Tuesday 20 December 2011

Magazine Calls Rihanna the 'Ultimate Nigger Bitch'


When Whites are caught being White supremacist, they claim it as a joke that was not meant to harm, yet pretend to offer sorrow for the harm they know they have intentionally caused. Why make jokes about others' suffering, unless you have something profound to say? Eva HOEKE is a White supremacist who thinks supremacist humor is OK, so long as no White complains.

Rihanna comes from Barbados, not Jamaica, so this is not only White supremacist journalism it is poorly-researched. Because Whites regularly-stereotype Blacks, they do not believe they have to discover the truth about them; hence, one learns little about Rihanna from the article and everything about the White supremacist intentions of the author.

Whites are terrified of Black sexuality; seeing it as natural and spontaneous - unlike their own. Whites fear that Blacks will become sexually attractive to enough repressed Whites to induce sufficient miscegenation such that White birth rates will decline and Blacks increase. Such a demographic shift would give Blacks more of the political power that White supremacist immigration controls are designed to suppress. The author is sexually-aroused by Rihanna and is trying to mock his own feelings of sexual self-disgust by mocking her; the fear being of what his parents would say if he presented a Black woman as a potential spouse. Would they touch or kiss Black grandchildren or go anywhere near them?


Copyright © 2011 Frank TALKER. Permission granted to reproduce and distribute it in any format; provided that mention of the author’s Weblog (http://protectingthehated.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.

Friday 26 August 2011

Gone With the Wind (1939)

RATING:100%
FORMAT:DVD



Better an English girl than a Yankee!

Fascinating Black History Month type movie that perfectly encapsulates - like no other - the ambivalent feelings Whites have about the White supremacism that built their present-day culture. Here there is a constant attempt to whitewash slavery by not presenting it as it really was and, simultaneously, by claiming there was something noble about living high on the hog of Black misery - on land stolen from Indians. This, bizarrely, is presented as a romantic ideal; without political commentary or irony. Hardly surprising then that despite the mass of special features presented here not a single Black person could be found to praise the film - not even from among those featured in it.

The inherent White supremacism of the movie is exacerbated by political correctness that uses words like "pretty" and "civilized" to speak of a culture based on genocide is a cognitively-impaired use of such terms. And yet no White here is shown-up as mentally-ill. Eschewing Margaret Mitchell's overt White supremacism, the movie of her one and only novel tries to evade the issue - and that of secessionism - to avoid offending anyone. There are no "Niggers" or Ku Klux Klan in this movie and so it focuses on a complex love story rather than ethics.

The reason this film works as brilliantly as it does - but only as drama (not history) - is because of superb performances, vivid cinematography, excellent writing, superlative direction - all of which achieve a combination that is well-nigh perfect. White supremacism never seemed so reasonable - as if morality were relative rather than absolute; as if the material benefits of anti-Semitism were being celebrated (SS officers as chivalrous knights) while healthy Jews are worked to death to pay for it all. This expresses the problem for Whites today, how to account for the wealth of the West without reference to slavery and imperialism. Turning it into a love story is no real answer - except for guilt-ridden Whites.

It is hard to feel empathy for a people who, despite so-called "gumption" and lack thereof, are always going to be more successful because of the moral value attached to their skin color by Whites. "Gumption" thus becomes a synonym for an Old Boy Network and/or collective narcissism that obviates the need for a superhuman effort to survive a culture that has gone with the wind. Yet despite Scarlett O’Hara's manipulativeness, immaturity, narcissism and egomania (symptomatic of many Whites) she still holds your attention throughout: A testament to the same qualities in her impersonator, Vivien LEIGH.

Business-wise, this is a rare example of a brilliant film effectively directed by its producer: Forget about Citizen Kane, this is probably the best, most popular film ever made.



Copyright © 2011 Frank TALKER. Permission granted to reproduce and distribute it in any format; provided that mention of the author’s Weblog (http://franktalker5.blogspot.com/) is included: E-mail notification requested. All other rights reserved.

Sunday 14 August 2011

David STARKEY, CBE, FSA (1945-)

'...[T]he whites have become black...'

(Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/)

Copyright © 2011 Frank TALKER. Permission granted to reproduce and distribute it in any format; provided that mention of the author’s Weblog (http://whitespeak.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.

