Wednesday, 24 October 2012

Dear Black South Africa!
(2012)


Enough Hypocrisy!

Bizarre, self-contradictory rant that talks about an ideal world rather than the real one.

Being tired of making White South Africans feel at home means that one has accepted responsibility for this - else why would one be tired? This is the same kind of Black hypocrisy this author accuses Whites of.

Whites have never put their South African‑ness before their whiteness unless Blacks have ever been required to forget all about Apartheid. And, as they say, he who forgets the past is doomed to repeat it.

Claiming Whites share no intimate connection with Europe is nonsense. If true, Whites would have changed to suit the situation in South Africa and not aped European ways - especially by creating Apartheid. The intimate connection they feel is, essentially, homesickness: Their tacit realization that they are not at home in Africa and never will be. (Isn't Africa the White Man's Graveyard, after all?)

Clearly, there is stigma attached to being White in South Africa (remember Apartheid?). Whites are not trusted by Blacks because Whites have shown a historical predilection for White supremacy in all of the 52 White-dominated countries in the world – no exceptions Not only this, but the shame and guilt Whites feels exacerbates the racism they frequently express; making them inherently untrustworthy, not as individuals, but as a culture. This is why so many Whites have left South Africa: Their paranoiac fear of Black revenge for what Whites have done in the past, in the full moral knowledge that it was, and is, wrong. Yet Blacks in the United States never went on the feared vendetta after the emancipation of the Slaves – such fears were merely expressions of what Whites would have done if the situation had been reversed; ie, White Projection & Displacement of their own immorality onto others.

No-one has an unqualified right to practice their culture if it is at the expense of another. Only Whites believe this nonsense. A Black who believes it would welcome the return of Apartheid, if Whites decided it was their right to have it back.

In truth, everyone bears responsibility for the behavior of those who claim to belong to their culture, when all the members of that culture receive a benefit from that behavior. To claim otherwise is to engage in moral evasion. All Whites bear responsibility for White supremacy because they all benefit from it – not just the White supremacists. All Blacks bear responsibility for Black supremacy (if it exists) because they can all benefit from it. Each group must explain what it is doing to root out any cultural defects, since no culture is perfect. That is not happening in this article nor in the country.


Copyright © 2012 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.

Tuesday, 28 August 2012

Obama vs. Whiteness

(2012)


The problem of color is always the biggest challenge faced by non-Whites in a White supremacist culture.

Whites do not believe non-Whites are truly US citizens - and never will. This needs repeating to ensure present and future generations get the message that Whites cannot be trusted because they will always favor positive discrimination for themselves (ie, White supremacy) and not for anyone else (ie, Anti-Racism).

There needs to be a movement on from stating the obvious simply for the sake of stating the obvious to offering ethnic minorities a game-plan for survival and achievement.

For Whites, the skin pigmentation of President Obama is his most important characteristic. This is proven by the fact that Whites constantly mention it - something they have never done for any other United States (US) president. (His skin colour is also why he has received more death threats than any other president.)

Whites are terrified that President Obama will do more for Blacks because he is Black, even though politicians usually do more for the people who voted for them than anyone else. It would be absurd not to help your supporters and turn to your enemies, after all. But Whites are hypocritical about this since they vote for White politicians precisely because they expect to be helped more than non-White voters.

The political policies of President Obama are less important to Whites - these are simply attacked to disguise the fact that his skin color is more than his policies. This is also why Whites refer to him as “Mixed-Race” because the idea that there is some “White” in him comforts them that he is not as allegedly genetically-inferior as Whites would assume what they call a “Pure-Race” Black is.

But “Mixed-Race” implies “Pure-Race” - a bulwark of Nazi ideology. Because Blacks come in many different shades (as do Whites), Whites know that miscegenation has a long history in the US; meaning they know that many White politicians have had to literally Whitewash their family trees to avoid the social and political ostracism attendant upon having any Black family members. No White politician is “Pure-Race” any more than any other politician would be, yet Whites still peddle the myth that some phenotypes are pure, or purer, than others - and President Obama does not belong to the pure category because “Mixed-Race” means not as bad as those really black Blacks - but still never as good as pure Whites.

It is also important to recognize that Whites who vote for him are motivated by shame about the genocidal nature of the US as well as the desperate belief that by voting for a Black man they can somehow absolve themselves of the attendant guilt. Whites contradict themselves by pretending that the moral stain of White supremacy has now - somehow - been washed away by voting for someone on the basis of their skin color (rather than on the basis of their policies). Whites simultaneously claim they are no longer racist while voting according to race - like the White who says they do not see skin color, but only ever says that they do not to people of color.

US Whites have decided on perpetual war, so government spending has to be cut for everything except the war machine. Whites are the most violent people on Earth, so only they will vote for the Grand Old Party (GOP) to keep their Bond-villain like delusions of world-dominating grandeur alive. But White culture is erotophobic, so it reproduces at a lower rate than ethnic minorities; rendering such dreams impossible of achievement.

