Stand together united (2005)

http://www.blink.org.uk/pdescription.asp?key=8085&grp=44&cat=158

Frank TALKER doesn’t condemn terrorism because it’s sometimes justified (eg, The Maquis). A clear distinction needs to be made between the justified and the unjustified kind of terrorism otherwise, when We do it, it’s always automatically justified; when They do it, it’s not.

If terrorist acts are mindless, then why are they so effective; given that only a disciplined mind can have any real effect upon the real world? A so-called mindless mind could have no genuine effect upon objective reality. This is simply a mindless insult designed to make us feel better about our failure to protect ourselves from the inevitable consequences of our racist attitudes upon others’ conceptions of us.

The claim of mindlessness is also itself mindless because it inevitably leads to underestimating your enemies; leading to your invariable defeat. It is, in fact, the basis for the profound foolishness of banning racists from the BLINK Website, since it proves Blacks are mindless enough not to be able to refute racists, logically, and are easy to goad. Such censorship isn’t logical; it’s a fearfully-tacit admission that one is hurt by name-calling - a free weapon to one’s enemies. This, rather than displaying a willingness to develop the mental toughness that’s actually required to defeat actual racists.

A “names-will-never-hurt-me” policy would be a definite improvement on the ludicrous aim of defeating the IDEA of racism, alone, as if by so doing this will automatically defeat racists. Ideas, themselves, can never be defeated (any more than, say, nuclear proliferation can be halted) because once the Pandora’s Box is opened it can never be shut again. This is a deliberate attempt by Blacks to evade the real issues involved in racial survival and success. It allows Blacks to exploit (& thus become dependent upon) White Racism (& its attendant, exploitable middle-class guilt) as an excuse (not a reason) for relative UK Black economic and educational failure.

Muslims must be selective as to the information they hand over to Whites - regarding their own culture. Whites will use any Muslim data as the basis for a Racially-Profiled Database that they can use against Muslims at a later date. The principle to adopt is “Need To Know”: If Whites don’t need to know, don’t tell ‘em.

White Racism entails this necessary caution, especially since Whites aren’t going to offer anything in exchange for any information Muslims vouchsafe to Whites – except increasingly overt, racist abuse. If White Police Officers won’t break ranks to reveal racist police officers that they know about, then why should Muslims do this to reveal the so-called extremists in their midst that whites claim they must know about? Whites can only generate the necessary trust if they can renounce their racist hypocrisy, which they aren’t going to do. White racism has created the problem of terrorism and Whites’ll now find that it’s come back to bite ‘em on the bum, because it’s now obviously counterproductive – no matter how much they claim terrorism is religious rather than racially-political. Whites will claim that Muslims being stopped more than anyone else by police can be minimised by Muslims helping whites. This is racist emotional‑blackmail that will be met with Muslims refusing to co‑operate. This is true whether the potentially-useful information is forthcoming from Muslims or not, since Whites will always claim Muslims aren’t helping enough as they claim Muslims aren’t condemnatory enough. Because Whites don’t know what - nor how much - Muslims know, they can always claim Muslims are holding back on them and Muslims would never be able to prove otherwise. The fact that such a negative is impossible to prove (ie, that you do NOT know something) is of no interest to Whites. This is because trying to force people to do the impossible is one of the all-important bases of the racism they refuse to renounce. This is the essential fly-in-the-ointment of the idea of collaborating with Whites in relation to terrorism. Levels of co-operation are essentially unquantifiable and every time a terrorist incident occurs it will be blamed not only upon Muslims – as such – but also upon lack of Muslim commitment to rooting out the terrorists in their own midst. In other words, such co-operation will simply become a new way of racially-attacking Muslims: Damned if you do; damned if you don’t.

Anti-terrorist co-operation with Whites is thus an open-ended commitment; making Muslims White political slaves. Therefore, Muslims should expect no sincere gratitude for any help given – no matter how useful it turns out to be – any more than Muslims should ever expect Whites to stop being racist. (Or that cats will one day stop chasing dickie birds). No matter what the number of times Muslims condemn terrorism, it’s never enough to satisfy White Scapegoating Bloodlust. No matter what the nature of the anti-terrorist co-operation with Whites, it’ll never be enough to satisfy the same, unquenchable White Scapegoating Bloodlust.

