Sunday, 9 July 2017

ANTI‑SOCIAL SOCIABILITY

(2017)

We grow tired of everything but turning others into ridicule, and congratulating ourselves on their defects.

At about 15:20 on Friday, 9 June 2017, in Tunbridge Wells’ Public Library, I was part‑way through a computer session on PC05 – minding my own business.

As he ended his computer session, a male seated next to me on PC04 began attempting to rebuke, ridicule & mock me (enjoining another present to do likewise) for not engaging him in conversation. I was under no obligation (legal nor moral) to talk with him; while he had no right to demand attention nor to waste my time while I was busy doing something else.

I remained completely silent and continued about my business.

This incident was a clear violation of Item 9 the Library Service’s AUP in that an attempt was made to: Violate the privacy or disrupt the work of others.

There are few legally‑enforceable contracts in personal relations, unlike political ones, because legislating‑for‑love is impossible. There was no mutual respect here, since – in public – I never consent to anything other than a political relationship based on live‑and‑let‑live. I was not being treated as an end‑in‑myself – only as an imagined means to someone else’s psychologically‑lazy and discriminatory end. In such circumstances, publicly‑expressed frustration at not achieving such ends becomes the flimsiest pretext for bigotry, intolerance & antisocial behaviour.


Authority has always attracted the lowest elements in the human race. All through history mankind has been bullied by scum. Those who lord it over their fellows and toss commands in every direction and would boss the grass in the meadow about which way to bend in the wind are the most depraved kind of prostitutes.

Clearly, this gentleman’s computer‑use was merely ostensible; his real goal was to strike‑up acquaintanceships, in public places, with complete strangers in order to fill an emotional void in his personal life. Because there is no requirement on anyone’s part to entertain strangers nor to befriend them – without payment in cash or in kind – since emotionally‑blackmailing neediness can never be a valid claim upon anyone else’s virtue.

He clearly has an inordinate fear of personal rejection (matched only by his equally‑learned emotional discomfort at being in the physical company of Black people). This confounds his equally‑inordinate need for sociality – a need that can never be satisfied by the rudeness paradoxically used to obtain such unearned social interaction. He vainly hopes this behaviour will help him overcome his phobia of those who do not look like him nor share his abusive values, mores or world‑view. The crass hypocrisy here lies in the fact of a White male trying to belittle a Black one for not socialising with him by behaving in the selfsame anti‑social manner openly condemned in others.

My anti‑sociality with such people is based upon the obvious futility of attempting sociability with those who are, themselves, innately unsociable, since their complaining about the unsociability of others is, is itself, an unsociable act and cannot, therefore, lead to the equality that all successful personal relationships require. In reality, one can only be sociable with sociable people; unsociable with unsociable people. Any other social behaviour can only produce absurd beliefs such as chickens befriending foxes or Jews Nazis; meaning that the unsociable could achieve friendship just by emotional bullying.

Conflating the personal with the political, in this way, implies a belief that ones personal needs could be met, regardless of whether or not one is actually attractive and/or interesting to others. But this is nothing more than the social parasites’ usual attempt to get something‑for‑nothing because they believe the world owes them a living (without the necessity for any productive input from themselves).

Regards,









D022317344
Audio
KCC Libraries: Acceptable Internet Use Policy
Expect Respect

Sunday, 2 July 2017

Lunatics Taking Over the Asylum

(2017)

Lunatics Taking Over the Asylum

Trashy Cultures Produce Trashy People

The rule of law is better than the rule of any individual.

Image of Aristotle (384322 BCE), Greek Philosopher. Politics, Book 3, chapter 3, section 16 (350 BCE).

On Friday, 31 March 2017 15:05, I approached PC05 in Tunbridge Wells’ Library. A White male saw me do so then, knowingly and intentionally, stepped right in front of me and then unplugged it to insert his mobile phone charger; seating himself at the chair in front of it to deliberately block my passage.

His companion (another White male) trying to use PC06 noted my presence and I was forced to remove the charger and re‑insert the PC plug into its socket. I then asked this man to move and relinquish the seat for PC05.

He became sullen and childish and his standing companion demanded I should remain polite when dealing with racial‑harassment – something I never do, since racist micro‑aggressions:

  1. Always call forth my generalised contempt for Caucasians;
  2. put me under no obligation to treat racists as equals; &,
  3. are based upon the White supremacy that can get me and my kind killed.

The standing gentleman wisely chose to de‑escalate a situation, which I never initiated (that he realised could so easily have turned physically‑violent); by getting his companion to relinquish the seat he was occupying – thereby allowing me to go about my lawful business in a lawful manner.

