Saturday, 18 July 2015

Beat the queue


At the touch of a button…

At Tunbridge Wells library, on Sunday, 14 June 2015 (at about 11:45) I borrowed three DVDs - it was three-for-two day (see: 14-06-2015).

Since the self-service kiosks are not programmed to process such offers, I approached a member of staff to save time. She told me I should use the kiosk and that she would reduce the payment, as necessary, herself. I did so.

She then asked for my Library Card which meant processing my card twice for a single transaction - something I always avoided in the past by not using the kiosks for special offers.

This is all rather a waste of time, despite library posters declaring:

  • Beat the queue
  • At the touch of a button, you can check it out, return it or renew it.
  • Staff will be able to show you how.

Could not these special offers be programmed into the self-service kiosks or, easier, could not staff - as they have done in the past - simply handle such transactions themselves; cutting-out the kiosks entirely and saving customers’ time?



This e-mail & any attachments are confidential: Intended only for the individual(s) addressed.
If you are not an intended recipient, please delete this e-mail and accept this apology for sending it you in error.

Sunday, 5 July 2015

…Some animals are more equal than others


All animals are equal, but…

What happened

At about 15:30, on Saturday 27 June 2015, at Tunbridge Wells Reference Library I booked PC19 and then went upstairs to find someone sitting at - but not using - it; staring intently into a smartphone.

I politely asked him to move - he did so - but then resentfully told me he could have used any of the unused PCs. A statement of the obvious, obviously indicating he was upset by being asked to move. His childishness was exacerbated by his school-masterly attempt to intimidate me by demanding I respond to his question of whether I had heard his statement (of the obvious): Did you hear what I said?.

He then moved to PC17 and logged-in to it.


The above incident raises a number of questions about the state of this customer’s intellect, along with the fact that the Kent library system is clearly not understood by many customers (even by members):

  1. Why would anyone think a desk with a working PC on it was intended for some purpose other than computing?
  2. Why would anyone assume that anyone else would ask them to move from sitting-at a particular PC (while others are not being unused) if that particular PC had not been booked in advance?
  3. Why did he not log-in to an unused PC, in the first place, rather than block a booked one?
    1. Is it possible to use more than one PC simultaneously?
  4. Why feel aggrieved about a perfectly reasonable request to move - reasonably expressed?
  5. Why try to give the impression of having more rights to public utilities than anyone else?
    1. Where does he obtain a right to become an obstacle to other’s?
  6. Why pretend someone else is making an irrational request to vacate a seat (without evidence) unless the pretender, themselves, is irrational? &,
  7. His moving at my request proves he knew the request valid, so why whine about it?

I assume the answer to all these questions is White supremacy, since this man was blocking a public utility - booked by a Black man - with no good reason; while clearly seeing the following words on the monitor screen of PC19: This machine has been booked. (I cannot remotely book a PC and, simultaneously, know if anyone is sitting at it when I book - so this incident cannot be the result of anything oddly anti-social on my part.)


Unless he has a different (or more rational) explanation for a) blocking PCs that are booked by others; b) that he is not using; or, c) whinging about being reasonably asked to move, this peculiar public behaviour of deliberately trying to undermine the library booking system - and the library’s public facilities, as a whole - will persist.



This e-mail & any attachments are confidential and intended only for the individual(s) addressed. If you are not an intended recipient, please delete it and accept this apology for sending it you in error.

Saturday, 4 July 2015

Without Conscience

Disturbing World of the Psychopaths Among Us
English language…
236 pages
Review Format:
United States…
Predominant Genre:
Robert D Hare…
Outstanding Performances:
Psychopaths are fully aware of the consequences of their actions and know the difference between right and wrong, yet they are terrifyingly self-centered, remorseless, and unable to care about the feelings of others.
Emotional repression
Political Correctness
Role modeling
Social class
The State
White culture
White guilt
White supremacy
Similar to:
America’s Most Wanted

Psychology is the disease for which it pretends to be the cure

WHITE MAN’S CURSE: Self-Absorbed Gratification and a Sense of Omnipotence & Entitlement

Summary: Caucasian Psychopathy Laid Bare in an Attempt to Use Soviet Psychiatry to Imprison Those People Whites Do Not Like.


ascinating look at the psychopathy inherent in Whites (most psychopaths are White) but which refuses to admit this simple fact. This book tries to scare readers to make a buck for its author by evading the issue that the problem with psychopaths is predominantly a White problem - that only Whites, therefore, can fix. Extensive use of the words our & us, does not effectively-conceal that these adjectives and pronouns do not include People of Color (POC).