Therefore, only after exhausting all internal – formal and informal – community controls, via trusted and respected community leaders - in secret - should Muslim-community suspicions be passed on to White Authorities. Muslims know perfectly well this is the only means of minimising the inevitable White Torturing of Muslim terror suspects when Whites give themselves the opportunity of physically-assaulting Blacks – with the law’s arms around them. This means Whites having to trust Muslims – an experience, for Whites, as frightening as it will be new. This is why it’ll never happen.

To claim that terrorism has nothing to do with Islam is the worst kind of political buncombe. Although the issue of terrorism is primarily political, it’s always been the case that religion and politics go hand-in-hand because religions are essentially-mystical attempts to change the world – a quintessentially political activity. (Religion is, in fact, a subset of politics.) This means that the UK Muslim Community has to root out the terrorists in its own midst. They’re in the best position to do so because of their grassroots knowledge of their own community. Few Whites speak Arabic and could never possibly know, therefore, if plots are being hatched against them in a foreign tongue. (The usual British reluctance to learn others’ languages does us no favours here.)

Whites have also done themselves no favours by refusing to renounce the very racism that fuels the very Islamophobia they wish to stoke-up in order to convince themselves that their racism is a valid form of self-defence. This, in itself, produces the inevitable reprisals against White Racism in the form of the terrorist activity that Whites will inevitably exploit to excuse their racism. And so it goes on - and always will. Whites love their self-fulfilling prophecies and their “I-told-you-so” provocations – how else are they going to prove that they’re “always-right-about-everything”? This has made Blacks mistrustful and less willing to help Whites than would otherwise be the case if Whites hadn’t chosen to be counterproductively racist in the first place. This lack of community trust makes collecting useful intelligence about terrorist activity highly problematic; leading to the need for scapegoats to compensate for the lack of genuinely united activity against the threat of being blown up.

The fact that Whites claim terrorists hate us, our way of life, want to destroy our civilisation, blah blah blah, means they want to pretend the issue isn’t political (& racial) but religious. Whites call it Islamic Fundamentalism not Political Fundamentalism because they choose to evade the inevitable consequences of their Black-hating, neo-imperial foreign policies (as well as their racist domestic-policies). Whites never make much of the religious intolerance in Northern Ireland in claiming the only solution there is essentially political. Whites prove they’re as morally confused in this as they are in denial about their racially-differential treatment of White Terrorists in comparison to Black Ones. Whites are projecting-&-displacing their own self-hating attitudes on to terrorists because the West-hating attitudes Whites ascribe to terrorists are actually Black-hating attitudes Whites possess toward them. Terrorists don't want us to become like them, but to stop us from making them like us. The so-called “Theology of Terrorism” is just a White Trick to evade the wider political issues (particularly racist neo-colonialism) in the struggle against terrorists. A struggle that will fail so long as Whites are content merely to play games with words.

Whites refuse to believe current terrorism is basically political because this would then mean them having to face the inherent racism of their foreign policies, especially when dealing with non-White foreigners. Whites take views such as these: “What did we do to deserve this?” “Why don’t these Darkies accept that we can invade their countries and parasite off them at will?” “Racism is good for them since it brings them civilisation, democracy, superior Western-values, Loaded magazine, etc.” Whites’ own political fundamentalism (their racist & allegedly-ethical foreign-policy initiatives) is never referred to in the context of Christian Fundamentalism – although that’s exactly what it comes down to.

Whites latch on to the idea that the current terrorist threat is a “Clash of Civilisations” because it flatters them with the delusion that they are civilised, in being one of the “Civilisations” alleged to be clashing. It also means Whites self-contradictorily thinking Muslims are civilised while ensuring they never allow them to fully integrate into British Society since they also believe Muslims are inherently uncivilised (when it suits them to do so). As always, Whites try to have it both ways by giving out mixed political messages which reveal how politically confused they really are.

