Showing posts with label Whiteness. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Whiteness. Show all posts

Sunday, 30 July 2017

Lunatics

(2017)

Lunatics Taking Over the Asylum

Trashy Cultures Produce Trashy People

The rule of law is better than the rule of any individual.

Image of Aristotle Aristotle (384322 BCE), Greek Philosopher. Politics, Book 3, chapter 3, section 16 (350 BCE).

On Friday, 31 March 2017 15:05, I approached PC05 in Tunbridge Wells’ Library. A White male saw me do so then, knowingly and intentionally, stepped right in front of me and then unplugged it to insert his mobile phone charger; seating himself at the chair in front of it to deliberately block my passage.

His companion (another White male) trying to use PC06 noted my presence and I was forced to remove the charger and re‑insert the PC plug into its socket. I then asked this man to move and relinquish the seat for PC05.

He became sullen and childish and his standing companion demanded I should remain polite when dealing with racial‑harassment – something I never do, since racist micro‑aggressions:

  1. Always calls forth my generalised contempt for Caucasians;
  2. put me under no obligation to treat racists as equals; &,
  3. are based upon the White supremacy that can get me killed (that I am willing to kill to protect myself from).

The standing gentleman wisely chose to de‑escalate a situation, which I never initiated (that he realised could so easily have turned physically‑violent, since I am never going to tolerate any racist nonsense); by getting his companion to relinquish the seat he was occupying – thereby allowing me to go about my lawful business in a lawful manner. His wisdom, however, did not extend to not causing such attention‑seeking scenes in the first place, nor to realising that rights works both ways and a violation of one by another will lead to an equal violation by the other to the one.

PC05 clearly indicated that it had been booked, yet the seated gentleman initially‑refused to relinquish the chair for PC05 and, in a childish fit of pique, pushed it across the room so that it hit the back of the chair of a woman sitting at (I think) PC02. She remonstrated with him briefly about this.

I somehow doubt that if I went to their homes and ate their food and watched their tvs (claiming private property was public property, in the process), that their response to this would be any less aggressive than mine to their claim to personally own public property by believing they can disable PCs and use their electrical sockets to charge their phones.

Scared at the thought of a well‑built Black man physically‑attacking them, they both then tried to blame the intended victim of their White supremacist attitudes by complaining of the fact they now found they could not sit next to me on PC06 because of the atmosphere of violence (which they, themselves, irresponsibly created). They quickly left, muttering insults such as Fucking prick and Twat.

Needless to say, neither male complained to library staff about my behaviour, since they both knew they were in the wrong; making it obvious how discourteous Whites will be in order to defend their imaginary White supremacist rights; while expecting Black people to be remain polite no matter what. (Of course, I never complained to library staff since the last time I did [7/1/2016], I was accused of being racist and subsequently banned from all Kent libraries for six months – accused of the non‑existent Protest Psychosis.) No apology was offered me, by either – hardly a surprise from people who have about as much respect for others as they do for themselves.

As usual with White males, necessarily‑aggressive and intimidating behaviour from Black males ‑ even when outnumbered (as here) ‑ is enough to cool their racist ardour, as well as to self‑fulfillingly convince them that Black people are so dangerous to White people that White supremacy appears justified.


The world is too dangerous to live in – not because of the people who do evil, but because of the people who sit and let it happen.

Lex Talionis

My physical size was mentioned by them as somehow a threat despite this not obviously being the case when they decided to obstruct me. Why fear me for my size after the incident they initiated rather than before it, since my size did not change at any time during my time in the library?

In the twisted world of White people, People Of Colour (POC) using their physical size against White supremacists is bad; while White supremacists using their racism against POC is somehow OK. Somehow, Whites think it unfair that they were born smaller than those they hate and fear, so are stupid enough to antagonise those bigger than themselves; creating conflicts they are too physically weak to fight!

This absurd White terror is a tacit confession of a peculiar White psychological weakness. Given that there were two of them and only one of me, my size should never have been a problem for them; unless they were suggesting that Whites can only overpower Blacks at a higher ratio than two‑to‑one, despite their master race sympathies. Is White people’s fear of POC so great that, even when the odds are in their favour, Whites back down? Equal‑opportunities’ racists believe Black people should handicap themselves to make White supremacy easier to practice: That Blacks actually fighting back is somehow fundamentally‑unfair to White people!

