Thursday, 2 August 2012

How Whites Think


Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Depression, Acceptance...

The reporting is White supremacist precisely because that is how White culture is.

Whites will always claim bad White behavior is individual while bad Black behavior is collective: Whites do not see Blacks as individuals. And Whites commit most of the pedophilia so want to distract attention from their own collusion in the rape of their own children.

The guilt problem is that Whites produce many children who put themselves in danger through bad parenting, yet Whites prefer to claim that the racism of others is at fault and not poor quality upbringings. Ethnic-minority pedophile groups can prey on White girls because they are the easiest, not the Whitest.

Whites never learn from their own history because they have developed selective memories. Whites still wish to scapegoat entire communities for the White failure to develop a culture that is worthwhile rather than simply rapacious. This is why Whites confuse legality with their culture, in the vain hope of legalizing White supremacy.

Despite the lack of evidence of a component of racial aggravation in these cases, Whites still choose to believe that when Blacks commit crimes against Whites it is always racially-motivated. They believe everyone else is as racist as they are on an It-takes-one-to-know-one basis.

Such reporting does not create White supremacy, it is merely a reflection of it. White culture would have no substance whatsoever without its irrational fear of others. That is, in fact, the definition of White culture: Xenophobia.

Whites do not deny that their culture is White supremacist - realistically, they can’t - they will simply defend it with any irrational nonsense to preserve the very sense of superiority causing the problem in the first place.


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

Tuesday, 31 July 2012

Save Whites from Themselves


Yet another confused and scared White trying to conceal her fear of Blacks by pretending to be anti-racist by indulging in the White narcissism of claiming White is Beautiful - and always will be, to Whites.

Whites will never learn, will they? Instead, of telling Blacks how much Whites now like them, it would be more honest to tell Blacks why Whites worship their own skin pigmentation.


Whites will always invoke White privilege in their quest to control the agenda on discussions of White supremacy - despite the fact this represents a clear conflict-of-interest in their benefitting from same. Their desire to hide this fact leads them to call any non-White a racist when they are being told they have nothing to offer the debate until they renounce such privilege because they are the ones being White supremacist.

Color-blindness is just more White supremacy in that Whites never do this with each other - only with those whose skin color they simultaneously notice then pretend not to. It is a political game of pretending that if you deracinate someone, they become human. But since this process of deracination is not felt necessary for Whites (deemed already to be fully human by virtue of their skin pigmentation), it is precisely skin color which is the sole criterion of human judgment employed while it is simultaneously denied. This keeps White supremacist evil very much in place but with a smile; shovelling Jews into the gas chambers with a friendly grin. For Whites this is Enlightened Racism

This book is a lame-brained attempt to imply that Whites can determine race-relations while not being labelled White supremacist - an impossible goal that Whites should really have given up years ago. But their desperation keeps them on the same road to nowhere.

Because one cannot read every book, just the suspicion of White supremacy would lead to Blacks not needing to waste their time by reading this book. It is for Whites to prove that it is of redeeming social value which, so far, no-one has. The fundamental reason for this is because Whites do not wish to face-up-to the psychiatric distortions in their own psyches wrought by 500 years of White supremacy. They do this by the simple expedient of claiming only Blacks suffer as a consequence of White supremacy; ie, that since racism is not really a bad thing for Whites, Whites cannot possibly feel guilty or schizophrenic or paranoid about it. Yet the inability of Whites to engage in this debate with reason and common sense just shows how much they wish to shut it down with their own anger, resentment and shame.


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

Saturday, 14 July 2012

Race-Card Politics



Whites have no monopoly on playing the Race Card - because a White invented tv, does not mean Blacks cannot buy one. It is an obvious and a common fallacy to suggest that just because someone tries to do something, that they will be automatically successful. Only Whites posses a monopoly on successfully playing the Race Card.

When Whites accuse Blacks of playing the Race Card (but only after Blacks criticize Whites for being racist) Whites never make the accusation in response to any other accusation nor do they make it of Whites. This attempts to deflect criticism away from Whites on to Blacks; thereby avoiding the issue raised and implying that White supremacy is merely a figment of the Black imagination. It is a racist means of undervaluing anything a Black says since it supposedly allows Whites to ignore anything a Black says. Whenever the Race Card is alleged by Whites, it is simultaneously being played by them.