The Muslim Community is in denial about the potential terrorists in its midst – as Whites are about the intractability of their racism. This means Muslims are as likely to tar themselves with the brush of terrorism as Whites are to do this because of Muslims’ apparent inactivity with putting their own extremists in order. Condemnation ain’t enough; action on the ground is required.

It makes no difference if organisations like the British National Party exploit terrorism for their own zany ends, since they will always do this - no matter what the seriousness or triviality of the situation. The various UK communities are already divided by mutual mistrust and recrimination; as proven by the Muslim Belief that Whites will launch their own secular jihad against Muslims simply for being Muslims (ie, allegedly wife-beating, limb-amputating, fundamentalists-as-such). A united society wouldn’t believe that there would ever be a serious racist backlash against Muslims: Such a belief is based upon negative Black experience of Whites over the decades. When we talk of ‘standing united together’ (a tautology if ever there was one), we imply that such a thing is possible and that it’s already been partly achieved. This is the same kind of delusion–in-principle that so many terrorists (claiming to be freedom fighters) fall into. Let’s live in the real world, for Pete’s sake!

It’s worth saying that one doesn’t judge a religion by its holy books but by its practitioners. So long as Christians no longer burn witches nor stone prostitutes, those parts of The Bible openly advocating such behaviour are irrelevant. Whites – given their historical bigotry – read the Koran (if they’ve attained literacy, that is) and assume that because they don’t know any Muslims, personally, that this book will tell them about Muslims. Whites don’t assume nearly so easily that they can learn about Christians by reading The Bible, because they hear few Christians advocating a literalist approach to The Bible. So why the differential standard? The answer, of course, is (altogether now) White Racism: The fundamentalism that determines all the others.

All religions are inherently evil because they all claim that two plus two equals five, and that truth is arrived at through faith in the unevidenced and the unprovable. All religions claim intercession between their adherents (their slaves) and the great unknown and the great unknowable (unknowable because the religious claim to know that life is essentially unknowable; without explaining how they know this). This is a so-called truth to which the religious always claim exclusive access. Thus, all religions want to substitute themselves for objective reality by trying to separate you from that reality. And make you easier to manipulate, for political ends, by trying to get you to deny the evidence of your own senses. And, thereby, get you to use their mysticism in place of your own thoughts - in exchange for your life, your liberty and your self-interested pursuit of happiness. Religion is simply the mystical wing of totalitarianism.

It’s only reality whose actual existence can be proven – not any god’s – and it’s only reality to which one should ever abase oneself and be fully prepared to unconditionally worship. It would be better for us all to become atheists (ie, realists) than ‘stand together united’.

Abuse or Iraqui detainees by British soldiers

The latest refinements of science are linked with the cruelties of the Stone AgeSir Winston Churchill (1874-1965), British statesman, writer. Speech, 26 March 1942, London, on the effects of war.


In his On the Origin of Species, Charles Darwin claimed Whites are evolved from chimpanzees. On the evidence of these abuse photographs, he was more right than he knew. (As we also see among our UK police officers.)

No Black servicemen are involved and only the dark-skinned are assaulted. If the Anglo-Americans had invaded Australia - God forbid - they'd no doubt be abusing Aborigines rather than the White immigrant-population.

The simulated sex-acts simulate the embarrassment one feels with small children at Regent's Park Zoo. "Daddy, [childish giggling] what are they doin'?" "Come on kids, let's go see the tigers!" Maybe these guys are so sexually repressed that they've sublimated their sexual rage into physical violence as a form of erotic catharsis? It doesn't work - as evidenced by typical White behaviour in UK pubs; ie, if they can't get a bird, they get drunk. The basic problem with abusing people is that once you get a taste for it, you forget why you chose to be violent in the first place; eventually being enacted simply for its own sake.

Most Whites believe it's better to crap in other people's backyards; explaining why it's not Democracy we're exporting to Iraq, but sexualised, racial violence. (We get enough of that here; I'm sure the Iraqis could well do without it.) These photographs are most Whites' way of saying: "You ungrateful Ragheads! Without us you'd be nothing!"

