Saturday, 28 August 2010

‘Obama’s Blackness’

(2010)



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

Thursday, 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 (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.

Wednesday, 11 August 2010

Obesity costs billions
(2010)



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 (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, 10 August 2010

‘British Values’

(2010)



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 (http://franktalker.blogspot.com/) 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 (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