Better to start such articles with a bulleted list of Whiteness before proceeding to the real issues. Otherwise ethnic minorities are doomed to waste their time focusing upon people they do not like which, historically, usually means becoming like them - as the Zionists have become regarding the Palestinians in Israel.


Copyright © 2012 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.

Saturday, 18 August 2012

Whites Masturbating
(2012)



There is no gene for ethics or morality, so this is just more of the scientific racism one has come to expect from Whites.

There is no proof that genes determine character so this is really a eugenics program to kill-off those one does not approve of. This scientist claims the existence of practical ethics as if there could be such a thing as impractical ethics. Only when ethics is universal can such an idea work, since one could easily - as the Nazis did - conclude that Homosexuals, Jehovah's Witnesses and Freemasons are unethical and destroy them for not being Aryan enough.

It is important for science to stop dabbling in politics unless it has objective proof of its assertions - which it clearly lacks here.

The ethics one claims to be able to produce children to be better able to fit, need to be not practical - whatever that means - but objective. Human beings have never agreed on this and science has never provided an objective basis for such a determination. Moreover, a moral obligation can never exist because morality is about choice, not duty. To claim that such a thing does exist is to tacitly admit one does not understand ethics and that one does not behave in accordance with any of its tenets – precisely because one does not understand the moral life.

Claims like Better or More Intelligent have no objective meaning unless they are scientifically defined. Politically, they mean Conformist and Being Less Prone to Disagree. Claiming responsible parenting is based on Nazi eugenics is a paradox since it means parenting would become no longer necessary to produce good people, since parenting is then transferred to the test tube.

If it is bad to cause harm, then genetically-engineered people will not defend themselves when they are attacked by non genetically-engineered people. The latter will, therefore, be dead and dead people can be neither better nor worse.

There is little evidence for the existence of a natural lottery since Natural Selection is considered synonymous with the concept of Survival-of-the-Fittest - nature screens out useless mutations already. Rational design is not a natural extension of screening for physical diseases since the latter is proven science while the former is not.

All of this gibberish comes down to the tacit admission that Whites have failed to produce ethical cultures because of their preference for such things as White supremacy, Social Snobbery, Sexism, Erotophobia, Pornography, Divorce, Adultery, Alcoholism, Drug-Addiction, etc. Because White culture is essentially a failed culture, Whites now want to try to make people good by accepting bizarre genetic theories and then pretend that these can be used to create better people in the laboratory. Could Whites have been more abjectly-explicit than this at their failure to be as good (or better) than other cultures - who do not face these problems to the same great extent Whites do? Whites have clearly given-up on themselves as viable human beings and are now determined to destroy themselves with pseudo-science because of centuries of guilt for not being as superior as they think they are.

Her is a scientist without scientific merit who bases his work on possibilities, suggestions and likelihoods, tied to his own ball and chain of squeamishness (yet who claims genetically-engineered people are less likely to cause harm - how is that for squeamishness?) and irrationality. Like one of the human-hating charlatans who claims intelligence can be measured, this is a desperate and despairing attempt to make genetics a hard science - as opposed to a soft one - because it cannot make the same hard-&-fast predictions about existence that, for example, chemistry and physics can.


Copyright © 2012 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.

Olympic Hot Air
(2012)



Non Sequitur

Fatima Whitbread was not forced to enjoy Physical Education (PE), yet became a sports star. Yet she claims that children should be compelled to enjoy physical games as an inspiration to the youth of GB (Great Britain). This is a poor means o inspiring the young with basic interest in sports that they can follow outside school, at a more professional level. (Perhaps today’s young should have miserable childhoods to inspire them to perform poorly in academic terms and then, presumably, set themselves up for sports excellence?)

The problem here is the compulsion element Why the need for it when persuasion would be far more productive in enabling the young to enjoy the sports they play and, indeed, anything else? Schools cannot solve social problems like obesity since regular exercise must be self-willed to be successful.

It is better for schools to decide whether the traditional English trade-off between academic and athletic success is worthwhile and whether or not there should be a balance between the two or whether or not schools should focus more on one than the other. Traditional English snobbery means academia is preferred since British universities clearly prefer this form of study; explaining why Great Britain is usually a mediocre performer in world-class athletics. Britain is not about sporting excellence – nor even academic excellence – but about academic uniformity and conformity.

Fatima Whitbread’s argument is also absurd because it posits the notion that people succeed at one thing because they are escaping from something less pleasant. Not success based on free choice of interest, but that based on the same kind of inner compulsions and miseries experienced by serial killers and pedophiles. Compulsion is bad whether it comes from within or from without.