The sole reason Whites invented the Race Card is moral evasion. There is no evidence Blacks ever successfully use this Card and, since Whites are the only ones who can benefit from playing it, they are the only ones ever likely to do so. This is a classic conflict-of-interest (like Whites defining Racism) since it allows Whites to criticize Blacks with the very Race Card they condemn Blacks for using; benefiting psychologically and economically in the process.

The Race Card is racist in concept and practice, also employed by Whites to give the impression Blacks are as racist as Whites. Yet no Black country is institutionally-racist and the White supremacists who use the Race Card cannot name any Blacks who use it as successfully as they, themselves, do.

Whites created an Institutionally-Racist culture for themselves which, by definition, will not help Blacks to play the Race Card. Such a culture is designed to help only the creator group - at the expense of all the others. There is no example of a Black playing the Race Card successfully precisely because all 52 White cultures are inherently White supremacist. In a Black culture, there would be no need to play such a Card and, so, no possible evidence of its being played. The claim that Blacks play the Race Card is also, therefore a vain means for Whites to avoid the fact that this Card can only work for Whites.

Whites play the Race Card by claiming Blacks do so - without evidence. Whites never play this Card when they think the critic is White - instead they cry "Race Traitor".

There is no grammatical, semantic nor social guideline preventing anyone from reading between the lines of anything said or written. Any claim that one is responding to something not said is an attempt to abolish the concepts of innuendo, implication and suggestion. It attempts to reduce all criticism to concretes only; avoiding necessary abstractions; thereby, curtailing rational thought. It would mean taking everything at face value - not only a self-evident fallacy, but a threat to ones very life.

In White culture, people are judged by the ethnicity and social class of their parents and the gender to which they were born. Whites distinguish between Whites and non-Whites, so that they make decisions about non-Whites on the basis of their non-White parent, not their White one. White culture has decided that people like Jessica Ennis and President Barack Obama are Black - Black culture has not. When such Blacks become successful, however, they suddenly "move up in class" - in the White imagination - and become "Mixed Race" - a category they were not placed in before they became well-known. In other words, they are Black before they achieve distinction – "Mixed Race" afterwards. That is the nearest Whites nowadays come to declaring a Black an "Honorary White", as in the days of South-African Apartheid.

Because Whites conflate the political concept of "Race" with the scientific practice of genetics, Whites are always confused as to how to treat Blacks who have Whites in their family - witness the deliberate White confusion over President Obama's alleged ethnicity (& nationality). This volitional muddying of the racial waters also facilitates the old White divide-and-conquer tactic of trying to get different parts of the Black community to fight each other for more crumbs from the White High Table; hopefully preventing the United Front (or even a Two-Front War) that is always hard to defeat in any war - let alone a Racewar.

White supremacist organizations like the BNP are the most honest Whites since they make no such taxonomic distinctions between Blacks. The BNP offers no racial-abuse exemption certificates for the not-really-Blacks ("Mixed Race") that would enable the latter to walk the streets at night without fear of reprisal for committing the crime of not being born Black. The BNP's White behavior reveals White fear of all non-Whites, as such, not merely the really-Blacks as compared with the not-so-black Blacks.

"Mixed Race" is a non-genetic political category invented by Whites to deal with a psychology problem caused by their own White supremacy. The category is designed to label the feared product of feared sexual unions; revealing how frightened White men are that White women are willingly engaging in sexual union with Black men - despite years of conditioning not to - a blow to the White man's sexual ego from which he chooses not to recover. This category also refers to the fact that if the trend for sex with people you like - rather than with those you are told to like - continues, Whites will be a UK minority within a century and, thus, less politically powerful.

The fear of Black revenge for 500 years of White supremacy would then, as it is for White South Africans today, be uppermost in the minds of Whites. They will do all they can to the so-called mixed race to ensure that they either grow up to think, talk and act like Whites (by being less harshly treated for being Black) or are treated as badly as Whites usually treat Blacks in whom Whites can discern no White genetic material.

A "Mixed Race" category allows Whites to play the game of lessening - in their own minds - the number of Blacks in "their White country" by simply re-labeling Blacks they are less afraid of as "not-really-Black". Without such categories, Whites would have to accept that their genome is fast dying out.