His wisdom, however, did not extend to not causing such attention‑seeking public spectacles in the first place, nor to realising that civil‑rights work both ways and a violation of any one is likely to lead to an equal violation by the violated.

PC05 clearly indicated that it had been booked, yet the seated gentleman initially‑refused to relinquish the chair for PC05 and, in a childish fit of pique, pushed it across the room so that it hit the back of the chair of a woman sitting at (I think) PC02. She remonstrated with him briefly about this.

I somehow doubt that if I went to their homes and ate their food and watched their tvs (claiming private property was public property, in the process), that their response would be any less aggressive than mine to their implicit claim of personally owning public property by believing they can disable PCs and use public electricity outlets to charge their phones.

Scared at the thought of a well‑built Black man physically‑attacking them, they both then tried to blame the intended victim of their White supremacist attitudes by complaining of the fact that they now found they could not sit next to me on PC06 because of the bad atmosphere which now existed – which they, themselves, irresponsibly created!

They soon left, muttering insults such as Fucking prick and Twat.

Needless to say, neither male complained to library staff about my behaviour, since they both knew they were in the wrong; making it obvious how discourteous Whites know their behaviour is while they are busy defending their imaginary White supremacist rights – all the while expecting Black people to be remain polite as they do so. (Of course, I also never complained to library staff about them, since the last time I did [7/1/2016], I was accused of being racist and then subsequently banned from all Kent libraries for six months – tacitly accused of the non‑existent Protest Psychosis.)

Moreover, no apology was offered me by either; hardly surprising from people who have about as much respect for others as they do for themselves.

As usual with White males, necessarily‑aggressive and intimidating behaviour from Black males ‑ even when outnumbered (as here) ‑ is enough to cool their racist ardour, as they self‑fulfillingly attempt to convince themselves that Black people are so dangerous to White people that their White supremacy is actually somehow justified.


The world is too dangerous to live in – not because of the people who do evil, but because of the people who sit and let it happen.

Lex Talionis

My physical size was mentioned by them as somehow a threat despite this not obviously being the case when they decided to obstruct me. Why fear me for my size after the incident they initiated rather than before it, since my size did not change at any time? It was only their realisation that I was not going to permit their monkey‑like bad behaviour that changed.

In the twisted world of White people, People Of Colour (POC) using their physical size against White supremacists is bad; while White supremacists using their racism against POC is somehow OK. Whites think it unfair that they were born smaller than those they hate and fear, so are stupid enough to antagonise those bigger than themselves; auto‑creating conflicts they are too physically & psychologically weak to fight.

This absurd White terrorism tacitly confesses to a peculiar mental weakness: Given that there were two of them, and only one of me, my size should never have been a problem; unless the master race’s fear of POC is so great that, even when the odds are in their favour, they back down? Equal‑opportunities’ racists believe Black people should handicap themselves to make White supremacy easier to practice: That Blacks actually fighting back is somehow fundamentally‑unfair to White people!

I have learned from years of experience with White people that my physique is the only weapon I need carry in public – a weapon, the public possession of which, I cannot be arrested for.

Respectability politics

This was also a rather obvious example of the White desire that POC always be polite to them no matter the provocation and no matter the fact that politesse is a two‑way street. And no matter the fact that despite higher Black standards of public behaviour, Whites will still be racist to them.

Deferentially‑appeasing White societal values does not promote respect but is, instead, a fear‑fuelled defence mechanism designed by Whites for the sole use of minority communities. Such protection‑racketeering creates a clear challenge for POC in negotiating everyday social spaces; potentially negatively‑impacting their mental health, since White supremacy is not a reaction to unethical Black behaviour (which can be changed) but to undesired skin colouration (which cannot). This means White acceptance, respect & even common courtesy can only ever result from Black self‑denial; offering POC no incentive to behave as submissively as Whites would like.

Despite living every day with institutionalised racism, if POC express any emotion while talking about it, they are told they are being angry – in a desperate White attempt to shut down the speaker and invalidate their arguments by claiming they are being overly‑sensitive or emotional; Whites playing the race card which only they can benefit from. Yet, Whites never explain why people who live in constant fear for themselves, their friends, their families & their entire ethnic group should not be angry. Must women being raped be polite to their assailants?

Regarding White supremacy – marginalisation, ostracism & exclusion – it is not up to Whites to decide how upset POC should be. If Whites have a right to express their true feelings, then so do POC – even, and especially, when those expressions frighten Whites – since there can be no such thing as being too loud or too angry when it comes to standing up for the value of one’s life. (No‑one is required to earn the human rights they were born with by doing as Whites tell them.) And yet, there is no self‑respectful concern here for how POC feel about such high‑handed & arrogant displays of White privilege, along with the belief that I have no right to be annoyed about it.