English-leaning politicians also make things worse by being short-termist. They allow a system to fester in which childhood obesity will become the norm; resulting in higher, future healthcare costs. But these costs will be borne after these politicians have either retired or died, so they do not care.

The fact is that Great Britain has decided that athletic achievement is essentially a lower-class endeavor and thus, not to be valorized as highly as academic achievement - as Great Britain has decided that the achievements of Whites are superior to that of Blacks or the achievement of men superior to that of women. (To fund athletic success, Whites would have to fund Blacks. They are not going to do this, so there will be little legacy from the 2012 London Olympics.) A-Levels became easier precisely because of this desire to force academia on children who would have been better-off engaging in more physical pursuits. (The National Curriculum is also a disaster in this regard since it enforces uniformity on the non-uniform; ie, children) And sports clubs are seen as a part-time, less important endeavor, not an alternative to academic schoolwork. This is the real problem here, not compulsory PE.


Copyright © 2012 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, 6 August 2012

A Woman’s Orgasm Can Save a Man
(2012)



Classic tale-wagging-the-dog from Whites who love to confuse sex with desire; need with love.

The issue here is not that men cannot give women orgasms, but that they do not want to because they fear a woman’s sexual pleasure will liberate here to have sex with partners with a better sexual technique because women want sex more than men. Women collude in this by getting angry when men look at and/or fantasize about other women, rather than coming to terms with their own sexual inadequacies in these areas.

Women’s pleasure also produces feelings of jealousy and fear in insecure men who believe personal relationships are all about give and take. If the woman gets more pleasure, then the man has been socially-conditioned to feel cheated of his enjoyment.

Too many men lust after women not for the pleasure they can share, but for the joy they can take or give; resulting in politics being introduced into the bedroom, while spontaneity and sharing fly out the bedroom window. Sex then becomes mutual masturbation and nothing more.

Gynophobic men wish to keep women in sexual ignorance to make it far more easy to control them by suggesting that no other man would be better and that any experimentation on their part would amount to sluttishness and resultant social ostracism. Thus, women must keep their sex lives a secret - even from each other; resulting in a quality of sexual enjoyment that is inversely-proportional to the quantity of sexual experience.

This is how White men control White women and try to ensure regular sexual contacts without the necessity to improve as a sexual partner in the real world of sexual competition. This relates to the White male fear of Black men, given that Whites clearly see that Blacks are not emotionally- and sexually-repressed - as Whites are.

Deep down, White women know that White men are scared of the cunt because of their often quite pronounced mother fixations and homosexuality. Making a woman come will not boost male confidence, it will give men the sense that women’s body are machines that can be manipulated as easily as cars or computers. It will not make them more loving, tender or psychologically secure.

White boys are having problems growing-up in the West because they are attracted to the safe world of pornography and computer games where embarrassment, shame and guilt are sublimated. These things then become increasingly popular in a vicious cycle of sexual-health decline.

You can teach any amount of technique, but you cannot teach desire. This is why Pandas are so difficult to mate in captivity as well as in the wild; suggesting that Whites are becoming something of a living fossil because of the destructive affects of Christian a-sensuality and need for social control in order to obtain any converts at all. For Blacks, of course, this is of great benefit since it means less Whites being born and, thus, less White supremacy.

In the end, if you have to give remedial classes in such things as parenting, then you know the point of no return has already been reached and that, therefore, such curative solutions are not real solutions at all. Better to employ preventives that abolish all the Freudian and Christian nonsense about sex and give children all the prophylaxis and contraception they need.

Whites know this is never going to happen because White self-repression is endemic and so sharing sexual pleasure becomes harder than climbing Mount Everest.


Copyright © 2012 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.

Sunday, 5 August 2012

White Culture



Don’t Buy into It...

Whites are scared that their culture is finally going down the toilet of history, so now they seek to gain attention by being as provocative as they can about how superior they are despite the decline. They see no other way to deal with their failings other than to pretend that they do not really exist while, simultaneously, concluding that they are caused by others.

Creating victims via inappropriate aggression - where none would normally exist - is essential to Whites. Otherwise, they would have no-one to contrast themselves with nor to feel superior towards.

Whites love this sort of rubbish and it is, therefore, essential reading for Blacks since it shows them what Whites are really like - under the skin; saving them the necessity of getting to know any Whites to ensure ones distaste of them is factually based so that Whites cannot counter any accusations of White supremacy laid against Whites by saying that the (Black) accusers do not know any White people.

That so many White women (teachers) read the newspaper is proof of how retarded they are and explains why the UK education system is in the mess it is in.

This is the kind of bile that Whites will produce given that their culture is based on self-hatred and the resulting self-delusion. This is why Whites rarely read non-White newspapers, in case they see themselves as others see them, which would be even more frightening than the content of The Daily Mail.

