'A HUMAN RIGHTS charity has claimed Big Brother evictee Emily Parr proves how deeply ingrained racism is in British society'. This is quite right but doesn't tell the whole story. Racism is absolutely fundamental to the survival needs of Whites; without it, They'd starve. It not only explains the North Atlantic Slave Trade and the British Empire, it also explains the current economic decline of what was the world's first superpower. Without the ability to openly express and act upon Their racist imperatives, Whites have nothing to do and nowhere to go – neither ethically nor politically. Karen Chouhan, head of The 1990 Trust: '[T]hat this contestant has used such a vile racist term [Nigger] highlights... that we still have a mountain to climb to challenge such attitudes'. There is no such mountain. Challenging attitudes is as pointless as King Canute trying to make the waves do his bidding. Fascists like La Chouhan never want to accept that people are free to think exactly as they wish; no matter what she might like them to think – especially about her. Challenging attitudes is a rationally purposeless process that comes down to nothing more than trying to get people to like the challenger – because he doesn't like himself. If there ever were such a mountain, it would have no peak; and you'd be climbing forever - fruitlessly. The issue, as always, is not challenging the attitudes of others, but your own. Why try to force others to think as you do when you cannot demonstrate the benefit to them of doing so or otherwise convince them to change? Or, worst of all, know that their attitudes have changed given that telepathy is a fallacy? Therefore, such an attitude challenging attitude can be nothing more than fascist philistinism of the worst and most politically reprehensible kind. What a pity the so called anti racists are as militantly freedom hating as the racists – perhaps they're one and the same or, even, two sides of the same coin. 'Racism affects all classes but we know people like these girls are more likely to end up in powerful positions where they can exercise their prejudices'. If blacks know this cannot alter, then why whinge on about it? There's nothing to be done when Whites bring Their own children up to share Their racist ideology – unless you want to control, by force, the way Whites bring up Their children? Somehow, I can't see Whites letting you do that, can you? A black overseer watching all of the households in the land through a "Big Brother is Watching You" telescreen! Like Orwell's novel ("Nineteen Eighty-Four"), this is science fiction, I'm afraid, and not very good science fiction at that. In any case, Whites won't allow blacks to keep Them under surveillance; one of the basic imperatives of White Racism is that blacks are kept under surveillance by whites; for example, identity cards. It would be much better for Blacks to refrain from bringing up Their own children as inferior to Whites. However, that seems just as unlikely, doesn't it? 'Whether they become personnel managers or City high flyers, racism plus power is a lethal combination'. Because Whites don't think it's lethal for Them, They're hardly likely to change Their racist ways. If They could and thought There was something to be gained by changing, then They'd have changed a long time ago. 'It shows how much education in multiculturalism is needed'. This has been tried and failed for the very simple reason that Whites don't believe in multiculturalism. If They did, They wouldn't be racist to begin with. By giving Whites nothing to replace Their racism with save the politically correct emptiness that is multiculturalism, Blacks ensure that Whites remain firmly of the opinion that blacks are lower on the evolutionary ladder than Themselves. 'We will be contacting Ms Parr inviting her to spend some time with The 1990 Trust in order to help her overcome her harmful attitudes'. This won't help blacks any more than the Cohens inviting Adolf Hitler to tea was ever going to. Because negative racist attitudes are ingrained (as this article points out but refuses to face the implications of) it's not the behaviour of the hated group that matters to racists, but the pre existing racist attitudes of the racists. Whites avoid contact with blacks precisely to avoid having Their prejudices challenged because racism is self perpetuating – like all fallacies. To claim that racists associating with those they hate will persuade them to be loving is as fallacious as saying that NOT having intercourse with those of a different culture will produce racial hatred. Racial hatred has nothing to do with who one's friends are but who one is. It has nothing to do with the behaviour of the hatee but of the hater. And, it's this that determines who one's friends are – not the other way around. (Only those who actually have friends are aware of this.) Putting an ailurophobe in a room full of cats won't cure his phobia because his fear is not produced by the behaviour of the cats, but by his own psyche. (This is why it's always racist for Whites to say: "Some of my best friends are Black". This doesn't prove They're not racist only that They wish to judge those They know by Their skin colour and, in so doing, use them as political pawns to prove the unprovable – a negative. If that's friendship, then Frank TALKER must be very lonely, indeed. Only a racist would ever contemplate doing such a thing.) Here, The 1990 Trust falls into the trap of thinking that negative behaviour toward others is produced by those others - like saying that women who're raped deserve it and that experience of those others would confound it! This proves a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of prejudice. It's not produced by the ordinary ignorance of lacking experience but by a wilful disregard for one's experience; otherwise known as choice or free will. Racists are not compelled to be racist, they choose to be so. And it is free will that political correctoids hate; hence, their toe tapping totalitarianism. Whites will always look for signs of inferiority within Blacks They know and reject signs of equality – so it makes no difference to Their racism if Whites actually know any Blacks. Angela Jain, Big Brother commissioning team head at Channel 4, said: 'I think people watching the show tonight will agree that Emily spoke carelessly rather than maliciously.' This is a racist parapraxis because Ms Jain knows perfectly well that, since Whites aren't going to renounce Their racism, the issue now is not changing such attitudes but ensuring they're not visible to blacks. Ms Jain thus accepts racists attitudes so long as they remain overtly unexpressed. The implication being that she feels they're acceptable if implicit rather than explicit. She's lying to protect racists, so must be one herself. Aside from all the anti racist rhetoric, there's also this: 'Emily, a drama student from Bristol, is a Tory voter and admits to being right wing'. The socialistic implication here is that Tories are somehow more likely to be racist than anyone else! Where is the evidence for this? It gets worse: 'She lives with her parents - chemical worker Roger and mum Mandy - at their £350,000 large detached modern house in the city...' Why is the cost of their house relevant? Is this the green eyed monster of Niggerdom? Isn't the politics of envy just another way of expressing racial hatred toward whites? I think we should be told!
Article copyright © 2007 Frank TALKER. Permission granted to reproduce and distribute it electronically and in print; provided that mention of the author’s Weblog (http://franktalker.blogspot.com/) is included: E mail notification requested. All other rights reserved. Frank TALKER is also the author of Sweaty Socks: A Treatise on Toe Jam (East Cheam Press: Groper Books, 1997) and is University of Bullshit Professor Emeritus of Madeupology.