Saturday, 30 October 2010

1,000 Sexual Affairs


Unlike political relationships, personal ones are always exclusive. Thus:

What constitutes an act of infidelity varies between and within cultures and depends on the type of relationship that exists between people. ...[I]nfidelity... arise[s] if a partner in the relationship acts outside of the understood boundaries of that relationship.[2]

This article simply ignores reality and posits a culturally-specific definition of adultery in order to sell a newspaper.

This article assumes fidelity to mean only having sex with one person at a time, when this Christian definition of marriage is clearly not right for everyone - especially non-Christians. It also assumes that only the rigid Christian definition of marriage is the correct one, and that anyone who does not subscribe to it is a sexual failure and to be pathologised by scientific-sounding pseudo-sex therapy. It also enshrines (usually-monogamous) marriages contracted by Whites as superior to those (often-polygamous ones) contracted by non-Whites.

Extra-marital affairs from rigidly-defined Christian marriages are often a way out of marriages that could never have worked because they were formalistic and obsessed with appearances rather than content - a typical White Christian marriage, in fact. They can be an excellent means for the very self-discovery Christians try to deny their adherents in order to better and more-easily control them. Once the self is discovered, the Christian way of doing things (indeed, all religious ways of life) are revealed as no more than a superstitious cult; offering no answers to life's existential problems - only a refuge from them. Christians are so sex-obsessed that they waste much time interfering in others' sexual choices: They cannot work out whom they would like to have sex with, themselves, so end-up having soulless sex with other Christians.

Moreover, Whites claim that only marrying for love is a valid reason for getting married. Yet, how many people actually do this rather than marrying because they do not want others to think them gay or for money or for regular sex or because they are simply lonely?

Like all White culture's attempt to control the sexuality of Whites, Christianity relies on conflating the personal with the political in order to control both behavior and White minds. Christians introduced politics into the bedroom by claiming, for example, that the anus is not to be sexually penetrated; the vagina, only so long as you do not enjoy it; and, the mouth, they are never too sure about - but, if in doubt, make it a sin. Christians want political power (to compensate for their non-existent spiritual power) but can only achieve this by colonizing the minds of its adherents with nonsense like homosexuality being an abomination and masturbation a sin; explaining why there are so many sex-starved White Christians.

If Christians truly loved their fellow Man, they would not condemn but attempt to build bridges of understanding between different sexual groups. Anyone poking their nose into the sex lives of others is not only emotionally-suppressed and envious, but also confuses the personal with the political because they are so lonely that they want to legislate for love. And if they cannot obtain that, to legislate for obedience to their own sexual perversion: Erotophobia. (This is why White Christians are shit in bed.)

Western marriage has failed because most people are simply not monogamous and because polygamous marriages are condemned in the West. The inability of Whites to be truly multicultural and diverse - even to their own alleged sexual advantage (eg, Asian chicks are spicy; Black men are well-hung) - is writ large here in their being willing to put up with marriages that do not work, for the sake of mere form. No wonder so many married Whites look miserable.

To claim that marriage is the 'building block of society' is nonsense since the kind of marriage and the kind of society is not specified. This is simply talk about Christian marriage and Christian society; pretending that there are no better alternatives worth considering: Classic White supremacism. But, this does not explain why Whites have the highest divorce rates in the world along with even higher adultery, pornography-consumption and prostitution rates. Like all resentful Christians realizing that the Christian message of unhappiness-is-next-to-godliness, Father Leo Mooney claims people do not take marriage seriously when, in reality, it is only Christian marriage they do not take seriously. Like everyone else in the world, non-Christian Whites take sex very seriously, they just want to enjoy it more and refuse to see it traduced as merely procreational. Recreational sex can be great with one partner or more - of either sex - there need be no exclusive love present for this to be true.

Therapist Joyce Walter is clearly a charlatan and offers no statistics to support her claims. Although she is right that married men (55%) are more unfaithful than married women (45%), in their lifetimes, women in the UK have more sexual partners than men which disproves her claim that: 'Women tend not to be so casual about sex'. Her role here is to pathologise those the Christians cannot punish directly (since adultery is no longer a UK crime: "Criminal conversation" was abolished in England in 1857, and in the Republic of Ireland in 1976) by claiming they are mentally ill, when it is really those Christians who believe in this claptrap who are cognitively-impaired.

This article is completely non-objective and merely serves to scapegoat others who do not subscribe to one's own way of thinking. It tries to do this to bolster a way of thinking that does not, and never did, work. Whites having fun are deeply-resented by those who fear to discover their true sexuality. If Christians wish to save their form of marriage, it would be better to make it more user-friendly rather than the spiritually-impossible and sexually-empty goal it currently is. White Christians are closet-heterosexuals here because they only accept the fact of sex reluctantly as a fleshy distraction from their alleged spirituality (& alleged superiority over non-Whites) and because they believe that gynophobia will control women and stop them inciting men to have sex with them. The misogyny of this position is clear and the author of this piece therefore hates and fears her own femininity.

Copyright © 2010 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.

Wednesday, 20 October 2010

Multicultural society has failed

Given the well-known White supremacism of German culture, such comments are hardly surprising. What she really means is that it has not worked for Whites.

This is more White-Man's voodoo wherein the failings of Whites are blamed on their victims in order to justify their continuing victimhood. There is no desire here to accept others for what they are but to control others and make tyhem in their own image. This is why Whites have the highest divorce rates in the world because they believe that the purpose of marriage is to change - allegedly for the better - the other person. It is really about command and control and fear of spontaneity and intimacy.

Multiculturalism can never work so long as Whites remain so resolutely Institutionally Racist.

Copyright © 2010 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.

Tuesday, 19 October 2010

Are Black Fraternities Still Necessary?

