Showing posts with label Social Interaction. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Social Interaction. Show all posts

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).

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, 29 January 2017

Caveat Emptor

(2017)

CAVEAT EMPTOR?

On Monday, 9 January 2017, I returned an empty DVD case to your Tunbridge Wells store.

I had purchased three DVDs two days before, only to find that when I got home, one of them (The Associate) was minus a disc.

First, I was asked if I wanted to select another DVD from your shelving but, since no newer DVDs were likely to have been put on display in the short interval between purchase and return, I declined.

Then, on presenting the receipt for this transaction, I was told DVDs cost GBP£1.00, each, when the receipt total showed GBP£3.00: She did not know how to read the receipts proffered by her own organisation, since individual prices are also noted on them.

She then asked me if I had checked the DVD cases before buying, despite the fact that customers are under no legal obligation to affirm the merchantable quality of items purchased. If they were, they would – for example – have to count the pages of the books they purchased to ensure they were all present.

She then went‑on to suggest I take a credit note for GBP£1.00 but, since I am unlikely to return to a store with such an odd view of customer service, it was simpler to ask for a cash refund.

While till‑processing this refund, she repeatedly claimed that all DVD cases are checked as‑to‑content prior to being put on sale; making Pepenbury a perfect organisation that never makes mistakes. If so, you would then be the first perfect anything with which I have ever come into contact.

Saturday, 16 January 2016

ZERO TOLERANCE FOR INSTITUTIONALIZED RACISM

(2016)

This is what Anti‑Racism sounds like - get used to it

At around 15:30, on Thursday, 7 January 2016, at Tunbridge Wells Library, a White male (sitting with a friend using PC4, in the chair for PC3) refused to move from this chair to allow me to use PC3 - after my asking him politely to do so (hear attached audio). (PC3 had been booked for me by a member of staff.)

He arrogantly suggested I use the chair in front of PC2, but I pointed‑out the rather obvious fact that if someone uses PC2, then they will have no seat. He then suggested I use the seat for the Computer Buddies - but, then, where would they sit? I was clearly addressing someone of limited intellectual ability and achievement.

Work‑related image:


img0393b.jpg
Work-related image…

I then asked the same member of staff who booked PC3 to ask him to move. At first, she offered to book another computer, but I demurred; preferring to use the original computer she booked me; to avoid being placed in the position of the Black man having to kow tow to the White - for no good reason.

He still refused to move at her request and lied (hear attached audio) about my being impolite to him, in the first instance - I then immediately entered anti‑racism mode, in direct response to his playing the Race Card in the White environment of the library. Because he had no rational defence for his socially‑inferior behaviour, I made it very clear what I thought of him, in words that could not - under any circumstances - ever be misunderstood. I have no time, nor obligation, to enter into a negotiation (every time I use a UK public service) with a White supremacist about the civil & human rights I already possess. If Whites have not already figured‑out what equality means, they never will.

I also took photographs of him (attached) and he hid his head; revealing his tacit understanding that he was in the wrong - otherwise, why hide his head? (A member of the library staff once verbally implied to me [see 30-05-2015] that there existed a video surveillance system in the library, so this may avail him nothing.) In any case, at no point did he explain (without resorting to lies) his rather obvious desire to obstruct a Black man going about his lawful business.

Work‑related image:


img0394a.jpg
Work-related image…

Other White customers and staff entered the fray by siding with the White malcontent (no surprise there, given the prejudicial nature of White culture). One White male implying that the virtue of White women must not be sullied by hearing swear words - as if White women were somehow mentally‑retarded (& in need of protection from Black men). Racism, which leads to people being killed, is somehow (in the White mind) much less worse than swearing in public - which kills no‑one. And yet Whites behave as though the anger they incite is a threat to Western civilisation! - so why incite it?

Focusing on trivia is the moral inversion of a people who clearly have their ethical priorities back‑to‑front. It is also an unintelligent way to change the subject, since politeness only benefits the racist; while fighting fire‑with‑fire (my preferred method) wastes as much of their time as they wish to waste of mine. Such a focus also attempts to effectively‑legalize racial‑discrimination by trying to deliberately‑provoke Black people with whom Whites do not wish to share the same public space. Whites evade this issue by claiming that they can tell Black people how to act in public - more of the same racism Whites deny exists - while allowing contumely Whites to run roughshod over Black people’s rights.

Whites are not threatened by White supremacy (they benefit from it), so they can pretend never to see it as being a threat - in stark contrast to those who are disadvantaged by it. This means a Black person can be publicly‑abused, but woe betide them if he calls any White supremacist a cunt. This is an unwritten rule Whites never have to follow, since they are never racially‑abused by Black people. I am happy to allow myself to be provoked, because it affords me the opportunity to offer free, hard‑to‑forget lessons to those who still have much to learn about race‑relations. And it is better than putting my fist in their faces, which would clearly be a disproportionate response in this case.

As a White female member of staff stood in my way for God‑knows‑what reason (technical assault?), it was then demanded that I leave the library and never come back that day. Since I was offered a low opinion of Black people to my face (that Blacks have no rights Whites need respect) I offered my, very clearly expressed, view of Whites; resulting from such unprovoked incivility and hostility.

