Friday, 10 December 2004


This so-called Black-on-Black racism is nowhere near as important as White-on-Black - in numerical terms - so this question is an attempt by Whites (& their fellow travellers) to run away from the essential facts of White racism. While tacitly admitting - in the process - that White racism does exist and is somehow on an equality with, or even not as bad as, Black Racism.

The question is not, as implied: Are UK ethnic minorities racist? But: Are UK ethnic minorities as racist as the ethnic majority? This is an admission that White racism is as endemic as the question implies ethnic-minority racism is. But, how do you measure the extent and intensity of racism or any other personal attitude?

The intelligent form of the question would be: Are the would-be victims of racism as racist as the would-be racists. Given, for example, the current situation in Israel, the answer would appear to be: You can easily become what you hate. Because ‘minorities’ is plural and ‘majority’ always singular there’ll be more cultural abrasion between minorities – as opposed to with the majority - simply because there are more cultures to abrade.
It’s no business of Whites if Blacks are racist toward Blacks, since this is an area outside White competence - they’re unable to renounce their own racism, in the main, so how dare they criticise Blacks.

Black Racism is something that Blacks must address, as Whites must address their own racism, without using Black Racism as a justification for the White version: The disguised point of asking the question. It’s an attempt to claim that Whites can do whatever Blacks do no matter how unethical; while, moreover, claiming ethics as a relative (not an absolute) science solely dependent on what others think they can get away with. ‘If you can rape your daughter, then I can rape her’ is the White logic here; the wish is that the ethics of rape can be successfully evaded.

By trying to focus on Black racism, Whites hope to occult their own - and they would only want to do this if they recognise (deep down) how racist they really are themselves. This also proves a White unwillingness to tackle their racism because they know it’s ingrained and, therefore, harder to remove because so many more Whites than Blacks are racist as a percentage in Western Culture.

Whites also refuse to admit that Blacks have an ethical reason to be racist since they can use racism against Whites, for example, for self-defence. Whites can’t do this because Blacks aren’t a rational threat to Whites - only an hysterical one. This makes White claims of self-defence against Black Racism both legally and ethically untenable. In other words, Black distrust of Whites is perfectly justified given that Whites tend toward self-induced racism; while White distrust of Blacks was caused mainly by White racism. No White can demonstrate, historically, that Blacks were racist first, after all. This is true no matter how hard Whites claim that their racism is based on a Black inferiority they’ve never been able to prove - despite the great advances of western science.

Whites have little reason to fear Blacks since Whites in the West vastly outnumber Blacks. It’s only future Black numerical growth that Whites really fear, which they hope to nip-in-the-bud by stigmatising miscegenation. Black racism isn’t as important as White racism since there are many more Whites who can be racist and much fewer Blacks who can – the question is a deliberate distraction from this essential fact. On average, therefore, there must be many more White racists than Black. Because the racial proportion in the UK is at least ten-to-one, there should be at least ten times as many White racists as Black. And, in a figurative sense, ten times the Black distrust of Whites.

Racism is endemic in White Culture, so asking if Blacks are racist is like asking if the few who believe the earth is flat are as stupid as those who don’t. It doesn’t matter who’s more stupid than the other, only that those who are racist (flat-earthers) don’t gain, or influence those in, power. It’s irrelevant so long as one group numerically outnumbers the other, and holds most of the reins of authority, since it’s no more than an attempt to justify and excuse White racism.

Such a question is a vain White attempt to evade the racism inherent in the question and its motivation: To blame Blacks for the racism they experience from Whites by claiming Blacks are no better. This means racism’s OK so long as no-one can be shown to be immune from engaging in it. The only means for Whites to do this is for them to be more (not less) racist so that others have to respond in kind. And, if everyone is, thereby, racist; no one has any reason to try to be what others clearly cannot. This, in a sense, is the only racial equality possible. The question is, thus, an attempt to incite and increase racism because this is in the interests of those Whites who refuse to renounce racism as a political practice. This shows the sheep-like mentality of White Culture. It explains why, for example, Hitler (the White man’s White man?) was able to kill so many Jews. Most Whites can only identify themselves as part of a group to whom obedience must be absolute - no matter the ethical character of the group. Have you ever heard of a Black claiming he was only following orders after committing a war crime? No. He accepts responsibility for his act; few Whites (like Albert Speer) ever do.

The question also makes clear that those Whites who ask it (as well as those Blacks who masochistically want Whites to like them) aren’t prepared to renounce their racism until those they hate do. Like saying to your girlfriend, I won’t love you until you love me. But then who loves first?

The race guilt most Whites feel about their endemic racism results from the fact that Whites enjoy a standard-of-living mostly obtained by 500 years of slavery and 300 years of imperialism. This makes them alternately guilt-ridden and self-abasing; while simultaneously wanting to conceal the fact that their culture is based on little more than theft, by claiming Blacks are inferior. Political correctness is the ultimate symbol of this shame since it doesn’t effectively deal with any issue - by trying to hide them. This makes these Whites victims of their own inability to see others as individuals; instead of as members of (greater or lesser) racial groupings.