Respectability politics

This was also a rather obvious example of the White desire that POC always be polite to them no matter the provocation and no matter the fact that politesse is a two‑way street. And no matter the fact that despite higher standards of public behaviour among Blacks, Whites will still be racist, because appeasing White societal values does not promote respect, but is instead a fear‑fuelled defence mechanism of minority communities; resulting in the challenge for POC of negotiating everyday social spaces; potentially negatively‑impacting their mental health since White supremacy is not a reaction to unethical Black behaviour (which can be changed) but to skin colour (which cannot); meaning White acceptance can only come from Black self‑denial.

It takes huge amounts of White chutzpah to be abusive and then to claim that it is, in fact, the abuser whom is being abused (like a murdering US policeman claiming a fleeing Black male made him fear for his life). However, it is an infallible rule of retribution that its instrument be forged not by the offended, but by the offenders – themselves – in their desperate bid to rationalise their problem‑cuasing behaviour. The offers POC no incentive to behave as submissively as Whites would like.

Despite living every day with institutionalised racism, if POC express any emotion while talking about it, they are told they are being angry – in a desperate White attempt to shut down the speaker and invalidate any arguments made by claiming that they are overly‑sensitive or being too emotional; Whites playing the race card which only they can benefit from.

Or worse, POC are told that they are being racist, without explaining how the victim can be the victimiser or the rapee the rapist. Moreover, no explanation is ever offered as to why people who live with the constant fear of themselves, their friends, their families, their entire ethnic group being wiped‑out on a whim should not be angry. Must women being raped be polite to their assailants?

If I allow anyone to define my rights without my consent, then I, effectively, give them the right to do as they wish with me – even to the point of deciding to end my life whenever they see fit.

Regarding White supremacy – marginalisation, ostracism & exclusion – it is not up to Whites to decide how upset POC should be. If Whites have a right to express their true feelings, then so do POC – even, and especially, when those expressions frighten Whites: There can be no such thing as being too loud or too angry when it comes to standing up for the value of one’s life. (After all, no‑one is required to earn the human rights they were born with by doing as Whites tell them.)

This must be how Rosa Parks must have felt when she sat in omnibus seats reserved for White people – the only problem here, of course, being that there is no Jim Crow in the UK. Yet there is also no self‑respectful concern here for how POC feel about such behaviour from such high‑handed Whites, along with the belief that I have no right to be annoyed about it. Obviously, I am not allowed to protest at this arrogant display of White privilege.

Clearly, White people value their hurt feelings more highly than the lives of POC: These must be protected at all costs, lest a single White person be shown to be complicit in a racist system designed to adversely affect millions whose lives Whites simply do not care about. White supremacists pretend they do not understand why their racism makes POC angry; proving that they are as sub‑human as they claim POC are. If White people do not wish to see Black anger, it is simple: Stop provoking it.

Morality

There is clearly here an inability to distinguish right from wrong and to indulge in immature fantasies of self‑righteous empowerment over others. It has always been obvious to me that White hypocrisy is deeply‑rooted in the Caucasian voodoo of White supremacy. Whites do not wish to understand that social life, which follows upon the natural sociality of human beings, implicates the individual in a web of moral obligations, commitments & duties to be fulfilled in pursuit of the common good; things superfluous by Whites, yet central to good moral character.

This kind of manic behaviour in the UK is only ever manifested regularly by White people, in their unsubstantiated belief that they – alone – own public space. Why do I not, apparently, possess a right to be offended by any attempt to violate my rights with an imaginary right to engage in such a violation?

White Whine

They were both annoyed that their claims of White supremacy did not make me fear them – why would they? No‑one has ever met a superior White man. This is the usual attempt by Whites to project the racially‑hostile atmosphere they single‑handedly create on to POC in a desperate bid to blame POC for White supremacy: A kind of malignant narcissism.

Upset and resentful because I have first‑refusal over a PC I had booked and was willing to fight them over their belief that the booking system does not apply to me and could be so easily‑invalidated by them.

There is something absurdly peculiar in fear‑fuelled White self‑pity in that it is also, simultaneously, self‑aggrandising. And is what can happen if they indulge their fantasies of the world owing them a living: A Moral hazard. It is the belief that treating others well is somehow a psychic loss to the person behaving well. If such people cannot grasp the basic rules of social conduct, then they should only be allowed out on the shortest of leashes.

Legal Rights

No‑one can tell me why POC have to put up with this nonsense, especially as my inevitably‑angry response is a scary learning‑curve for those who mistakenly‑assume I believe the world owes them a living. It also ensures that all those Whites who witness my behaviour are less likely to emulate racist behaviours both to me, my friends, my family and, indeed, my entire ethnic group – all in the interests of ethnic self‑defence.

