Paperboy (2012)

(2012)

RATING:	80%
FORMAT:	DVD

(http://forthcoming-movies.blogspot.co.uk)

Paper Tigers

Melodramatic southern gothic (comparable to Tennessee Williams) look at the morbidity and self-indulgence of White culture fuelled, as it is, by sexual and emotional repression.

Points are made about White inbreeding caused by the White need of White supremacy and the genetic malformations so caused. In addition to the inherent instability of the White nuclear and extended families. As well as the usual masochistic and guilt-ridden sexual fetishizing of openly-feared Black people.

(http://forthcoming-movies.blogspot.co.uk)

The film is designed to look like the still photography of the sixties - a more resonant idea than simply using the music of the period. The characterization and acting is excellent and vivid; while the direction and screenwriting is very much to the point. Where it fails is in being more of a description of White culture than a necessary explanation that could contribute more to an understanding of that cultures failings.

---

Copyright © 2014 Frank TALKER. Permission granted to reproduce and distribute it in any format; provided that mention of the author’s Weblog (http://franktalker3.blogspot.com) is included: E-mail notification requested. All other rights reserved.

Miyamoto Musashi (1584 – 1645)

(http://en.wikipedia.org)

Man of many parts...

---

Copyright © 2013 Frank TALKER. Permission granted to reproduce and distribute it in any format; provided that mention of the author’s Weblog (http://franktalker3.blogspot.com) is included: E-mail notification requested. All other rights reserved.

Chagrin et la Pitié [Sorrow and the Pity] (1969)

RATING:	60%
FORMAT:	DVD

(Image: http://fouducinema.com/)

Inevitably, this film is too long to support its content, but it does exert a morbid fascination. It asks: “What did you do in the Occupation, Daddy?” a question that re-lives the sorrow and the pity of that occupation.

People consider more what they have to lose than to gain, which is why so few joined the Maquis while so many claimed to be members. The greatest pleasure in this film is watching a bunch of aging Frenchmen animatedly reminisce about their days in the Resistance. Essentially a band of misfits who would likely never have come together for any other reason, they found war to be their route to selfhood. War clearly brings out the best in people as well as the worst.

The guilt and shame of postwar France comes from the widespread political collaboration, with the Germans, of Vichy: Essentially rendering themselves a pro-German Axis power. The endemic anti-Semitism of French culture led French police to help the Nazis find Jews and become vigorously complicit in the Holocaust. French laws were even more racist than German ones as genetic murder is an effective means of eliminating the economic and political competition.

As it can be difficult to separate a German from a Nazi, it can be hard to distinguish a patriot from a collaborator. It is all too easy to condemn collaborators, from the outside, but this is morally-complex territory. The fact that France was the only country involved in the Second World War occupied by Nazi Germany to agree an armistice - rather than simply surrender - damns the whole country as collaborationist. Of all the occupied lands, the French were the most conscientious rounders-up of jews for transportation to the gas chambers; leading one to the conclusion that France is as endemically anti-semitic as Germany. This is as good an example as any of the recurrent bouts of European phenotypism that regularly comes to the surface.

The political defeat of France in 1940 was inevitable but the military failure was not since France possessed a more powerful military than Nazi Germany. The Ggermans exploited this by partitioning France and thus dividing it against itself.

The lack of moral complexity of this documentary is evinced in contemporary issues such as the ethical difficulty of being White in a country unhealthily obsessed with skin pigmentation. Or a Westerner in a world apparently running out of the resources Westerners are squandering.

The ultimate moral issue is food since without it one cannot be a moral entity - the dead are amoral, after all. If the Third World starves, the First will not take the food from its children's mouths to feed it. If a qualified Black is not hired because he is black, the less qualified White then employed would not renounce his post if he learned of this.

Collaboration is more complex than this film admits since the movie never draws any useful parallels with other areas of collaborationist thought and activity.

The occupation of ones homeland is a classic example of discovering what people are really like. They are usually very willing to exploit the unethical advantages of collaboration to obtain financial advantages. A give-me-your-watch-and-I’ll-tell-you-the-time point made more simply and more profoundly in a thriller like Inside Man. The narrow moral focus here is as unethical as the collaboration being condemned.