So long as Whites remain White supremacist, the answer to this question is: “Yes”.

Copyright © 2010 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.

Wednesday, 29 September 2010

'What is White culture?'

Although this article is essentially correct, where it goes wrong is in assuming that there can be such people as White 'middle-class liberals', since such a phrase is a non-sequitur. To be middle-class one has to be insensitive to the feelings of others since the middle-class is simply a buffer between the upper- and lower-classes - to protect the former from contact with the latter. Its existence is therefore conditional and not rooted in anything other than aping the aristocracy that they will never be admitted to actually enter. This breeds resentment among the middle-class that is directed against the lower-class rather than against those who encouraged such resentment - the upper-class. This is done by offering the lower-class inadequate education, poor social and welfare services, spaces from which they are excluded, labeling them "underclass" & "Chavs", ignoring their political concerns, etc. Thus, the middle-class can never be liberal and liberals can never be middle-class. This explains the condescension among those middle-class who pretend to care for the poor or for that of ethnic minorities - it is nothing more than the pretence of being fully human; assuming the appearance of wolves in sheep's clothing. The writer himself stresses this fact by using the expression 'liberal racism' - an oxymoron if ever there was one.

The liberal is simply an attention-seeker who claims his needs supersede others because of his affective dysfunction - caused by the poor parenting skills of the middle-class. Whites want to be the savior of the world by, paradoxically destroying as much of it as they possibly can in order to create a single world order dominated by Whites. This is the essential White pathological disturbance that this article really refers to: White Culture as such. White culture is essentially a culture based on the fear of difference and the fear that this essence will be seen by those labeled different and mocked for its quintessential emptiness.

Copyright © 2010 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.

Saturday, 28 August 2010

‘Obama’s Blackness’


Whites are reverting to type - as one would expect when their economic system is in the doldrums. Whites then turn their anger, not against their own unearned economic privilege, but against those they deem genetically inferior.

It is obvious that the only issue confronting US Whites here is their current president's skin color - otherwise why only use the coded White supremacism of the Tea Party to discuss his failings. No White president ever had to contend with anyone referring to his skin color negatively, after all.

US Whites' longer-range fear is of becoming a democratic minority and of Blacks seeking revenge for White supremacism - a belief that the majority will should always prevail, no matter how irrational. Despite denials that White privilege even exists, it is proven by the fact that Whites believe Blacks to be such a threat - a belief that White privilege itself confers. This is what lies behind the idea that President Obama is not really a US citizen because, as analogously believed in the UK, to be a true US citizen you have to be White. (Everyone else is merely a guest who can be asked to leave at any time, by the so-called host Whites, when the multicultural party - that never really began - is over.)

The basic problem for Whites is that their paranoid/schizophrenia is such that it leads them to believe anything Blacks do is somehow directed against White survival - when, in fact, White supremacism is the only real threat to the survival of Whites. This is what makes White supremacism impossible to eradicate since it is a self-fulfilling need for attention and for someone to act the scapegoat for Whites' own failings. Whites say Blacks are inferior - without proof - so treat them as such. Blacks react as any human being would and thus become a threat to Whites. Whites thus have a self-created reason to fear Blacks because of the very desire for revenge Whites tried to implant in Blacks in the first place via White supremacism. This, for example, explains why so many Whites left South Africa after apartheid was abolished. As with 9/11, itself, Whites are forever haunted by the fact that you reap what you sow. Without White supremacism, Whites would have no basis for their culture and, thus, no culture. But they would also have no fear of others and, hence, a basis for the establishing of a worthwhile culture - which they currently do not have.

Whites are guiltily uncomfortable with their own supremacism - although it benefits them economically and psychologically; albeit in the short term. They desperately try to deny the fact that without it they would be just like any other member of the human race and not as special as they would like to appear. They would also then have to learn to stand on their own two feet - in a grownup manner. Rather than play the race card by discriminating against a minority of Westerners who cannot be blamed for much since they are only a minority. In a democracy, majority-will prevails - only White supremacists believe the few can defeat the many; proving they are schizophrenic and explaining their overwhelming desire for majoritarian political systems with strict immigration controls for non-Whites.

But Whites facing facts will never happen, because Whites would then have to face the fact that so much of their cultural success is due to skin color rather more so than actual ability. The fact that the Tea Party is taken seriously by Whites proves that skin pigment - for Whites - trumps rational debate.

Copyright © 2010 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.

Monday, 23 August 2010

'HP computers are racist'

Copyright © 2010 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.

Thursday, 19 August 2010

Social Mobility Myths (2010)

The basic argument here is that lower-class people are less intelligent than the middle-class and, so, less motivated to succeed; hence, their relative failure. However, this argument is based purely on IQ tests that also - apparently - prove that Blacks are less intelligent than Whites. Despite the author's championing of motivation as being very important to one's life chances, he does not factor to this into the results of IQ tests to make it appear that success in life is entirely genetic. Somehow he believes that motivation or lack of it has no effect on IQ test scores and that such scores prove the correlation that the higher the social class one is born into the higher the IQ. This is like saying that Blacks score less than Whites in IQ tests because they are Black and that White supremacism – specifically designed to be a demotivator - has nothing to do with it. Or that lie detector tests reveal truth no matter the mental state of the person questioned.

This pseudo-science desperately tries to turn a soft science like sociology into a hard one. This acultural and acontextual drivel is just the sort of stuff designed to create social policy that fossilises culture to such an extent that help for the poor to succeed is never given - since the poor can do nothing about their birth circumstances. It is a brazen attempt by the middle-class to retain the unearned cultural privileges that centuries of social snobbery have given them. The problem with any attempt to divorce statistics from human nature is that sociology then loses sight of the very humanity it tries to describe and explain. It is not statistics that can to tell lies, it is statisticians who can.