Social existence is a rule‑governed, game‑playing ritual. But for the sad person, rules are bent and loopholes exploited; while engaging in social performances that obey common expectations, yet are designed to defy others and, thereby, gain unearned respect: All to avoid their taking personal responsibility for the resolution of their personal problems. I am not a do‑gooder and care nothing for the self‑inflicted problems of the mentally‑ill. If I can toughen‑up regarding existential problems, then so can they. Living in a racist culture like White culture, I have had to toughen‑up since my very life depends upon doing so.

Filtering Customers

It is hardly surprising that few POC use the Library Service in Kent, given the open hostility of both its staff and customers to their very presence. This, despite the fact that there is an ongoing decline in the Britain’s public libraries that is partly attributable to their not wanting any POC to be customers; thereby reducing hastening the decline.

Fear & Loathing

My approach is simple. I employ the Golden Rule (only do unto others what you would wish done to you). When others do not follow this rule, I am then able to use the norm of reciprocity; meaning I can do unto them what they have done to me. It is always important to recognise that the behaviours associated with anger are designed to warn aggressors to stop their threatening behaviour, which is why modern psychologists view anger as a primary, natural and mature emotion, experienced by virtually all humans – and as something that has functional survival value.

Given the trashy people White culture regularly produces, and the fact that no‑one I know really has the time for their childishness, POC clearly need to be appropriately‑aggressive, suitably‑threatening and personally‑intimidating to Whites in order to enforce their rights, since POC are not responsible for the feelings of White supremacists. This not only saves time and resources going to court, but helps enforce rights I actually do possess to stop Whites from trying to enforce rights they do not. I have no choice but to be an anti‑racist at all times, since my life is at stake. If White fear is the only way forward, then that is all fine by me, since this will involve very little work on my part since Whites already fear POC – as the above example clearly reveals.











Postscript: Coincidentally, I was recently reading an article on 249-665-1-PB.pdfWhite fragility, which helps explain some of the underlying psychological‑processes at work:

  1. Because Whites think they can claim unfair treatment when their racially‑entitled position is challenged by People of colour POC, Whites are able to demand that more social resources (eg, time & attention) be channelled in their direction to help them cope with the alleged mistreatment: If privilege is defined as a legitimisation of one’s entitlement to resources, it can also be defined as permission to escape or avoid any challenges to this entitlement (Vodde [2001], page 3); &,
  2. by suggesting POC are abusing White people in expecting equality, Whites tap into the classic discourse of People of Colour (POC) as dangerous‑because‑inherently‑violent; perverting the actual direction of danger existing between Whites and others. The history of brutal, extensive, institutionalised and ongoing violence perpetrated by Whites against POC becomes profoundly‑trivialised when Whites claim they are under attack in the unusual situation of merely talking with POC; illustrating how fragile and ill‑equipped White people are to confront the racial tensions they create – and their subsequent, evasive projection of their maladjustment onto POC (Morrison, 1992).

Sunday, 4 June 2017

Invisible Whites Only signs are everywhere.

(2017)

Rudeness is the weak man’s imitation of strength.

At around 12:50, on Tuesday 25 April 2017 someone was sitting in front of desktop PC05 (which I had booked) in Tunbridge Wells’ Library without actually using it: He was, however, using a laptop.

Work-related image
()

He reluctantly agreed to move; after questioning me as to why he should. He expressed no surprise at my claim of having booked the computer, so knew perfectly well that they are bookable and that he was simply being contumely. Fortunately, he was not too obstreperous about this, so there was no need for any unpleasantness – as there was on 7/11/2015, 7/1/2016 and 31/3/2017, for example.

Bizarrely, he then moved to sit in front of PC06 and began working on his laptop in front of that computer; similarly blocking its use from anyone who might happen to book it. Oddly, he did not relocate to PC03, even though it was clearly marked as out‑of‑order.


Clearly, White people believe that public space is their own private fiefdom and that public property is for their sole use, such that public services can be arrogantly and provocatively blocked for the use of anyone not deemed to have these same (non‑existent) rights. Are Whites so intellectually‑stupefied by the benefits of racism that exercising White privilege (in thus playing the race card) becomes their only means of navigating (ie, commandeering) public space?

Work-related image
()

Clearly, White people believe they do not require advance booking, at all, because they will be placed (or will place themselves) at the front of any queue. Because this kind of behaviour automatically‑invalidates any kind of booking system, it allows Whites to effectively jump‑the‑queue that such behaviour makes redundant.

Moreover, this behaviour is similar‑in‑principle to an able‑bodied person parking in a disabled parking space. It is an attempt at public space colonialism, because of a desire not to want to understand the shared nature of public spaces in civilised societies; based upon the implicit assumption that everyone else is only able to use public services with their permission – which is only ever reluctantly given. A modern‑day form of apartheid; bringing to mind those signs of yore, such as: Europeans Only or Whites Only Drinking Fountain.

