Saving a Lost Generation

‘ONLY ONE ISSUE motivates thousands of black parents to shelve the shopping and beat a path to an all-day conference – the future of their children.’ “Thousands” is not enough, to make a real and lasting impact it needs millions. The widespread apathy of blacks needs to be tackled but is never mentioned in this piece by a writer who is somewhat in denial about the real issues. ‘And nothing does more to explode the myth of uninterested parents than the queue, from nine in the morning, snaking around the Queen Elizabeth II centre in Westminster.’ Again, this is not a “myth” since the numbers involved are tiny compared to the size of the challenge. ‘The hunger for solutions to the perennial problems of exclusions, expectations and [poor academic] results…’ Again, this hunger is nothing like the famine it should be because of the lethargy of the Afro Caribbean community. ‘Frequently they are desperate for help as their kid spirals out of control or plunges into exam failure.’ If so, then why do they not homeschool and/or buy their kids good books and an Internet capable computer? It’s because they fundamentally believe that the problem (their fear of Whites) is insurmountable. ‘Hackney MP Diane Abbott, brainchild behind the annual events, is adamant the conferences have forced government to face the issues instead of hiding them.’ Yeah, right! We believe ya, Diane. But a million others wouldn’t. Perhaps this explains why your own children go to a private school, thus evading the problems inherent in the state sector altogether? Or, perhaps you’re just full of it, darling? Frank TALKER read the previous paragraph and realises that “Yes” she is: ‘‘The roots of exclusion often start years earlier. We need to tackle the underlining (Sic) problems, which is (Sic) really children feeling alienated.’ No, sweetheart. The ‘underlining problems’ is that either you or the article writer is functionally illiterate (the subject should agree with the verb in the preceding quote) and that Blacks feel alienated because They’re hated by Whites. The problem begins with the White Rrace; everything else follows on from that. Ms Abbott has spent so much time sucking up to Whites in her bid to succeed in their world that she forgets the existence of racism. The Faustian pact with Whites she has signed to be materially successful is the usual one: “Don’t remind us of how much we hate you and we’ll try to forget you’re black.” This leads to the usual psychological response of such blacks forgetting that whites tend to be racist, especially when Whites feel They can get away with it; that is, when overt White racism is recurrently fashionable. Ms Abbott suggests this nonsense because she doesn’t want to lose the career that White condescension and indulgence gave her. She certainly has no talent for politics save a pronounced survival instinct overriding everything else – especially ethical principle and common sense. ‘Schools also need to work a lot harder to involve black parents in a positive way, not just when their child is causing a problem.’ White Sschools will never do this. Obviously, Whites use institutionally racist schooling to inculcate within Black Minds the alleged hopelessness of successfully combating White Racism. This has been successfully achieved concerning poor whites so why would Whites want to educate those less white than themselves to become employment competitors for their own children. This is the essential purpose of racism: Unearned privilege for the racist. (Whites do not care about the loss of revenue to the exchequer that such racism represents nor the high cost of social welfare or immigration controls. It’s a cost They’re prepared to pay to keep their own children fully employable.) ‘It sounds simple, but what’s required is a major shift in the mindsets of teachers, governors, bureaucrats and ministers – no easy task.’ Again, impossible, since racist leopards don’t change their spots. Why should They? They can have the advantage of the situation. When was the last time you saw a racist stand up in front of others and admit that he was once a racist? And who ever heard of a leopard foregoing a free meal just because it thought the antelope had the same right to life as itself. Frank TALKER never saw that on any David Attenborough wildlife show that he’s ever seen – and neither have you. ‘That means teachers confronting uncomfortable issues of fear and misunderstanding, and breaking out of their denial about treating Black pupils and parents differently.’ Again, if they’re uncomfortable, what incentive could make them face up to what makes them uncomfortable? The whole purpose of “denial” is to avoid that very thing. If you’ve ever seen how difficult it is for a psychoanalyst to get his client to confront a difficult issue, then you’ll know what Frank TALKER means. The denial of racism serves an obvious and inherent purpose for the racist. No racist is ver going to confront their racism really, because that would be tantamount to shooting the goose that laid the golden eggs of White Privilege. Be honest, if you were born with a privilege that made your life better than anyone else simply because of a birth circumstance, would you renounce it? It is Blacks who’re in denial here not Whites. ‘After a few days [the teacher] became aware… she had been avoiding speaking to the African-Caribbean parents.’ This nonsense is a part of the problem. This White Teacher suddenly realises she hates Blacks. She must’ve been pretty stupid all these years for it to have taken her so long to see this. This makes her comments worthless: Who takes an idiot seriously. In addition, Whites only believe what other Whites say whenever there’s a problem. If a Black said the same thing, she would be ignored precisely because Whites believe that Blacks are feckless liars. This teacher should have resigned from her post as being unfit to teach! She did the Afro-Caribbean parents a favour by avoiding them: With racists, one always fears their bigotry will rub off on one. Pilot studies like “Aiming High” are fundamentally worthless because you have to get Whites to agree to being called racists before anything is ever done. So long as Whites insist that They call the shots regarding any anti racist initiative, such initiatives will always be fundamentally racist themselves. They represent yet more attempts to control Blacks as a vain means of controlling inbuilt White fear of Blacks. They’re exactly the same as going to the fox in charge of the hencoop and expecting him to behave in a less fox like manner towards the hens! Self delusion on an epic scale. ‘The government claim the £5m programme has produced stunning results with African Caribbean exam results outstripping other pupils.’ The obvious problem with this, of course, is that it shows Whites that Blacks need White help in order to achieve. This offers aid and succour to the racist view that Blacks are inferior unless their genetic superiors help them. Talk about playing the White Man’s Game! I ask you! ‘We send our kids into an institution that we have no confidence in yet (Sic) and expect it to work, but it doesn’t.’ Black parents are perfectly happy for their children to fail because They want to prove that White People are incorrigibly racist. This explains this apparent paradox. And is used by Blacks to explain their failure to their kids lest their kids should see through their imposture and stop looking up to them. ‘No-one can love your child more than you.’ Blacks need to ask themselves if They really do love their children (“No” based on the available evidence) and if not, why not?

