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, 21 March 2017

Capitalism and Slavery
(1944)


Whites Confusing Politics with Ethics to Appear Moral

Summary: How the West Indies was won – and then lost.

White people are avaricious and, therefore, actively‑willing to evade ethical issues in their greed, except in speech. This is the key to successfully‑understanding them.

His doctoral thesis, The Economic Aspects of the Abolition of the Slave Trade and West Indian Slavery (published as Capitalism and Slavery in 1944), was both a direct attack on the idea that moral and humanitarian motives were the key facts in the victory of British abolitionism, and a covert critique of the idea common in the 1930s, emanating in particular from the pen of Oxford Professor Reginald Coupland, that British imperialism was essentially propelled by humanitarian and benevolent impulses.

Williams’ argument owed much to the influence of C L R James, whose The Black Jacobins, also completed in 1938, also offered an economic and geo‑strategic explanation for the rise of British abolitionism.

Williams specialized in the study of the abolition of the slave traffic. In 1944 his book Capitalism and Slavery argued that the British abolition of their Atlantic slave traffic in 1807 was motivated primarily by economics – rather than by altruism or humanitarianism. By extension, so was the emancipation of the slaves in 1833 and the fight against the trafficking in slaves by other nations. As industrial capitalism and wage labor began to expand, eliminating the competition from slavery became economically‑advantageous.

Before Williams, the historiography of this issue was dominated by mainly British (that is, White) writers who were generally‑prone to depict Britain’s actions as unimpeachable.

In addition to Capitalism and Slavery, Williams produced a number of other scholarly works focused on the Caribbean. Of particular significance are two published in the 1960s long after he had abandoned his academic career for public life: British Historians and the West Indies and From Columbus to Castro. The former, based on research done in the 1940s and initially presented at a symposium at Atlanta University, sought to debunk British historiography on the region and to condemn as racist the nineteenth‑ and early twentieth‑century British perspective on the West Indies. Williams was particularly scathing in his description of the nineteenth‑century British intellectual Thomas Carlyle.

This book understands the dependency of White culture on slavery and White supremacy and the endemic nature of the widespread economic benefits to Whites of both in shipbuilding, chains, seaports, commodities (eg, coffee, cotton, indigo & sugar) and the Industrial revolution, as a whole. As well as the White hypocrisy of historical figures like William Pitt the Younger favoring the abolition of the slave traffic (but not of slavery, itself), but only to hurt the economies of France and The Netherlands and hopefully gain Saint‑Domingue as a new colony, in the process.

Manumission meant freedom for the slaves, but not from the colonial demands of Empire nor from their enforced inability to manufacture goods from raw materials they, themselves, have planted, in order to grow the economies of the former slave plantation islands. This kept them as economically dependent on colonialism as Whites are on racism.

Biased White Historians

Where the author really scores is in pointing‑out how important the slave was to his own emancipation – something biased White historians studiously ignore out of racist fellow feeling for slave‑owners and lack of empathy for mere livestock.

Yet there was no reason for slaves to think of themselves in this way. There was a third‑party between slave‑owner and abolitionist, the slaves themselves, also asserting their right to freedom.

To coercion and punishment, the slave responded with indolence, sabotage & revolt: The passive‑resistance that proves the laziness of slaves a Caucasian myth. The Maroons of Jamaica and the Bush Negroes of British Guiana were runaway‑slaves who lived independently in mountains and jungle. They were standing examples to other slaves of what could be accomplished, as was the successful slave revolt in Saint Domingue; leaving the free populations in constant fear of rebellion and death.