White claims to be able to read other people's minds are simply the arrogance attendant upon White bonding - the belief that all who agree with Whites are White and that anyone else is automatically not White. They spring from a lack of evidence for any negative statement made about Blacks; meaning Whites have no argument to make, so they revert-to-type by employing ad hominem statements rather than ad rem ones. Bigots always do this.

Blacks segregate themselves from Whites for the same reason Jews refused to integrate with the NSDAP - all White cultures are White supremacist. Organizations that use "Black" in their name are designed to address the specific problems Blacks face in countries that favor Caucasoids. Such nomenclature is also designed to be candid in terms of whom these organizations are meant to help - Whites can join, but why would they, since they fear the members? This effectively keeps Whites out of such organizations, where they can do much less harm - especially to the minds of impressionable Black children.

Blacks also segregate from Whites because Blacks focus on the family in ways that Whites do not. Blacks are more helpful to each other and less inclined to whinge to the government when their mummies do not love them or their parents were divorced or they were raised in an orphanage. Blacks do not treat the government as a substitute for a caring, sharing family life.

Like the Titanic, White culture is a ship you do not board. Whites built it, launched it, sailed in it and claimed it was unsinkable - yet it sank. Fortunately, no Black lives were lost. Given that White culture is dying, after the collapse of the various European Empires, the economic failings of Whites make it imperative to achieve as much economic independence from them as possible - as this was necessary for White women to achieve independence from men who saw them as nothing more than domestic servants.

There is no need to create a White Police Federation, for example, since it already exists: To put "White" in front of the title would be mere tautology. And there has been no widespread condemnation following its establishment and growth (at least not among Whites). Even the Institutionally-Racist BNP is not honest enough to put the word "White" in its title - although it is obviously there, implicitly.

Whites lack the self-respect, personal honesty and moral & political courage to call a spade a spade.

Whites despise women for creating women's groups and hate homosexuals for espousing Gay Pride, since their reaction to these groups proves how sexist Whites are. And no-one in history has ever established an organization to fight a social evil that did not exist. None of these groups would be necessary if White culture really embraced equality, when every statistical measure - even those produced by Whites - proves the innate White worship of inequality.

Whining because Blacks (& others) wish to help themselves with their own associations means Whites believe Blacks possess no right of self-defense or self-determination. A White male would be branded a sexist if he said, for example, that women were being sexist for forming their own women's-only groups to take positive action against White male chauvinism - the very chauvinism prompting said White male to make such a stupid assertion in the first place.

Whites initiated the Racewar - and must now live with its negative consequences - especially for them (divorce, alcoholism, drug- and sex-addiction, pornography, teenage pregnancy, STDs, stress, suicide, culturelessness, etc). To try and blame Blacks for Whites' own renunciation of their own humanity is just more failed White supremacy.

There is no illegal incitement in stating the truth - to believe otherwise is an attempt by Whites to deprive those they fear of their right to free speech - a right Whites only wish to grant those who are also White and those with whom they also agree. In any case, it is impossible to incite a Racewar that is already begun - by Whites.

White whining is really about the fact Whites know they are not trusted nor liked - and that they know why this is so; exacerbating to their shame and guilt - along with the inevitable White paranoia that goes with starting such unwinnable wars as the War on Terror (aka, the War on Muslims).

Blacks not befriending Whites should never be a problem for Whites since there must be plenty of other Whites for Whites to choose their friends from. But the paradox here is that to be a successful White supremacist requires renouncing ones humanity; eschewing the very friendship being demanded. This makes such a demand a cry for that great non-existent, Unconditional Love, that Whites cannot get from other Whites, so they look outside their own ethnic group for the love they lack at home. This is no way to find a friend, so is really the desire to introduce emotional slavery for Blacks to compensate for the physical slavery Whites were forced to abolish.

One cannot legislate for love, since the desire to fashion Blacks in the image of Whites is not only White supremacist but proves delusions of godlike grandeur on the part of Whites, even though the world does not owe Whites a living.

Whites complain about Blacks because Whites wish to deny the existence of the very Institutional Racism that benefits them, in the vain hope that the attendant guilt can be washed away by blaming Blacks (not Whites, themselves) for these painful thoughts and feelings.