The other unstated problem here is that print journalism is dying; hence, the desperation to maintain - and possibly even increase - circulation by printing White self-indulgence in the only form of expression open to the volitionally emotionally-repressed and the only non-spontaneous ethnic group: The claim that the world owes it a living by accepting second-class citizenship as a birthright so that Whites can be superior by default and with as little effort as possible. This is Whites letting off steam because of the workaday mundanity of their insular lives.


Copyright © 2012 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.

Thursday, 2 August 2012

How Whites Think


Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Depression, Acceptance...

The reporting is White supremacist precisely because that is how White culture is.

Whites will always claim bad White behavior is individual while bad Black behavior is collective: Whites do not see Blacks as individuals. And Whites commit most of the pedophilia so want to distract attention from their own collusion in the rape of their own children.

The guilt problem is that Whites produce many children who put themselves in danger through bad parenting, yet Whites prefer to claim that the racism of others is at fault and not poor quality upbringings. Ethnic-minority pedophile groups can prey on White girls because they are the easiest, not the Whitest.

Whites never learn from their own history because they have developed selective memories. Whites still wish to scapegoat entire communities for the White failure to develop a culture that is worthwhile rather than simply rapacious. This is why Whites confuse legality with their culture, in the vain hope of legalizing White supremacy.

Despite the lack of evidence of a component of racial aggravation in these cases, Whites still choose to believe that when Blacks commit crimes against Whites it is always racially-motivated. They believe everyone else is as racist as they are on an It-takes-one-to-know-one basis.

Such reporting does not create White supremacy, it is merely a reflection of it. White culture would have no substance whatsoever without its irrational fear of others. That is, in fact, the definition of White culture: Xenophobia.

Whites do not deny that their culture is White supremacist - realistically, they can’t - they will simply defend it with any irrational nonsense to preserve the very sense of superiority causing the problem in the first place.


Copyright © 2012 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.

Thursday, 5 July 2012

Political Masturbation


The gobshite you get when Europeans and former Europeans fight each other over who is the most White supremacist.

Mr Buerk (Cockney slang for "Cunt") works for the Institutionally-Racist BBC - in the Institutionally-Racist UK - while Kirchner is the Institutionally-Racist President of an Institutionally-Racist country.

UK Whites fear that, because it is expensive to defend the Falklands, that Argentina's demands will be a drain on the UK Treasury. They are quite right and so we see here the usual breathtaking hypocrisy and political grandstanding of people whose respective cultures are going nowhere because they come from nowhere.

White supremacists: The greatest satirist could not make them up. If only they could think with what they have between their ears rather than their legs.

The only real question here is who is more moronic.


Copyright © 2012 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.

Big Cats are the Real Cheats

(2012)


The Olympics is a political sham where individuals make what money they can. There is is no sense of the true spirit of the ancient games since the present-day Olympics is based on the fallacy that there is a Brotherhood of Man. Yet, it is not the taking part, it is the winning, since the winning is more celebrated than merely taking part.

Competitors compete as representatives of their respective countries, rarely as individuals. This makes it impossible to criticize any country for its wrongdoing because that would amount to collective punishment - a Nazi-style rebuke. Thus, any country can compete, regardless of their human-rights’ record.

There would be less hypocrisy if competitors competed as individuals, since individuals are easier to rebuke. But this is not likely since, for example, when anyone makes a political statement at the Games they are attacked for bringing politics into sport, when it is already overrun with it. Moreover, countries rarely rebuke themselves - only their citizens are ever likely to do this - and this is precisely what is being avoided by politicians in a rigged game.

UK Black competitors - who have little love for the UK - praise their families and friends (not their country) for any success they earn, because they know their country would much rather White athletes bring home Olympic gold.

Better to honorably take from it what you can, when you can, if you can - rather than waste everyone else’s time whining-on about how tawdry the Olympics always was. Winning a medal when associating with White political swine is still an honorable thing to do, so long as their excrement does not stick to your shoes.


Copyright © 2012 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, 22 June 2012

Hell Hath No Fury...


The real problem is pseudo-educators like this who make self-serving statements about how other people are to blame for the problems that educators create: Exam-obsessed robots produced by examination-factories called schools who are only fit to repeat the thoughts, words and deeds of their teachers; completely unable to think for themselves - as this headteacher is.

It must be terrible to think you are the best yet find that others do things you would secretly like to do - and get paid for doing it. Kim Kardashian is clearly envied by a lot of women who do not share her good looks. Who would you rather have sex with?

Save us from Whites who think they what Western civilization is and that they have the cure for its ill by attacking others, then providing no solutions to the problems they claim to describe. If White girls wish to copy Ms Kardashian that is their problem and not Ms Kardashian's - and Whites would not be complaining about Ms Kardashian is White girls were not copying her.

The problem is that White culture is empty, so it is hardly surprising that such mimicry is taking place since Whites, themselves, have nothing more appetizing to offer in its place. Whites are also obsessed with sex and their children pick this up from an early age.

