Showing posts with label Psychology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Psychology. Show all posts

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.

Wednesday, 2 December 2015

When is a computer not a computer?

(2015)

Annoying, Unpaid Super Volunteers

On Monday, 23 November 2015, at about 15:45, I was seated at the Ground-Floor Booking PC in Tunbridge Wells Library, when a man sitting at PC5 rudely interrupted what I was doing (making me jump with a start) to tell me that the PC I was sitting at was not actually a computer! (I assume he meant it did not connect to the Internet; while he assumed I was wearing a sign around my neck that said “Ignoramus”: Relevant 37-second audio or e-mail attachment.)

How did he know what my intention was? Is he claiming psychic powers?

How does he know what I do (or do not) know about the working of the library’s computer system? Is he clairvoyant?

On what basis does he issue unsolicited interruptions to library customers going about their lawful business, in the bizarre guise of being helpful? Is he a member of some secretive organisation whose members interrupt, distract and otherwise annoy others?

Why would he assume others are more ignorant (or more stupid) than he? Does he somehow know the level of technical competence &/or IQ that complete strangers possess?

About half-an-hour later I noticed him annoying another customer in the Reference Section - again, by offering unsolicited help to someone who was in the process of solving their own technical problems. Is he an unpaid library guide, provided to solve customer problems even before customers know they have such problems?

Because he obviously does not work for the Library Service, is he - perhaps - a mentally-ill and/or rather lonely eccentric offering pseudo-help to those who have not asked for it, whom he clearly believes (without supporting evidence) are either ignorant or stupid - or both; thereby, actually being more irritating than helpful?

The mind boggles.



Sunday, 8 November 2015

Gangway: Comin’ thru!

(2015)

ATTEMPTED RACIAL INTIMIDATION

I was using nearing the end of my session on PC19 at Tunbridge Wells Library this morning at around 11AM, when a White woman interrupted me - for no reason at all - to tell me that she had booked it for 11:00.

Because she was standing over my left shoulder while I was still using the computer, she was obviously expecting me to move out of her way immediately - even though she could clearly see that my session had not yet ended.

She never claimed she was to use the PC after me, so her basic assumption was that I was somehow in her way - right there and then - with no right to be. (Hear relevant 45-second audio.)

I continued working and, even after I requested she stop looking over my shoulder, she persisted in doing so. This - and her needless interruption - made me lose concentration and provoke my anger. She logged-in to PC19 as I left the building.

I never see Whites interrupt other Whites in the library to tell them that they are using any PC after them, because queuing is largely understood as a concept and a practice in the UK and so Whites (rightly) would not tolerate such molesting behaviour. She also forgot the Common Law fact that possession is nine-tenths of the law; while refusing to wait her turn.

Racist Whites believe that Black people must step out of their way - without question - simply because the former assume an automatic right-of-way over non-Whites - in public. They also believe that waiting ones turn in a queue is unnecessary when a Black man is in front of them.


Saturday, 18 July 2015

Beat the queue

(2015)

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?

Regards,



D022317344


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

(2015)

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.

Commentary

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.)

Conclusion

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.

Regards,



D022317344

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.

Monday, 8 June 2015

Holier-Than-Thou Social Parasites

(2015)

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 bedeviling 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-patronizing 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.

Big Brother is Not Watching You

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. The fact that I am not going to receive a letter from you in the mail about this issue (since you have already raised it with me verbally) nor a visit from the police (since no evidence against me was adduced), proves that no such recording exists - nor ever could (since you cannot record what never happened).

(This is the usual casual racism and social ineptitude of implying Black people are natural-born liars - without evidence and before waiting to hear any response to the alleged crime of which they are ostensibly being accused; suggesting I will not be believed - no matter what I say, no matter how I act, no matter my moral character. Under English Common Law, I am not required to prove my innocence [you are required to prove my guilt], so I shall - in future - a) say nothing to any member of staff regarding any alleged wrongdoing on my part; b) consult a solicitor; &, c) then send a written Defence Statement to the Library Service by e-mail.)

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 - despite the Library Service’s suggestion to the contrary. 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

Year:
2015
Outstanding Performances:
ente…
V. Smith…
Premiss:
We do not care what color you are, so long as it is White.
Themes:
Alienation
Destiny
Emotional repression
Ethnicity
Free Speech
Identity
Loneliness
Materialism
Narcissism
Nostalgia
Political Correctness
Republicanism
Sexual Repression
Solipsism
Stereotyping
White culture
White guilt
White supremacy
Similar to:
@whitewhines
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.

Xenophobia

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.