What Whites hate the most is that the existence of Blacks reminds them of slavery and their extensive part in it. Although Whites today have no real reason to feel guilty about this, because it happened so long ago, they still do. Whites know that their current wealth is on the back of raw slave-muscle yet show Blacks little gratitude for this: Hence few memorials to the slaves, but many to the slave traders. To express such thanks would be to admit that such appreciation was too long in coming. Instead, such Whites want to evade their guilt feelings by pretending that Blacks are just as bad as they are.

Whites can’t even see other Whites as individuals as seen, for example, in their rigidly-hierarchical class-system and the institutional misogyny implied by the widespread White obsession with pornography. If Blacks were portrayed as lower-class dole-scroungers, accusations of racism would abound - yet lower-class Whites are often portrayed in this way, with far fewer accusations of classism. If Black women were portrayed as sexual objects in White porn, it would be accused of racism, yet White women are often shown in this light. These double standards not only demonstrate racism, but the class-consciousness and the misogyny eating away at the otherwise fantastic achievements of Western Culture - destroying that way of life from within as surely as inoperable cancer.

Because one can’t prove a negative; ie, that one is not a racist. And because Whites have chosen not to prove a positive; ie, that they actually like Blacks, Whites adopt the most morally weak-kneed and defensive posture possible: Proving that Blacks are as racist, if not more so, than they are. Yet Whites don’t need to like Blacks - friendship is never compulsory - they simply need to keep out of Blacks’ way while each group goes about its lawful business. Racist Whites also cannot prove that Blacks should like them as much as they’d like them to - and in their vengeful spite they want to traduce Blacks as being no better than they are. This is the greatest proof of White race-guilt and failure to adequately tackle the racism inherent in White Culture. It proves that many Whites aren’t as superior as they’d like to believe and wish to blame this essential failing on Blacks.

The question lies at the same level of intellectual inadequacy as: Are White men’s penises smaller than Black men’s? And, the answer is the same: Yes, of course they are, but why does size matter? It’s a competition to see who’s the most or the least racist (who’s the most or the least well-endowed). Only a racist would ever enter such a competition (as only a man with a small penis ever worries over penis size).

Questions that beg other questions are badly formulated and mean the questioner hasn’t understood the situation. The issue is not who is more, or less, racist than whom, but why and what is to be done about it.

Wednesday, 17 November 2004

Racists are among us

The British National Party (BNP) - and those like them - have already infiltrated schools – as paedophiles have infiltrated the Roman-Catholic clergy and refugees our porous national-borders. Schools are part of society - not ring-fenced from it by guardian angels: Poor Black educational-performance partly proves this, after all. That so-called experts claim to fear such infiltration proves how little they know of their own culture – at the deepest level - and suggests they’d much rather not turn over that particular racist-rock to see fully the creepy-crawlies wriggling underneath.

‘…Education experts fear this may be the tip of the iceberg’. In what area of life is a given visible phenomenon ever LESS than the part that remains unseen? I ask you! What do experts know? This is a statement of the bleeding obvious from those who shouldn’t merely be describing the nature of objective reality (ie, what one already knows!) but proposing workable-solutions. But, do they ever? Of course they don’t. That would require genuine expertise!

These so-called experts don’t provide answers because they believe racial integration is more important than the lives of Blacks – especially if such integration does more harm to Blacks than good. Their ideological White self-obsession with papering-over-the-cracks in UK race-politics (ie, ethnic window-dressing) proves this and can easily get Blacks killed while racists go about their largely-unseen dirty work.

The real problem is what to do with racists - once found - and how Blacks can pre-emptively protect themselves not racial integration, since the latter makes Blacks easy target for White-racist attack.

If racists are anywhere, then they’re everywhere – and we all know it: The same is true for rapists, burglars and Jehovah’s Witnesses. The problem isn’t stopping them from choosing racism as a political philosophy – one can’t – especially the ones who don’t make it obvious what they really think. (Only Whites could ever posit the existence of radical UK-Muslim sleeper [ie, invisible] cells in order to justify their acceptance of the Police Service’s racial-harassment of UK Muslims; while simultaneously believing that interviewing prospective candidates can weed out racists. Maybe the same procedure could be used for UK Muslims to ascertain their support, or otherwise, for the teachings of one Usama bin Laden. Or maybe it’s just that most Whites are just basically stupid.) If racists are sensible, they ain’t gonna make it obvious who, or what, they are! And, despite appearances to the contrary, not all racists are as idiotically visible as anti-racists. If they were, they’d’ve been less able to reproduce; while being more noticeable targets.

The fact that ordinary Whites are allowed onto school Boards-of-Governors with little or no scrutiny – despite the endemic nature of White UK Racism – was only asking for trouble (which Blacks will always have). Targeting the BNP only encourages Whites to believe that the BNP are the issue, when it’s really the racist structure of White Culture that is – of which the BNP are merely an outgrowth. Such a focussing on a lame-duck political organisation lets the majority of Whites off the racial hook far too easily; while allowing them to pretend that they care about Blacks and wish desperately to do something against White Racists. But not, you’ll note, White Racism – which these kinds of White public-relations’ exercises – in effect - further promote by refusing to do anything practical against underlying issues.

