Monday, 12 June 2006

Six days to influence review into government race policies

‘What is at stake is a once-in-a-generation chance of shaping the legislative framework and organisational landscape on equality’.

Really? Problem is that equality is not a function of law and political institutions (theoretical constructs, all) but of the commitment to devoted labour and work of the individuals concerned – this is also true of inequality. To say otherwise is to admit that equality is impossible unless those who hate you allow you to be equal by passing laws to restrict their own racism. But why would such people allow or undertake any such thing given their belief that their inequitable practises provide them with an advantage? Since when has anyone sacrificed an advantage over another man – in all of human history – without demanding a countervailing sacrifice in return: Thus perpetuating the inequality complained of?

If race inequality actually exists, the sacrifice required of the unequal to remove such inequality has to be one-sided. This will never happen.

When Blacks complain of inequality, They admit that they are dependent upon Whites to achieve whatever Blacks do achieve in life, rather than upon Their own efforts. This proves the Black Inferiority that Blacks implicitly claim does not exist in their implication that inequality is inherently unfair. In such a case, there can be no good reason for Whites to stop being racist given that Blacks are thus tacitly admitting that They are, indeed, inferior.

So long as Blacks behave as inferiors, They offer Whites an excuse for Their racism. The fact is that you’re either equal (in terms of being just as human as anyone else) to others when you’re born or you ain’t. And if you’re not equal when you’re born then you won’t be equal even after you’re dead – it’s a self-fulfilling prophecy.

‘This root-and-branch review could determine how effective, or otherwise, governments are in tackling inequality’. Because inequality (outside of deliberately racist laws) only exists in the minds of the unequal (ie, the objectively inferior), it is not governments who are best able to tackle inequality, but the psychiatric profession. There is also a refusal here to admit that the ‘governments’ being implicitly criticised here are White Governments’ since Caucasians have traditionally been egregiously racist.

There must come a time when Blacks stop whinging about White Racism. And then for Them to accept that there will always be racists and racism and that the only solution to such people and such practises is to get on with your life and succeed upon your own terms – not theirs. This will prove – apart from anything else – that Blacks are just as capable as Whites; while leaving Whites with no ammunition with which to berate Blacks. Whites will continue to be racist no matter what Blacks achieve, but will be ineffective so long as Blacks don’t practise Their dependence upon White Racists.

‘To get this wrong will mean that even if governments have the political will to aim for equality in our lifetime, they may not have the mechanisms to achieve it’. The ‘mechanisms’ to achieve equality exist firmly within the minds of individuals. This means not worrying about keeping-up-with-the-Joneses or comparing cock-sizes and then deliberately finding oneself deficient in some way because what he’s got is somehow bigger and better. It means accepting that human beings have different capabilities and that they are born, live and die unequal because of these fundamental, biological differences.

Blacks are here using equality as a euphemism for Marxist-Leninism. This means that equality can only be achieved when everyone is born in the same house, stays in the same house and dies in the same house as everyone else. Under such a system, all differences in character and temperament are to be abolished (ie, evaded) in order to protect the insecure, the feckless and the useless from a profound knowledge of their insecurities, their fecklessness and their uselessness. Such knowledge would upset them, after all, as it would force them to face their quintessential inferiority – and who wants to face that? This means athletics’ races starting from the same line; competitors running line abreast; and, then crossing the tape together – no winners and no losers! The least able would win medals while the most able would gain no advantage from being more able. Who, then, would compete in such a race since there would be no advantage to doing so since the very concepts of winning and losing would lose their all-important meaning?

There is no way to achieve this kind of so-called equality except with objective measurements. This means making everyone the same, but not equal. Frank TALKER doesn’t feel equal to an Einstein or a Shakespeare – he feels inferior. He doesn’t have a chip on His shoulder about this because he simply accepts – as all grown men must – that however clever He is, there’s always someone cleverer.

This definition of equality inevitably punishes the able as a sacrifice to the inferiority complexes of the less able. Such complexes become superiority complexes because self-styled victims always think they’re superior to those they look down their noses at (their actual superiors in ability). While such victims conclude that they’re not responsible for their alleged victim status - only that those who’re actually better than them are responsible for this. This is why state education produces mediocrities because it’s based upon such a dumbing-down of cultural and political life. It frustrates the clever while deluding the more dumb into thinking that they’re quite clever, after all. Such people usually become alleged artists and alleged politicians and alleged commercial entrepreneurs.

‘The issues go to the very heart of the campaign for race equality’. They don’t. They go to the very heart of the philosophy that proclaims: “The world owes me a living”.

‘There are many areas of public life where the realities of institutional racism are clear - anti-terror laws; asylum and immigration; citizenship; the criminal justice system, to name but a few’. While true, the fact is that Blacks do little to combat these injustices. Such as ensuring their children are educated to deal with White Racism more purposefully than merely whining about it. As well as setting good examples and being adequate role models for their offspring. Moreover, when Blacks complain about White Racism, They never also admit Their own culpability in the racism of which They tacitly approve. Approval based upon the fact that White Racism affords Blacks the opportunity to avoid the work necessary for successful living and demand racial alms from Whites through emotionally-blackmailing Whites for being racist.

‘Unless the government recognises racism - its causes and effects - it will never be able to get to grips with the challenge of making Britain an equal society’. As before, Blacks never explain why Whites would address such issues especially since Whites conceive that racism provides Them with a political benefit. And who ever renounces a benefit without demanding something in return? This proves just how unrealistic Blacks are.

‘We believe the Equalities Review has not analysed race properly and there are major flaws in its methodology’. This could just as easily be said of Blacks and the way in which They approach White Racism. A cultural match that will ensure racism remains at large – the only true equality ever possible between the races.

‘The Equalities Review is wrong to criticise campaigning and activism’. Of course, but that review was written by Whites who don’t want to be reminded that They condemn slavery but never condemn the British Empire – although both were based upon the evil of racism. Whites just don’t want Their dirty laundry washed in public – who does? This is why Whites ‘criticise campaigning and activism’.

There is no incentive for the middle-class to abolish poverty (since this would deprive them of a means of self-identification-in-comparison-to-the-poor – it would effectively abolish the lower-class & make the middle-class the new lower-class). So Blacks remain judged by Whites as inferior because then Whites would have no-one to feel superior to – the sole source of the White Superiority Complex.

Whites won’t renounce racism unless Blacks are prepared to give Whites something in return. Because racism is morally wrong, except in self-defence, it follows that Blacks needn’t offer anything in return for renouncing racism. Any more than a rape victim needs to offer a rapist anything in return for him giving up the practise of rape. Whites actually consider this implicit demand an actual quid pro quo rather than the emotional blackmail it really is!

In any case, even if Blacks did accept second-class citizenship status in exchange for abolishing the alleged need for anti-racism legislation from Whites, Whites still wouldn’t renounce racism. They’d carry it on in an increasingly covert manner.
Post a Comment

About Us:

My photo

Frank TALKER - Truth-Teller