Clearly, White supremacists value their hurt feelings more highly than the lives of POC: The former must be protected at all costs, lest a single White person be shown as complicit in a racist system designed to adversely affect millions whose lives Whites simply do not care about; proving they are just as sub‑human as they claim POC are.

It takes huge amounts of White chutzpah to be abusive and then to claim that it is, in fact, the abuser whom is being abused (like a murdering US policeman claiming a fleeing Black male made him fear for his life). However, it is an infallible rule of retribution that its instrument be forged not by the offended, but by the offenders, in their desperate bid to rationalise their problem‑causing behaviour. If White people do not wish to see Black anger, it is simple: Stop provoking it. (Politeness aimed at racists can only lead to more Sharpevilles.)

Morality

If I allow anyone to define my rights without my consent then I, effectively, give them the right to do as they wish to (& with) me – even to the point of their deciding to end my life whenever they see fit.

There is clearly here an inability to distinguish right from wrong and to indulge in immature fantasies of self‑righteous empowerment over others, since White hypocrisy is deeply‑rooted in the Caucasian voodoo of White supremacy and its attendant political superstitions, despite the fact that social existence is a rule‑governed ritual. Yet, sad people bend these rules and exploit loopholes; while engaging in social performances that obey common expectations, but which are designed to defy others and, thereby, gain unearned respect. They do this to avoid taking personal responsibility for resolving their personal problems, despite the fact that social life (following upon the natural sociality of human beings) implicates the individual in a web of moral obligations, commitments & duties to be fulfilled in pursuit of both the common and the individual good. Yet, these issues are superfluous to Whites (since this kind of manic behaviour in the UK is only ever regularly‑manifested by them), yet they are central to good moral character.

White Whine

These gentlemen were both annoyed that their claims of White supremacy did not make me fear them, despite the fact that no‑one has ever met a truly‑superior White person. It was the usual malignantly‑narcissistic White attempt to openly‑express their resentment that I had first‑refusal over a PC I had booked and was willing to fight them over their erroneous belief that the booking system does not apply to me and could, therefore, be so easily‑invalidated by them.

There is something absurdly peculiar in fear‑fuelled White self‑pity in that it is also, simultaneously, designed to be self‑aggrandising: The kind of moral hazard occasioned by indulging fantasies of the world owing one a living – along with the belief that treating others well is somehow a psychic‑loss to the well‑behaved.

Legal Rights

No‑one can tell me why POC have to put up with racist nonsense, especially as my inevitably‑angry response is a scary learning‑curve for those who mistakenly‑assume I should. My rage also ensures that those other Whites who witness my behaviour are less likely to emulate racist acts toward ethnic minorities in the future – all in the interests of ethnic self‑defence. After all, behaviours associated with anger are designed to warn aggressors to stop their threatening behaviour, which is why modern psychologists view it as a primary, a natural & a mature emotion, experienced by virtually all humans – and as something that has functional survival value. Living in a racist White culture, I have had to toughen‑up since my very life depends upon doing so. And if I can do this then, in principle, so can they; regarding endemic issues such as White guilt, fear and resentment.

Filtering Customers

It is hardly surprising that few POC use the Library Service in Kent, given the open hostility of both its staff and customers to their very presence. This, despite the fact of ongoing decline in the Britain’s public libraries that is partly attributable to their not wanting any POC customers; thereby hastening the decline.

Fear & Loathing

In the first instance, I employ the Golden Rule of public behaviour: Only do unto others what you would wish done to you. When others do not follow this rule, I then use the norm of reciprocity: Do unto them what they have done to you.

Given the trashy people White culture regularly produces, and the fact that no‑one I know really has the time for their childishness, POC clearly need to be appropriately‑aggressive, suitably‑threatening and personally‑intimidating to Whites in order to enforce the rights they actually do possess and, thereby, to stop Whites enforcing rights they do not. POC have no choice but to be anti‑racist, at all times, if they wish to survive. And exploiting White fear is comparatively easy, since Whites already fear POC – as the above example clearly reveals.