Essentially political propaganda for the status quo in which it is the clear intention of the author to declare that failure is mostly the fault of the failure and that society has minimal impact on personal opportunities. This is wishful-thinking of the highest order from those who want an unregulated market from which they can extract maximum value with minimum effort and without accepted negative consequence to others. The author is correct to state that equality of opportunity is meritocratic while equality of outcome is not, but fails to explain why the latter is so divergent in an alleged meritocracy.

To achieve this goal, the author simply and only focuses on occupational selection and recruitment as his standard of his belief that the UK is more meritocratic than he believes others believe. By limiting the remit of ones research, in this way, one can very easily avoid most of the evidence that proves the UK is a rigidly hierarchical culture. His materialist approach also reveals the materialism used to disguise the cultures' lack of any other values to which anyone could or would aspire. Yet, the author claims he is not doing this.

Books like this show why sociology is not a real science since quantities are not really being compared - despite the materialistic approach - only political opinions based on limited facts because the remit of the work is so limited. Avoiding the full complexity of the actual situation also explains why the book is so short.

To achieve its political goal, the book complains about the fact that most sociologists are socialists. This is not scientifically valid - only of political validity - since the book is little more than a politically-motivated attack on such people - and socialism, in general. Social mobility in the limited way defined is clearly going to be great since when there are needs for employees to fill more skilled posts that cannot be met from the middle-class, say, their will be recruitment from the lower. This pragmatism however, does not mean we live in a meritocracy but an economic culture based on more realistic tenets than generally assumed. This does not mean that there are no problems with being nouveau riche or parvenu and the author has nothing to say about the employment disparities that exist based on ethnicity and gender. The research here focuses relentlessly on White males: The minority of the workforce. The other variable the author avoids dealing with is personal attitudes. Many top jobs require one to have a certain political outlook on life, consistent with social class membership. So the fact that someone from a poor background scores a senior position does not indicate the existence of a meritocracy but of people willing to hold certain beliefs in order to get certain jobs. They would then be middle-class on the outside but lower-class on the inside. A true meritocracy, however, would only consider personal aptitude, ability and education in relation to the job not whether a candidate shared his employer's world-view. Since the British class system was invented to inculcate different personal attitudes in different classes, the book is, in effect; not discussing social class, but how much one earns compared to others. This is such a simplification of reality that its practical value is limited. Understanding the significance of this book relies on understanding the author's definition of class, which is not a common sense one. Just because there are more middle-class jobs now does not mean there is less social snobbery since the latter is not based on economics but personal insecurity. And social snobbery limits class mobility.

Social classes are not God-given but man-made. This means that claiming the lower-class are less intelligent is nonsensical since that would be the same tail-wagging-the-dog argument used by apartheidists who claimed Blacks were less intelligent because few had university degrees when few Blacks were allowed to attend university. Such a self-fulfilling prophecy is typical of ivory-tower academics trying to score political points. Despite mentioning motivation, the author obsesses about ability as measured by IQ tests as a means of avoiding the very subject of motivation and of conflating one with the other. He never considers the cultural disadvantages of the poor are designed to keep them that way by a middle-class intent on maintaining its own privileges irrespective of merit. This author lives in the same fantasy land he accuses his critics of living in. we all know from experience that encouragement and support have a big impact on motivation and, thus, ability but this author evades this issue and relies on claiming that clever people are clever because they are clever. He implicitly concludes that cognitive ability is fixed from birth and that nothing can adversely affect it. So why do good parents waste their time encouraging their children to study hard since this should have no positive effect on educational outcomes? While he claims most sociologists ignore intelligence as the basis for class distinctions, he ignores motivation and the fossilization of those differences.

A book that tries to blind you with science by leaving so much science out. The basic problem with this book is that it talks in generalities not certainties. This means that if social class is a predictor of intelligence then the social classes will simply see birth circumstances as the basis for judging others and not actual ability. Nowhere does the author make this observable fact clear because he wishes to make his generalities into the certainties that they can never be. The fact is that the UK has social mobility because of ability while not having it because of motivation - lack of the former being caused by correlating such mobility with social class rather than ability. It is not social class primarily that makes one able but genes yet it is easy to reverse the flow of causality, or pretend it does not exist, as this book does for political reasons. The author never addresses the issue of the relationship between having a high IQ and actually making use of one's intelligence - an important question given declining UK economy. All that this book can show is that class is determined by both nature and nurture but that the precise demarcation between the two never can. The author never explains why the lower-class have less motivation and success while claiming that lack of motivation is not so much of an issue in success. The problem is that he is basically a social snob obsessed with explaining economic outcomes on an individual rather than an institutional basis. He implies that stopping dull middle-class children from falling does not stop bright lower-class children from rising despite the fact that the dull middle-class offspring is occupying a job to the detriment of the lower-class person. He also does not directly consider that success is more to do with agreeing others than disagreeing with them, as his own experience of being disputed in his findings clearly shows. He does not consider emotional issues like having entered a class, is one accepted in it by others. He attacks others rather more than defending his own ideas; while denying the efficiency with which human nature blurs reality through prejudice. Like so much Western sociology this is more about statistics than about people. Like all right-wingers they accuse the left-wing of ideological bias by presenting their own ideological biases since their solutions are just as ideological in their own way. Neither side is capable of just leaving the poor alone to get on with their own lives and insist on sing them as political footballs to pursue their own agendas.

Copyright © 2010 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.

Wednesday, 11 August 2010

Obesity costs billions

The usual empty-headed nonsense from someone who has no understanding of either human nature or her own.