Regards,









D022317344
Audio
Expect Respect

Postscript: There are no signs in the library pointing‑out that:

  1. Library computers (along with the spaces & seats in front of them) are only for the use of those actually logged‑in to &/or booked onto these PCs; &, therefore,
  2. those who use the library’s Wi‑Fi should refrain from blocking the use of the library’s own desktop computers with theirs.

Do Caucasians really lack the common sense to realise these rather obvious points without having to be told them, in writing – like those gentlemen who need signs requesting they wash their hands after using a public toilet?

I always advance‑book a computer session precisely because of recurring incidents like this, so that I can prove a prior claim to use a PC when it is being effectively disabled, arbitrarily, by a customer who thinks public property is actually their own private or personal property.

Tuesday, 14 March 2017

DO FRONT‑LINE LIBRARY STAFF REALLY NOT TELL CUSTOMERS THAT PCs ARE BOOKABLE?

At around 15:30, on Thursday, 7 January 2016, at Tunbridge Wells Library, a White male (sitting with a friend using PC4, in the chair for PC3) refused to move from this chair to allow me to use PC3 - after my asking him politely to do so (hear attached audio). (PC3 had been booked for me by a member of staff.)

(2016)

DO FRONT‑LINE LIBRARY STAFF REALLY NOT TELL CUSTOMERS THAT PCs ARE BOOKABLE?

At about 14:00, on Sunday, 17 January 2016, at Tunbridge Wells Reference Library, I politely asked a White woman (apparently using your Wi‑Fi on her laptop) to move from PC19. She asked Why, so I told her I had booked it. She then told me that she had been told it had not been booked; implying a Black man was a liar – without evidence.

Proving a negative is impossible and, in any case, it would have meant her looking at the PC screen every 60 seconds to see whether or not her claim continued to be true: Something only a stupid person would ever do. She obviously believed that if a PC has not been booked - at any time - that it will not be booked for as long as she wishes to sit at it, without using it; despite her tacit admission that most PCs are, in fact bookable – at any time during library opening hours. (Surreally, it would also mean it is possible to not‑book a PC for a specific amount of time; the direct corollary of being able to book a computer for one hour – only that, in the former case, such an impossible not‑booking could last a whole day and - somehow - be of a higher priority than actually booking one.)

She could only ever know the PC was not booked at the moment she alleged she was told it – it could then easily cease being not‑booked at every succeeding minute. Moreover, since the screen‑saver was engaged, she had no information from the PC itself to support her nonsensical claim. She was, thus, sitting at a computer she was not using that she had not booked but, somehow, that was a rational and logically‑defensible reason to be in my way – like an able‑bodied driver parking in a Disabled Parking space simply because it is empty! (There appears to be an awful lot of mental illness or arrogant stupidity in Tunbridge Wells among Whites who also claim clairvoyant powers, in implying they possess the amazing foresight to know, in advance, that any library not‑booked library PC will remain so until they have finished obstructing it.)

Inevitably, the monitor screen said, in English: This machine has been booked – and she was clearly a native English‑speaker. But rather than do the sensible thing and look at this screen, she chose to imply that Whites have an unwritten right to lie to Black people.

Is her use of Wi‑Fi somehow a justification for denying the use of bookable PCs? If so, where is this peculiar rule written down, so that we can all be made aware of it – in advance?

Did library staff actually tell her the PC had not been booked; proving they do not understand that a PC can be booked at any time and that, therefore, non‑PC users should never be sitting at them – unless the PC is out‑of‑order? According to Occam’s Razor, she was lying, since I find it hard to believe that any member of staff – even those I have previously called‑out as fools – could really be so stupid as to not know that PCs are booked on an ongoing‑basis throughout the library’s opening hours. (I would also be surprised if any member of staff would be prepared to be so stupid as to admit that they have made any such statement to any customer – ever.)

She claimed I was abrupt, but this claim is more motivated by being asked to move by a Black man, than anything the attached audio recording actually indicates. It also indicates she was clearly not willing to be aware of her surroundings while in public. Pretending that she was shocked by my asking her to move is the old trick of pretending she has a right not to be disturbed - even when in someone else’s way - and that anyone who does so is somehow up to no good. This means that no matter how polite Black people are, they are always going to be cast as villains by retarded Whites.