Science is here being used to label people that Whites simply do not like because they remind them of the personality traits they keep locked-up inside, themselves. As well as to force people to like each other or be placed in prison for not being warm or empathic enough toward Whites; thereby legislating for love. The claim is even made that psychopaths are baffling and complex (since they are not clinically-insane) when it is obvious that people who believe they can do as they please in their desire for attention, often become perverse adults. Do we really need PhDs to tell us this?

Black people, for example, have experienced the deleterious effects of White psychopathy for centuries - so find it easy to spot the variable mixture of sweet-talk and intimidation of the typical psychopath. It is only when Whites turn on each other that Whites claim to be baffled, since the murders committed by, say, the KKK are still not considered psychopathic by Whites, but as racial self-preservation and, therefore, rational.

Trying hard to distance themselves from psychopaths, Whites mis-describe the condition and pretend psychopaths are somehow different from other people in some fundamental way; that is, a lack of empathy that is really nothing more than the desire for a lack of empathy - to facilitate the exploitation of others. Here, Whites confuse the goal, itself, with the achievement of the goal, through subjective inference cloaked in the respectability of scientific discourse - all this allied with the refusal to face-up to alternative explanations for observed behavior.

Perhaps psychopaths are a different species of human or, par for the course with White supremacy, a sub-species? This is supported by no empirical data and is nothing more than a political game to make Whites feel superior to those they so label; making it obvious psychiatry is little more than a soft-science: The militant wing of psychology.

After all this hypothesizing, this book provides only meager help for protecting oneself against psychopaths, since Whites are in denial about the fact that it is White culture that produces such apparently-physiological defects. This leads to absurd advice like being less gullible (& more cynical), rather than being more aware of the nature of objective reality. As with White supremacy, Whites claim to know what racism is, but never to help Blacks distinguish between the good and the bad Whites (if such a distinction is even valid) - since all Whites benefit from no-one knowing, as then racism is harder to detect and defeat. This is because Whites do not see a difference themselves - as this book clearly proves - and they would not want anyone to know just how sick their culture truly is.

Normal people are perfectly able to protect themselves from psychopaths only insofar as they are normal. Psychopaths prey on the very weaknesses that Whites so commonly manifest: Financial greed, attention-seeking, sexual lust, etc; making the Whites the most likely psychopaths and the most likely victims.

Psychopaths are common in White media precisely because they are common in White culture. Like Whites, they know the difference between right and wrong and are fully aware of the consequences of their actions yet, like Whites, they are self-centered, remorseless and choose not to care about the feelings of others; while appearing completely normal (ie, usual) to other Whites because they share the same worldview; the blind always leading the blind.

This appearance of normality does not fool everyone else, who clearly see that this White description of the psychopath closely-matches and is an eidetic description of typical White people, as such (compare with, Bobby Wright). And while establishing a range of idiosyncrasies in linguistic and affective processing under certain conditions, Dr HARE has not confirmed a common pathology of psychopathy. His contention that the pathology is likely due in large part to an inherited deficit in cerebral brain function is speculative but persuasive.

Despite the title of this book, there is no evidence that psychopaths lack a conscience - only the subjective claim that because they do not do what normal people do then they cannot have a conscience. But this is anthropomorphism, not science. The expressed White fear of such people, that such a view reveals, is really a the fear of ones own reflection. Of con-artists, hustlers and rapists who charm, lie and manipulate their way through life to get others to do the responsible work of individuation that they, themselves, should be doing.