Work‑related image:


img0396a.jpg
Work-related image…

Racist incidents will continue to happen, so long as White people are unwilling to muzzle the racist dogs that their particular ethnic‑upbringing encourages. In particular, those who think that public space exists for the venting of private prejudices, in the hope that Black people will be handicapped by having to live in perpetual fear of being harassed for the non‑crime of being Black; making it my job - out of self‑respect - to punish them for such superstition. The only equality and fairness here is to fight back, on the basis that: If non‑Blacks get in a Black man’s way, they are racist - unless they have good reason for so doing.

As Black people have had to become used to the existence of White supremacy - in order to survive and overcome it - Whites will have to get used to anti‑racism, since any violation of the principle of live‑and‑let‑live can result in a response every bit as nasty. The advantage for Blacks is that anti‑racism is ethical, because it is based upon the principle of self‑defence; while racism is immoral, because it is not. If Whites are not required to act in a reasonable and civilized manner, why is anybody else?

As I mentioned in my e‑mail of 5/6/2015?, I am happy to take the legal risks implied by my behaviour (under the Public Order Act 1986), in order to clear the White trash from my path - upon which they have no lawful business being.



Thursday, 31 December 2015

CAUCASIAN CHEEKINESS

FYI: THE WAY WHITES ARE

The Necessary Corrective to Caucasian Propaganda

Today, at about midday, I went to Tunbridge Wells Library to pick up six DVD reservations.

A White woman behind me asked to be excused before I had finished making my selections from the reservation shelf; obviously believing that she had some kind of right to queue jump.

She became rudely sarcastic when I refused to believe she had more civil rights than she and I was, in turn, sarcastic to her. (see attached audio recording below)

It is noticeable that when Whites talk to each other, they are generally polite. But when they think they can get away with being rude to a Black person, they will be rude to a Black person; by implying the latter has no human nor civil rights - as a member of staff did to me on 30 May 2015 (15:15) by implying I was a liar, before I had even opened my mouth to speak. Yet, Whites vigorously deny that any such recorded behavior actually occurs; proving them either schizophrenic or amoral.

I make these complaints to show that I am not complaining for the sake of it, Whites - both customers and staff - really do have psychological problems dealing with those they consider inferior (as if they would prefer less customers & a failing service?!) and that my complaints do not come from any problems it is believed I possess, but from an odd attitude to life that tries to deny its own existence, despite the mountain of evidence that it does exist. in the long term, this helps correct the Caucasian propaganda referred to in the title of this e-mail.

(2009)

WEBSITE: ???...
(???)

Copyright © 2015 Frank TALKER.
Permission granted to reproduce & distribute this posting in any way, shape or form; provided mention of this Blog is included.
All other rights reserved.

Friday, 25 December 2015

Why are British Home Stores (BHS) Worth only GBP1.00?

Why are British Home Stores (BHS) Worth only GBP£1.00?


Perfection of means and confusion of goals seem - in my opinion - to characterize our age.


Albert Einstein, (1879 - 1955), German-born US theoretical physicist. Out of My Later Years, chapter 14 (1950).

The obvious answere is because they make a loss; the less obvious answer is because they have nothing to offer the British public that the British public actually wants - they have lost contact with their market, demographic and customers and know no way to restore contact that does not involve the hard work they are too lazy to undertake.

legal threats: Racial harassment, discrimination and vicarious liability

problems with Muslims, Whites & Jews

the mediocre employed compared to the superior self-employed: Laziness couplked with greed - a deadly combination since the desire is there but the talent to achieve. The basic problme with the lower-class and the uneducated is a lack of ambition, something obvious at BHS since so few staff are inteligent, well-educated, resourceful, efficient, effective, motivated or motivating, etc.


If A is a success in life, then A equals x plus y plus z. Work is x; y is play; and z is keeping your mouth shut.


Albert Einstein, (1879 - 1955), German-born US scientist. Quoted in: Observer (London, 15 January 1950).

BHS’s profitless decline as a symptom of poor management and culture

scapegoating to blame others for the inability to work as a team or to set and achieve cleary-stated goals. meaningless pseudo-philosophical gobshite-ing injunctions pasted to walls that no-one ever follows or wishes to. managing those one does not employ. Management with no ideas because they have no business experience.

each BHS employee

each COMPASS employee

communication skills, teamwork, initiative, interpersonal skills or ability with time management

Retail Acquisitions and Dominic Chapel could just be asset strippers if they decide not to turn BHS’s fortunes around - and there is not the slightest evidence they can; leading to the end of a 97-year-old company.


If men as individuals surrender to the call of their elementary instincts, avoiding pain and seeking satisfaction only for their own selves, the result for them all taken together must be a state of insecurity, of fear, and of promiscuous misery.


Albert Einstein, (1879 - 1955), German-born US theoretical physicist. Out of My Later Years, chapter 7 (1950).

Copyright © 2015 Frank TALKER.
Permission granted to reproduce & distribute this posting in any way, shape or form; provided mention of this Blog is included: E-mail notification requested.
All other rights reserved.