Tuesday, 24 February 2015

White Ghettoism

(http://themachoresponse.blogspot.co.uk)

Purpose of White Ghettos

A Good White Town. A Good Clean White Town. A Good White Town to Live In and a Good White Place to Raise Your White Children.

Yet, beneath the tranquil small town exterior is a roiling inferno of fraud, corruption, treachery, hypocrisy, class warfare & ill-suppressed sex of all varieties: Adultery, sadism, homosexuality & incest.

Whites are emotional volcanoes who have to keep a lot of White guilt hidden to believe themselves superior. The slightest thing can set them off, so steer clear.

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, 18 February 2015

Charlie Hebdo

(http://en.wikipedia.org)

Whites are Charlie Hebdo

Free Speech ain’t Free

All Actions Have Consequences

Hypocritical White revulsion at the murder of twelve Whites for exercising their White-given right to Free Speech is expected to grow; consistent White revulsion at Whites who mock the religious beliefs of others is expected to decrease.

Whites are still asserting their right to offend, but not to be offended - all to evade the fact that Whites use offensiveness because they know they are going to lose any argument attempting to justify their right to offend - so they might just as well be offensive from the get-go.

Whites still have yet to learn the difference between mockery and criticism, because the latter would be to admit that what is being attacked is worthy of fair treatment - not something for which Caucasians are famous.

Conflating the Personal with the Political means Whites taking Political comments Personally. The view that all of life is give and take and nothing is to be shared explains White hostility and loneliness when others disagree. Only Whites believe they possess the right not to be offended, which is why White Websites are so heavily moderated - in case the truth finds its way in. Thus, by claiming the alleged right not to be offended, Whites claim the right to offend - to offend those they fear most. When Whites talk of Free Speech, the mean Free Speech for Whites - others must keep their mouths closed on pain of death.

Whites now increasingly find that they have to justify their behavior rather than expecting it to be automatically accepted as normal. Non-Whites and Jews have always had to be careful what they say, within White hearing, for fear of being killed – now Whites are getting a taste of their own medicine.

Western Whites never have to self-determine since White supremacy is a given for them and only requires the effort to blank-out reality and pretend White guilt was invented by Black people to make it work. Yet Whites now suddenly find their cherished belief that Whites are entitled to speak as they please is not as consequenceless as they had hoped.

Whites will cower: Nothing makes one shut up more than the threat of being killed for speaking out. Whites call it Terrorism precisely because they are the ones terrified. As with White supremacy, Whites will bite their tongues and evade the issue rather than face the fact that they are not truly civilized by virtue of the fact that they initiated the terror in the first place.

No matter how angry and fearful Whites are at Muslims, they will focus more on keeping their White supremacy to themselves in future than in openly-expressing it because few Whites are actually prepared to die for their beliefs – they have always expected others to die for them and their White beliefs.

As Whites are condemned for using White supremacist expressions like “With Us or Against Us”, “Illegal Immigrant” or “Bogus Asylum-Seeker”, Whites now face the choice of abandoning Free Speech for Whites and replacing it with Responsible Speech for All. This will never happen, of course - so more Whites must prepare to die for their White beliefs.

Monday, 9 February 2015

What Would It Take?

(2010)

(http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net)

White People are the Best People

Summary: Critique of What Would It Take?.

The usual conflation and confusion of the terms America with White, along with the claim that there is a Darwinian race for survival between different ethnic groups despite the lack of any evidence for this.

The author never explains why the decline of White culture is a problem other than to pretend that the world would be worse off without Whites.

This writer resents anyone not White and assumes they will all treat Whites as badly as Whites have always treated them - a claim made without any evidence.

He chooses not to see his White supremacy as a form of the very Positive Discrimination he rails against; merely seeing it as natural and normal and the way things are.

If not natural, then his version of what is natural should be enforced in his implication that it is best to:

Keep White women at home as brood mares to keep Whites numerically superior;
only allowing Whites to migrate to the US;
abolishing divorce;
anti-miscegenation laws; &
criminalizing any sexual congress between members of different ethnic groups.

Like all those without a valid cultural identity, he desperately needs to believe that White culture is somehow universal; while refraining from learning the obvious lesson of his own claims of White decline: White inferiority. He is happy to see Whites always numerically-dominant, but hates to see anyone else dominate because of theirs. A man with no moral compass who refuses to encourage Whites to work harder to compensate for their failings but, instead, to penalize non-Whites for their successes - which he clearly believes are unearned and only come about because of Affirmative Action - again, without any supporting evidence.

