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 ( 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 ( 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 ( 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 ( 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