Perhaps this whiner should tell us what is right about Western civilization and spend a far more productive life concentrating on that, rather than a force of nature like Ms Kardashain - against which she implicitly admits she is powerless to compete.

White whining is what is wrong with Western civilization and will ensure its decline. Only Whites think that obeying their strictures will reverse the Fall from what they conceive of as a White Garden of Eden. For they have eaten from the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge and found themselves not to be gods in their own image.


Copyright © 2012 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.

Sunday, 17 June 2012

Great Britain...?


living in the past means no future

Great Britain has no discernible culture so Whites, themselves, cannot define Britishness. This is because the Irish, the Scots & the Welsh revere their own cultures far more than that of England, and would wish to politically separate themselves from it.

Most of what Britain thinks is indigenous comes from elsewhere. The religion from the Levant; the Pound, the Law, the Weights & the Measures from Italy; and the Language from south India, Germany & France. The greatest street festival in Europe is Black - the Notting Hill Carnival; meaning Whites do not how to enjoy themselves. The national dish of England is curry (from India); meaning the English do not even like their own food.

For themselves, English Whites have only contributed a simulation of their weather as the basis of their temperament: Cold & Unreliable.

As White culture declines, it will be prone to greater and greater displays of jingoism and national chauvinism to solace them for the death of an Empire that the rest of the world was only too happy to see the back of.


Copyright © 2012 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, 15 June 2012

Falklands To Hold Vote On Sovereignty


Elections in the UK and Argentina would be needed to make them fair to the disputing parties and would be a matter of how much interest each government could generate and the relative sizes of the populations. This would ensure elections for all interested parties and not just those who share the occupiers view; the latter making such elections a foregone conclusion and, therefore, a pointless waste of time and money.

Disenfranchising the poor was tried in the UK by making property ownership a condition of being allowed to vote; ensuring that the political status quo would be maintained. This did not work because the votes of the poor were needed and to have refused them would have led to revolution. This is why doing the same in the Falklands will not work because those you oppose will see such democracy for what it is - as ersatz as asking a Gibraltarian if they want to be Spanish. This would have the side benefit of letting the Islanders know whether or not the British really gives a damn about them or whether they should simply bite the bullet and accept Argentina as its motherland.

A leaseback arrangement whereby a temporary period of dual sovereignty - to iron out all political problems - would be followed by complete sovereignty for Argentina. this would be generational (eg, a 25-year period) to get the islanders used to the idea.

Otherwise, the Falklands would have to become a permanently militarized dependent zone - like Israel - and similarly supported by a foreign power for a fortune in sterling, all this while Britain declines economically and the EU falters and no end to the dispute on the horizon. Even if enough oil is discovered to defray such defense costs, there are not enough people on the island to withstand a military assault from Argentina. The islanders would then have to rely on the colonial power (the UK) to supply manpower and/or employ mercenaries. The UK’s military is stretched elsewhere and so would not be enough to ensure victory or deterrence. If islanders become rich, would they not wish to live elsewhere?

Any further UK military adventures might give the Argentinians the impression that the UK would be unable to defend the Islands with fewer naval resources at its disposal today than it had in 1982. Either way, the cost would be prohibitive and would absorb much of any oil revenue; making such oil of little actual economic benefit to the Islanders - as we saw in Scotland when it did not devolve from the UK in 1979 and most of the North Sea oil money went to England.

Whites here still want to play imperial games and, even though the Raj is dead, there is still some foreign territory with a tinpot Raj that they can feel godlike about. How are the mighty fallen, from an Empire of 34 million square kilometers down to only 2. This is why so much White emotional illogic is being thrown at this issue because Whites are still whining about the loss of the Empire and refuse to move on and get a life. Whites still think that any part of the world is potentially British - no matter how absurd or difficult the location nor how pointless the effort. This uneconomic attitude is why the Empire declined, in the long run.

If Spain, absurdly, decided to occupy one of the unoccupied British Isles, in revenge for the occupation of Gibraltar, the problems for Spain would be the same. An expensive military force surrounded by a nearby hostile enemy for little economic gain.

The morality and ethics of this situation is simple: Realism and practicality is the only way forward. There is no need to talk about the history of the situation since people then get bogged down in disputes that do not matter anymore - unless you want them to and choose to live in the past when a loaf of bread only coat a ha'penny and you could go to the pictures and still have change from sixpence.

The basic issue here is fundamental, as it was with India: When the Natives get restless, you either have to reinforce the garrison at a cost greater than the economic value of the colony, or leave. Brits need to face a truth they hate: The Natives here are the Argentinians, because it is their backyard since the Falklands are not within UK territorial waters and so not a part of the UK. They are simply the leftovers of a failing Empire. And going into someone else’s backyard to claim the backyard is always going to result in fisticuffs - as happened in so many parts of the former Empire.