Article copyright © 2007 Frank TALKER. Permission granted to reproduce and distribute it in any format; 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 the Inevitability of Toe Jam in Hot Weather (East Cheam Press: Groper Books, 1997) and is University of Bullshit Professor Emeritus of Madeupology.

Questions Boris Johnson must answer

‘A lot of people have read his journalism and are still offended. The truth is – Boris just doesn’t understand race. He just doesn’t realise why people are upset?’ He understands perfectly – he’s a racist. When has a racist not understood that he is a racist? Never! No racist has ever been able to argue logically that his philosophy is not racist. What he understands particularly is that there are significant numbers of white racists like himself who would be willing to vote for racism. And that is the essence of his political platform. To claim that he is ignorant of-self is to credit him with the disingenuous intellectual ability that he clearly lacks. ‘Is it acceptable under any circumstances to say Africans have “watermelon smiles” and call black children “piccanninies”? Isn’t this further evidence of a colonial mindset?’ Yes – to both. So long as the comments are non derogatory and/or reported speech. ‘Boris reserves the right to make jokes, but when those jokes play on the kind of colonial stereotypes used in tandem with oppression of other countries, can such jokes ever be acceptable?’ (See Frank TALKER’s response to the above paragraph.) ‘Boris has recently reaffirmed your (Sic) belief that colonial rule would be better for Africa. Does he really think Africans are incapable of governing themselves?’ Yes – he’s a racist. Mr Johnson doesn’t really believe – deep down – that Darkies cannot govern themselves; he believes that Wogs won’t do this as Whites would like. In other words, Samboes will govern themselves as they choose, not as Whites would wish. Also, of course, Whites can't earn as much money from exploiting blacks without a return to the British Empire. ‘Does he recognise that Muslims revere the Prophet Mohammad (Sic) to such an extent they are unlikely to roll in the isles at “Life of Mohammad (Sic)?”’ This is an inherently false analogy since “Life of Brian” isn’t “Life of Christ” and is, therefore, not a ridiculing of the Anointed One (a crime currently in the UK), but a ridiculing of religious dogma. Christians would no more find an attack on Christ and his followers pleasurable than Muslims an attack on Islam. To say otherwise is racist hypocrisy. A true analogy would be Gay News publishing a poem implying Christ’s homosexuality that was successfully prosecuted under the UK common law of Blasphemous Libel. This proves what Frank TALKER says about the hypersensitivity of Christians. When Christians can accept a gay Christ, then Muslims can be expected to accept a gay Mohammed. Neither is very likely because of the closed mindset and circular reasoning inherent in all religions. ‘Boris… wrote that Mandela was taking South Africa towards “banana republic poverty” Does he understand why this could be seen as sympathising with apartheid?’ Yes – because he’s an apartheid supporting racist. ‘What is (Sic) Boris’s views (Sic) on the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry? He penned a whole series of articles criticising various recommendations, and does not seem to have had a good word to say about the inquiry. He says it was a “witchhunt” against the police and has whipped up “hysteria.” It sounds like he was against the inquiry’. All racists want their racism normalised NOT pathologized. The only way they can do this is not to argue in favour of racism – which Boris Johnson hasn’t the brainpower to do – but to argue for its concealment and for witch hunts against those who whistleblow. He’s not against witch-hunts – as such – he’s just against witch-hunts that reveal the true extent and nature of UK institutionalised racism. ‘He wrote: “Chinese cultural influence is virtually nil.” Was this another ‘joke’, or does he really believe that?’ Yes – because he’s a racist. ‘His prescription for dealing with racism appears to be to “axe large chunks of the anti-racism industry.” How will this help tackle racism in London?’ Boris Johnson has no prescription for “tackling racism” because he supports the very institution of it. There can be no conceivable circumstance where a White will renounce the very thing (racism) that makes his worldly success more probable than the prosperity of someone more talented but less white than Himself. Therefore, “tackling racism” can never be an issue for Whites: Only its concealment and perpetualised practice. (Inevitably, Whites resent the “anti racism industry” because it’s mostly paid for from Their taxes: A de facto fine, if you will.) ‘Does he believe Eleanor Bland, the Conservative former parliamentary candidate, should have had her membership suspended for allegedly circulating an email… about immigrants…?’ Racists currently enjoy political and social immunity because of their current right to free speech. Mr Johnson is therefore at liberty to post racist e mails without being branded a racist by Whites. He simply claims – correctly – to be a freespeaker. All racists make this claim because they can’t actually justify their hatred and, at the very least, free-speech gives them the semblance of rationality since free speech is rational. This is the most important reason blacks should be vigorous – not in their condemnation of terrorism – but in their condemnation of Whites.

Article copyright © 2007 Frank TALKER. Permission granted to reproduce and distribute it in any format; 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 the Inevitability of Toe Jam in Hot Weather (East Cheam Press: Groper Books, 1997) and is University of Bullshit Professor Emeritus of Madeupology.

You're having a laugh

‘Asked to explain an article in the Spectator where he argued for the return of colonial rule in Africa, he said: You feel such a sense of despair when you see suffering like that that you wonder whether some of these things were better under a different system’. Nice try but colonial rule would only substitute one form of suffering for another because Whites have never shown any altruistic tendencies and would expect something in return for all the help They would be pretending to give. And that would ultimately be a return to the good old days of slavery. In any case Whites caused much of the suffering Mr Johnson refers to, in the first place. Strange that his “sense of despair” is such a superficial one. ‘Further demonstrating his colonial credentials he has also claimed that… the test of how integrated Muslims were was "when you could expect a Bradford audience to roll in the aisles at Monty Python’s Life of Mohammed’. The REAL test is when Whites stop racially abusing Muslims: A test Whites will always dismally fail to pass. Oh, and by the way, racial integration is a racist concept because it means that someone you can’t stand is required to change so that you CAN stand them. That would be like demanding that the woman you’d like to marry change into someone you can love or the wedding’s off. This kind of emotional blackmail explains why Whites have such a high divorce rate. By claiming that others must be like us, you implicitly admit that you don’t like them and that they are, therefore, not welcome. This fundamentally makes integration impossible precisely because it’s being called for. ‘Denise Bowry, a Blink reader, emailed in to say: "I think it is disgusting to think that this man will be allowed to stand in the elections. It's a disgrace to think that people would even vote for him. Totally outrageous"’. Correct, of course. But outspoken racists are protected by the principle of free speech in a way that their would be victims are not. So long as Whites remain stubbornly racist, They will always vote for any man who offers Them the opportunity to maintain White Privilege. It is this fact that must be dealt with not the pompous racial vanity of individual racists like Boris Johnson.