The reason photographs are taken is the same for why paedophiles generally like to record their exploits with little kids. The record enables the abusers to relive the experience later, because they can hardly believe their luck in being allowed to get away with it - and don't expect to be given many more chances. However, because photographs have an evidentiary purpose, paedophiles tend to wear masks during their shenanigans.

The abusers' refusal to conceal their identities makes one wonder whether they secretly wish to be punished for their crimes. Most criminals want to be caught because this will provide them with the attention they never received as children. This is why most criminals boast of their crimes. Additionally, the emotionally-barren have only their faces (& their skin colour) to serve as the basis for their identity - cover that and you've erased all they have; resulting from the generally lacklustre nature of Whites' internal-narrative.

That the abuse has been recorded also shows that those who commit it lack the ethical sense to know it's wrong. Because most squaddies are recruited from the White lower-classes - who tend to be the most violent section of the UK population - it's no surprise their hostility expresses itself when abroad. White, English soccer hooligans do this all the time, after all. (This is mostly a safety valve for the White class-war.)

Most White violence is a cry for help. It's the learned helplessness of those who choose (stress: Choose) to unthinkingly obey orders. In an unwinnable war (Operation Iraqi Freedom, the sequel to Operation Enduring Freedom), when a man is faced with an outcome independent of his responses, his responses often become independent of any outcome. Whites are thus expressing their realisation of how helpless they are in a highly-dangerous situation - despite their superior military-firepower - within the pseudo-sanctuary of inappropriate aggression. If Whites can't deal with surviving in a combat zone, then they should've thought of that before starting wars. Twits! Criminals can't be let off their crimes simply because much criminal behaviour is dangerous, after all.

An excellent career for most Blacks would be psychiatry. It would be an act of Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Sikh, etc charity to help the majority of poor, lonely Whitefolks who find their emotions so difficult to discipline. Whites in Iraq are getting a taste of what it's like to be surrounded by different-coloured hostiles - as Blacks experience it in largely-White countries. I doubt most Whites have the cranial capacity (opined by Darwin) to learn constructively from the experience. Most of this war's survivors will return to Blighty and experience unpleasant flashbacks of their racism every time they see a British Muslim on the high street.

White politicians fall over themselves to claim how "disgusting" these photographs are while denying that their actions made them inevitable. They fall into the usual White racist-trap of trying to prove a negative in alleging that most Whites in Iraq aren't abusive. Legally-trained types like Opposition-Leader Michael Howard should really know better - but there's always an inherent conflict-of-interest between a career in law and one in parliament. Funny, most Whites don't claim most Muslims aren't terrorists when those same Whites are terrified of al-Qaeda; revealing their racist hypocrisy when their fellow Whites behave badly.

The White assertion that legal action against such abuses proves White Culture superior leaves Iraqis with nothing more than a choice between two evils: The abuse of low-ranking White soldiers or the former regimes' abuses. A Hobson's Choice. Whites are trying to occult their essential bestiality behind a myth of their own nobility; making the so-called insurgents look more like freedom-fighters than terrorists. (Only Whites can do this and keep a straight face.)

It's also cold comfort, for example, to tell a woman who's been brutally and repeatedly raped that at least her attacker has now been punished. She'd much rather the abuse hadn't happened to her in the first place. As usual, Whites claim superiority AFTER the event, when acting BEFORE it would really prove their superiority - as the pre-emptively-racist attack on Iraq was supposed to achieve. Most Whites shut the stable door after the horse has bolted, in this way.

These pictures are exact records of what most Whites would love to do to Blacks given official sanction and protection. It's getting harder for Whites to live in a Black World so Whites are clearly returning to the primeval swamp from which they claim to originate. And, if they still behave like prehistoric cavemen, it's about time they got their calendars fixed. History is, indeed, the symptom of their disease.


Oh man! Look at those cavemen go/It's the freakiest show.David Bowie

UK ETHNIC MINORITIES MORE PREJUDICED THAN WHITES?

This so-called Black-on-Black racism is nowhere near as important as White-on-Black - in numerical terms - so this question is an attempt by Whites (& their fellow travellers) to run away from the essential facts of White racism. While tacitly admitting - in the process - that White racism does exist and is somehow on an equality with, or even not as bad as, Black Racism.