(Although the Falklands War could have easily been avoided, it was necessary to fight it to uphold the principle that political disputes should be resolved by diplomatic means whenever possible.)

Few Whites have any practical suggestions to make. In the absence of realism, they resort to flag-waving in the hope this will distract them from the reality of the situation: The British Empire is moribund and became so because the costs of garrisoning it got too high to justify its continuance. Only by accepting this simple fact can the future prosperity of the Falklands be assured, since it will create attempts to live in peace with the Argentinians rather than the demanded for a continuous state of war. And war economies - like that in Northern Ireland - provide prosperity to no-one because of the inordinately high costs involved in terms of lives lost and money wasted. Defending the falklands is simply impractical. Jingoism is a desperairing recognition of this simple fact. The Argentinians benefit from pressurizing the British here because the latter then have to waste billions of pounds every year to garrison the Islands - money the Argentinians do not have to pay.

This is the reality of the present situation - there is no other. Anything else is just jingoism and national chauvinism from people who have nothing substantive in their own lives about which to feel justly proud. A typical attitude of post-imperial ennui and gloom. Britain loses nothing from handing over the Falklands to Argentina and may even gain an understanding of its declining place in the world such that corrective measures are taken to form a new polity based on trade. Not very likely since every Empire that died, never recovered. But you never know, the British Empire could be the first.

Imperial mindsets live in an ideological fantasy-world where human lives are statistical abstractions to be forgotten about as soon as learned. No matter how much you might dislike the Argentinians, you are - at some point - going to have to negotiate with them - as was done with the Provisional IRA; even though Western governments regularly claim they do not talk to the very terrorists they do talk with. Someone here needs to get real: You have to negotiate with people whether you like them or not.

Whites also play the race card by supporting Whites in their demand for the protection of the UK government but were never vociferous when Black Kenyans made the same claim when Kenya was a British colony. (In fact, the law was changed to make it harder for Commonwealth citizens to claim UK citizenship - after all of the wealth Blacks generated for Whites, this seemed a mite ungrateful.) A perfect example of how Institutionally-Racist the British Empire truly was, and remains.


Copyright © 2012 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, 2 March 2012

Cultural Identity

(2012)



(Adapted from Cheikh Anta DIOP)



Three dominant factors contribute to the formation of cultural identity:

  1. Historical;
  2. Linguistic;
  3. Psychological.

All three are necessary for the fullest sense of self.


Historical Factor

This is the cultural cement that unifies the disparate elements of a people to make them into a whole. This allows a people to distinguish themselves from other cultures with a different history; creating the necessary cohesion for a secure culture to transmit its history down the generations in order to safeguard that culture. However, this history must be true - not propaganda - otherwise the culture will be inherently weak through having to waste time defending the indefensible; political ideology masquerading as objective history.

The thread of continuity which connects people to their past provides a bulwark against external aggression, this is why colonization, enslavement and a debasement of a people requires the erasing of any oppressed culture's history. One's past need not be grandiose, it simply must exist in and of itself – continuity (born of knowledge), is itself, more important than the bigness of ones claims about one's culture.

Without a true history, a people becomes a mere set of population statistics – an abstraction – not a true, fully self-realizing people. Any loss of national sovereignty interrupts the historical continuity necessary for a culture to exist; engendering stagnation (or even regression), disintegration and the partial return to barbarism. A culture that never developed a true culture never really left barbarism behind to begin with, as happened in Ancient Egypt under Roman occupation, despite the fact that Egypt had civilized the world to begin with. A people leaves prehistory behind when it becomes conscious of the importance of history; necessitating the invention of a technique – written or oral – for its accumulation, memorization and transmission.


Linguistic Factor

The most important means of communicating history is a written (or a spoken) language. Because history shapes language, both the form and the content of the language are equally important. Languages follow migratory currents and the particular destinies of peoples, so linguistic fragmentation is the rule. Yet, this heterogeneity hides a kinship; revealing that today's languages sprang from a unitary source; matching the alleged monogenetic origins of human life on Earth and explaining why the oldest written languages originated in Egypt 5,300 years ago. In terms of colonization, all attempts at expanding a mode of expression by official fiat leads to the detriment of one people or another for the benefit of the expanders.


Psychological Factor

Whites have been the only culture in history to decide that the psychological makeup of others is inferior to their own, so that they could try to exploit others (in order to vainly avoid feelings of guilt or shame). Galen (2nd century AD) believed that Blacks had inordinately long penises and a strong propensity for laughter – a belief that has yet to die 1,900 years later; proving its necessity for White supremacism to continue to benefit Whites. The White belief that skin color determines character is the kind of self-fulfilling prophecy endemic in White culture. It helps explain the fact that so many Whites become psychological cripples because of the shame and guilt at discovering no evidence to support their contention of White supremacy. Yet, they continue to believe in it as though belief itself makes it true – as though believing in fairies makes them a living reality. Cultures that believe and practice such nonsense are doomed – both the originators of such claptrap and their intended victims.