Professor Gus John is wrong when he says: ‘BNP members would be a disaster for schools’ since racists are already members of a racist school-system. The idea that you can prevent racists from joining (or root them out at some latter date) is pure pie-in-the-sky. One would do just as well to claim that one could unbake a cake and remove the vanilla essence if one’s child is allergic to that kind of flavouring. Professor of what, may I ask? Made-up-ology!

Professor John saying BNP members were likely to ‘cause harm and detriment’ to children is stunning understatement; while former school-governor Maureen McNorthey waffling-on about ‘right wing views’ suggests she thinks Conservative-Party members should be excluded. Socialists only, yes? That’s absurd: The debate’s about people with PARTICULAR right-wing views, not the right wing in its entirety.

(Since ‘black history’ doesn’t actually exist [any more than White History does], it would be an excellent idea if governors could prevent headteachers introducing such history. Its existence strangely-implies Blacks have somehow led some kind of a different life - in an alternate dimension - from Whites: Outside of Dr Who this serves no-one’s interests. True history deals in relationships between people [& peoples] not so much in their Apartheid. It only deals with issues of race if they’ve been politicised at various historical periods. The concept of Black History is tantamount to an Alex Haley-type fabrication of history that was ‘Roots’ [& his White counterpart, David Irving]. This simply foregrounds Blacks as White History foregrounds Whites – such history never leads to an understanding of the past because it doesn’t adequately explain the relationships between the races; only serving to emphasise the [most non-existent] differences. This is exactly what racists do and for the same reason – to claim that any differences are genetic and not just political.)

This lack of a truly-effective ability to prevent racists from getting a hold on the minds of White kids, means Black parents taking their children out of state schools and educating them either privately or at home. (For reasons of enhanced personal-security and/or improved educational-performance.) Blacks know that Whites aren’t going to protect Black children, before their own offspring, when push comes to shove. So better not to put Whites in that difficult ethical-position of being forced to make a negative choice regarding Blacks that most’ve already made (but will never admit to), by removing ones hated-presence from theirs – whenever possible.

These kinds of problems will never go way until the last racist has dropped dead, of something or other, and racist eugenics (like phrenology) becomes a thoroughly-discredited pseudo-science. Any reasonably-intelligent human being knows this isn’t likely to happen any day soon.

Saturday, 30 October 2004


Whites now want to label the rest of the UK's population as being as screwy as they usually are by new mental-health laws. This could make everyone frightened that even the slightest aberration from what Whites deem as normal behaviour will provide the excuse Whites usually don't need to vent their racial hatreds on those they decide to call abnormal. How likely is it that a White is going to deem another White crazy compared to a Black? Not very since Whites spend very little time engaging in Black Culture and can't, therefore, have any idea what sort of behaviour is considered normal among Blacks.

This bill is yet another White attempt to criminalize strange and (literally) foreign behaviour. Like Apartheid and Soviet Psychiatry, it’s designed to make being (culturally) different a reason for curtailing the human rights of those so labelled. Because Whites tend to be clone-like in their behaviour and attitudes, this makes being a so-called non-White an effective crime. (Adding to the various racist immigration-legislation, for example, that the UK has saddled itself with since 1905.)

Whites invented psychoanalysis because they need it the most; being anally retentive, and all - necessity being the mother of invention. (Only the White Race could possibly imagine, after all, that hardcore pornography like ‘The Lover’s Guide’ could make anyone a better lover – don’t they know how to pleasure a woman, already? Or perhaps they truly believe that watching a video of Glenn Gould playing the Goldberg Variations will make the watcher a virtuoso musician?)

Most Whites are terrified of behaving differently from one another since they fear being ostracised from their own communities by so doing. This Whites now propose to legally enforce for Blacks because overt racism has failed to get Blacks to become honorary Whites. This is why so many White neurotics and schizophrenics writhe in silent agony because they know that their suffering will never be properly addressed by a psychiatric profession obsessed with the twin evils of psychotropic drugs (Ritalin, Prozac, lithium, etc) and electro-convulsive therapy. Such a reliance is merely an attempt to convince the layman that psychology is the science it isn’t because of the ultimate failure of behaviourism and couch therapy to help those unwilling to make their emotions fit reality. Psychiatry is truly the disease for which it pretends to be the cure.

Whites are having a bit of a wet dream over this idea since it presents them with the delicious fantasy of silencing Black dissent in the manner of a Jack Nicholson in the movie ‘One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest’.

The only long-term solution for Blacks regarding such laws is to ensure that when in any situation where Whites are likely to be present, to behave just like the majority of them and to blend in like the chameleon. This is especially true if Whites try to provoke Blacks into anger – as is their wont – since this then provides a basis for Black detention. When Blacks are solely with each other, they can act as they – and not as Whites – see fit. Avoiding Whites, in this way is an excellent means of maintaining mental-health because if you spend too much time with those who invented the concept of mental illness, you’re likely to end up like them. Mental illness is, in fact, a myth invented by Whites to label those they really don’t understand.