As an example of rational behaviour, a week before, I asked an Asian gentlemen to vacate a seat he had taken from a PC I had booked. He did so without demur in a polite social exchange; proving that these weird incidents represent a negative correlation, among Whites, between the colour of one’s skin and the depth of one’s common sense: The lighter, the more absurd; the darker, the more sensible. Whites believe that public space is a mere extension of their own living rooms and that they, therefore, can publicly‑carouse as they please – even if this means obstructing others going about their lawful business.

Sunday, 19 February 2017

How porn makes inequality sexually arousing


Aphrodisiacs for the Emotionally‑Retarded

Summary: How White People Are.

I t is not pornography that makes gender inequality sexually‑arousing; it is inequality that makes porn sexually‑arousing.

It puts the cart‑before‑the‑horse to assume that politics follows esthetics, in this way, when it is much more the other way around. After all, if White cultures were not predicated on inequality, why would porn exist, at all, in its current, largely‑negative form?

Pornography

White pornography is an honest mirror of White culture into which Whites fear to gaze lest they see themselves as they really are. This is why they either pretend it is not important or call for its prohibition – but never for any cultural change that would actually make it irrelevant – or better. For example, a sexually self‑aware man would not need porn: He would either masturbate (a selfish act), have sex or make love (sharing acts) – as circumstance permits.

White‑Supremacist Sexism

White women are doubly‑trapped in a White supremacist and a patriarchal society that eroticizes women’s subordination to male sexism. This, as part of a package‑deal enabling those same women to partly‑benefit from White supremacy – so long as they accept the concept of female inferiority and avoid having invidious sex with men of other ethnicities (which might actually be more enjoyable and more fulfilling than sex with White men).

White women accept their social status as being more like property than that of being cherished, along with the fact that their male partners possess sexual imaginations shaped by a culture that makes women’s subordination a sexual turn‑on for White men. Such women deliberately deprive themselves of more satisfying sexual options because they lack the courage to choose from all those available; hence, the ongoing failure of White feminism to free White women from male control of their sexuality. White women actually want it that way; pretending to be against male domination, while secretly hungering for it. White men can clearly see this White female masochism and can, thus, exploit it for all its sexual and political value.

Politics in the Bedroom

Because White women know from porn what White men really think about them (as Black people know from Hollywood movies what Jews & Whites think of them), White women either choose to associate with men of other ethnicities; thereby risking the loss of the benefits of White supremacy arising from the resulting social ostracism – or try to beat White men at their own political game. In the latter case, politics is brought into the bedroom as White women then become affective prostitutes trying to gain the sexual acceptance of White males who do not actually like them (or, indeed, sexual intercourse, itself) all that much – except as sperm receptacles or masturbation substitutes, respectively. White men and White women thus become unequal allies in a race‑war – never equal friends, because they are simultaneously‑engaged in an internecine sex‑war.

White men seeing White women as mere non‑consensual holes‑to‑be‑filled helps explain, for example, White women’s obsession with dieting to desperately make themselves into what White men claim to want by trying to achieve the physically‑impossible. What White men really want is to get White women to waste their time enslaved to trying to achieve the physically‑impossible; making them the sex‑slaves of White men’s dreams. Trying to be what others wish you to be in the hope that they will love you a little more (& hate you a little less) means White women are effectively forced to mate only with White men in an emotionally‑suicidal game of cultural rape.

This White personal masochism results in the effective end to all the personal relationships that such people could ever hope to achieve, as well as the resulting high incidence, among Whites, of such things as: White guilt, divorce, drug‑ & sex‑addiction, alcoholism & White whining – the inevitable outcomes of their endemic and self‑created loneliness.

Sexual Intercourse for Robots

Sexism also explains the White penchant for how‑to‑fuck‑books & videos that the emotionally‑repressed believe will cure them of their sexual hangups; which become little more than porn‑by‑another‑name. Such works spring from the White desire to obstruct sexual spontaneity (in hopes of ensuring White women only have sex with White men, on White men’s terms); by taking them as descriptions of correct, normal & healthy sexual activity between allegedly consenting Caucasians. In this way (because White science found no evidence for an ethnic hierarchy), White emotional retardation is perpetuated, in the hope that Whites will appear to be above‑that‑sort‑of‑thing and, thus, somehow more civilized (ie, more repressed) than the so‑called lesser breeds. Whites are thus willing to sacrifice personal happiness for political correctness by pretending that the alleged problem (human sexuality) is actually the alleged solution.

Pornography is created and used by Whites as both a scapegoat for the sexual and racial ills of White culture and as a phony cure for those very ills. Only by refusing to conform to such self‑defeating nonsense and by replacing sensational porn with emotional intimacy – with people of their own, personal choice – can White people ever hope to escape their self‑made social trap.