Saturday, 21 October 2006

Greater demonisation of Muslims
(2006)

RESPONSE TO ABOVE ARTICLE:

Clearly this headline is irrational - in the light of actual experience of objective reality - since, if true, it would mean that the White Hatred of Muslims was caused more by 'Woolas comments' than pre-existing White Racism. Woolas would then be leading-the-pack rather than following it - for personal political advantage. Yet this the author admits by referring to Woolas as engaging in an 'opportunistic intervention'!

This writer is confused as to the basic issue of cause-and-effect, here, and merely wishes to make an 'opportunistic intervention' of his own by slagging-off a White Racist. Not that that's a bad thing, but if it's the only thing you do, you will achieve very little.

'The 1990 Trust are today calling for a code of conduct on dealing with "Muslim issues" to halt the overly-simplistic approach… contributing to the demonisation of all Muslims'. This statement is so irresponsibly naive that I hardly know where to begin in castigating it. More Muslims will be killed if any of Them EVER believe that Whites will EVER abide by a code-of-conduct pertaining to any peoples that Whites consider inferior. Whites have NEVER done any such thing in the past, why would They start now?

'Politicians have a responsibility not to worsen race relations for political gain, and every party must have a duty crack down on Islamophobia within their ranks'. Problem is of course that to do any of these things politicians must first, in a democracy, get elected. This means doing precisely the things mentioned in this quote in order to obtain the popular support to achieve that end. Does the writer of this claptrap not live in the same world as you and I? I think not! Or does he secretly not believe in the democratic process; favouring perhaps the totalitarian desire to control Whites by force?

'In the current climate, Muslims are very much under attack...Why is there so much emphasis on what they wear?' For the same reason that we're obsessed with what homosexuals do to (& with) each other in private: We want to know precisely what makes them different from us and, thus, precisely what we can use as weapons against them in our desperate fear that the difference might mean that our way of doing things was somehow inferior to theirs. In other words, we fear that the differences are not equal or equally-valued, but demonstrative of actual cultural inferiority regarding certain aspects of each respective culture. This raises the worrying possibility that our culture is actually inferior to theirs – God forbid! If, for example, homosexuals are having more fun in bed than us superior heterosexuals, then maybe there's something to being gay after all?!

'Woolas’s comments are incredible given his role in talking to Muslim groups as part of the Commission for Integration and Cohesion roundtables around the country'. On the contrary. His comments are completely explicable in this context since the whole point of this Commission is to present Darkies with a stark choice: Be like us or fuck off! Does this writer truly not know this?

'The 1990 Trust believes that politicians are steering the debate towards the view that diversity is only valued in direct proportion to how similar you are to a white British norm'. I wonder how long it took the morons at The 1990 Trust to figure that one out?! Of course, everything Whites do is based on the implicit assumption that They are the norm around which Everyone else rotates and against which Everyone else is to be judged. Much like the medieval Catholic Church believing that the earth was the centre of the universe with the church at the centre of the earth. This is the basic racist principle against which The 1990 Trust pretends to be fighting and yet can't see the wood for the trees to see this clearly!

'The "superiority psyche" [really an “inferiority psyche” which Blacks could so easily exploit if They had the sense They were born with] allows politicians to shift the debate from developing policies which challenge institutional and personal racism in society'. White politicians will never develop such policies because that would mean an end to White Society, as it is currently constituted. Why would any White destroy his own culture in exchange for an uncertain future? Would a Black do this if the positions were reversed? Of course not!

Post a Comment

About Us:

My photo

Frank TALKER - Truth-Teller