The anger directed at psychopaths by this author attempts to hide the usual White resentment at anyone’s apparent ability to be free of guilt while doing as they please. Whites also envy the emotional emptiness of the psychopath who seems so easily to avoid being weighed-down with regret for anything they do.

Hardly surprising then that since Whites looted, raped and mass-murdered their way around the world for 500 years, that the vast majority of psychopaths should be White since they are taught to believe that such behavior is OK. This makes psychopaths hard to detect among Whites because one is not looking for a needle in a haystack, but something common because so numerous. That the White definition of psychopathy describes rather well the White culture that spawned it is lost on Dr HARE. And given that this book possesses a self-congratulatory political tone, throughout, amid absurd and angry claims (angry since psychopaths reveal what POC suspect of all Whites) that White society views psychopathic personality traits as pejorative, despite Whites commonly manifesting them - it is to be wondered if Dr HARE is not, himself, something of a psychopath.

Perhaps this White author will one day write an honest book about White culture and its endemic problems - serial-killing, various addictions, child-molestation, etc - and end the whitewashing that such a culture regularly receives from dishonest authors eager to pretend the problems of the world - and their solutions - have nothing to do with them. Or, perhaps, collaborate with a Black psychiatrist who can see Whites more clearly than Whites see themselves.

The most disturbing aspect of this book is, in fact, the extent to which Whites evade the truth about themselves in hiding behind scientific-sounding babble. As the psychopath must evade reality for his schemes to have any chance of success in the reality so evaded, so must this author’s in claiming to have created a reliable means of spotting and predicting psychopathic behavior; while then implying he finds it easy to function in a White society which creates and tolerates them.

This book sees human nature simplistically as the source of problems to be checked rather than as the source of human happiness; it is obsessed with regulating behavior that Whites fear rather than freeing it. It is dedicated to turning Whites into robots - as opposed to psychopaths - because the author sees humans as animals to be trained, as in A Clockwork Orange. The ultimate goal is to create a dictatorship of psychiatrists.

Angry, insincere and repetitive, as if author does not believe his own thesis and thinks whining on about terrible criminal psychopaths are (we already know how bad they are, so why keep going on about this?) will make his not-very-scientific mantra more believable. Opinion takes the place of hard facts too frequently to not be a deliberate attempt to make money out of people’s fear of psychopathy. Worse, there is no definition of normal against which to judge people you might think are psychopaths.

Either Whites are genetically-vulnerable to being psychopaths (since most psychopaths are White) or psychopaths are hard to spot in White culture because there they are so common, this being what Whites mean when they exclaim: He was such a nice boy! Who’d’ve thought he’d rape and mutilate those kids.

The lack of understanding of psychopathy is replaced with sneering and unscientific contempt - as if the author knows the right buttons to press in his readers, but lacks sufficient insight to help with the fears he attempts to exploit. This is little more than an unscientific puff for PCL-R that contains no references to other, similar metrics that just may be better in their predictive intent and result. Dr HARE describes psychopaths as social predators, while pointing out that most do not commit murder. His work possesses a high moral-tone (sensationalist & self-righteous attempt to substitute for an insightful-enough intellect) yet tends toward sensationalism and graphic anecdotes; providing a useful summary of the assessment of psychopathy while, ultimately, avoiding the difficult questions regarding the internal contradictions in his concept or how it should be classified.

Although a shallow book, it does contain some useful information that will be of use to POC in dealing with the psychopathic nature of White culture and of how to avoid being hurt by Whites by explaining their most likely behavior and the fact that psychopaths can pass for fully-human in White culture since they are so similar to all Whites - and, so, harder to pick out. And yet, if Whites spent as much time looking for sexists, White supremacists and social snobs as they do looking for other psychopaths, there would be a lot less of all of these social problems. But the lives of women, Black people and the poor do not matter to Whites: Fortunately for POC, most victims of psychopaths are White. And the peculiarity of this book is that a White scientist does not ask the victims of sexism, classism & White supremacy for their survival strategies - which would be far superior to those enumerated here. With Whites, potential victims face a simple choice: Adapt to a hopeless situation by a) giving in; b) accepting others treatment of you as an inferior; c) losing their self-identity; or d) fight back.