Tuesday 22 March 2011

Africa Squadron
(1843 - 1859)



Fleet of American ships that sailed along the coast of West Africa during the nineteenth century for the purpose of suppressing the Atlantic slave trade.

the United States Navy’s African Squadron was sent to West Africa after the Treaty of Washington (1842), which provided for a joint armed British and American squadron to enforce both countries’ laws against the slave trade. From 1843 to 1859 the American fleet of sailing cruisers, based in the Cape Verde islands, freed 7,745 slaves and seized 35 ships (compared to 45,600 slaves freed and 595 ships seized by the British). Only 19 slavers were ever brought to trial.

from the beginning, several obstacles prevented the squadron from effectively stopping all the American slave-trading heading from West Africa to the American South. Although the squadron was supposed to function jointly with British sailing ships, the latter were based in Sierra Leone, and mutual suspicion led the fleets to limit each others’ rights to search the other country’s ships. In addition, the US Navy secretaries, most of whom were from the pro-slavery South, provided the squadron with only eighty guns and a few aging ships, including the famed fifty-one-gun USS Constitution. Other obstacles included the squadron’s base in Cape Verde, which by the mid-1800s was far from the center of slave-trading activity (then in Nigeria), and the American slaving ships’ tendency to disguise themselves by flying the Portuguese flag. The squadron operated on an annual budget of US$250,000, but its highest cost was in human lives: Many American sailors died of malaria, yellow fever and other tropical diseases. In 1859 the ships were recalled to the United States to enforce a blockade against the South during the Civil War there.


To the English, racial slavery was a relative sin, not an absolute one. They unilaterally abolished the slave traffic in the British Empire in 1807 and slavery itself in 1834-8, but still traded with slave-trafficking states like Spain, Portugal and the United States.

A bill presented in the English Parliament in 1815 to proscribe slave trafficking as an investment for British capital was thrown out because banks such as Barings petitioned against it.

In 1824, 117 London merchants petitioned for the recognition of South America to open it up to British commerce - despite the existence there of the same slave traffic that had been banned throughout the British Empire.

In 1818, England paid Spain £400,000 in return for a promise to abolish its racial slave trade. But Spain did not do so because that would have ruined the Cuban economy. Britain had to compromise humanitarianism with profit since it traded heavily with Brazil, then a Portuguese colony.

British capitalists waged a vigorous campaign against their government’s policy of forcible suppression of slave trafficking that was then being conducted by stationing warships on the African coast. This government policy was expensive since it exceeded the annual value of the total trade with Africa (African exports were worth £154,000 in 1824; imports £118,000). Public money was thus wasted trying to watch every West African shore where a slave ship could be seen or suspected. Courts of special judicature were established in half the inter-tropical regions of the globe along with the use of diplomatic influence and pressure. Yet slavery continued after 30 years of attempted suppression (& undeclared war with the slaving nations). The policy was also dangerous for sailors; entailing a sacrifice of human life that English capitalists were not prepared to countenance - given the lack of financial rewards and the possibility of declared war with the still-slaving nations.

It was also hypocritical of Whites to salve their consciences over their treatment of Blacks when neither the poor nor women could vote in Britain. Above all, England was jealous of the commercial benefits of slavery that it no longer enjoyed through outlawing it in their own territories; while trying to take the moral high-ground in pretending to be the world’ s moral leader.

After the slaves in the British Empire were emancipated in 1833, British goods from Manchester and Liverpool - eg, cotton, fetters & shackles - were sent directly to the African Slave Coast or indirectly to Rio de Janeiro and Havana where they were partly-used by the Brazilian and Cuban consignees to purchase more African slaves. Seventy percent of the goods used by Brazil for purchasing slaves were British manufactures. (It was rumored that the British were reluctant to destroy the barracoons on the Slave Coast because it would thereby destroy British calicoes.)

In 1843, John Bright argued against a bill prohibiting the use of British capital - however indirectly - in slave trafficking because it would be impossible to enforce. In the same year, British firms handled 37.5% of the sugar, 50% of the coffee & 62.5% of the cotton exported from Pernambuco, Rio de Janeiro & Bahia.

In 1845, Robert Peel refused to deny the fact that British subjects were engaged in slavery. British banks in Brazil financed slavery and insured slave cargoes. British mining companies owned and purchased slaves whose labor they employed in their enterprises.

Disraeli & Wellington condemned the suppression of the slave traffic and even Gladstone changed his mind in 1850 mind about it: 'It is not an ordinance of Providence that the government of one nation shall correct the morals of another.'

