Saturday, 15 December 2007

‘Some good news from Iraq’


Iraq occupation in the eye of the storm is an article that refutes this classic example of White wishful-thinking from a paper that supports capitalism, but not the laissez-faire kind. To do the latter would mean having to accept that oil is not to be purchased at the point of a gun, but by trade. The willingness to use violence is proof of the pseudo-capitalist nature of such people.

Copyright © 2007 Frank TALKER. Permission granted to reproduce and distribute it in any format; provided that mention of the author’s Weblog ( is included: E-mail notification requested. All other rights reserved.

Tuesday, 11 December 2007

Why there must be no free speech for Nazis

Although a very good article, it misses important points. 1) Whites would much rather debate with racists than with Blacks about racism, since that allows all Whites to profit from racism by pretending racism is worthy of debate and therefore a valid point of view; a) Moreover, it's easier to win a debate with a racist because racists are quite stupid, so such debates are always straw man debates to make alleged anti racists look good but which only make the latter look just as stupid; 2) Free speech implies the responsibility of free listening. Because racists aren't listening, they're not so much engaging in free speech as in mere mouthing off! They affectively deny others the right to free speech while indulging in it themselves; 3) There's a flaw in our democracy that's exploited by the BNP. The mentally ill (eg, white racists) are allowed to speak freely while those who also endanger lives by making hoax telephone calls or who shout "Fire" in a crowded theatre are not; 4) "No Platform" policies drive racists underground, where they're harder to see and destroy. Although a necessary evil, this fact should not be evaded; 5) White, racist free speech tourists want to frighten blacks into accepting second class citizenship. This is a cover for an institutionally racist culture and an attempt to legitimate it, rather more than an attempt to legitimate the BNP (the tip of the iceberg of white racism). It's proof of how deep-rooted racism is in white culture and, therefore, of how painfully difficult it is for most whites to renounce it; 6) Because racism provides whites (racist or not) with obvious advantages; they're perfectly happy to debate with racists – behind the cover of free speech, because of the covert desire to maintain these unearned benefits. Racism doesn't effect whites negatively, in the short term, as apartheid didn't; 7) Debate is a euphemism for negotiation: About how openly racist whites will allow themselves to be and how much legalised racism blacks will be required to accept. Negotiation here is a euphemism for appeasement: Such discussions are pointless because if racists could be reasoned with they'd hardly be racists in the first place; 8) Racists believe in free speech only for themselves: They must control the debate to continue to benefit themselves and disbenefit blacks. Discussion with racists (but not discussion of racism) is merely a form of racism since all debates inherently legitimise their subject as fit for discussion; allowing racism to continue to be practised. Any debate with a racist privileges the racist as a rational thinker; like trying to have a rational debate about schizophrenia with a schizophrenic! 9) Such a debate implies it's perfectly legitimate to deprive people of their human rights simply because they are less white than those engaged in the debate. Whites are certainly much exercised about positive discrimination for blacks while hypocritically allowing it for themselves – via racism. The debate itself valorises racism when the only real thing to debate is a) how to destroy racists; or, b) when are racists going to renounce racism: The two are mutually incompatible. After all, would you debate with a paedophile about access to your kids? 10) Only racists claim racists have a right to free speech; as only paedophiles claim the same right; 11) '…[O]ur resistance [to white racism] should not be confined to legal… means…' Does this mean the targeted assassination of known racist ringleaders? 12) This is all part of the backlash against free-speech stifling Political Correctness. Not to engage in something better, but merely for whites to use their democratic political advantage (they're the majority) to express their racism and call it free speech. Racist whites think it's OK to abuse others (as in Nazi Germany) and now wish a return to their open championing of such overt behaviour; 13) Freedom of speech is only applicable to those who believe in it and practise it; it is not applicable to those who only wish it for themselves and to those who only wish it for whites. For racists to proclaim the value of free speech which they would be only too happy to deny to others is canting, racist hypocrisy; 14) Whites always try to get around any of their unethical behaviour by making it legal. Discussion is a way of making racism tacitly legal and ethical: That way no one need ever feel guilty abut behaving badly, because it's the law. By making it legal, whites think they make it ethical; thereby evading moral issues. This is why the British Empire, Nazi Germany and apartheid South Africa flourished on the back of the racism that was so important to their former success.

Sunday, 9 December 2007

Black Voluntary Sector under Attack

The most telling aspect of this piece: 'Gilligan’s column subtly plays to the fears some have of Black people getting organised and empowering themselves, and underhandedly advocates for cutting and undermining support [which] Black organisations have earned and deserve'. Whites are terrified because a) they fear Blacks will take their revenge for 500 years of White Racism. And, b) Whites fear that their unearned privileges - accruing from this racist legacy - will have to be shared with Blacks; cutting the throat of the goose that lays Whites their golden eggs. The White Race is, in essence, a race of panhandlers and parasites who couldn't stand on Their own two feet without the necessary emotional crutch of racism. (Witness the anger of recent White Arrivals from South Africa who are bitter that They can't earn as much here as They could under apartheid.) Even those who aren't overtly racist still obtain the benefits of White Privilege in an institutionally racist culture like that obtaining in the UK - and the West, in general. Try to remove this crutch and Whites will fight tooth and nail to ensure you don't, even if it means They will have to destroy it for Themselves to prevent you from obtaining it. Thus, Whites are slaves to Their profound intolerance of others. The fact is that Whites don't have to give up Their unearned privileges – and They know it – because, in a democracy, They can always pass laws to keep Themselves in the majority; such as immigration controls. The greatest danger facing Blacks is that Whites don't feel guilty about Their racism, so long as They can hide it from Themselves. This is why it must always be pushed into Their faces – at every and all opportunities – to ensure They never get away with any of it.

About Us:

My photo

Frank TALKER - Truth-Teller