Copyright © 2013 Frank TALKER. Permission granted to reproduce and distribute it in any format; provided that mention of the author’s Weblog (http://franktalker3.blogspot.com/) is included: E-mail notification requested. All other rights reserved.

Autobiography of Malcolm X (1968)

RATING:	100%
FORMAT:	Book

(Image: http://www.amazon.co.uk/)

Way above-average story of redemption leading to a strong sense of personal identity and purpose.

This one serves as a valuable source of a role-model in the form of Malcolm X’s life as he salvaged and reconstructed it from the predations of White, Christian culture and proved that it could be done. As inspirational, in its way, as any honest account of the life of Muhammad Ali. They both realized that without self-identification, there can be no self-determination.

The most obvious fact of the book of greatest interest to Blacks, is that bit represents the most politically-ontogenetic experience for Blacks in a White supremacist culture as they try to forge a cultural identity for themselves in the face of mass hostility from those who themselves lack a clear sense of ethic identity.

Growing up in a White culture that demands Blacks was Malcolm X’s quintessential problem as a maturing and sensitive man and was the cause of his many political mistakes during his life - especially the veering from one political extreme to the other. Still, moderation is only for people who choose not to grow up since the path of excess leads to the palace of wisdom. A moderate knows only about moderation, not about other political positions, so he really knows very little at all.

Copyright © 2013 Frank TALKER. Permission granted to reproduce and distribute it in any format; provided that mention of the author’s Weblog (http://franktalker3.blogspot.com/) is included: E-mail notification requested. All other rights reserved.

Dear Black South Africa! (2012)

(Image: http://www.news24.com/)

Enough Hypocrisy!

Bizarre, self-contradictory rant that talks about an ideal world rather than the real one.

Being tired of making White South Africans feel at home means that one has accepted responsibility for this - else why would one be tired? This is the same kind of Black hypocrisy this author accuses Whites of.

Whites have never put their South African‑ness before their whiteness unless Blacks have ever been required to forget all about Apartheid. And, as they say, he who forgets the past is doomed to repeat it.

Claiming Whites share no intimate connection with Europe is nonsense. If true, Whites would have changed to suit the situation in South Africa and not aped European ways - especially by creating Apartheid. The intimate connection they feel is, essentially, homesickness: Their tacit realization that they are not at home in Africa and never will be. (Isn't Africa the White Man's Graveyard, after all?)

Clearly, there is stigma attached to being White in South Africa (remember Apartheid?). Whites are not trusted by Blacks because Whites have shown a historical predilection for White supremacy in all of the 52 White-dominated countries in the world – no exceptions Not only this, but the shame and guilt Whites feels exacerbates the racism they frequently express; making them inherently untrustworthy, not as individuals, but as a culture. This is why so many Whites have left South Africa: Their paranoiac fear of Black revenge for what Whites have done in the past, in the full moral knowledge that it was, and is, wrong. Yet Blacks in the United States never went on the feared vendetta after the emancipation of the Slaves – such fears were merely expressions of what Whites would have done if the situation had been reversed; ie, White Projection & Displacement of their own immorality onto others.

No-one has an unqualified right to practice their culture if it is at the expense of another. Only Whites believe this nonsense. A Black who believes it would welcome the return of Apartheid, if Whites decided it was their right to have it back.

In truth, everyone bears responsibility for the behavior of those who claim to belong to their culture, when all the members of that culture receive a benefit from that behavior. To claim otherwise is to engage in moral evasion. All Whites bear responsibility for White supremacy because they all benefit from it – not just the White supremacists. All Blacks bear responsibility for Black supremacy (if it exists) because they can all benefit from it. Each group must explain what it is doing to root out any cultural defects, since no culture is perfect. That is not happening in this article nor in the country.

Copyright © 2012 Frank TALKER. Permission granted to reproduce and distribute it in any format; provided that mention of the author’s Weblog (http://franktalker3.blogspot.com/) is included: E-mail notification requested. All other rights reserved.

White Men Playing with Themselves (2012)

(Image: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/)

There is no gene for ethics or morality, so this is just more of the scientific racism one has come to expect from Whites.

