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.

About Us:

My photo

Frank TALKER - Truth-Teller