The question is not, as implied: Are UK ethnic minorities racist? But: Are UK ethnic minorities as racist as the ethnic majority? This is an admission that White racism is as endemic as the question implies ethnic-minority racism is. But, how do you measure the extent and intensity of racism or any other personal attitude?

The intelligent form of the question would be: Are the would-be victims of racism as racist as the would-be racists. Given, for example, the current situation in Israel, the answer would appear to be: You can easily become what you hate. Because ‘minorities’ is plural and ‘majority’ always singular there’ll be more cultural abrasion between minorities – as opposed to with the majority - simply because there are more cultures to abrade.
It’s no business of Whites if Blacks are racist toward Blacks, since this is an area outside White competence - they’re unable to renounce their own racism, in the main, so how dare they criticise Blacks.

Black Racism is something that Blacks must address, as Whites must address their own racism, without using Black Racism as a justification for the White version: The disguised point of asking the question. It’s an attempt to claim that Whites can do whatever Blacks do no matter how unethical; while, moreover, claiming ethics as a relative (not an absolute) science solely dependent on what others think they can get away with. ‘If you can rape your daughter, then I can rape her’ is the White logic here; the wish is that the ethics of rape can be successfully evaded.

By trying to focus on Black racism, Whites hope to occult their own - and they would only want to do this if they recognise (deep down) how racist they really are themselves. This also proves a White unwillingness to tackle their racism because they know it’s ingrained and, therefore, harder to remove because so many more Whites than Blacks are racist as a percentage in Western Culture.

Whites also refuse to admit that Blacks have an ethical reason to be racist since they can use racism against Whites, for example, for self-defence. Whites can’t do this because Blacks aren’t a rational threat to Whites - only an hysterical one. This makes White claims of self-defence against Black Racism both legally and ethically untenable. In other words, Black distrust of Whites is perfectly justified given that Whites tend toward self-induced racism; while White distrust of Blacks was caused mainly by White racism. No White can demonstrate, historically, that Blacks were racist first, after all. This is true no matter how hard Whites claim that their racism is based on a Black inferiority they’ve never been able to prove - despite the great advances of western science.

Whites have little reason to fear Blacks since Whites in the West vastly outnumber Blacks. It’s only future Black numerical growth that Whites really fear, which they hope to nip-in-the-bud by stigmatising miscegenation. Black racism isn’t as important as White racism since there are many more Whites who can be racist and much fewer Blacks who can – the question is a deliberate distraction from this essential fact. On average, therefore, there must be many more White racists than Black. Because the racial proportion in the UK is at least ten-to-one, there should be at least ten times as many White racists as Black. And, in a figurative sense, ten times the Black distrust of Whites.

Racism is endemic in White Culture, so asking if Blacks are racist is like asking if the few who believe the earth is flat are as stupid as those who don’t. It doesn’t matter who’s more stupid than the other, only that those who are racist (flat-earthers) don’t gain, or influence those in, power. It’s irrelevant so long as one group numerically outnumbers the other, and holds most of the reins of authority, since it’s no more than an attempt to justify and excuse White racism.

Such a question is a vain White attempt to evade the racism inherent in the question and its motivation: To blame Blacks for the racism they experience from Whites by claiming Blacks are no better. This means racism’s OK so long as no-one can be shown to be immune from engaging in it. The only means for Whites to do this is for them to be more (not less) racist so that others have to respond in kind. And, if everyone is, thereby, racist; no one has any reason to try to be what others clearly cannot. This, in a sense, is the only racial equality possible. The question is, thus, an attempt to incite and increase racism because this is in the interests of those Whites who refuse to renounce racism as a political practice. This shows the sheep-like mentality of White Culture. It explains why, for example, Hitler (the White man’s White man?) was able to kill so many Jews. Most Whites can only identify themselves as part of a group to whom obedience must be absolute - no matter the ethical character of the group. Have you ever heard of a Black claiming he was only following orders after committing a war crime? No. He accepts responsibility for his act; few Whites (like Albert Speer) ever do.

The question also makes clear that those Whites who ask it (as well as those Blacks who masochistically want Whites to like them) aren’t prepared to renounce their racism until those they hate do. Like saying to your girlfriend, I won’t love you until you love me. But then who loves first?