The worst aspect of all this is that White psychiatry – in its standard textbooks – contains no objective definition of normality nor sanity. This means there’s no real way of knowing who’s as nutty-as-a-fruitcake compared with those making such assessments – which is why at least two healthcare professionals need to do this and not just one. And, most of the therapists I’ve known are as screwed up as their clients – which is why they joined the profession in the first place.

This law is a conflation of the usual White, ignorant fear of madness with their bigoted fear of Blackness. The stiff upper-lip was invented by Whites to create a mask of normality behind which dark, repressed urges lie – urges to project-and-displace their self-hatred onto scapegoats.

One interesting benefit to Blacks of such laws is that they can use them to accuse certain Whites of being disturbed. Racism, for example, is always the product of affectionless childhoods resulting in the inability of the racist to develop a self-identity that isn’t other-fixated. This could mean locking-up BNP supporters. Yippee! And, should mean less racial assault and murder.

If loony bins become even more like the prisons they’ve already become, it’s obvious people won’t want to be treated at all and will expend vast amounts of the emotional energy they lack in vainly hiding their symptoms. This’ll make them more likely to be a danger to the community if these are psychotic symptoms and make the murders the hysterical White tabloids scream about more – not less – likely. Better for Blacks, therefore, to avoid Whites altogether if they wish not to be killed by a White sociopath.

A refugee-from-reality like Health Minister, John Reid, will never admit the NHS is institutionally racist. It’s better for Blacks to keep their problems away from the prying eyes of Whites and deal with them with those they trust; that is, within their own communities.


The truth is that so long as a single White racist exists anywhere on the surface of the planet there will never be an end to White Racism. An obvious point, but well worth repeating because obvious points are the easiest to forget.

It’s more productive to fight for publicity rather than simply justice since racist Whites will spend a lot of their unearned wealth and privileges trying to cover up their fundamentally unjust natures and activities. They think they can engage in public-relations’ exercises as a substitute for fundamental social-change to convince others that the White-racist leopard has finally changed his spots. All because he has no desire actually to do so since he perceives no benefit to him in so doing.

The supreme value of publicity is that it keeps BMEs crucially aware that racist Whites (the agents of racism) and most other Whites (those complicit in racism because they do nothing to prevent or stop it) will always try to claim that proof is the basis of all human action. Because much White racist activity can never be proven, it doesn’t exist. (But, since the existence of love cannot be proven does this mean there’s no love in the world? And certainly not in the racist mind.) Blacks know that it’s belief: The belief (in this context) that Whites – as a whole - can’t be trusted that moves mountains. White police-officers, after all, aren’t exactly ambassadors for their race nor its alleged cultural and genetic superiority. If White Culture is ever able to convince Blacks otherwise, through words alone and not action, Blacks won’t last very long in a White Culture determined to submerge Blacks in its essential materialism, self-hatred and ongoing economic decline.

Racist Whites know that if they can convince Blacks of the essential goodness of the White Race (ie, its inherent superiority) Whites can continue to be racist with impunity because Blacks will then be lulled into a false sense of security. The ultimate victory of White Racism would be to get Blacks to like them: To get Blacks to be complicit in their own oppression; to give racist Whites a moral sanction for their hatreds.

In truth, the relatives of those who’ve died in custody already know the causes of, and reasons for, their loved ones’ death: White Racism. Only by facing this fact can Blacks avoid the same fate in future. Do business with Whites, be acquainted with them, but never become their friends nor lovers – it’s far more dangerous to ones health than smoking ever was.

David Blunkett is in the difficult position of wanting his Police Service (not anybody else’s) to have faith in him as the Secretary of State for the Home Department. But, he can’t do this when so many of his officers are White Racists. This is why he’s tried to bury the Macpherson Report because it effectively ties his hands in his relationships with senior police-officers. It simultaneously requires him to work closely with them while tacitly claiming that they can’t be trusted because they tolerate racism among their White officers. This makes him complicit in such racism.

It’s absolutely essential - given the police racism exposed here - that all Blacks ensure their children are educated in the laws of England and Wales to help protect them from those Whites who’d wish them harm. Sad to say, deaths in custody and detention are excellent publicity for the fact that racist Whites have a long way to go before they can ever be accepted into the association of civilised peoples to which most of their would-be victims belong.


Peter Herbert’s supporters are essentially correct, the ‘real reason for the disciplinary actions is not the “tense” he speaks in, but his willingness to challenge racism in the legal profession.’ Inevitably, Whites won’t tolerate this except at the superficial level of the White delusion that racism is confined to a few bad, racist apples rather than the institutional level of endemic racism. Because Whites are touchy and overly sensitive about such issues, accusing them of racism will always get their backs up – because a raw nerve has been struck that no White analgesic can palliate nor cure.

Whites don’t want Blacks defended by their own because they can’t then exploit Black ignorance of White law. This upsets Whites who love to believe that they’re impartial until they’re shown not to be. Whites, raised to be racially suspicious, assume Blacks are plotting to get alleged Black criminals acquitted because Whites tend to assume that a) Being Black is a crime, in itself; and, b) Blacks are more prone to crime, anyway.