An editorial in the London times of 1857 makes the White position crystal clear: 'We know that for all mercantile purposes England is one of the States, and that, in effect, we are partners with the Southern planter; we hold a bill of sale over his goods and chattels, his live and dead stock, and take a lion's share in the profits of slavery... we fête Mrs Stowe, cry over her book, and pray for an anti-slavery president..., but all this time we are clothing not only ourselves, but all the world besides, with the very cotton picked and cleaned by "Uncle Tom"' and his fellow sufferers. We are "Mr Legree's" agents for the manufacture and sale of his cotton crops.'

All proof that profit triumphs ethics for Whites

Capitalism & Slavery Eric Williams Andre Deutsch 1964 LONDON

Sunday 20 March 2011

Golly Wallies

(2007)


Whites unable to reclaim their culture without revealing how White supremacist it is



Copyright © 2011 Frank TALKER. Permission granted to reproduce and distribute it in any format; provided that mention of the author’s Weblog (http://whitespeak.blogspot.com/) is included: E-mail notification requested. All other rights reserved.

Monday 14 March 2011

White Child in hospital for alcohol abuse


Why on Earth would Whites treat their own children like this? Frank TALKER blames the suicidally-high White alcohol-abuse rates (September 2003 - PDF document download) across England.


Copyright © 2011 Frank TALKER. Permission granted to reproduce and distribute it in any format; provided that mention of the author’s Weblog (http://whitespeak.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.

Wednesday 19 January 2011

White Guilt Is Counterproductive



whites are only ever concerned when a fact is counterproductive for them

Whites want to evade guilt for their unearned privilege, so claim guilt is counterproductive. Yet Blacks know better than Whites that the guilt Whites experience because of that unearned privilege is the just punishment for the existence of such privilege. The gulf between the two sides is always going to be wide so long as this fact is not clearly understood, accepted and acted upon.

Guilt is a painful experience that requires great effort and courage to overcome; courage and industry that Whites lack precisely because White privilege encourages Whites to become complacent and lazy - especially ethically. If you look at the guilt pedophiles possess because of what they do to children and the fact that none of their kind has ever been cured of the desire for sex with children, you can see how far Whites still have to go to cure themselves of the inferiority complexes known more commonly as White supremacism and Negrophobia.

The function of guilt is to alert the guilty to the fact that they have done wrong - either absolutely or in relation to their moral values. Guilt is thus the starting point for self-reappraisal and change. To re-label guilt as counterproductive, as Tim Wise foolishly does, is to say that guilt is irrelevant and useless. This is the same as saying that a fire alarm is irrelevant when there is a fire - even though it would result in no action being taken to put out the fire. This proves that White guilt and shame are still so pervasive and so profoundly felt that Whites still desperately try to evade its inevitably-negative consequences and, in the process, damn Blacks to being always treated by Whites as genetic inferiors.

The solution is for Whites to exploit their guilt constructively and not simply self-indulgently wallow in it as White anti-racists do, by effectively challenging their own unearned privileges (as Time Wise, Robert Jensen, Noel Ignatiev & others have done) and learn to stand on their own two feet as grown-ups do. Of course, this requires that Whites put themselves in the firing line usually referred to as becoming a Nigger-lover, and how many Whites are really willing to put their own lives on the line to protect those of Blacks? Like the question every US Secret Service agent has to consider - would you use your own body to stop a bullet aimed at the President? - trying to evade the unevadable - Guilt - is never going to answer this question nor is it going to enable Whites to mature as people, into people, and so unreconstructed Whites will always be the emotional and ethical cripples they currently choose to remain. And children always choose what gives them pleasure because they have not yet learned adult responsibility and have never been taught this so do not know any better.

Kittywampus deliberately equates feeling guilty with renouncing privilege - even though they are unrelated - in order to vainly get around her own feelings of guilt. All that is being asked is that unearned privileges be renounced. Whites are not required to forgo college but they are required to prove that they have a right to be there over and above their Whiteness. Few Whites can do this. To claim that guilt paralyses and is solipsistic is a self-fulfilling prophecy that encourages running away from it and living in denial. It is only these things for people who choose it to be these things. Kittywampus's problem is her lack of experience of human variation - a typically White supremacist stance that proves her attempt to hijack the national debate on White supremacism in favor of Whites. No-one can ever be responsible without acknowledging the power of guilt in our lives, for only in this way is redemption possible. After all, redemption without guilt would be as meaningless as sex without love. This is the usual White attempt at success without achievement characteristic of their apartheid-style political life.


Copyright © 2011 Frank TALKER. Permission granted to reproduce and distribute it in any format; provided that mention of the author’s Weblog (http://whitespeak.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.