Like all racists, his only recourse is to whine, since he has no solution to Whites’ increasing global irrelevance.

Tuesday, 6 January 2015

Thin End of the Wedge

(2015)

(http://kent.anywhere.me)

Last Friday (2 January 2015), circa 11:30, I attempted to leave the Reference Library of Tunbridge Wells library and found the door next to Microfilm Reader 1 bolted and a black electrical cable (presumably belonging to the person then sitting at this Reader) on the floor in front of it.

Upon unlocking it, the female using the Reader insisted I could not egress via this door for health & safety reasons, without specifying:

What these were;
why she had the right to block a Fire Exit; nor,
why the Health & Safety issues she was raising were the ones she was causing by blocking a Fire Exit.

If, for example, a door is not clearly marked Closed or Out of Order or Private, I see every reason to use it - should it be convenient to do so.

I told her to go fuck herself because the library is a public place (not an extension of her home) and because she has no explicit permission to block public doorways for her sole benefit. (She began laughing at me and I walked around to the other entrance door in front of the Reference Reception.)

It is becoming increasingly-noticeable that Caucasians are behaving as though the library were their personal fiefdom - to the detriment of other users. Why do they think they are allowed to arbitrarily block doors without any kind of signage or warning - whenever they feel like it? Perhaps they will start bringing in camp beds to help engender the at-home feel and sense-of-entitlement that so many already possess?

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 my apologies for sending it you in error.

Friday, 2 January 2015

CUSTOMER INTERRUPTION, ANNOYANCE, ABUSE, MENDACITY & HARASSMENT

(2014)

(http://kent.anywhere.me)

I booked PC19 on the ground floor of Tunbridge Wells library on Friday, 19/12/2014 for around 09:10 - before ascending to the first floor.

I was a few minutes early and found another customer logging-in to PC19 – despite the computer indicating only a few minutes were available. He logged-off when the computer indicated – again - he had less than 10 minutes computer time available to him and made for the Reference Library Reception desk.

I then logged-on to PC19 and was accosted (see annotated transcript below) by this same customer who believed he had prior access to a PC at which he was not sitting and which he had not booked.

He claimed he was somehow ‘on’ that particular computer while standing at Reception (I did not notice he had such long arms!) and despite the fact the PC screen clearly displayed the words: “This machine has been booked” before I logged in. (Otherwise, I would not have been able to log-in.)

Unlike director’s chairs, library seats do not have customer names written on their backs and PCs are numbered rather than named. (Perhaps he meant I booked/logged-in over him while sitting on his lap - but I cannot remember doing so!)

He then asked when I had booked it; an irrelevant question implying I was lying about my pre-booking, but without the slightest evidence; automatically assuming a Black man in the wrong. Yet, he was lying when claiming he was ‘on’ PC19. And, since half the computers were available, I would not sit at an unavailable PC when so many were free.

He obviously believes on-screen messages (telling him of limited availability) do not apply to him. However, his English was fluent and, so, he cannot claim he did not understand them. His abusive response to my telling him this (in the absence of any other available face-saving gambit) proved his essentially-abusive nature and that he knew PC19:

Had been booked; &,
not by him.

He was subsequently booked on to PC4 by a member of staff at around the same time, so should be easy to trace. It would, after all, be very interesting to hear his explanation for his claim to special rights & privileges that have never existed - especially in light of his attempt to prevent a Black man from using a public computer - without lawful excuse or any kind of provocation.

With public services, it is Black customers’ experience that Caucasians believe they:

Can condescend to others;
need not advance-book;
can interfere with Black people going about their lawful business (violating the Library Service’s AUP re; disrupting the work of others - as well as harassment law, possession being nine-tenths of the law, the principle of 1st-come-1st-served & common courtesy);
can lie with impunity;
have greater civil rights in public than non-Whites & Jews;
are not bound by the rules others must follow;
can pretend the world owes them a living;
can act on what they want to be true rather than what is; &,
can behave childishly when losing arguments to other ethnic groups.

Only in places like apartheid South Africa did Whites ever have the temerity to legalize such White supremacism. And I see nothing in the libraries Terms & Conditions of Use allowing it.