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.

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.

Free speech for Nazis is a threat to democracy

Frank TALKER couldn't have put it much better himself.

‘Golly Doll Sales Spark Anger’

When will white people ever learn their lesson?

Imagine the outcry if paedophiles marketed dolls of naked little children!

This retailer is a racist with whom no rational debate is possible because the differences between those who practice racism and their intended victims are irreconcilable. This can only lead to a continuance of the current racewar. Or, in other words, kill or be killed.

Hopefully, this shopkeeper's sales will be poor and/or his shop will be firebombed - preferably with him inside it.

The only good racist is a dead one.

Britain: how to cope with becoming a nation of immigrants for the first time

‘Great Britain at the start of the 21st century wouldn’t be half the country it is today without the men and women, often fleeing poverty and persecution, who have moved to its shores in recent years.’ This is meaningless, really; since it’s true for every country in the world. After all the usual twaddle about how wonderful immigrants are, we get the catch. ‘But mass immigration has now reached such levels that it threatens to overwhelm Britain’s inadequate public services and housing stock; they will need to be reformed and expanded to cope.’ This would be true even with zero immigration, since the population is rising from within also, and yet we still have inadequate housing for our own citizens. The nonsense continues. ‘For immigration to remain a net positive in the years ahead – and for the public’s mounting concerns over national cohesion to be assuaged’; that is, for racists to be appeased, ‘Britain will need to rethink how it copes with newcomers, adopting a much more American approach to integration.’ The paradox here is that there’s no such thing as national cohesion - save that provided by the false dawn of white racism. The very thing that creates such cohesion among whites is the very thing that will have to be destroyed in order to avoid disrupting such false cohesiveness! This means treating migrants as social inferiors, thus lessening the benefits of migration; while pretending – as this editorial does – that you’re doing no such thing. There’s no discussion here of the point of integration, it’s simply accepted as a good thing. I need hardly say that integration is a racist concept, but I shall anyway. It implies that ‘newcomers’ must integrate or be treated as inferiors; that is, it’s a form of racist emotional blackmail. Because of this, it would be very foolish indeed, for anyone to integrate with whites, as it would be foolish for the rape victim to integrate with the rapist or the Jew to integrate with the Nazi. “Integration” is nothing more than a code word for “Discrimination”. ‘Britain now resembles America, the quintessential nation of immigrants, when it comes to immigration; but it doesn’t have… a unifying national vision.’ Strange to use America as a model for racial integration when they slaughtered 96% of the native inhabitants and still view blacks as no more than freed slaves. Nevertheless, that’s all too typical of the white men who think and write this racist garbage. Worse, the claim is made that we don’t have a ‘unifying national vision’. We do, it’s called institutionalised racism – the kind represented by this editorial. The racism that says foreigners must (be) like us – or else. ‘Britain must also articulate a liberal national culture and identity to which foreign and native-born alike can subscribe and be proud of.’ A nice idea but hopelessly impractical, of course. It’s only whites who wish to determine which values everyone lives by since whites have a very bad history of asking those who are expected to conform what they might think about it. This attitude can, therefore, only lead to the use of force against immigrants in the hope of creating a new style British Empire (modelled closely on the old one) but this time exclusively within the borders of the UK, rather than without. As usual with whites, they will use force to achieve any end because they know that reason cannot be used to justify racism. And then they have the cheek to wonder why they’re so hated in the world. The culture we live in is primarily divided along racial, sexual and class lines. The truth is that blacks have little to do with whites, or their values; and vice versa. No one is saying that the poor should integrate with the rich, so how - exactly - can this monocultural project ever be brought to fruition in a country that’s never had it before? No answer! ‘…[I]n part this will also mean moving away from the fashionable anti-Britishness and negativity towards this country and its traditions, history and institutions that permeates the bien-pensant elite, which dominates thinking in everything from academia to the BBC.’ This ‘negativity’ is inevitable given the profoundly racist history of the UK and the resultant white guilt that sustains such ‘negativity’. Until whites get over the loss of their empire and their negative feelings for those less white than themselves, this country is doomed to slow, economic decline – like all previous imperial powers. This writer is pulling his own pud: If this is liberalism, Frank TALKER’s a monkey’s uncle. History is here being used as an ideological tool to flatter whites with narcissistic, self righteous fantasies. And, these denials of effective inherent racism are crucial to the imperialist project of those who refuse to honestly confront the present. The writer tacitly admits that immigration can't be stopped so reluctantly accepts it. But ameliorates his displeasure of immigrants by claiming that whites have a right to demand that immigrants conform to our values; forgetting that those values were perhaps the reason they came here in the first place. This means the old racist slogan: When in Rome do as the Romans do. Nevertheless, when do the immigrants become Romans who can decide which values they wish to pursue? Never, obviously; at least by the standards of Integrationists. Once again, in all the cosy “fair play” rhetoric there’s a juicy racist stinger: ‘This is not a matter of… stamping out differences but of fostering an understanding of how Britain’s liberal values are a product of its history and culture.’ It’s rather difficult to foster something that doesn’t, nor ever did, exist. A culture that enslaved twenty million blacks and unethically ruled a third of the world and vigorously refused to allow many Jews into the country to escape Hitler’s hordes?! How is it liberal to continue to treat non whites as less than human? Beats Frank TALKER! ‘…[A]s well as making sure that everybody learns to speak English’. Not to better the speakers’ communication skills, but so that white paranoia is not revealed when whites think everyone not speaking the only language they can talk is really talking about them. Trust me, white folks, when Hindus speak Hindi, the last thing on their mind is you! Strange that whites can’t speak the language themselves, given our 20% illiteracy rate. Since racism is designed to provide whites with positive discrimination, it’s hard to see why whites would want immigrants to speak English when this can only increase the competition from non whites? Perhaps this is the price they’re prepared to pay for the idolatry of their own language? ‘…[I]t also needs to be accompanied by a crackdown on Islamic extremists and on anybody who seeks to deny women from ethnic or religious minorities the rights taken for granted by the rest of the population.’ A nice idea but why single out Muslims in this racist way? Why not simply crack down on all extremists – or does this ‘crackdown’ only apply to whomsoever the white race hates at any given moment? ‘The biggest danger associated with immigration is… it becomes an excuse not to tackle the… problems… created by the welfare culture, with migrants used as substitute labour while a British-born underclass is paid not to work.’ It’s pointless to complain about social welfare, since it was created by the very guilt feelings motivating this writer. It was designed to assuage the poor’s tendency to rebellion while keeping them resolutely poor and in their place by subtly implying that you never need to work nor pay your way so long as you do what you’re told. Now the price of such bread and circuses is skyrocketing and whites are now panicking over the social Frankenstein they’ve created. ‘Pretending that levels of immigration are much more modest than they really are, or that they are not causing any problems, is no longer a tenable strategy.’ Nor is pretending that racist ideas like “integration” will actually work when they’ve never worked in the past. European Jewry was well assimilated into Weimar Germany but that didn’t prevent six million of them from being gassed. Vacant eyed utopianism never came more vacant and it always leads to rivers of blood.

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.