Slaves were keenly aware of the political world around them and not as stupid as White historians, singing the praises of Empire, like the slave‑owners, pictured them. As if those Whites who talk of the passing of slavery do so with open regret in their minds. The slaves were always restless and inflamed by their subjugation as the frequency and intensity of slave revolts after 1800 amply testify. Not only the Field Negroes but the House Negroes agitated for freedom, since it did not matter how indulgent or kind their masters were (flattering themselves that good treatment would prevent uprisings), it was the institution of slavery, itself, that could never be ameliorated save by manumission. The slaves, themselves, freely admitted this since unsuccessful slave revolts were usually quelled with barbarity; making the kind treatment of slaves a self‑evident oxymoron to the slaves – like telling a woman you will not force her to have sex with you so long as she agrees to have sex with you. The slaves’ battles were usually lost, but their wars were won, since forcing people to work costs more – in the long run – than paying them for their labor.

The slave‑owners pretended that it was not slavery that made slaves yearn for freedom, but abolitionists planting such seeds in the minds of people whom, they claimed, were born to be slaves in perpetuity.

Ultimately, as in Apartheid South Africa, it came down to either emancipation from above (slave‑owner) or emancipation from below (slave). The move from monopoly to laissez‑faire in the British Empire, abolitionism & the slaves, themselves made it inevitable, since the slaves were stimulated to freedom by the very wealth their labor created.

CONCLUSION: Ideas & Principles

  1. The decisive forces are the developing economic ones.
  2. Without a grasp of economics, history is meaningless. These economic changes are usually gradual & imperceptible, but they have an irresistible cumulative effect. People, pursuing their, interests; are rarely aware of the ultimate results of their activity. The commercial capitalism of the eighteenth‑century developed the wealth of Europe by means of slavery and monopoly. But, in so doing, it helped create the industrial capitalism of the nineteenth‑century, which turned round and destroyed the power of commercial capitalism, of slavery & of all its works.

  3. The various contending groups of dominant merchants, industrialists & politicians, while keenly‑aware of immediate interests, are for that very reason generally‑blind to the long‑range consequences of their actions, proposals & policies.
  4. To the large majority of those responsible for British policy, the loss of the American colonies seemed a catastrophe. In reality, as was rapidly seen, it proved to be the beginning of a period of creative wealth and political power for Britain which far exceeded all the achievements of the previous age. From this point‑of‑view, the problem of the freedom of Africa and the Far East from imperialism will, primarily, be decided by the necessities of production. As the new productive power of 1833 destroyed the relations of mother country and colonies which had existed sixty years before, so the incomparably‑greater productive power of today will ultimately destroy any relations which stand in its way. This does not invalidate the urgency and validity of arguments for democracy and freedom. But that, mutatis mutandis, the arguments have a familiar ring and should be approached with both experience of similar arguments and the privilege of dispassionate investigation into what they actually‑represent.

  5. Political and moral ideas can only be seriously‑examined in close relation to economic development.
  6. Politics and morals in the abstract make no sense. We find British statesmen and publicists defending slavery today, abusing slavery tomorrow, defending slavery the day after. Today they are imperialist, the next day anti‑imperialist, and equally pro‑imperialist a generation after. And always with the same vehemence. The defense or attack is always on the high moral or political plane. The thing defended or attacked is always something that you can touch and see, to be measured in pounds sterling or pounds avoirdupois. Even great mass movements, like that against slavery, show a clear affinity and relationship with the rise and development of new commercial interests and the inevitable necessity for the destruction of the old. It is understandable at the time, but historians, writing a hundred years after, have no excuse for continuing to wrap the real interests in confusion.[1][2]

  7. A morally bankrupt and outworn interest can exercise an obstructionist and disruptive effect which can only he explained by the powerful economic services it had previously rendered and the entrenchment thereby previously gained.
  8. This helps explain the powerful defense put up by Whites when their time is up. However, in a simplified account such as history always must be, the carefully‑chosen representative, contemporary utterances give a misleading effect of clarity of aim and purpose.

  9. The White supremacist ideas built on these interests continue long after the interests have been destroyed, which is all the more mischievous precisely because the interests to which they corresponded no longer exist.
  10. Such are the ideas of the unfitness of the White man for labor in the tropics and the inferiority of the Negro which allegedly‑condemned him to perpetual slavery.