Article copyright © 2007 Frank TALKER. Permission granted to reproduce and distribute it in any format; 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 the Inevitability of Toe Jam in Hot Weather (East Cheam Press: Groper Books, 1997) and is University of Bullshit Professor Emeritus of Madeupology.

Blueprint for action against the threat of international terrorism

‘IT HAS been six years since the atrocious, epoch-defining terror attacks of 9/11…’. Why is it that when hundreds of Blacks were killed in East African embassies at the end of the last century, this was not described as “epoch defining”, but when thousands of Whites are killed it is? The answer is racism – the very thing that caused the terrorism in the first place. ‘…[I]t seemed as if we had entered a new era in which mass fatalities from terrorism would become routine in Western cities’. This is racist paranoia since the very purpose of terrorism is to spread terror through the threat of fatalities not the actuality of same. It is, therefore, not necessary for terrorists to kill large numbers of people. Only conventional wars require this because they are ultimately based on attrition. ‘Yet there is a real danger that electorates on both sides of the Atlantic will draw the wrong lessons from the failure of al-Qaeda and its terrorist allies to inflict more 9/11s’. Again, why would terrorists want to do this when it cannot ever be their technique or purpose to do so? ‘Without a combination of luck, clever policing and successful intelligence work, there would have been many more lethal attacks in the West’. The police have shown themselves to be basically lacking in good intelligence, not very clever and fundamentally unlucky. Again the word “atrocious” appears showing that this bigoted writer lacks a good thesaurus: ‘[H]undreds of deaths in atrocious circumstances in a nightclub on Ladies’ night’. This smacks of the White belief that it is Their women who must be protected from Johnny Saracen. ‘…[We should not forget the numerous terror attacks by Islamic extremists in the rest of the world, causing far more deaths in total than 9/11 ever did…’. And yet Whites forgot these attacks because they killed few of Their own race. This is one of the main reasons Whites have such a hard time learning the lessons of terrorism and of Their fundamental complicity in it. ‘The awful truth is that the world is even more dangerous for liberal democratic capitalism than it was six years ago’. It always has been dangerous because liberal democracies ain’t that liberal nor democratic. This is why terrorists exist and why we, ultimately, are the greatest danger to our own survival. Why is there a problem with dark skinned people possessing nuclear weapons – if that is their wish? The truth is that Israel will have to live with the threat of a nuclear Iran – as we had to during the cold war regarding the Soviet Union. Life still went on then and it will now. ‘Relying on mutually assured destruction to keep the peace in today’s Middle East truly would be mad’. And yet it kept the peace in Europe after 1945! ‘Polls consistently show that at least 10% of British Muslims believe that terror attacks are justified’. Hardly surprising since Whites consistently believe that attacking Muslim countries for no reason is justified and that White British racists have a right to free speech. ‘There is a real danger that America will learn the wrong lessons from Iraq and turn in on itself in the mistaken belief that isolationism is the easiest way to escape trouble’. And yet political “isolationism” is the easiest way to avoid trouble since it avoids annoying your neighbours. ‘There are five broad policies that all Western countries must urgently pursue if there is to be any hope of grabbing back the initiative from the terrorist radicals’. This “initiative” is ultimately trying to make the entire world a carbon copy of White Culture because Whites have consistently shown that They cannot abide difference of any kind. And it is this intolerance that produces the very terrorism of which Whites are so terrified. Perhaps Whites enjoy being terrified because it makes up for something They lack? ‘Perhaps most pressing of all, General Pervez Musharraf, Pakistan’s dictator, must be persuaded not to declare a state of emergency in Pakistan’. ‘Mr Musharraf must be told that the military and financial aid on which his regime depends will only keep on flowing if he renounces his military uniform…’. When you put these two sentences together you more fully appreciate the hypocrisy of the writer. “Persuasion” and “emotional blackmail” are not going to solve anything anymore than interfering with the internal affairs of sovereign states. This will simply produce more terrorism – which we will fully deserve. ‘The second challenge is to deal with Iraq as it is today; while the invasion was a disaster, one cannot turn back the clock’’. This is a moral evasion that avoids learning lessons from mistakes. Effectively, it’s an attempt to deny that invading Iraq was a mistake since it contains no