This last factor is subjective and qualitative while the Historical and Linguistic factors are susceptible of rigorous scientific measurement. The Psychological factor is a matter of that great abstraction called national temperament and not of genetics. Asking what characteristics never change, despite violent political upheavals, can test this Psychological factor. Blacks' communicative gaiety is a result of reassuring communally-securing social structures; creating a lack of obsessive concern for the future; optimism; goodness; and, community-mindedness. The individualistic social-structures of Whites engender anxiety; pessimism; uncertainty about tomorrow; moral solitude; and, tension about the future amid all its beneficial material effects. There is nothing genetic in this, despite Galen, only the profound psychological affect of any given culture.


Conclusion

There is nothing fixed nor permanent about any of these factors since they change with the prevailing political conditions: A state of permanent flux, as it were. Migration can break linguistic and historical bonds but psychological bonds can remain. This is why the only way to destroy a culture is to commit the near-impossible 100% genocide upon its people.




Lengthy response to: lou sid linesman

Thank you for your kind words.

Frank TALKER did mean to use the word "affect" (verb transitive: To act upon; to infect or attack as or like a disease; to influence; to move the feelings of) (not "effect" [noun: The result of an action; the impression produced; the meaning conveyed]) in his post because affect is a verb relating to the subjective effect of White supremacism on all people. Effect was used to label the political effect of same.

Frank TALKER's experience has been that it is only worth doing something right if it is done in public and the result is meant to last. All experimentation should take place in private - to avoid potential shame and embarrassment. Perfectionism can lead to the paralysis arising from the dread of making public mistakes - a fear less likely to show itself in private. (Some actors love multiple "takes" when making movies but, since the results are public and permanent, their perfectionism is understandable. And yet the same actors can be prepared to make umpteen mistakes during rehearsals, so are not as prissy as they might, at first, appear.) Context is all-important here.

Your comment on the form and content of Frank TALKER's words is interesting, but Frank TALKER is not talking about himself. He, therefore, makes no attempt to get anyone to like him, since he discusses a reality that exists outside his own head and which existed before he was born. Personal issues are not relevant here (especially in a blog unequivocally-labelled "POLITICS") only objective truth - no matter how painful that may be. An emotionally-cold style is therefore essential to make this primary point clear - and all the points that necessarily flow from it, as well as to avoid any accusation of bias or partiality. This is also why Frank TALKER writes in the third-person. The first-person is subjective and the second-person very offensive to those who make the political decision to take Frank TALKER's comments personally, when these comments are clearly-presented impersonally - like the scientific statement that: For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. It is easy to see how this last statement can become personal if rewritten; eg, Anything you can do I can do better! The latter statement requires a personal knowledge of the person speaking to determine its veracity; the former only an impersonal knowledge of physics. For this reason, 'a cursory pen-picture, outlining frank talker's basic character motivation' would assist no-one in knowing whether what Frank TALKER says is true. The only way to know this is to eidetically-appreciate the nature of objective reality and compare this appreciation with Frank TALKER's statements. Either by analysing the given statement to see if it makes sense, in itself (eg, "All married men are bachelors" makes no sense because of the definitions of the words involved, so no survey of outside reality is necessary to know this). And, if it makes sense comparing it with objective reality (eg, "There is a gorilla in the backyard" makes sense as a stand-alone statement, but not if there are no gorillas in the backyard). Nowhere in what Frank TALKER says is there a need for any personal engagement with Frank TALKER, since this would be to confuse the personal with the political, such that anything Frank TALKER says can simply be put down to a superficial character or a defective personality. It is Frank TALKER's greatest wish to avoid such confusion and, like Jack Webb in Dragnet, focus solely on 'just the facts'. (This is why Frank TALKER's "About Me" contains nothing about Frank TALKER.)

Frank TALKER cannot possibly be an 'honest racist who, with absolute intellectual rigour and integrity, hates both races in equal measure (there exist only two races in frank's world)'. Frank TALKER accepts that there is only one species of human being - homo sapiens sapiens - and one cannot hate that which does not exist. People who try merely hate themselves and there is no evidence that Frank TALKER hates himself. It is an inherent fallacy to assume that just because one talks as if something exists that it does. If this were so, then the mere existence of the words "God", "Santa Claus" & "Master Race" would prove the existence of these entities. Frank TALKER clearly sees - along with the Feminists - that there is a political reality created by Humankind and a metaphysical reality created by Mother Nature. The former is a creation of people's minds, which may or may not relate to reality; eg, Flat-Earth Catholicism or Soviet psychiatry. The latter is always objective, so can never be gainsaid without risking one's mental health; eg, What goes up must come down or two plus two equals four. Frank TALKER must address both, to fully address reality, since hallucinations like White supremacism, the existence of the subconscious and religion are, like all hallucinations, existents; albeit only to their adherents. This is why experience and empirical research are so important to save us from those who would wish to claim that only they know the truth and that we must, therefore, follow them. Such people always disparage science because they can never get science to agree with their wayward ideas. When Frank TALKER talks about what Whites call "race", he avoids the term precisely because its existence suggests that something it labels actually exists - a plurality of "races"; regardless of the fact that no biologist, anywhere in the world, has ever demonstrated this to be the case. It is a political fact, not a scientific one, yet must be discussed as if it were objectively true precisely because lives are at stake.