Postscript: Coincidentally, I was recently reading an article on 249-665-1-PB.pdfWhite fragility, which helps explain some of the underlying psychological‑processes at work in this racial incident:

  1. Because Whites think they can claim unfair treatment when their racially‑entitled position is challenged by People of colour POC, Whites are able to demand that more social resources (eg, time & attention) be channelled in their direction to help them cope with the alleged mistreatment: If privilege is defined as a legitimisation of one’s entitlement to resources, it can also be defined as permission to escape or avoid any challenges to this entitlement (Vodde [2001], page 3); &,
  2. by suggesting POC are abusing White people in expecting equality, Whites tap into the classic discourse of People of Colour (POC) as dangerous‑because‑inherently‑violent; perverting the actual direction of danger existing between Whites and others. The history of brutal, extensive, institutionalised & ongoing violence perpetrated by Whites against POC becomes profoundly‑trivialised when Whites claim they are under attack in the unusual situation of merely interacting with POC; illustrating how fragile and ill‑equipped White people are to confront the racial tensions they create – and their subsequent, evasive projection of White maladjustment onto POC (Morrison, 1992).

Sunday, 11 June 2017

Membership Does Not Always Have Its Privileges

(2017)

Membership Does Not Always Have Its Privileges

A successful social technique consists perhaps in finding unobjectionable means for individual self‑assertion.

On Monday, 22 May 2017, at 14:00, in Tunbridge Wells’ Public Library, I walked toward PC05 – which I had booked some 30 minutes beforehand. This PC had someone else’s property (mostly papers) strewn about it.

A voice from behind me demanded I should wait for them to move their property, without offering me good reason to believe he had the right to jump ahead of me in a non‑existent queue for a PC I had booked.

The PC screen clearly indicated he could not use this particular PC; while his asking a member of staff to book another PC for him proves he knew this.

Because his personal property should not have been in my way, I was, therefore, forced to move his property to one side. I had no reason to delay logging‑in to PC05, since such public use is time‑limited and I, therefore, would wish to maximise the computer time available to me by initiating the login process as soon as possible.

He then attempted to rebuke me for doing this, so I pointed‑out his awareness that he could not use PC05 and that he was, therefore, being deliberately obstructive; despite his claiming otherwise.

He became silent and moved away – to either PC02 or PC04.


Selfishness is not living as one wishes to live, it is asking others to live as one wishes to live.

The ability to advance‑book computers for Internet access is one of the advantages of public library membership: It allows members to use their time as effectively as possible – without interference from either staff or customers. To this end, electronic bookings automatically invalidate any claims to the existence of any physical queuing system – which, allegedly, the booker must then join by giving‑up the privileged rights automatically provided by such prior‑bookings.

I am not employed by anyone to sacrifice my time (without some kind of payment or other good reason); hence, my unwillingness to give‑up any of my time for someone who was doing nothing but waste mine. Because it is impossible to regain wasted time, I was unwilling to wait for anyone else to deign to stop wasting my time; especially since the desired wait was of indeterminate length and the time‑waster should not have been obstructive to begin with.

This gentleman had the impression he was able to waste time regarding PCs that are not his personal property. I did not require his permission to use public property temporarily‑reserved for my exclusive use, so he had no over‑arching rights to subvert mine in the false belief that he had a right to knowingly stop someone using a public service.

Why would anyone reserve anything on the unstated assumption that anyone else could hinder the full enjoyment of any such reservation? Can I take someone else’s clearly‑marked parking bay? Can I sit at a Reserved restaurant table if I made no such reservation? Can I gatecrash a party to which I have no invitation? Can I sit in a director’s chair if I am not Steven Spielberg? What would be the point of any booking system if the rights and privileges pertaining thereto did not, actually, exist?

Clearly‑understood social rules cannot be contravened on a whim without inevitable‑yet‑avoidable unpleasantness. If people do not wish their personal property touched by others, they should not use it to obstruct others. If I had tried to stop this gentleman using a computer he had booked, I doubt he would have been happy about this; yet, he expected me to accept similarly high‑handed and childish behaviour on his part.

The belief that public–space–is–White–space is a peculiarity of White people; noticed by every other ethnic group, for which there is no legal nor ethical sanction (only a historical tradition). However, other groups share the widely‑held view of the ethical necessity of sharing public space to avoid its being hoarded by one group to the disadvantage of another. Such regularly‑occurring public incidents reflect a conflation of the separable concepts and practises of public and private – to the detriment of the benefit and the quality of all public spaces.

Regards,









D022317344
Audio
The Negro Motorist Green Book (1936–66)
Expect Respect

Monday, 5 June 2017

PUBLIC SPACE IS WHITES‑ONLY SPACE!

(2017)

PUBLIC SPACE IS WHITES‑ONLY SPACE!

Rudeness is the weak man’s imitation of strength.

At around 12:50, on Tuesday 25 April 2017 someone was sitting in front of desktop PC05 (which I had booked) in Tunbridge Wells’ Library without actually using it: He was, however, using a laptop.