The race guilt most Whites feel about their endemic racism results from the fact that Whites enjoy a standard-of-living mostly obtained by 500 years of slavery and 300 years of imperialism. This makes them alternately guilt-ridden and self-abasing; while simultaneously wanting to conceal the fact that their culture is based on little more than theft, by claiming Blacks are inferior. Political correctness is the ultimate symbol of this shame since it doesn’t effectively deal with any issue - by trying to hide them. This makes these Whites victims of their own inability to see others as individuals; instead of as members of (greater or lesser) racial groupings.

What Whites hate the most is that the existence of Blacks reminds them of slavery and their extensive part in it. Although Whites today have no real reason to feel guilty about this, because it happened so long ago, they still do. Whites know that their current wealth is on the back of raw slave-muscle yet show Blacks little gratitude for this: Hence few memorials to the slaves, but many to the slave traders. To express such thanks would be to admit that such appreciation was too long in coming. Instead, such Whites want to evade their guilt feelings by pretending that Blacks are just as bad as they are.

Whites can’t even see other Whites as individuals as seen, for example, in their rigidly-hierarchical class-system and the institutional misogyny implied by the widespread White obsession with pornography. If Blacks were portrayed as lower-class dole-scroungers, accusations of racism would abound - yet lower-class Whites are often portrayed in this way, with far fewer accusations of classism. If Black women were portrayed as sexual objects in White porn, it would be accused of racism, yet White women are often shown in this light. These double standards not only demonstrate racism, but the class-consciousness and the misogyny eating away at the otherwise fantastic achievements of Western Culture - destroying that way of life from within as surely as inoperable cancer.

Because one can’t prove a negative; ie, that one is not a racist. And because Whites have chosen not to prove a positive; ie, that they actually like Blacks, Whites adopt the most morally weak-kneed and defensive posture possible: Proving that Blacks are as racist, if not more so, than they are. Yet Whites don’t need to like Blacks - friendship is never compulsory - they simply need to keep out of Blacks’ way while each group goes about its lawful business. Racist Whites also cannot prove that Blacks should like them as much as they’d like them to - and in their vengeful spite they want to traduce Blacks as being no better than they are. This is the greatest proof of White race-guilt and failure to adequately tackle the racism inherent in White Culture. It proves that many Whites aren’t as superior as they’d like to believe and wish to blame this essential failing on Blacks.

The question lies at the same level of intellectual inadequacy as: Are White men’s penises smaller than Black men’s? And, the answer is the same: Yes, of course they are, but why does size matter? It’s a competition to see who’s the most or the least racist (who’s the most or the least well-endowed). Only a racist would ever enter such a competition (as only a man with a small penis ever worries over penis size).

Questions that beg other questions are badly formulated and mean the questioner hasn’t understood the situation. The issue is not who is more, or less, racist than whom, but why and what is to be done about it.

Racists are among us

The British National Party (BNP) - and those like them - have already infiltrated schools – as paedophiles have infiltrated the Roman-Catholic clergy and refugees our porous national-borders. Schools are part of society - not ring-fenced from it by guardian angels: Poor Black educational-performance partly proves this, after all. That so-called experts claim to fear such infiltration proves how little they know of their own culture – at the deepest level - and suggests they’d much rather not turn over that particular racist-rock to see fully the creepy-crawlies wriggling underneath.

‘…Education experts fear this may be the tip of the iceberg’. In what area of life is a given visible phenomenon ever LESS than the part that remains unseen? I ask you! What do experts know? This is a statement of the bleeding obvious from those who shouldn’t merely be describing the nature of objective reality (ie, what one already knows!) but proposing workable-solutions. But, do they ever? Of course they don’t. That would require genuine expertise!

These so-called experts don’t provide answers because they believe racial integration is more important than the lives of Blacks – especially if such integration does more harm to Blacks than good. Their ideological White self-obsession with papering-over-the-cracks in UK race-politics (ie, ethnic window-dressing) proves this and can easily get Blacks killed while racists go about their largely-unseen dirty work.