A curious characteristic of Whites is their desire to be seen as cool; that is, to drain away what little humanity they have in favor of aping psychopaths - which they do rather well compared to other ethnic groups who favor emotionally-expressivity. This explains why Whites are like their tv: Psychopathic in destroying the value in all it touches and treating everything as both equally-banal and equally-interesting.

See also:
  1. Problems with psychopathy checklist
  2. Psychopathy as a General Theory of Crime
  3. Review - Without Conscience

Monday, 8 June 2015

Holier-Than-Thou Social Parasites


Holier-Than-Thou Social Parasites

On Saturday, 30 May 2015, in Tunbridge Wells Public Library at about 16:00 I was seated at PC1 when I was asked by a member of staff to respond to a claim that I had verbally-abused another customer.

I did so but, just in case there is any misunderstanding about the verb Abuse, I offer the following synopsis of what happened:

  1. On entering the library, I went to the ground-floor Booking PC, located near to the public toilets, to check my library account and to book a PC;
  2. the complainant was sitting at this PC, not using it & staring into a mobile phone;
  3. I asked him to move so that I could use this PC; he moved, but was clearly annoyed to do so. This PC did not work;
  4. I then returned a copy of a DVD called Annie (at 15:30 - see attached Returned Items’ receipt below) and went upstairs to use the Booking PC there. This PC was also obstructed by a woman not using it and I asked her to move - she did. I then booked the next-available PC: PC1;
  5. I went downstairs to find the complainant now siting at PC1 - again, not using it; while staring at a mobile phone. I asked him to move and he took the view that I was persecuting him. Nevertheless, he moved away;
  6. PC1 was also not working and it then became suddenly obvious that the complainant was recharging his phone by unplugging library PCs. I could then see that the downstairs Booking PC was not plugged-in: I had been mistaken about it being out-of-order. (It would have been quite a coincidence if the complainant had not also unplugged the Booking PC, since he was clearly looking for free electricity there, as well.);
  7. I reinstated the power supply to PC1 and began to log-in; while the complainant continued talking to me for no valid reason; distracting me in the process. At no point did he replug the PCs he had disconnected from their power supply, nor did he point-out that he had unplugged them in the first place; denying the public use of public facilities - without lawful excuse; yet, whining when challenged;
  8. I rolled my eyes at the complainant’s contumely and he was upset by my understandable annoyance. I asked, in a highly-mocking tone, if his mother had not loved him (this is a lack most-often bedevilling those who believe the world owes them a living). He was upset about this and decided to call the Police - while standing by the photocopier next to PC1 - to claim I had verbally-abused him. After he wandered off, the Police did not appear; hardly surprising since a crime was not in progress and nobody’s life was in danger.

Threatening, abusive or insulting

The member of staff who questioned me claimed that one man’s Abuse is something else to others. This is wholly-subjective and provides no basis for rational action. His apparent lack of any definition of the word Abuse means anyone can be accused of anything by anyone at any time, without the accuser having to prove anything - simply on the basis of their personal prejudice.

However, without such a clear definition, anyone so accused can also just-as-easily claim that they are being accused of nothing and that any complaint against them is frivolous and, in itself, abusive.

The abusive behaviour of the complainant was merely designed to waste everyone’s time since he had been caught doing something he knows he shouldn’t - not because he actually had been abused. Such people possess the erroneous belief that they can be abused, but never abusive.

Under the Public Order Act 1986, there are three offences that someone who uses threatening, abusive or insulting language in a public place may have committed. In order of least-to-most serious:

  1. Section 5 makes it an offence to use threatening, abusive or insulting words within the hearing of someone likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress by them - regardless of whether such harassment, alarm or distress was actually caused;
  2. Section 4A makes it an offence to use threatening, abusive or insulting language with the intention of causing someone else harassment, alarm or distress - so long as it actually has that effect; or,
  3. Section 4 makes it an offence to use threatening, abusive or insulting language with the intention of making someone else believe that immediate violence will be used against them or of provoking an immediate violent response.