But, at the same time, the article (Outrage over ‘travesty of justice’ as barrister Peter Herbert is found guilty) is somewhat schizophrenic. "I think people will say ‘if he can’t make it as an educated eminent professional, what chance do we have?’ This implies it’s impossible to practice as a lawyer if you’re Black. Clearly, this is harder than if you’re White, since Whites wish to control access to legal services for those they deem inferior in order to self-fulfillingly prove such inferiority. But, this doesn’t mean less Blacks should try; only more should do so. The more Black graduates there are the more Whites will have to accept them because it will then become too obvious that Whites are, indeed, as racist as I claim them to be. This will build up the necessary critical mass while enabling Blacks to better co-ordinate their political activities through the co-operative experience gained.

Unless Blacks are prepared to grasp the White racist bull by the horns now, they condemn future generations of Blacks – including their own children – to polishing White Men’s shoes with their bare tongues.

Even without pupilage in chambers, legal knowledge can be used to help fellow Blacks in situations where official representation isn’t compulsory – such as Employment Tribunals. As well as to informally help those Black friends with legal problems and, ultimately, to help with ones own legal issues. (It’s important never to help Whites since they already have a wealth of White lawyers to represent them.)

The important point to make here is to show Whites that just because they’re racist, Blacks aren’t going to be cowed into not trying to do the best for themselves. This would then make them fall prey to the White trap of ‘justification’ when they claim Blacks don’t try hard enough at school.

When the needs of justice and the needs of an orderly society conflict, Whites will always choose the latter. Blacks have always to choose the former.


Henry Bonsu is living proof of White refusal to deal with the legacy of slavery – present-day racism - although Whites revel in the more positive aspects of their supposedly-glorious imperial past.

A good media example of this is that a Black artist’s CD is more likely to have a Parental Advisory sticker on it than one produced by a White one. Even if the Whites use swear words too.

Parental Advisory stickers are effectively advising parents that the artists are Black and, therefore, somehow suspect. Like Jews being forced (by Whites) to wear yellow Stars of David during World War 2 so we know whom they are, Whites want Blacks to be similarly labelled to prevent them from being brought into White homes. Like the White father’s fear his daughter will bring home a Black boyfriend.

Parental Advisory labels indicate the White fear that Blacks are morally inferior because they can’t seem to express themselves without recourse to swearing. Yet, we never saw these labels with the effing-and-blinding of White punk-rockers in the seventies. Just the occasional brown-paper LP covers.


Twenty-five per cent ethnic-minority representation in the London Metropolitan Police Service? Not a hope in this world!

Sir Ian Blair (Metropolitan Police Commissioner) stresses the self-evident fact that in non-totalitarian states ‘policing by consent’ is the only kind of policing that can work. Stating the bleeding obvious means there’s obviously still something seriously wrong with the way the Metropolitan Police functions.

To claim there’s no alternative to the social damage caused by the racial profiling inherent in stop-and-search is a lie: Primarily because UK race-relations are largely a White fiction. It’s also because the discredited and racist Sus laws were repealed after the Scarman Inquiry Report in the mid-eighties and few then claimed there was no suitable alternative – without running the risk of being branded ‘Racist’. Now it’s OK to be pigeonholed in this negative way, because most Whites now think they can get away with being bigoted (by grossly exaggerating the threat from radical Islam).

Most Whites try to get around the fact that they can’t police the UK non-racially by making statements lacking historical perspective. The problems of policing today are in no wise fundamentally different from those of yesterday: Criminals still commit crimes and police officers are still charged with their apprehension on the basis of evidence. To claim that anything has really changed is simply an excuse for Whites reverting to former (racist) behaviour patterns to the detriment of the UK social grouping least favoured by Whites. This is the same as when someone’s upset and angrily emoting; revealing their true, abiding, feelings as opposed to what they’d like you to think they believe (for public-relations’ purposes).

US Customs renounced racial-profiling some years ago; achieving a 300% increase in effectiveness through policing based on a set of suspicious behaviours rather than skin colour. But then, that would inhibit Sir Ian’s officers in indulging their gauleiter fantasies of absolute power over others; while allowing him to morally evade his own racial fears.

To claim that Sir Ian can’t see another way of stopping people from carrying weapons - without stop-and-search - is an admission of White failure. Their fundamentally-sick culture (never having recovered from the loss of their Empire) created the problem in the first place. So perhaps Whites need a root-and-branch overhauling of their cultural traditions - which they so highly prize - despite the obvious and wide-ranging flaws inherent in them. But, do most Whites possess the moral courage to face the awful truth about themselves? Whites tend to blame different cultures for White problems precisely because Whites refuse to face the truth about their own: It always requires much less effort to blame others than to blame oneself, after all.

Whites have single-handedly dragged their own society through the racial mire; they can’t start whining now when things are no longer going their way.

An excellent way of removing an incentive for carrying weapons is to put more Bobbies back on the beat so that ordinary citizens don’t feel the fear of walking down unpoliced streets in daylight. Hardly revolutionary but, of course, money’s tight, isn’t it?