But the days of scapegoating Blacks for the ethical and political failings of Whites are closed. Adulthood means accepting personal responsibility for ones own mistakes and those of ones culture; otherwise neither Whites (nor their culture) can move on. Black fear of Whites can easily be blamed on Whites for their proven White supremacism, but White fear of Blacks cannot be blamed on Blacks (since Blacks are not a threat to Whites) - anymore than pedophilia can be blamed on children.

(My original comment simply pointed out the obvious: 1. White praise for Blacks is rare-to-non-existent; 2. the Racewar has been waged by Whites since 1500; &, 3. Whites will only praise Blacks when Whites can claim some credit or benefit from the praise. Your comments are simply your refusal to face reality - like a man.)


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

Friday, 25 May 2012

Driving Black boys from the classroom?
(2012)


Blacks have to be careful to separate Black masculinity from Black ideas about the abhorrence of homosexual acts. Otherwise, Blacks run the risk of playing into Whites' view of Blacks as ineducable.

Black masculinity is popular with women - especially White ones - so there is no real problem there.

The real problem is that Blacks think so negatively about homosexuality it is hard for Black Gays to come out and find themselves in the world - the classic Black hypocrisy of denigrating one group while also condemning White supremacists for denigrating Blacks. This has always been a human rights issue that Blacks need to embrace or be condemned as self-serving in their claims for equal treatment.

If Blacks gave up hating Gays, that would lessen Black boys labelling anything they despise with negative references to homosexuality.

In addition, it is necessary to demonstrate to Blacks that while schooling is of little value to Blacks in any Institutionally-Racist White culture, education is always of great value. It is not necessary in the UK to send ones children to school, so they can easily be educated at home - perfectly legally. This will help Blacks avoid the White preference for education factories that produce educated White morons, Blacks not being welcomed at Parent-Teacher meetings, White teachers with low expectations of Blacks (ie, White supremacists who physically fear Blacks), etc.

The UK education system is a Whites-only enclave. It is always better for Blacks to educate themselves about the world so they can best deal with the problems of life without Whites trying to brainwash Blacks with a lot of pseudo-anti-racist propaganda about how wonderful White people are. It is the worst kind of wishful-thinking to assume Whites will help Blacks improve rather than their simply gloating about Black failure they have helped create - their actual preference regarding Blacks – as White gloat about the failure of so-called chavs.

Another necessary distinction to consider is that speaking proper English is a good idea, even though it is a language used by White supremacists for the past 500 years. English and White supremacy are not synonymous – despite strenuous, historical White efforts to make them so - and so speaking good English is not the same as acting White. The issue is communicating clearly, not sucking-up to Whites. Speaking English correctly allows one to speak to a larger number of people and so increase ones life experience so that ones life chances improve.


Copyright © 2012 Frank TALKER. Permission granted to reproduce and distribute it in any format; provided that mention of the author’s Weblog (http://protectingthehated.blogspot.com/) is included: E-mail notification requested. All other rights reserved. Frank TALKER is also the author of Sweaty Socks: A Treatise on the Inevitability of Toe Jam in Hot Weather (East Cheam Press: Groper Books, 1997) and is University of Bullshit Professor Emeritus of Madeupology.

Thursday, 24 May 2012

One in five students are victims of race hate


No real shock here since Whites think economics is a zero-sum game.

If a Black student is on campus, Whites think this means a White student has lost a university place. They do not think that the White non-student was simply not good enough.

This is the same as Whites thinking migrants are taking jobs when it is really the case that Whites do not wish to work. In any case, jobs have no nationality as undergraduate places have no skin color.

Whites have created a polity that believes Blacks intellectually inferior, so regard higher education as their own private fiefdom - for their children only. When Blacks are as academically-capable as White kids, Whites are confronted with the terrible knowledge that White supremacism is a fallacy and that their lives are based on nothing but a culture preaching hot air - without real substance: A moral void.

This inevitably makes them angry, frustrated, bitter and, ultimately, depressed, but it never makes them turn away from White supremacy, since that would mean having to admit that the past 500 years of their history is essentially worthless and that their parents bequeathed them an empty culture. Such a culture is not worth fighting for so that it becomes obvious Whites are irrational when they do fight for it.