Work-related image
()

He reluctantly agreed to move; after questioning me as to why he should. He expressed no surprise at my claim of having booked the computer, so knew perfectly well that they are bookable and that he was simply being contumely. Fortunately, he was not too obstreperous about this, so there was no need for any unpleasantness – as there was on 7/11/2015, 7/1/2016 and 31/3/2017, for example.

Bizarrely, he then moved to sit in front of PC06 and began working on his laptop in front of that computer; similarly blocking its use from anyone who might happen to book it. Oddly, he did not relocate to PC03, even though it was clearly marked as out‑of‑order.


Clearly, White people believe that public space is their own private fiefdom and that public property is for their sole use, such that public services can be arrogantly and provocatively blocked for the use of anyone not deemed to have these same (non‑existent) rights. Are Whites so intellectually‑stupefied by the benefits of racism that exercising White privilege (in thus playing the race card) becomes their only means of navigating (ie, commandeering) public space?

Work-related image
()

Clearly, White people believe they do not require advance booking, at all, because they will be placed (or will place themselves) at the front of any queue. Because this kind of behaviour automatically‑invalidates any kind of booking system, it allows Whites to effectively jump‑the‑queue that such behaviour makes redundant.

Moreover, this behaviour is similar‑in‑principle to an able‑bodied person parking in a disabled parking space. It is an attempt at public space colonialism, because of a desire not to want to understand the shared nature of public spaces in civilised societies; based upon the implicit assumption that everyone else is only able to use public services with their permission – which is only ever reluctantly given. A modern‑day form of apartheid; bringing to mind those signs of yore, such as: Europeans Only or Whites Only Drinking Fountain.

Regards,









D022317344
Expect Respect
Audio

Postscript: There are no signs in the library pointing‑out that:

  1. library computers (along with the spaces & seats in front of them) are only for the use of those actually logged‑in to &/or booked onto these PCs; &, therefore,
  2. those who use the library’s Wi‑Fi should refrain from blocking the use of the library’s own desktop computers with theirs.

Do Caucasians really lack the common sense to realise these rather obvious points without having to be told them, in writing – like those gentlemen who need signs requesting they wash their hands after using a public toilet?

I always advance‑book a computer session precisely because of recurring incidents like this, so that I can prove a prior claim to use a PC when it is being effectively disabled, arbitrarily, by a customer who thinks public property is actually their own private or personal property.

Sunday, 5 March 2017

Double Booking

(2017)

 Sunday, 5 February 2017

 Reference: C00TN223

 WITHOUT PREJUDICE

 RECORDED DELIVERY
James Pearson
Interim Head of Libraries, Registration and Archives
Kent History and Library Centre
James Whatman Way
MAIDSTONE
Kent
ME14 1LQ
UNITED KINGDOM

Double‑Booking

On Sunday, 22 January 2017, I booked a library PC05 for 14:40 before entering the Tunbridge Wells Library at about 14:45.

I found someone already logged‑in and using this PC; the on‑screen clock showing no sign that their session was ending soon – it was green, not red. Although I was five‑minutes late for my booking, I was not late enough for the booking to have cancelled itself; something that occurs after ten minutes.

I asked a member of staff to rebook for me; explaining the situation, because of the fact that I cannot – to my knowledge – rebook a booking of mine once it has started. In accordance with logic and sound software‑engineering, he insisted that it is impossible for anyone else to use any PC I had booked and, so, was as surprised at what I was was saying as I was at saying it. Yet that was, indeed, the case – as I am sure the library’s (non‑existent) CCTV will verify.

This also happened again at about 15:05 on Thursday, 26 January – twice: PC04 & PC06 – & on Thursday, 2 February at 13:00.

I believe that there is a bug in the library software that, from the moment someone enters their Library‑Card Number & PIN, until they are actually fully logged‑in to one of the library’s PCs (up to five minutes, in my experience), someone else can book the same PC; creating a double‑booking at the beginning of the first person’s computer session.

Yours Sincerely,









Robert BUCKNOR
Three incidents: 22-01-2017, 26-01-2017 & 02-02-2017.

Postscript: It is worth mentioning, in this context, that I received a letter from Andrew Stephens (ex‑Head of Libraries, Registration and Archives), dated 1 February 2016, stating with some certitude that it is possible for anyone to use a library PC someone else has booked. There is, therefore, clearly a conflict between what Mr Stephens believes to be true and what the front‑line library staff think. Because the staff’s beliefs make more sense, since any booking system that allows double‑bookings would be both self‑contradictory and pointless, I choose to believe them and not him. And yet there is still a peculiar and a recurring problem here with logging‑in caused double‑bookings!

about me:

My photo

Frank TALKER - Truth-Teller