You are correct in your analysis that Whites, in particular, have a problem with objective reality because there lies the proof that a White supremacist country is a lazy one peopled by those who want the self-created advantages of Caucasia without having to work for them, other than engage in the guilt-ridden doublethink necessary to pretend that such advantages do not exist. The many Whites-only debates about positive discrimination, for example, prove that Whites claim Blacks should get no special help; while tacitly stating that Whites, themselves, should continue to get such help from White supremacism. Such debates are, themselves, White supremacist. White supremacists are the ones most offended by being told the truth about White supremacism: White supremacists can never truly know who they are since they can never truly know if his achievements are the result of White supremacism or their own abilities. Such knowledge can only come from unaided adult effort which, for Whites, means renouncing the benefits of White supremacism - or remain in thrall to the gilded cage of White supremacism for the rest of their lives. The negative affects of the latter upon the White ego and self-respect are all too obvious and largely result in violent rage at the man who tells them that their culture is a giant confidence trick designed to get them material benefits at the cost of their very humanity. Whites are angry because they realise that this means living only half a life in a culture based on the quicksand of unearned privilege, where personal relationships become difficult because personal honesty has become so; making Whites endemically-frustrated with regard to emotions and self-knowledge. This creates a culture based solely on hierarchy, where equity (the basis of all successful personal relationships) can never thrive since everyone is desperately trying to one-up each other in order to prove either superiority or inferiority. This fear-of-self is like the specious attempt to forget something painful: The more you try to forget, the more you remember, since you must first remember just what it is you are trying to forget. This is why forgetting and remembering are never true antonyms, but are, in fact, synonyms.

Again, you are correct: '[I]ntellectually racist' is an oxymoron, since you can either be an intellectual or a racist - never both. The implication of such a statement is that Frank TALKER is disagreed with, but the person disagreeing lacks the intellect to construct a logical refutation. The word "intellect" is being used as a pejorative, when it would not be so used if, for example, an "intellectual" discovered the cure for cancer. It is not so much that Frank TALKER is 'extremely perceptive', it is more that he sees the world with the open, uncaring eyes of a child, since to do otherwise is to accept the mean-mindedness and resentment of an existence based solely on the scrabble for material wealth. (This is why Frank TALKER uses the image of a child thinking as his About Me image.) Also, Frank TALKER does not wish to die - either emotionally or physically - since, in White culture, statements that challenge White hegemony can lead to murder. No White - in all of the 115,000 years of the White phenotype's existence - ever really practices the old nonsense about not agreeing with what you say, but being prepared to die for your right to say it, do they?

Some have indeed asked who Frank TALKER is, but the irrelevance of the question proves the irrelevance of the questioner since, as already stated, it is the statement that has to be analysed (ad rem) and not the stater (ad hominem) in order to determine the validity of the statement. Anything else is just cynicism and a vain attempt to claim that the pot is calling the kettle black.

The fact that White supremacist feelings are common for Whites does not mean that 'we all have them', since it is hard to find any culture other than White that indoctrinates its young in this way (Moreover, Whites make up only 8% of the world's population.) You could only assume such a thing if a Black had ever abused you because of your (white) skin colour - which has never happened. Frank TALKER has always found that those who get most heated about White supremacism are White supremacists, precisely because they have the most to lose from its collapse as a cultural practice. You conflate self-expression with attention-seeking and intensity-of-feeling with frustration. Self-expression could just as easily be the result of having something to say and needing to say it to avoid the very frustration of which you speak; while intensity of feeling can just as easily be associated with empathy, sexual excitement or just having heard a really good joke. None of these emotions should lead to any kind of frustration, so long as you do not believe that the world owes you a living - as frustrated attention-seekers always do. After all, people are not frustrated because they cannot get what they want; they are frustrated because they do not know how to get what they want. The word you are looking for here is: Impatience. (It is also illogical to suggest that someone who wishes to stay anonymous is an attention-seeker, since anonymity is the very activity that would ensure no attention!)

If you really want to understand what Frank TALKER stands for (you cannot know who he is, unless you meet him) you could do no better than read The Autobiography of Malcolm X. This book will also help you understand your own culture better.


Copyright © 2011 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