UK politicians are now ruing the day they chose to make policing an electoral issue (starting with Baroness Thatcher) since they now have to deliver crime-reduction results. This explains the pointless wrangling about the actual incidence of crime (via contradictory crime-statistics) being a greater focus than tackling actual crime. Targeting criminals is always much more effective than targeting weapons and criminalizing communities – the latter two are malfunctions of an essentially-White policing-strategy.

When Whites use words like ‘damage’, do they mean to their image & reputations or to the quality of UK law-enforcement? Which do they consider the more important? The former, presumably, since these have a greater negative impact on their promotion prospects.

It’s not surprising White police-officers are experiencing the tension of knowing that would-be Black & Minority Ethnic (BME) recruits are fast-tracked based on skin colour. This anxiety was caused by White racism in the first place - which is now backfiring on White racists. If Whites hadn’t been racist throughout much of their history, these problems wouldn’t now have arisen. Now, Whites are learning what direct discrimination actually feels like from personal experience – you’d’ve thought they’d’ve learned this from the endemic inequities in their class system, wouldn’t you? And, guess what, they don’t like prejudice directed against them. So why do they continue to execute it against Blacks? Deep down Whites know that this is their comeuppance: What goes around; comes around. It doesn’t even matter if Positive Discrimination ever becomes law in the UK, it’s White fear of the very idea that upsets so many of them.

The real conflict here is caused by the White realisation that the unearned privileges White Racists believe accrue to them, now no longer apply. And, as with all loss-of-privileges, there’s an inevitable White backlash – no matter how unreasonable the so-called privilege was to begin with. (This happened when well-paid UK lower-class White coal-miners struck in 1983, although pit closures were economically inevitable and completely unavoidable. White cultures rarely change without putting up some kind of fight – no matter how pointless.)

A childlike ranting because their favourite toy is being denied them.

To claim Positive Discrimination (& Positive Action) would inevitably result in a lowering of standards is yet more White Racism. Where’s the evidence for such an assertion? If true, it would mean the Positive Discrimination heretofore practised by the ‘Met’ - in favour of Whites - has resulted in a lowering of the quality of police officers. Clearly, this is right, since so many are racist that most Whites are more than willing to continually proselytise Positive Discrimination for themselves, but not for others. Whites even claim quality is to be judged only with reference to White standards; ie, that all others must measure up to Whites and not to an objective standard of police professionalism because most Whites hold no other standard.

Sir Ian’s talk of ‘temporary’ Positive-Discrimination makes sense because permanent discrimination - whether for or against Blacks - is, in the long run, morally reprehensible. But, he doesn’t say how temporary, which rather defeats his object in saying it.

‘The police service is still seeking to serve a multicultural and modern nation with a homogenous and traditional working culture.’ A culture can’t be both multicultural and homogenous so there’s still confusion in the archetypal White mind as to the actual nature of culture. He’s not as cerebral as claimed, despite an Oxford degree. If you can’t ‘duck the fact that most muggers are black’ you also can’t duck the fact that most racists are White (or, worse, that most Whites might be racist). Fatuousness never solved any real-world problems.

It would be better for BMEs to avoid joining the UK Police Service since they’re more than likely to be adversely affected by it’s so-called ‘canteen culture’. And also because police officers can’t strike in protest; that is, they can’t protest, effectively, from inside the Service – an absolutely necessary right if true change-from-within is ever to take place. A stance of non-involvement would also prevent racist Whites from the idiotic claim that Blacks can only ever achieve anything with White help. A contention that’s part of the true rationale for Positive Action, which would only consolidate White Racism - not challenge it. Whites rarely assert Positive Discrimination for the middle class - through the White class system - is somehow bad, since they largely demonise and stigmatise the lower class in such a way that such discrimination seems perfectly natural rather than culturally determined.

Politically, it’s always better to be on the outside urinating in, than on the inside urinating out. Because otherwise you’ll be urinating in the wrong direction.

Friday, 15 October 2004


Blacks shouldn’t be surprised by the higher rate of school exclusions of Blacks - by Whites - in Southwark.

Lazy White teachers won’t waste their careers teaching those who don’t conform to their standards of what a good student is: White, quiet, middle-class, unquestioning and industrious. White teachers can earn little kudos from Black students because these students are less likely to take part in the examinations’ charade from which White teachers derive an increasing proportion of their income. This makes Blacks the new dunces sitting in the corner with ‘D’ Caps on their heads waiting to be excluded for taking up too much usable space.

(Exams are a charade because for the past 22 years more students have received ‘A’ Level pass grades every year. Students are either getting brighter - year-on-year - or exams are getting easier. Maybe Whites’ve put intelligence-increasing supplements in school dinners – although not for those who receive free schools meals, of course; that would give the indigent ideas above their station! For Blacks, this means it’s easier than ever to do well within the Whites’ education system since it’s dumbing itself down. Blacks can now lower their academic expectations to the level of the Whites and do very well indeed - without lowering their political and economic aspirations as well.)