There are no 'guarantors of children's health' save the behaviour of children themselves – and their parents and cultural influences. There is no discussion here as to why people over-eat in the West and so this can only lead to the very nanny-statism that leads to greater obesity. Obesity results from a nanny state that offers nothing but miserable, unquestioning obedience to authority along with their choice to leave the locus of control for their own wellbeing outside of themselves - with the state; resulting in the state being the nanny in place of rational individual choice. This is exacerbated by the state providing the very opportunity to make the nannying choice in order to increase its own power. The state can only obtain power at the expense of individual will, after all – the more power the state possesses, the less power the individual has; and vice versa. This is a vicious circle of dependency praised by the author of this article who would condemn the selfsame activity when it comes to welfare benefits which also produce nannyism and dependency for those who make the choice to accept both as their fate in life.

This article contains the usual middle-class whinging and whining that comes from paying through the nose for welfare for the poor and then resenting the poor for not making the best of things. The problem is always choice, which no government in history has ever been able to gainsay – not even dictatorships. So long as the poor choose to be poor, there are no social policies that can be introduced to do a damn about it. The middle-class need to get a life or find someone else to condescend to that can make them look more like the charitable folk that they are clearly not. The middle-class are resentful that it will cost them billions – they care nothing for the health of the poor – if they did, the NHS would never have been established since it encourages curative, not preventive, care. The middle-class are vile hypocrites who want centralised government controlled by their power-loving diktats, but not the inevitable consequences – dependency and economic decline.

The solution is simply to abandon the NHS and go back to the situation pertaining before it was ever mooted, where health was a matter of the survival of those who choose to be the fittest. Given almost universal suffrage, the problem for the middle-class is how to win the votes of the poor by taking away the very things that will secure the support of the poor. This is a square that can never be circled and so the only option remaining is blaming the victim – which has been tried for centuries and will never work because it has never worked because it can never work.

Copyright © 2010 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.

Tuesday, 10 August 2010

‘British Values’


The usual White supremacist, social engineering nonsense about the impact of immigration but none about the effects of emigration or live births as if immigration were the only challenge regarding population flows. This is not a balanced approach, which is why Balanced Migration will never work - it is impossible to equalise the rate of emigration with that of immigration.

These people are merely trying to steal the thunder of the BNP with White whining of their own. These are simply a different variety of White supremacists trying desperately to conceal their White supremacism by attacking the BNP.

The worst aspect of this rot is as follows:

‘Defending British values.’ What are British values? We are not told.

'Britain has a long proud history.' However, what does Britain actually have to be proud of? We are not told. ‘Over the centuries, Britain has stood as beacon for liberty and tolearnace (Sic), and against bigotry, extremism and authoritarianism.’ No examples are given of this and, indeed, few (if any) exist. After all, the British Empire, the North Atlantic Slave Trade (& the still-existing institutional racism that made it acceptable to Whites) & refusing to allow Jews into the UK to escape from the Nazis, for example, are hardly beacons of 'tolearance (Sic)'.

‘We believe in British values.’ What are British values? We are still not told.

‘Being British is about your values, not your race.’ There is only one human race, so which "other" race is being referred to here? ‘While the BNP believes in racial prejudice and division, we believe in fairness, decency and standing up for the little guy.’ Yet, the BNP represent the White supremacism inherent in British culture. Stop & Search, legal custody & school exclusions for Blacks at twice the rate for Whites - with no evidence that Blacks are any more anti-social than Whites. Mental incarceration for Blacks at five times the rate for Whites - with no evidence that Blacks are any more prone to mental illness than Whites. And Blacks twice as likely to be refused employment by Whites simply for being Black. Where exactly, is the ‘fairness’ and ‘decency’ in these common examples?

‘We believe in a United Kingdom.’ Since the UK actually exists it is not a matter of belief but a matter of fact. What is not stated here is why it should continue to exist.

‘We believe Britain is a union of different peoples, and tolerates (Sic) differences.’ All the evidence available suggests the opposite because of the endemic social, cultural and gender snobbery deeply embedded in White culture. In any case, tolerance is not the same as acceptance and without the latter there can only be multi-culture. ‘The BNP believes in segregation, that recent immigrants are second class citizens, and in turning the people of our country against each other.’ This is, in fact, a perfect description of White culture: The BNP simply reflects the truth about Whites, not any beliefs about them.

‘We believe in Britain.’ Since Great Britain actually exists it is not a matter of belief but a matter of fact. What is not stated here is why it should continue to exist.

‘We are proud of Britain's unique contribution to the world: Parliament, the English language and football.’ Democracy was invented by the Greeks so it is nothing for the British to be proud of. The English language did not originate here; it is an Indo-European tongue that originated in Sanskrit - an Indian language. If soccer is all the British have to offer the world, then God help them. ‘The BNP is ashamed of our history and institutions.’ On the contrary, the BNP upholds them: Cultural, gender & social snobbery. ‘It hates our Queen, thinks we were on the wrong side in World War II and wants Britain to shut itself off from the world.’ Only the latter point is unusual to the BNP since Whites are overwhelmingly parochial.

‘Times are difficult. It's hard to get a job. Violent crime is on the rise. Politicians don't seem to care about the problems of ordinary families.’ These things are always true since there is no such thing as easy times, crime will always rise as the population does and politicians have never cared about the ‘problems of ordinary families’ - that is not, in fact, their job. Their job is to manage the courts; the police; and, themselves while the rest of us get on with caring about our own problems. After all, political meddling in any economy always creates more problems than it solves. State education has increased illiteracy; state healthcare has increased ill health; and, progressive taxation has increased poverty – for example.