The blow to the White ego from all of the foregoing is too much to bear since it means that they actually have to work hard to get respect, not merely expect it on the basis of their skin color. For Whites, such competition is painful because, like a man losing an arm-wrestling competition to a woman, it is hard for a White to admit he is somehow less than a Black - yet Institutional Racism proves the White inferiority-complex that they so desperately try to deny.

The most well-educated have the most to lose from altering the basis of White culture from racial hatred to multiculturalism, since they are then no longer guaranteed the best-paid jobs. Thus, the best-educated Whites also tend to be the laziest. White students are the ones who keep their digs the most untidy, drink the most (even attempting copulation with other Whites while under the influence of alcohol) and are the most likely to submit their assignments late. Only people benefiting from Institutional Racism have the time to waste to do this.

The colleges do not care about their Institutional Racism because White lecturers do not like teaching Blacks, since they believe educating those they deem genetically inferior means they will be educating the competition to their own children doing well in a racially-fixed system wherein Blacks are required to take second-place, no matter their superior abilities.



Copyright © 2012 Frank TALKER. Permission granted to reproduce and distribute it in any format; provided that mention of the author’s Weblog (http://protectingthehated.blogspot.com/) is included: E-mail notification requested. All other rights reserved. Frank TALKER is also the author of Sweaty Socks: A Treatise on the Inevitability of Toe Jam in Hot Weather (East Cheam Press: Groper Books, 1997) and is University of Bullshit Professor Emeritus of Madeupology.

Monday, 23 April 2012

Gone With the Wind
(1939)

RATING:100%
FORMAT:DVD


Better an English girl than a Yankee!

Fascinating Black History Month type movie that perfectly encapsulates - like no other - the ambivalent feelings Whites have about the White supremacism that built their present-day culture. Here there is a constant attempt to whitewash slavery by not presenting it as it really was and, simultaneously, by claiming there was something noble about living high on the hog of Black misery - on land stolen from Indians. This, bizarrely, is presented as a romantic ideal; without political commentary or irony. Hardly surprising then that despite the mass of special features presented here not a single Black person could be found to praise the film - not even from among those featured in it.

The inherent White supremacism of the movie is exacerbated by political correctness that uses words like "pretty" and "civilized" to speak of a culture based on genocide is a cognitively-impaired use of such terms. And yet no White here is shown-up as mentally-ill. Eschewing Margaret Mitchell's overt White supremacism, the movie of her one and only novel tries to evade the issue - and that of secessionism - to avoid offending anyone. There are no "Niggers" or Ku Klux Klan in this movie and so it focuses on a complex love story rather than ethics.

The reason this film works as brilliantly as it does - but only as drama (not history) - is because of superb performances, vivid cinematography, excellent writing, superlative direction - all of which achieve a combination that is well-nigh perfect. White supremacism never seemed so reasonable - as if morality were relative rather than absolute; as if the material benefits of anti-Semitism were being celebrated (SS officers as chivalrous knights) while healthy Jews are worked to death to pay for it all. This expresses the problem for Whites today, how to account for the wealth of the West without reference to slavery and imperialism. Turning it into a love story is no real answer - except for guilt-ridden Whites.

It is hard to feel empathy for a people who, despite so-called "gumption" and lack thereof, are always going to be more successful because of the moral value attached to their skin color by Whites. "Gumption" thus becomes a synonym for an Old Boy Network and/or collective narcissism that obviates the need for a superhuman effort to survive a culture that has gone with the wind. Yet despite Scarlett O’Hara's manipulativeness, immaturity, narcissism and egomania (symptomatic of many Whites) she still holds your attention throughout: A testament to the same qualities in her impersonator, Vivien LEIGH.

Business-wise, this is a rare example of a brilliant film effectively directed by its producer: Forget about Citizen Kane, this is probably the best, most popular film ever made.


Copyright © 2011 Frank TALKER. Permission granted to reproduce and distribute it in any format; provided that mention of the author’s Weblog (http://franktalker.blogspot.com) is included: E-mail notification requested. All other rights reserved. Frank TALKER is also the author of Sweaty Socks: A Treatise on the Inevitability of Toe Jam in Hot Weather (East Cheam Press: Groper Books, 1997) and is University of Bullshit Professor Emeritus of Madeupology.

