack rage… only serves to inspire racist ideas -- that blacks are dangerous or uncivilized…' No, it also serves to show that Blacks are possessed of righteous anger, as the White invaders of Iraq & Afghanistan claim. Racism is always a judgement upon one's skin color, not upon one's behavior. This blog author actually believes that if Blacks behave differently, Negrophobes like himself will treat them better! If this were the case, racism would not be called racism it would be called something like behaviorism! Because racism is immoral there can be no reason why anti racism should be any different. It is a dog eat dog, every man for himself world, after all; and to the victor go the spoils. Because this blog author does not define racism, objectively, he tacitly admits to a fundamental lack of understanding of the basic issues so that both he and David Horowitz are racists. The most racially paranoid are always those with White skin as they instigate the very hate crimes they pretend to castigate.


Article copyright © 2009 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