Wednesday, 23 June 2010

Britain is Full Up

(2010)



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 (http://franktalker.blogspot.com/) 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 (http://franktalker.blogspot.com/) is included: E-mail notification requested. All other rights reserved. Frank TALKER is also the author of Sweaty Socks: A Treatise on the Inevitability of Toe Jam in Hot Weather (East Cheam Press: Groper Books, 1997) and is University of Bullshit Professor Emeritus of Madeupology.

Friday, 4 June 2010

Just the One Drink?

(2010)



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 (http://franktalker.blogspot.com/) is included: E-mail notification requested. All other rights reserved.

About Us:

My photo

Frank TALKER - Truth-Teller