‘But if the BNP thinks that means the British people are going to vote for them, they've got another thing (Sic) coming.’ Whites will never openly support the BNP in large numbers, but they will always cling to the benefits of White privilege that the BNP stand for by not risking their lives to fight it. ‘Britain fights fascism, it doesn't vote for it.’ Britain has been a fascistic state for the past 500 years - it is not necessary to vote for something that is already in place - no matter whom you vote for.

The single word that sums up White culture is Xenophobic. This is why White culture is in decline: There are no more imperial possessions to exploit; no more slaves to whip; and, an unwillingness to trade with – rather than aid – the Third World.

Copyright © 2010 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.

BNP are a fact of life

So are paedophiles and rapists but one does not hear Whites saying this since they do not wish to openly admit their political amorality in so doing. Moreover, no White ever suggests that the existence of pedophiles means we should debate with them.

Of course the BNP are a fact of life – that is not the issue. The issue is what is to be done about them since they are anti-democrats in a democracy. To say otherwise is to side with the BNP. It is the stupidity of White politicians which is also a fact of life that needs dealing with.

What is to be debated with White supremacists? They want Blacks to agree to accept second-class citizenship status which Blacks are never going to accept so there is nothing to discuss! I would love to see White parents engaging in discussion with pedophiles about access to their children. No sane person ever engages in a discussion from which they can gain nothing and lose something - so such a debate is pointless. If Whites do not already know that White supremacism is mad, then they are: There is nothing to be exposed via debate here. Such a debate can only lead to Auschwitz, since it implicitly accepts that White supremacists have a point that should be argued: Thereby valorising their point-of-view by definition. It is not a debate White supremacists want, but the debate itself, since it gives them the implicit credibility that they otherwise lack. It is not the BNP who are a fact of life but White supremacism that is when it claims Blacks must tolerate White supremacists - at the risk to their lives - while Whites can engage in the nonsense of free speech that does not ostensibly endanger White lives. Whites, after all, openly refuse to deal with terrorists that threaten their lives even though freedom fighters have a valid point-of-view and debate is the only realistic means of dealing with them.

The debate about White supremacism has already been had and ended in 1945 with the murder of 6,000,000 Jews. The debate has now moved on to what is to be done about White supremacists not what is to be done with them. Whites still cannot move on from the nineteenth-century Darwinist mind-set that sees Blacks as closer to the simian than the human. What Whites want is to appease White supremacists - as they did Hitler - which can only serve White interests. It is a protection racket but as Rudyard Kipling said: The Danegeld never got rid of the Dane. The demand for a debate with White supremacists is only ever made by White supremacists since they are the only group advantaged by such a debate - which is precisely why they want it.

Worst of all, Black people are also a fact of life, but nowhere here is there the claim that the BNP have to come to terms with this simple fact of life. If there were, then the whole premiss of the argument would fall flat on its face. In other words, the author believes that the BNP has more political rights that Blacks to be openly intolerant: Rights that Whites would never give to Blacks.

To repeat: When Whites debate with those who threaten their children (eg, paedophiles & terrorists), Blacks will consider debating with those who threaten theirs (eg, White supremacists).

Copyright © 2010 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, 30 July 2010

'Leaks won't stop the Afghan war'

This piece is basically worthless because it does not say how the goals of the war are to be achieved. This is why WikiLeaks is so important - not what is leaked but why. If these goals can not be achieved, then there is no point in the activities mentioned in the leaks and so the leaks make that very pointlessness clear. This is why Western governments cannot explain their military presence in the region - there are no positive results shown.

Copyright © 2010 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.

Tuesday, 13 July 2010

‘Racism in Drag’

Whites want to find examples of Blacks being racist and say that this form of racism is OK for them to practice because they saw a Black person do it. This is as childish as claiming that because my schoolfriend stole a chocolate bar from Woolworth's, I can do likewise. Whites want revenge on Black people for not being able, for example, to use the word 'Nigger' with the same impunity with which Black people use it by suggesting - in a context-free political vacuum - that they should be allowed to do the same as Black people. This, regardless of the fact that the use of such epithets is not neutral but pigmentionally-significant. Whites wish to evade reality and do as they please - as they have been doing for the past 500 years.

Whites want to claim Blacks as a benchmark for their own behaviour while continuing to imply - in that very behaviour - that Blacks are naturally inferior. But why would any rational person use someone they claim as inferior as a standard for their own behaviour? Because they have no higher standard!

Copyright © 2010 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.

Wednesday, 23 June 2010

Britain is Full Up


This author is a classic coded White supremacist who fears being so labelled so must speak in code to appear rational, reasonable and intelligent.

The 'tide of immigration' suggests a cultural tsunami with negative consequences without any real thought to what the actual consequences of immigration are. There is no evidence whatsoever that 'Britain is full up' – and so the author presents none. Because more people are born in the UK and emigrate from it than migrate here, the Nazi tendencies of the author of this piece are evident. He does not propose encouraging people to leave nor does he encourage people here to have smaller families despite his claim that 'Britain is full up'. If 'Britain is full up', then birth control should be on the political agenda – as well as immigration - but it is not; proving that White supremacism is the issue not merely numbers. Indeed, such people concerned with numbers should also be in favor of such things as abortion-on-demand, voluntary euthanasia, & repatriation - if their concern is merely numbers. However, this is neither their chief, nor their real, concern.

'It is still just about possible to go through life without spotting how Britain is being changed by immigration...' yetو despite this, this author does not say in what way 'Britain is being changed'.

The author claims that the last Prime Minister, Gordon brown, came from an 'ethnically homogenous Scottish village above the Forth' when Whites are a mixture of peoples from across indo-Europe and, ultimately, Africa. No test exists that can establish ethnic homogeneity and so this phrase simply means racially-pure - a Nazi fallacy.