The real problem is what to do with racists - once found - and how Blacks can pre-emptively protect themselves not racial integration, since the latter makes Blacks easy target for White-racist attack.

If racists are anywhere, then they’re everywhere – and we all know it: The same is true for rapists, burglars and Jehovah’s Witnesses. The problem isn’t stopping them from choosing racism as a political philosophy – one can’t – especially the ones who don’t make it obvious what they really think. (Only Whites could ever posit the existence of radical UK-Muslim sleeper [ie, invisible] cells in order to justify their acceptance of the Police Service’s racial-harassment of UK Muslims; while simultaneously believing that interviewing prospective candidates can weed out racists. Maybe the same procedure could be used for UK Muslims to ascertain their support, or otherwise, for the teachings of one Usama bin Laden. Or maybe it’s just that most Whites are just basically stupid.) If racists are sensible, they ain’t gonna make it obvious who, or what, they are! And, despite appearances to the contrary, not all racists are as idiotically visible as anti-racists. If they were, they’d’ve been less able to reproduce; while being more noticeable targets.

The fact that ordinary Whites are allowed onto school Boards-of-Governors with little or no scrutiny – despite the endemic nature of White UK Racism – was only asking for trouble (which Blacks will always have). Targeting the BNP only encourages Whites to believe that the BNP are the issue, when it’s really the racist structure of White Culture that is – of which the BNP are merely an outgrowth. Such a focussing on a lame-duck political organisation lets the majority of Whites off the racial hook far too easily; while allowing them to pretend that they care about Blacks and wish desperately to do something against White Racists. But not, you’ll note, White Racism – which these kinds of White public-relations’ exercises – in effect - further promote by refusing to do anything practical against underlying issues.

Professor Gus John is wrong when he says: ‘BNP members would be a disaster for schools’ since racists are already members of a racist school-system. The idea that you can prevent racists from joining (or root them out at some latter date) is pure pie-in-the-sky. One would do just as well to claim that one could unbake a cake and remove the vanilla essence if one’s child is allergic to that kind of flavouring. Professor of what, may I ask? Made-up-ology!

Professor John saying BNP members were likely to ‘cause harm and detriment’ to children is stunning understatement; while former school-governor Maureen McNorthey waffling-on about ‘right wing views’ suggests she thinks Conservative-Party members should be excluded. Socialists only, yes? That’s absurd: The debate’s about people with PARTICULAR right-wing views, not the right wing in its entirety.

(Since ‘black history’ doesn’t actually exist [any more than White History does], it would be an excellent idea if governors could prevent headteachers introducing such history. Its existence strangely-implies Blacks have somehow led some kind of a different life - in an alternate dimension - from Whites: Outside of Dr Who this serves no-one’s interests. True history deals in relationships between people [& peoples] not so much in their Apartheid. It only deals with issues of race if they’ve been politicised at various historical periods. The concept of Black History is tantamount to an Alex Haley-type fabrication of history that was ‘Roots’ [& his White counterpart, David Irving]. This simply foregrounds Blacks as White History foregrounds Whites – such history never leads to an understanding of the past because it doesn’t adequately explain the relationships between the races; only serving to emphasise the [most non-existent] differences. This is exactly what racists do and for the same reason – to claim that any differences are genetic and not just political.)

This lack of a truly-effective ability to prevent racists from getting a hold on the minds of White kids, means Black parents taking their children out of state schools and educating them either privately or at home. (For reasons of enhanced personal-security and/or improved educational-performance.) Blacks know that Whites aren’t going to protect Black children, before their own offspring, when push comes to shove. So better not to put Whites in that difficult ethical-position of being forced to make a negative choice regarding Blacks that most’ve already made (but will never admit to), by removing ones hated-presence from theirs – whenever possible.

These kinds of problems will never go way until the last racist has dropped dead, of something or other, and racist eugenics (like phrenology) becomes a thoroughly-discredited pseudo-science. Any reasonably-intelligent human being knows this isn’t likely to happen any day soon.