There is no proof that genes determine character so this is really a eugenics program to kill-off those one does not approve of. This scientist claims the existence of practical ethics as if there could be such a thing as impractical ethics. Only when ethics is universal can such an idea work, since one could easily - as the Nazis did - conclude that Homosexuals, Jehovah's Witnesses and Freemasons are unethical and destroy them for not being Aryan enough.

It is important for science to stop dabbling in politics unless it has objective proof of its assertions - which it clearly lacks here.

The ethics one claims to be able to produce children to be better able to fit, need to be not practical - whatever that means - but objective. Human beings have never agreed on this and science has never provided an objective basis for such a determination. Moreover, a moral obligation can never exist because morality is about choice, not duty. To claim that such a thing does exist is to tacitly admit one does not understand ethics and that one does not behave in accordance with any of its tenets – precisely because one does not understand the moral life.

Claims like Better or More Intelligent have no objective meaning unless they are scientifically defined. Politically, they mean Conformist and Being Less Prone to Disagree. Claiming responsible parenting is based on Nazi eugenics is a paradox since it means parenting would become no longer necessary to produce good people, since parenting is then transferred to the test tube.

If it is bad to cause harm, then genetically-engineered people will not defend themselves when they are attacked by non genetically-engineered people. The latter will, therefore, be dead and dead people can be neither better nor worse.

There is little evidence for the existence of a natural lottery since Natural Selection is considered synonymous with the concept of Survival-of-the-Fittest - nature screens out useless mutations already. Rational design is not a natural extension of screening for physical diseases since the latter is proven science while the former is not.

All of this gibberish comes down to the tacit admission that Whites have failed to produce ethical cultures because of their preference for such things as White supremacy, Social Snobbery, Sexism, Erotophobia, Pornography, Divorce, Adultery, Alcoholism, Drug-Addiction, etc. Because White culture is essentially a failed culture, Whites now want to try to make people good by accepting bizarre genetic theories and then pretend that these can be used to create better people in the laboratory. Could Whites have been more abjectly-explicit than this at their failure to be as good (or better) than other cultures - who do not face these problems to the same great extent Whites do? Whites have clearly given-up on themselves as viable human beings and are now determined to destroy themselves with pseudo-science because of centuries of guilt for not being as superior as they think they are.

Her is a scientist without scientific merit who bases his work on possibilities, suggestions and likelihoods, tied to his own ball and chain of squeamishness (yet who claims genetically-engineered people are less likely to cause harm - how is that for squeamishness?) and irrationality. Like one of the human-hating charlatans who claims intelligence can be measured, this is a desperate and despairing attempt to make genetics a hard science - as opposed to a soft one - because it cannot make the same hard-&-fast predictions about existence that, for example, chemistry and physics can.

Copyright © 2012 Frank TALKER. Permission granted to reproduce and distribute it in any format; provided that mention of the author’s Weblog (http://franktalker3.blogspot.com/) is included: E-mail notification requested. All other rights reserved.

1,000 sign up to have affairs (2012)

(Image: http://www.thisiskent.co.uk/)

Unlike political relationships, personal ones are always exclusive. Thus:

What constitutes an act of infidelity varies between and within cultures and depends on the type of relationship that exists between people. ...[I]nfidelity... arise[s] if a partner in the relationship acts outside of the understood boundaries of that relationship.^[Philandery]

This article simply ignores reality and posits a culturally-specific definition of adultery in order to sell a newspaper among those who fear other cultures.

(Image: http://www.topyaps.com/)

This article assumes fidelity to mean only having sex with one person at a time, when this Christian definition of marriage is clearly not right for everyone - especially non-Christians. It also assumes that only the rigid Christian definition of marriage is the correct one; and that anyone who does not subscribe to it is to be pathologised by scientific-sounding pseudo-sex therapy. It also enshrines (usually-monogamous) marriages contracted by Whites as superior to those (often-polygamous ones) contracted by non-Whites.

Extra-marital affairs from rigidly-defined Christian marriages are often a way out of marriages that could never have worked because they were obsessed with appearances rather than content - a typical White Christian marriage, in fact. Yet, they can be an excellent means for the very self-discovery Christians try to deny their adherents in order to more-easily control them. Once the self is discovered, the Christian way of doing things (indeed, all religious ways of life) are revealed as no more than superstitious cultism; offering no answers to life’s existential problems - only a refuge from them. Christians are so sex-obsessed that they waste time interfering in others’ sexual choices: They, themselves, cannot work out whom they would like to have sex with so end-up having soulless sex with other Christians.