White teachers obtain no bonuses (& Whites are fundamentally motivated by money) from teaching those where more teaching effort is required to convince Black students that a racist White Culture is worth having anything to do with. And, where more effort is required to promote the vain White attempt to overcome the endemic racism of their culture which the education system these White teachers inhabit supports. It’s all too easy simply to give up on those whose skin is darker than one’s own (&/or whose social class is supposedly inferior) than to do what teachers are there for: Help others help themselves. But, this isn’t a fundamental tenet of White Society. Blacks can expect nothing from White teachers who pretend they’re not prone to the ingrained effects of a fundamentally-racist culture; while usually failing abysmally in the pretence and then excluding Blacks because of their own White, racial failings.

Black students also have little empathy for a White, racially-based National Curriculum that regards Black experience (particularly during the North Atlantic Slave Trade, the British Empire & now) as completely irrelevant. Blacks realise Whites are desperately trying to evade their guilt about the fact that the present large accumulations of White, Western capital were created on the back of the exploitation, murder, rape and plunder of Black lives and countries. When Blacks demand reparations and apologies for the various White-induced holocausts of history, they’re making a profound mistake. They should, instead, be asking that Whites say ‘Thank You’ to Blacks for single-handedly generating present-day White affluence and wealth – Whites would never’ve got rich any other way. But Whites, being what they are, never say ‘Thank You’ to anyone because they think unearned privilege is a birthright.

White teachers are as frightened of Black students as Whites are frightened of Blacks in the wider culture. White teachers are no more immune to racism than anyone else; especially as the universities that produce them (like the vast majority of Whites) would much rather preach anti-racism in the abstract world than practice it in the real. Was it ever thus: Those who can, do; those who can’t, teach.

What Whites really want is to abolish compulsory education so that only White, middle-class students are ever taught; making White teachers easy lives even easier. Such students are placed under endless pressure from their inappropriately-aggressive White parents to do well at school or face the prospect of undertaking the jobs the poor do or, worse, that Whites want deliberately uneducated Blacks to do. It’s not the education they receive that makes White students stressed-out and suicidal in UK schools, it’s the fear of losing parental approval for not doing as well as either the Blacks or the poor that does. Because Black parents don’t usually emotionally blackmail their own children in this way, it’s unlikely Black kids will experience this demotivating kind of bullying – a kind of bullying worse than any experienced at school. Blacks will then be better able to focus on schoolwork, should they then choose state education. Orientals, Jews and Asians have done this, so Blacks can too. Unless, of course, Blacks really are as racially inferior as Whites love to claim. Blacks need to prove to themselves (not to Whites) what Blacks can achieve, to avoid the usual White, politicised interference in Black lives. It’s the White insistence that Blacks prove themselves to Whites - without reciprocity or justification – that’s exactly analogous to White parental bullying (albeit across racial and not generational lines), which forms the bedrock of the institutional racism of UK state education.

Lazy White teachers try to justify their pedagogic sloth by claiming they’re overwhelmed with paperwork. But then, they’ve always claimed this no matter what the weight of red tape; while boasting about how nice it is to have such long school holidays. Like the UK Police Service, indolent White teachers always claim the problem is too much paperwork rather than too much racism.

The Dianne Abbot solution to the White-created problem of racial exclusion means sending Black kids to independent schools. (Despite her suck-up-to-the-White-Man blather, Ms Abbott knows that state education for Blacks is a no-no for the very simple reason that the state, itself, is institutionally racist. (Jewish parents ain’t gonna send their kids to a school that begins each day with a rousing rendition of ‘Das Horst Vessel Lied’, after all.) The other solution is homeschooling.

Such solutions also make it more likely that Blacks will go into education themselves - to help educate their fellow Blacks - to overcome the White sanctioning of Blacks doing relatively poorly in White schools. Without them, White teachers will continue to offer Blacks substandard education in revenge for Blacks not integrating with Whites because Blacks have little respect for White Culture, as such. Nor respect for one that believes integration can be forced - any more than friendship or love can.

At the end of the day, Whites won’t educate Blacks to compete effectively with their own White offspring in a job market Whites see as increasingly competitive (& which is already skewed against Blacks for this very reason). Whites know themselves very well (every man knows where his own shoes pinch, after all) and aren’t as in-denial about their racism as to not know that history operates like a pendulum. That those Whites favoured now can very easily turn into those Blacks favoured later.

For Whites, their education system is the most important means of proving to themselves that Blacks are inferior. (This is why White so-called scientists love to point out failure among Black children; while avoiding any and all Black adult success. Such success would contradict their racially-motivated pseudo-research.) Whites hope this means White employers are less likely to employ Blacks because Blacks are intentionally educated both to be poorly qualified and to have successfully internalised the common White view of innate Black inferiority.

Saturday, 9 October 2004


We need to face the fact that we’re at war and stop shilly-shallying about with claims that these so-called terrorists are barbarians. Whites who make these claims are perfectly happy when such things happen to those whose skin is darker than their own – so this is racist hypocrisy.