UK MENTAL HEALTH

Whites now want to label the rest of the UK's population as being as screwy as they usually are by new mental-health laws. This could make everyone frightened that even the slightest aberration from what Whites deem as normal behaviour will provide the excuse Whites usually don't need to vent their racial hatreds on those they decide to call abnormal. How likely is it that a White is going to deem another White crazy compared to a Black? Not very since Whites spend very little time engaging in Black Culture and can't, therefore, have any idea what sort of behaviour is considered normal among Blacks.

This bill is yet another White attempt to criminalize strange and (literally) foreign behaviour. Like Apartheid and Soviet Psychiatry, it’s designed to make being (culturally) different a reason for curtailing the human rights of those so labelled. Because Whites tend to be clone-like in their behaviour and attitudes, this makes being a so-called non-White an effective crime. (Adding to the various racist immigration-legislation, for example, that the UK has saddled itself with since 1905.)

Whites invented psychoanalysis because they need it the most; being anally retentive, and all - necessity being the mother of invention. (Only the White Race could possibly imagine, after all, that hardcore pornography like ‘The Lover’s Guide’ could make anyone a better lover – don’t they know how to pleasure a woman, already? Or perhaps they truly believe that watching a video of Glenn Gould playing the Goldberg Variations will make the watcher a virtuoso musician?)

Most Whites are terrified of behaving differently from one another since they fear being ostracised from their own communities by so doing. This Whites now propose to legally enforce for Blacks because overt racism has failed to get Blacks to become honorary Whites. This is why so many White neurotics and schizophrenics writhe in silent agony because they know that their suffering will never be properly addressed by a psychiatric profession obsessed with the twin evils of psychotropic drugs (Ritalin, Prozac, lithium, etc) and electro-convulsive therapy. Such a reliance is merely an attempt to convince the layman that psychology is the science it isn’t because of the ultimate failure of behaviourism and couch therapy to help those unwilling to make their emotions fit reality. Psychiatry is truly the disease for which it pretends to be the cure.

Whites are having a bit of a wet dream over this idea since it presents them with the delicious fantasy of silencing Black dissent in the manner of a Jack Nicholson in the movie ‘One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest’.

The only long-term solution for Blacks regarding such laws is to ensure that when in any situation where Whites are likely to be present, to behave just like the majority of them and to blend in like the chameleon. This is especially true if Whites try to provoke Blacks into anger – as is their wont – since this then provides a basis for Black detention. When Blacks are solely with each other, they can act as they – and not as Whites – see fit. Avoiding Whites, in this way is an excellent means of maintaining mental-health because if you spend too much time with those who invented the concept of mental illness, you’re likely to end up like them. Mental illness is, in fact, a myth invented by Whites to label those they really don’t understand.

The worst aspect of all this is that White psychiatry – in its standard textbooks – contains no objective definition of normality nor sanity. This means there’s no real way of knowing who’s as nutty-as-a-fruitcake compared with those making such assessments – which is why at least two healthcare professionals need to do this and not just one. And, most of the therapists I’ve known are as screwed up as their clients – which is why they joined the profession in the first place.

This law is a conflation of the usual White, ignorant fear of madness with their bigoted fear of Blackness. The stiff upper-lip was invented by Whites to create a mask of normality behind which dark, repressed urges lie – urges to project-and-displace their self-hatred onto scapegoats.

One interesting benefit to Blacks of such laws is that they can use them to accuse certain Whites of being disturbed. Racism, for example, is always the product of affectionless childhoods resulting in the inability of the racist to develop a self-identity that isn’t other-fixated. This could mean locking-up BNP supporters. Yippee! And, should mean less racial assault and murder.

If loony bins become even more like the prisons they’ve already become, it’s obvious people won’t want to be treated at all and will expend vast amounts of the emotional energy they lack in vainly hiding their symptoms. This’ll make them more likely to be a danger to the community if these are psychotic symptoms and make the murders the hysterical White tabloids scream about more – not less – likely. Better for Blacks, therefore, to avoid Whites altogether if they wish not to be killed by a White sociopath.

A refugee-from-reality like Health Minister, John Reid, will never admit the NHS is institutionally racist. It’s better for Blacks to keep their problems away from the prying eyes of Whites and deal with them with those they trust; that is, within their own communities.