(Image: http://www.longlace.com/)

Moreover, Whites claim that marrying only for love is a valid reason for getting married. Yet, how many people actually do this rather than simply marrying because they do not want others to think them gay or for money or for regular sex or because they are just lonely?

Like all White culture’s attempt to control the sexuality of Whites, Christianity relies on conflating the personal with the political in order to control both behavior and minds. Christians introduced politics into the bedroom by claiming, for example, that the anus is not to be sexually penetrated; the vagina, only so long as you do not enjoy it; and, the mouth, they are never too sure about - but, if in doubt, always make it a sin. Christians want political power (to compensate for their non-existent spiritual power) but can only achieve this by colonizing the minds of its adherents with nonsense like homosexuality being an abomination and masturbation a sin; explaining why there are so many sex-starved White Christians.

(Image: http://www.topyaps.com/)

If Christians truly loved their fellow Man, they would not condemn but attempt to build bridges of understanding between different sexual groups. Anyone poking their nose into the sex lives of others is emotionally-repressed, envious and seeks the lonely person’s psychological compensation of trying to legislate for love. And if they cannot obtain that, to legislate for obedience to their own sexual perversion: Erotophobia

(Image: http://www.topyaps.com/)

Western marriage has failed because most people are simply not monogamous and because polygamous marriages are condemned in the West. The inability of Whites to be truly multicultural and diverse - even to their own alleged sexual advantage (eg, Asian chicks are spicy; Black men are well-hung) - is writ large here in their being willing to put up with marriages that do not work, for the sake of mere form. No wonder so many married Whites look miserable.

To claim that marriage is the ‘building block of society’ is nonsense since the kind of marriage and the kind of society is not specified. This is simply talk about Christian marriage and Christian society; pretending that there are no better alternatives worth considering: Classic White supremacism. But, this does not explain why Whites have the highest divorce rates in the world along with even higher adultery, pornography-consumption and prostitution rates. Like all resentful Christians realizing that the Christian message of unhappiness-is-next-to-godliness, Father Leo Mooney claims people do not take marriage seriously when, in reality, it is only Christian marriage they do not take seriously. Like everyone else in the world, non-Christian Whites take sex very seriously, they just want to enjoy it and refuse to see it traduced as merely procreational. Recreational sex can be great with one partner or more - of either sex - there need be no exclusive love present for this to be true.

(Image: http://www.topyaps.com/)

Therapist Joyce Walter is clearly a charlatan and offers no statistics to support her claims. Although she is right that married men (55%) are more unfaithful than married women (45%), in their lifetimes, women in the UK have more sexual partners than men which disproves her claim that: ‘Women tend not to be so casual about sex.’ Her role here is to pathologise those the Christians cannot punish directly (since adultery is no longer a UK crime: "Criminal conversation" was abolished in England in 1857, and in the Republic of Ireland in 1976) by claiming they are mentally ill, when it is really those Christians who believe in this claptrap who are cognitively-impaired.

(Image: http://tartandsoul.com/)

This article is non-objective and merely tries to scapegoat others who do not subscribe to it’s own way of thinking. It tries to do this to bolster a way of thinking that does not, and never did, work. Whites having fun are deeply-resented by those who fear to discover their true sexuality. If Christians wish to save their form of marriage, it would be better to make it more user-friendly rather than the spiritually-impossible and sexually-empty goal it currently is.

White Christians are closet-heterosexuals here because they only accept the fact of sex reluctantly as a fleshy distraction from their alleged spirituality (& alleged superiority over non-Whites) and because they believe that gynophobia will control women and stop them inciting men to have sex with them. The misogyny of this position is clear and the author of this piece therefore hates and fears her own femininity.

Copyright © 2011 Frank TALKER. Permission granted to reproduce and distribute it in any format; provided that mention of the author’s Weblog (http://franktalker3.blogspot.com/) is included: E-mail notification requested. All other rights reserved.

Speeding Woman Fatally Crashes (2007)

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.