The emotionalism of such claims of the barbarity of them - but not us - makes it racially difficult for UK Muslims – as it’s intended to. Whites tend towards the cowardice of attacking those nearest them - to obtain their usually perverted sense of revenge - while refusing to acknowledge that such so-called barbarity is the inevitable consequence of war a fought without reference to the Geneva Convention.

If we choose to ally ourselves with White Americans who abuse POWs then we must accept the fact that we’ll be treated likewise. Anything else is moral cowardice and reflects the deep practical impotency of Whites who attack UK Muslims but lack the guts to volunteer for military duty in Iraq. Such people yellow, emotionally immature and can’t claim they’re as brave – if not braver – than the middle-eastern guerrillas who’re clearly more than willing to risk their lives for their beliefs. The question is, are we? And, are we willing to take the inevitable casualties that war always entails?

Until Whites face up to the fact that this is a real, live shooting-war, this White media cry-baby whinging won’t help race relations nor help us win the war. Either we wage war with a clear focus on victory – as wars should be fought – or we negotiate with our enemies and get out of Iraq. You can’t mix ‘n’ match on this issue because lives are at stake.

In the longer run, we need to give some thought as to whether such militarily risky and downright foolish expeditions should occur in future given the universally high costs and the universally high White whining.


This is the kind of legal verdict Whites must learn to expect because of their inability to renounce racism.

It’s clear that a violent man like OJ Simpson murdered his wife and her lover in a fit of jealousy, à la Shakespeare’s Othello. The brutality of the murders clearly points to an emotional rather than any financial criminal motive. Add to this the fact that OJ Simpson was the only possible suspect and you have an open-and-shut case.

The fly-in-the-ointment, of course, is White Racism.

The Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) put a blatantly racist officer on the case, which immediately calls into question its and his integrity. This produced the reasonable doubt sufficient for the jury to return a ‘Not Guilty’ verdict.

The fact that Mr Simpson was trying to flee the murder scene isn’t necessarily evidence of guilt, as Whites love to assume. Only that he knew perfectly well that he would – as a Black man in a racist society – be the first and only person to be blamed. The reason Whites want to think flight equals guilt is that they’re scared to admit their society is endemically racist and such an assumption is always safely within their political and social comfort zone.

If the LAPD (& police everywhere) had been more vigorous in rooting out their own endemic racism, such injustices would be less likely. This verdict is a tacit warning to Whites of one of the most important dangers of their refusal to renounce racism and of how what goes around, comes around. It effectively means that any Black criminal who can demonstrate that a policeman is racist will become not only effectively unconvictable but also probably even unprosecutable. This, to add to the fact that few Blacks co-operate with a racist police in the first place; making policing harder than it need be because of the police’s failings as human beings. This can only mean an increase in overt White Racism coupled with an equal and opposite response of Black racism.

Contrary to the defence lawyer Johnnie Cochran’s claim that it is in the gift of the jury to redress institutional White racism, in truth, they can only balance it with an equally pervasive Black racism. Black racism is justified for the purposes of defence against White Racism but cannot be seen by rational men as a true solution to the problem of White Racism, as such. This vindictive verdict was also intended as a vicarious punishment for those White police officers that beat Rodney King. However, it’s unlikely to make Whites think being racist is bad, only that they should be more subtle about it in future. None of this will ever end the present race war.

Where Johnnie Cochran is right is in claiming that the race card and the credibility card are identical. The central issue here is White credibility when it comes to trying cases against Black men and whether they can do this without racial hatred. Clearly, they cannot - as this trial shows - and this is why Whites whinge-on about justice not being served because they define justice as being strictly a Whites-only prerogative – and always will. Just as Whites believed lynching Blacks was their prerogative; resulting in all-White juries acquitting them. Such complaints are, in themselves, racist because they fail to appreciate the obvious racial dimensions of this particular case. When a White man is on trial, racism will rarely enter the debate; when a Black, it tends to be stage centre – one law for the Whites; another for the Blacks. This ultimately means that when Whites claim Blacks are playing the race card it is, in fact, only Whites who are doing this.

Such verdicts merely formalise distrust and lack of communication between the races, which will never disappear, but can be reduced only over many generations.

The reason Whites still choose to practice racism is that they believe there are no negative consequences for them. The O J Simpson trial proved otherwise – the bleating and the whinging of the families of the victims notwithstanding.

(Whites claiming Blacks play the race card [ie, you’re only saying that because you’re Black] is itself racist. It means Whites robotically judging Blacks by their skin colour first and not Blacks’ substantive argument when, logically, it should be the other way around. It means automatically side-stepping the argument by claiming any statement made by a Black lacks substance because of his skin colour. This gives Whites the freedom to not listen to Blacks precisely because they’re Black, not because they’re wrong in anything they say. This formally entrenches how Whites have always behaved toward their supposed racial inferiors. Whites don’t have to prove Blacks are playing the race card only to posit the idea that they are; while Blacks are left in the inequitable position of having to prove White Racism. This allows guilt-ridden White Racists to evade their guilt and continue being racist.)

About Us:

My photo

Frank TALKER - Truth-Teller