I understand the relevant terms to mean:

  1. Threatening the likelihood of physical assault;
  2. Abusive words to belittle, humiliate or upset someone; &,
  3. Insulting as synonymous with Abusive.

Aggravated forms of these offences come under Section 28 of the Crime & Disorder Act 1998; including such items as racial & religious abuse. But I was merely critiquing the behaviour - not the appearance or faith - of someone who believes that public space is for his sole, personal use.

Mockery, satire & sarcasm vents annoyance, irritation & frustration

With me, mockery, satire & sarcasm tends to be an automatic response when the physically-mature start behaving like the emotionally-immature. These are not likely to be offences of Abuse, so long as they are a reasonable and a proportionate response to behaviour initiated by others (otherwise, staff would render themselves legally-liable because of their often-patronising attitudes to library customers).

It is also not a criminal offence to express annoyance, irritation & frustration, as such, especially regarding someone else causing an obstruction, breaking the law and adopting an anti-social attitude - all without lawful excuse. Otherwise, public censure would be a crime.

My approach

My intention was simply to get the complainant away from the PC so that I could use it - not to listen to his whining or to harass him. His clear intention was to prevent others using Library PCs so that he could charge his mobile phone for free. He has probably done this sort of thing before, as he would appear to be aware that verbal abuse can be a crime and that he can use such a claim to distract attention from his demonstrated belief that library equipment is his own personal property by acting as though his rights supersede everyone else’s.

I do not initiate contact or problems with others unless I have no other option. If I am physically attacked, I must physically respond. If someone is in my way, without lawful excuse, I ask them to move and only become insistent if they refuse. If I am verbally-abused, I become verbally-abusive. I was not threatened, so I did not threaten; I was not being directly-abused, so I did not abuse. I was, however, having my time wasted, so I gave the time-waster the suggestion that he strive harder to achieve the emotional-maturity he obviously never learned from his parents, in order to lead a more fulfilling life; ie, Grow up!. This is mockery, satire & sarcasm, not abuse - unless, of course, humour is now to be made illegal?

I prefer to respond-in-kind by giving malcontents a dose of their own medicine. Although not sanctioned by law, I do not have the time to pursue legal relief since that would place me in the same position as a Negro in segregated Alabama desperately-awaiting a Supreme Court ruling to use a Whites-Only toilet - before he wets himself. Instead, time-saving common sense is applied. (I also do not ask staff for help because I have found them unwilling, in the past, to be as confrontational as is often necessary.)

Responding-in-kind is a defence to charges under sections 4A & 5, but not 4; allowing wilful attention-seekers the opportunity to provoke a response & then call the Police. This is a risk I am happy to take since, in the circumstances, I could not just walk away as I am perfectly-entitled to use library facilities. If I did back off, I might just as well stay at home - when not at work. As a Black man, I would then have to accept permanent second-class citizenship status which, obviously, would only occur over my dead body. In any case, the law can always be challenged in court, if push comes to shove - it is a common law country, after all.

Conflating the Public with the Private

An attitude of mind has developed where many customers have come to the erroneous conclusion that the library is their personal fiefdom and space allocated for the use of PC users can be commandeered for their own, exclusive, non-computing purposes. And electrical sockets can be used to illegally-extract electrical units, in contravention of the Electricity Act 1989. For their part, library staff seem to find this PC-blocking behaviour largely acceptable.

The member of staff who questioned me claimed that CCtv would confirm or deny my account of events. But the library video cameras are not marked as such, nor is there any written declaration - anywhere in the building - that such recording is actually taking place: The cameras are as unobtrusive as possible to make their being damaged less likely. So why make such a claim if it is true? If these cameras work, the veracity of anyone’s statements can easily be confirmed or denied - without drawing attention to the means. If not, the implied threat is an empty one.