"Immigration is … a question about what it means to be British." Because the word "British" has been given no objective definition – even by the White British – it is really a question of how to provide oneself with an identity without the necessary effort. In other words, to define oneself by arbitrary notions of whom to include in such a definition and, more importantly, whom to exclude. For so-called Whites, the word "British" means "xenophobic Whites", despite the fact that no White can prove that he is White. Because there has been so much crossbreeding among humans over the millennia that there is no pure breed of human. Western science proves this so that the only way to define Whiteness is to say that if you look White – and we Say you are White – then you are White. Further tests of Whiteness are whether you are xenophobic or not. If the latter then you are either a race-traitor or a Nigger-lover. These extra tests are necessary because Whites know perfectly well there is no such thing as racial purity. Even the Nazis knew this; hence, they only checked any prospective party member's genealogy back three generations, since to go back further would prove that racial purity was a myth and the Nazi party's founding tenet a fallacy. Whites' sexual obsession tells them this because good-looking foreign birds produce erections every bit as easily as the home-grown plain Janes. If this were not so, the heterogeneous nature of the human race would not be the case. Sexual curiosity always trumps White supremacism since no anti-miscegenation laws have ever been enforceable in any meaningful sense.

The question is also about what it means to have more human rights than anyone else. A non-existent right Whites have claimed for centuries.

'Labour opened the floodgate [to immigrants] for social as well as economic reasons, in an attempt to change the culture of the country and "rub the Right's nose in diversity".' These social and economic reasons are not referenced here because they do not exist and the comment about 'diversity' is a tacit admission that the author is afraid of foreigners and that his position is anti-diversity. Again, no explanation is offered as to how the culture of the country is going to change. By avoiding reference to the economic advantages of migration, the author makes it tacitly clear that he believes there are none. And that he is being coerced into renouncing a racism that is the only source of his sense of self.

'The consequences [of immigration], in terms of social tensions and pressures on local services, can be seen almost everywhere.' These tensions are caused by bigots like the author of this piece since White, English-speaking migrants are never complained of. The author offers no figures on the pressures on local services because there are none. 'Mr Brown... was the dealer who got us hooked on cheap foreign labour, and its artificial highs of unsustainable growth and low inflation.' '[C]heap foreign labour' is more White supremacist code for "cheap foreigners"; that is, genetically and culturally-inferior people. Fifty percent of NHS doctors are foreign born; 25% of nurses – so these are not inferior people. The cheapness merely lies in employing those who have not been trained at the UK taxpayers' expense. Yet, the author never refers to this rather obvious fact because it undermines his argument.

'Even now, they [immigrants] keep on coming, drawn to a country that offers more opportunities (and even greater welfare support) than just about anywhere else.' Those who have no argument always repeat the old Nazi line that immigrants are welfare scroungers but they offer no evidence for this. 'Without action on immigration, the necessary work of slashing welfare spending, and therefore the deficit (and eventually the debt), cannot truly be said to be under way.' The National Debt is an economic irrelevancy so long as it can continue to be paid off – like all debts. The real economic issues are the structural problems of an economy not based on wealth-creation but on debt-creation – credit. The budget deficit is simply being blamed on foreigners who are meant to act as scapegoats for White economic failure.

The statistics the author does not are the usual selective ones designed to prove his case and avoid providing a rounded picture of the very reality he claims politicians are ignoring. 'These are all whacking great numbers, which tell us that if one strips out the momentary effects of the downturn, immigration continues to outpace our capacity to cope.' Again, no evidence for an objective assessment of whether these really are 'whacking great numbers' - since the latter expression has no statistical validity - nor for the UK's inability to cope is offered.

'Yet now power has been lost, and the old views can be disowned, the party has started talking about national identity and the impact of migrants...' The standard trick of any one unable to argue coherently is to put more than one argument in a single sentence as if their logical connection were self-evident. The first part of this sentence is a tacit admission that democracy is not a rationally-based political system since policy is to be determined by a majority rather than because of a process of rational discourse. This is why democracy and covert racism have always gone together since such racism can only flourish in a system that always favours the majority against the minority. (In South Africa, White supremacism had to be overt since Whites were the minority and the only means of dealing with this was the naked use of force.) Whites thus see that power can be achieved with little effort simply by ensuring that non-Whites are so labelled and their numbers kept small. Whites hate proportional representation for this reason because it would offer more power to minorities – something Whites do not want because they believe it means less political power for themselves. The second part if the sentence concerns a national identity that Whites do not possess since Whites never say what this is with either a straight face or evidence. They attempt to use immigration as a test of Whiteness based on xenophobia. The only cultural identity Whites have ever achieved.

Because the argument here is basically flawed, Whites try to have it both ways by conflating popularity with common sense. If the argument is not popular, it is logical; if the argument is not logical, at least it is popular. If two plus two could be made to equal five, by plebiscite, Whites would accept this despite its lack of rationality since this would make us all richer by making every pair of two-pound coins worth a fiver! In this way, they hope to win - no matter what. The hypocrisy of the White supremacist position is thus clear for all to see.

'Scrapping ID cards and DNA testing, [David Miliband] argues, plays well with the chattering classes, but badly with ordinary voters, who believe only criminals and illegal immigrants have anything to fear from such intrusive measures.' The problem is that such measures are not intrusive for Whites only those who look or act "foreign". Their racism springs from the fact that Whites favour them precisely because they know that anyone who does not look, act or speak like them will be permanently suspected of not being "one of us". And thus suitable for such legalised harassment. Given the intrinsically White supremacist nature of British jurisprudence they would simply be legalising an apartheid that already exists in the warped minds of Whites. This is their true purpose since ID Cards and DNA testing have not been shown pre-emptively effective against criminality in any country that they have been employed. This is one reason the former was abolished after the Second World War; while the latter remains a young, error-prone science.