admission that the invasion was a mistake. ‘…[T]he new US strategy, which has succeeded in cutting sectarian killings in Baghdad in half, should be given time to succeed. It is important to remember that Osama bin Laden acquired his belief in the West’s decadence from the American retreat from Somalia in 1993-94’. There’s no evidence for either of these two statements. The real, face saving, truth is contained here: ‘To leave Iraq now would encourage al-Qaeda in its belief that the West lacks the stomach for the fight and would turn those who would be perceived to have defeated the sole superpower into the heroes of extremists everywhere’. This is the real fear for which this writer is prepared to sacrifice the lives of its young men. ‘It is a sobering fact that the only successful terrorist attack on British soil since 9/11 was carried out by British citizens’. It’s funny how when dark skinned people here do bad things they’re called British (ie, traitors), but when they do well for themselves they’re resented as unintegrated immigrants who only come here to do well for themselves. The fact is that they're not fully accepted as British citizens because of their skin colour so feel no loyalty to an institutionally racist country like the UK. ‘To defeat this threat, the government must offer unstinting support to the Muslim moderates who oppose the use of violence to pursue political objectives in a democratic society’. The problem here is obvious. This idea is a classic example of crying over spilt milk. Because unstinting support to Muslims was never offered before 9/11, Muslims divided into two groups: Extremists and moderates. If Whites had been a little less racist and a little more welcoming, such a schism might never have happened. Too late now: Once bitten; twice shy. Muslims now know what Whites are really like and it’s impossible to “turn back the clock”. This writer fully realises this but evades the political implications. White people are like bad parents who then wonder why - when their kids grow up - their kids then disown them. ‘For its part, the Muslim community must become more proactive in its co operation with the police’. Of course, this is never going to happen and is payback for White Racism. After all, we see few examples of Whites being “proactive” in the War on (White) Racism (because Whites don’t see this as Their war). The reason Muslims don’t care if Whites get killed is because Whites don’t care if Muslims do. Whites know this perfectly well, which is why They are now more prepared to become overtly and desperately racist to terrorise Muslims into this so called co operation. ‘Peter Clarke, Deputy Assistant Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, recently bemoaned how few anti-terrorism prosecutions had resulted from community intelligence’. How can a white man who works for an institutionally racist organisation have the sheer effrontery to “bemoan” the fact that Muslims no more care if Whites are killed by terrorists than Whites care if Muslims are killed by racists?! This is the kind of stupidity led policing we’ve come to expect in the UK. ‘Our final plea is for a renewed push for economic and political liberalism in Islamic countries’. More White Interference that will ensure more terrorism. ‘Ultimately, terrorism will not be defeated until it has been starved of the oxygen of despair, which is its life force’. The “life force” of terrorism is the White Racism demonstrated by the belief that Whites have the God-given right to tell others what to do. ‘The past six years have seen many mistakes…’. But not so many as the past 500, in which Whites tried to fashion the world in Their own racist image; causing the terrorist backlash of which They so childishly bemoan. ‘…[W]e are in this for the long haul…’. Of course, and so are the terrorists. The same was said during the Vietnam War but that was still lost by the so called ‘forces of freedom’. This nonsense is the recipe of perpetual racewar abroad and totalitarian security measures at home. What Whites need from non Whites is someone to hate because it gives Them a goal above and beyond simply making money and cheating each other. This editorial simply attempts to give Whites the excuses They need to do what They do best: Interfere. There is, as always, no “blueprint for action against the threat of the international” racism that is being proposed here: A return to a British Empire run by the Yanks.

Article copyright © 2007 Frank TALKER. Permission granted to reproduce and distribute it in any format; 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 the Inevitability of Toe Jam in Hot Weather (East Cheam Press: Groper Books, 1997) and is University of Bullshit Professor Emeritus of Madeupology.

WHITENESS

Apart from his idiotic, anti-capitalist comments, Dr Jensen is more right than he really knows. (The problem with criticising capitalism is that it is the only economic system that allows blacks to prosper; democracy, on the other hand, favours only the majority and is, in itself therefore, inherently racist.)