For Your Listening Pleasure

30-05-2015 is a sound recording (takes about a minute to upload & about 13 minutes to play) of the entire incident to prove that events transpired as itemised above. If your security cameras work, they will also corroborate my story (by proving the audio is unedited) and hopefully lead to the complainant being barred future library use since he lacks the necessary respect, self-respect and courtesy toward other users that makes civilised life possible - or even imaginable. Barred because it is inevitable that once it becomes known - on the local social-parasites’ grapevine - that the local library provides free electricity, more PCs will be disabled by those who refuse to work for what they get.

Saturday, 4 April 2015

White Supremacy

Outstanding Performances:
V. Smith…
We do not care what color you are, so long as it is White.
Emotional repression
Free Speech
Political Correctness
Sexual Repression
White culture
White guilt
White supremacy
Similar to:
White Whine

More White Whine with Your Fish?

Thin-skinned Caucasians playing the Race Card of believing only they possess a right to Free Speech

Response to these Claims of Playing the Race Card:

Statements made to others that are apolitical are White delusions: They do not exist because all communication with others is political. White statements decrying politics are, in themselves, political; while making claims without evidence is just as bigoted as Whites are when regarding those with whom they do not agree. White Identity politics (ie, White supremacy) is the solipsism that pretends it is not the least bit political; while serving the all-important political end of White reality-evasion.

If, for example, Frank TALKER wrote a review of the movie Casablanca without mentioning Hitler, Nazi Germany and White totalitarianism, the PC-brigade would be happy. However, Frank TALKER lives in the real world, not the Hollywood one.

Projection & Displacement

Whites invented the People Of Color (POC)-only Race Card to allege POC gain an advantage from using it - without explicitly stating what that advantage might be, save to suggest POC exploit it to hide their own cultural and personal flaws. POC can never benefit from any kind of Race Card when POC control no institutions in any White culture in any of the 52 White-ruled countries of the globe - unlike Whites (eg, by claiming the Race Card is being played by their enemies whenever Whites are criticized for playing the Whites-only Race Card).

Whites are playing the (their) Race Card at exactly the moment they claim others are, to pretend White supremacy does not exist; the Race Card being one of the many negative products of White Guilt and an example of racism, in itself. As a rape victim cannot play the non-existent gender card, playing the Race Card is precisely the kind of argument pedophiles and rapists use when confronted with their victims: “She was asking for it”.

White free speech

Whites take political commentary personally because their culture conflates such things as the Personal with the Political; the Public with the Private; Ethnicity with Nationality; Correlations with Causations; to more easily cheat people into working for a social acceptance - from Whites - that never comes and is never intended to.

Whites demand that any discussion of White supremacy be umpired by Whites - to achieve their desired goal of not feeling guilty about how they benefit from unearned privilege (& then blaming POC for the impossibility of achieving such a goal). Hence, the White invention of a psychologically-soothing Race Card that, somehow, can only be played by POC since, when Whites play it (via White supremacy), that is just how things are (& are supposed to be). If Whites feel bad, POC are playing the Race Card; if Whites feel good, POC have learned their lowly place in the great White scheme of things. A Card that only Whites can play is an example of the only racial equality Whites preach: The unfounded allegation that POC are equally racist when compared to Whites.

“Reverse Racism”

Hardly surprising, then, that Whites think the only equity possible between ethnic groups is their own negativity toward the ethnicity of others - as well as their own ethnicity, which they frequently deny possessing. Because Whites think POC possess no positive qualities, Whites invented the similarly non-existent (& for the same reasons outlined in this posting) concept of “Reverse Racism” - as if that could possibly make White racism seem reasonable and justified. A concept not based on irrational fear, but cultural self-defense.

“Blaming the Victim”

The White claim of POC playing the Race Card allows Whites to benefit from the Whites-only Race Card by implying all complaints of White supremacy are inherently false; making all White claims about POC, thus, inherently true. The Race Card serves the dual purpose of allowing Whites to perpetuate the political benefits of being openly-racist (the only way in which racism flourishes to maximum White advantage) while simultaneously-denying that those very benefits even exist. It is a Card only Whites can use and helps assuage guilt for evil actions by pretending such actions are justified.