'Damian Green, the Immigration Minister, was due to make a preliminary announcement on the idea of an annual limit on the numbers coming in from outside the EU...' Here the basis for the argument is shifted from immigration - as such - to non-European immigration without explanation. If 'Britain is full up' then why does it matter where migrants come from? The answer is that non-European migrants are more likely to be dark-skinned; while the light-skinned ones will still be welcomed with open arms. The idea of a cap on numbers is self-evident nonsense since there is no way of objectively determining this. Because of the inherently White supremacist nature of such a concept, it can only be determined along the subjective lines of "a number smaller than the number of White live births per annum to ensure foreigners do not take over and start telling us what to do".

'Mr Cameron... can see the changes immigration has produced, not least in London, where the impact is most keenly felt.' These 'changes' are never adumbrated so do not really exist. The fear here is that migrants will outnumber locals and thus gain more political power over Whites in the majoritarian system that Whites have created for their own benefit. The only way to deal with this problem – in a democracy – is to have less non-Whites around. Either that or abolish democracy and formally admit that the UK is a White supremacist nation and that the Second World War was not fought to rid the world of National Socialism but to protect British imperial interests. White supremacism in the UK rarely has the guts to be nakedly racist since that would prove the cultural inferiority of Whites – to be so afraid of those they deem inferior.

The real issue here is that in a majoritarian political system Whites want to remain the majority and they only feel they can do this by restricting immigration to Whites and socially-ostracising those who procreate with migrants. Whites are terrified that with the moribundity of the British Empire and Commonwealth, they are rapidly becoming irrelevant on the world stage. And that the basis of their culture – White supremacism – is now clearly seen as a hollow pipe dream from which they should have awoken 200 years ago when African slavery had to be abolished. The cowardice of not facing reality is palpable since all White talk on immigration is endemically White supremacist because Whites never stick to the economic argument. Instead, they use this as a cover for their actual cultural fears – that their culture is so weak that a few allegedly-worthless foreigners can destroy it. The only true welfare scroungers here are Whites who claim unearned privileges over non-Whites - in perpetuity. And a culture that needs to employ so many foreigners to do work that natives are either incapable or unwilling to do is a culture in serious and self-willed decline.

Copyright © 2010 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.

Friday, 11 June 2010

Many Costs of Racism

In a White supremacist country like the United States, social capital does not exist between the various cultures – it can only exist within them. This has always been true and always will.

The idea that 'social capital among blacks and Latinos is already significantly lower than among whites' is nonsense because social capital cannot be quantified. It can never be lower, higher or equal; therefore, it can only exist or not exist. In this case, the latter pertains because of White supremacism.

That 'Latino citizens are a huge part of the population in Arizona' is irrelevant to Whites because they are White supremacists. White supremacists are only democratic in their reasoning when they are in the majority. When they become (or fear becoming) the minority, they become overtly supremacist in their behavior out of a fear that the covert White supremacism they have tried to practice will induce those they fear to seek revenge on Whites. This, for example, is why so many Whites have left South Africa with the toppling of apartheid. The purpose of White supremacist laws targeting Latinos is to encourage them to leave because they are not welcome and to force those to leave who fall foul of the laws. White supremacists pretend to themselves that this will address the demographic in which they fear living as a cultural minority, surrounded by those their parents taught them to fear.

'Pretending... Latino citizens won’t incur gigantic costs in terms of civil liberties violations and sense of personal security is ridiculous.' The statement itself is ridiculous because it does not address the issue that Whites are happy to violate everyone else's civil liberties. Arizona’s SB 1070 law makes Latinos second class citizens in their own country – as it is designed to do: To be a Latino is de facto probable cause. Such laws are also means for Whites to distract their attention away from the fundamental problems of White culture towards blaming those they label as inferior for those problems. 'My father... now feels uncomfortable around his white friends because they disagree about SB 1070.' Your father has a simple lesson to learn – that he should have learned years ago – he has no White friends; he never had and never will.

'Why can’t whites see the social and personal costs of this policy?' They can, they just do not see why they should care since their police enforce their White supremacy against their fear of becoming a new persecuted minority. 'Perhaps it is because most whites are [many] generations removed from their immigrant parents...' This is irrelevant: The reason for White supremacism is the material benefits it brings Whites; the guilt and the shame they have chosen to live with since this can easily be blamed upon those they label genetically inferior. Whites do realize 'we are all in the same boat', but their White supremacism is an attempt to deny this simple fact since it provides them with psychological advantages. Such as being able to walk the streets without the fear of White government officials harassing them. Whites have cherished these negative civil rights for centuries. As with pollution, Whites blank-out what they have done to the planet so that they can continue to live the good life on the basis of such rapine and pass on their present-day deficits as people to the next generation of Whites.

The United States is not a 'nation of exclusion by race', but a nation of people convinced that Whites can be made into better people through moral exhortation and logical argument. White supremacism, itself, is predicated on this very notion that is used to both excuse and justify White supremacism. However, Whites will never change and Racism Review does not fully appreciate this quintessential cultural truism. One only has to look at ones own experience of their kind to find no examples of any White leopards having changed their spots. They can only be culturally ostracized and left to wither on their vine - not yours. They made their bed and are the only ones to sleep in it. Just make sure you do not get into bed with them, or else you will also suffer their fate. Whites have now given up pretending that they are no longer White supremacists and are happy to openly discriminate to prevent fundamental power structures from being altered in any meaningful way.

Copyright © 2010 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, 4 June 2010

Just the One Drink?