White guilt

Because there are no rational arguments in favor of racism, the Race Card is simply a desperate White means for evading debate about the benefits all Whites receive from White supremacy. The White hope is that White Guilt will recede, but the universal (guilt-induced) anger with which Whites make such claims proves this political gambit does not work; only making matters worse for Whites - both psychologically and politically.

The power of the White claim that POC play the Race Card is really the power of paralyzing White Guilt; the inevitable product and direct result of the inherent amorality of the various White cultures. Thus, Whites are clearly more concerned with White Guilt than they are with POC lives: So long as non-one mentions the Racewar, Whites could not care less.


The urge to stereotype others is strong in Whites because it helps them feel they have overcome their fear of others (by inventing comforting delusions about the automatic inferiority of those others). It also convinces Whites they need not listen to anyone other than themselves in their belief that they possess a right to deny others the same rights they demand for themselves; eg, so-called Free Speech (ie, the right to offend people for being different). Whites only favor Free Speech when it flatters Whites.

Political Correctness

Whites need, desperately, to live in a contextless political vacuum in the hope that no blame attaches to them for anything, whatsoever, and everything that happens, anywhere, can be blamed on someone else (eg, 9/11 had nothing to do with Whites unwanted interference in the internal affairs of sovereign Arab states for the past 70 years); rendering political commentary as inevitable as it is necessary. Under the tenets of Free Speech, such commentary cannot - reasonably - be disallowed except by political correctoids - who actually wish to escape the politics they preach; that is, to escape the limitations of reality. The White definition of Free Speech requires the invented distraction of a Race Card (& its necessary handmaiden, Political Correctness) to evade the fact that Free Speech for those darker-skinned than Whites is under constant attack - from Whites.

Political-correctoids are not free agents, so never act like ones. They fool themselves into thinking they can tell others how to think, speak & behave. They have no substantive arguments and simply rely on reality-evasion to psychologically-support their own empty lifestyles that are built on nothing more than metaphysical, epistemological & ethical sand. It is Whites who posses the cultural and personal flaws the invention of the Race Card is meant to conceal.

Dr. Evil

Whites live their lives on the basis that their obsession with fantasy is more important than reality. Their talk is all despair at finding the world will not conform to their übermensch desires; hence, their wish to compartmentalize experience in such a way that real-life is successfully-elided - at least in their Bond villain dreams of world domination (eg, the World Bank & the IMF).

This White schizophrenia accounts for Whites’ endless, unjustified complaints when others do not think, act or talk as they do. And for Whites making false claims about others without evidence. And for Whites’ need to mock others - who can see right through them with the weapons of irony, satire & sarcasm. And for Whites’ need to destroy competition rather than win-out against it in a fair fight.

It is not necessary to agree with others – that is the totalitarian dream represented by Political-Correctness. It is, after all, a simple matter to refrain from engaging with that which one finds disagreeable or to disassociate oneself from those with whom one is not compatible. But that would mean accepting others’ right to self-determination - something Whites find impossible.

The real world

Non-Whites and Jews avoid Whites precisely because they do not wish to be killed, mocked or brainwashed by those same Whites; hence, White resentment when a White supremacy alert (what Whites disparagingly call: Playing the Race Card) is issued by POC against any product of White culture. Few find Whites trustworthy; making Whites feel lonely and psychologically-adrift as human beings. (One of the curious by-products of Whiteness is the White penchant for pet-ownership, along with the search for extraterrestrial life - to counter their self-willed, lonely-at-the-top existential and terrestrial ennui - rather than adopting the simpler expedient of making friends here on Earth with their fellow humans.)

Ultimately, the Race Card is a card Whites designed that only People of Color are alleged to play; but from which only Whites can benefit: “Heads I Win; Tails You Lose”. The mere claim of playing the Race Card is the only way the Race Card can ever be successfully played.

about me:

My Photo

Frank TALKER - Truth-Teller