The great unasked – because feared - question here is why Whites spend so much of their time consuming excessive alcohol. Their personal relations and ungratifying jobs have a lot to do with this, along with the inherent and rampant superficiality and materialism of their various cultures. Drink is thus a solace for a misspent life - which only increases the misspentness. 'State-led nannying' is simply the inevitable response to those who refuse to grow up in continuing to act like children. It will not solve the problem because the problem does not wish a solution. Drunken Whites like the condition and openly boast about it in a way that a heroin addict or a pedophile would not.

Whites seek 'elegance, ease and luxury' without wanting to make the necessary effort to achieve them ethically. Consuming expensive drinks is a sign of affluence in a culture where status symbols count for everything; human character for little. Yet there is nothing elegant about drunkenness; nothing easy about cirrhosis of the liver; nothing luxurious about a luxury you are too drunk to fully appreciate. Laziness is at the root of all binge-drinking and alcoholism.

Whites obsess about their own problems without reference to others. When Whites talk about obesity, for example, it is not to talk about the well-known obesity of Black women - a phenomenon known for decades, but uncared about – but to talk only about the obesity of Whites. They try to conceal their White supremacism by claiming to be speaking for and about the British, when they are clearly only talking about Whites. This article cowardly refuses to address the self-evident fact that alcoholism is a White plague - few other cultures have this problem and, in any case, Whites care little for other cultures as such. The lack of empathy, fed by alienation, is palpable here.

Yet, the article admits that many British do not speak English natively, but refuses to face the fact that language is not the issue here but culture. White culture is drink-sodden - Friday and Saturday nights down the local high streets up and down the land bear regular witness to this. The 'remarkable disinclination to guilt' is non-existent since guilt is a potent driving force behind much alcoholism - mixed with the shame of choosing to live inside the straightjacket of other people's acceptance or invite ostracism. Being drunk means not having to kow-tow to others and is the only means by which drunks can be themselves – limited though those selves are by the chosen need to drink excessively. Drunks claim they cannot remember last night (regardless of whether this is true or false) or get angry when you point out that they cannot control their drinking. They do not wish to remember shaming activity and wish a panacea for their personal inhibitions. Most Whites are emotionally repressed and so need a way of being sociable that does not require psychiatry, ethics or willpower. Alcohol provides this, but only in the short term, since the downside is a hangover - often talked about in terms of its intensity being proof of the amount of pleasure experienced the previous evening. That pleasure is only quantifiable to the materialist mind escapes the superficial people who think, talk and act this way. Moreover, drunken White males use alcohol as a fallback position if they cannot find anyone foolish - or drunk - enough to want to have sex with them. This partly explains the high incidence of both STDs and unplanned pregnancies among Whites: Erotophobia.

The author's historical analysis of the problem simply explains its creation but not the obduracy of Whites who continue to 'drink [themselves] daft' - despite the historical factors occasioning such behavior being absent today. The problem lies not in the past but in the present-day unwillingness to face up to problems like grown-ups. There is also no honest reference to the bad alcohol-fuelled choices White soccer hooligans make - especially when abroad - given that this activity is largely a White one.

The idea that reckless excess tests 'personal limits' is clearly nonsense - unless the testing is learned from. Someone consuming many pints of beer every night would quickly learn where his personal limits were - so why continue testing them once they were discovered? Why not move on to fresher fields of endeavor and challenge? When the child ascertains his limits, he then begins to become an adult. Yet, the undergraduate quality of this article suggests the author almost certainly got riotously drunk on regular occasions as a student. However, he never discovered the limits of his desire to make excuses for his and others' immature behavior with specious argumentation.

Licensing, taxation and restricted sales' hours do not work. If the problem is one of 'personal health and public order', then trying to take away the sense of escape from an alienated White culture through binge-drinking, that the fear of suicide makes necessary, will fail. The underlying reason for the alcoholism must also be addressed: Personal alienation leading to a breakdown in public order. '[P]ersonal health' is only an issue for those who love their lives; 'public order' is only an issue to those who love their culture. When people have no reason to live, yet fear death, they inevitably behave irresponsibly - even by claiming the tail wags the dog by trying to blame the alcohol for the drunkenness. The only solution is a profound cultural change which, being unlikely, means the problem for Whites is not going away anytime soon. For others, this means steering socially clear of Whites - unless they are teetotal. (Muslim disco, anyone?)

The author reaches new lows of ethically-depraved reasoning by claiming that using alcohol as a medicine, a source of nutrition and a psychological comfort somehow naturally justifies the hedonism simply because it takes place. This is the pedophile argument that it is natural to abuse children because the pedophile wants to do it – as does the child, allegedly. But since so few cultures possess such a widespread alcoholism problem, it is obviously not very natural. He follows this up with the ludicrous and unjustified contention that 'Drink has helped us fight external enemies and internal injustice.'

This article does not argue against alcoholism and binge-drinking it argues against the Nanny State. Nevertheless, since excessive drinking is childish, such a state is inevitable. Nobody trusts a child with the keys to the sweet shop – to protect its teeth; so why would anyone trust an alcoholic with the keys to the off license?

Trust has to be earned - it cannot be rightfully demanded. This proves that the author is the selfsame child trying to defend the immaturity of others as a vicarious means of justifying his own - while cheekily defending his implied right to demand respect without the necessary effort. His ultimate childishness is summed up thus: 'It's just that we were once capable of understanding that our actions have consequences, and those consequences will have to be lived with.' This is the classic Auld Lang Syne fallacy that fails to address the issue that others must also bear the consequences for the drunks' action: Various assaulted WAGs and children, people with darker skin that the drunk prefers to abuse along with the harassment of the homeless, for example.

Insular and brutish stuff - all-too-typical of White writers.

Copyright © 2010 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.

About Us:

My photo

Frank TALKER - Truth-Teller