Tuesday, 20 December 2011

Rihanna: The ‘Ultimate Nigger Bitch’
(2011)


When Whites are caught being White supremacist, they claim it as a joke that was not meant to harm, yet pretend to offer sorrow for the harm they know they have intentionally caused. Why make jokes about others' suffering, unless you have something profound to say? Eva HOEKE is a White supremacist who thinks supremacist humor is OK, so long as no White complains. (Whites clearly believe that all Blacks come from Jamaica when, in fact, they were transported there as slaves.)

Rihanna comes from Barbados, not Jamaica, so this is not only White supremacist journalism it is poorly-researched. Because Whites regularly-stereotype Blacks, they do not believe they have to discover the truth about them; hence, one learns little about Rihanna from the article and everything about the White supremacist intentions of the author.

Whites are terrified of Black sexuality; seeing it as natural and spontaneous - unlike their own. Whites fear that Blacks will become sexually attractive to enough repressed Whites to induce sufficient miscegenation such that White birth rates will decline and Blacks increase. Such a demographic shift would give Blacks more of the political power that White supremacist immigration controls are designed to suppress. The author is sexually-aroused by Rihanna and is trying to mock his own feelings of sexual self-disgust by mocking her; the fear being of what his parents would say if he presented a Black woman as a potential spouse. Would they touch or kiss Black grandchildren or go anywhere near them?


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

Thursday, 13 January 2011

150-year African-European war
(2011)


(Adapted from: Molefi Kete Asante)

One shakes a dog and one will shake a dog's owner.
African proverb

When the European slave trade ended in the nineteenth-century, after being initiated by Portugal in 1500, Europe was not finished with the exploitation of Africa. What energy was left in Africa after the denuding of its younger population would now be drained by the political and economic vultures of the European and north American continents.

Between 1807, when Great Britain banned the slave trade, to 1957, the date the Gold Coast became independent and chose the name of the ancient empire of Ghana, a long, bitter, continental war was fought over the wealth of Africa.

Africa had not declared war on of Europe - Europe had declared war on Africa: It would not be a conventional war. White Europeans would fight with intrigue, guile, avarice, betrayal and massacre. Black Africans would fight with guerilla tactics, sabotage, non-cooperation with European settlers and the destruction of crops and business. When it was over, Africa had regained its political independence. However, suspicion in the relationship between Africans and Europeans is now as endemic as the struggle to relinquish the psychological grip on the continent resulting from having been oppressed by Whites for so long.

By the beginning of the nineteenth-century, Britain stood alone in Europe as both the master of the seas and the possessor of the largest slave-running operation. Slave ships sailed into the Atlantic, heading south for the west coast of Africa loaded with trinkets, beads, blankets and bangles. These, the slave traders would barter with various African communities in order to gain access to African villages - and their populaces. Once they had loaded their ships with Black Africans, the slavers turned toward the Americas with their human cargo. They would then sell the kidnappees to other Whites in return for loading their vessels with rum and cotton for the markets of Europe. This was the triangular slave trade: To Africa; the Middle passage to the Americas; and then, back to Britain.

the stage is set

Between 1492 and 1885, Europe's continental powers were unchallenged by any other area of the world. The theft of hundreds of tons of precious metals and minerals from the Americas enriched Europe. The uprooting of millions of Black Africans during the same period resulted in their exploitation as slaves. The unrelenting hundred-year low-intensity assaults of the Moroccan armies on the powerful Songhay Empire (successor to the Ghana & Mali Empires) served to offer up the prize of Africa to the quickest and most cynical European players. Overthrowing that Empire in 1594 meant disintegration of Africa's western flank; allowing the cutting-up of Africa between competing European nations. Because of the maritime nature of the exploitation, Europe's reach was global and White Europeans acted in concert in the rape of Africa.

the Berlin conference

At the request of German chancellor Otto Von Bismarck, came the leading figures of Europe and some United States delegates in 1885 to a conference on Africa. This was the first European conference to decide the fate of an entire continent. The European nations had already robbed Africa of much of its youthful vigor and labor in the slave period. Now Whites could indulge in Current forms of exploitation: Settlerism, colonization and expropriation of the material bounty of the continent. Europe would simply declare its stakes over Africa without consulting African leaders' political, ethical and legal rights: Africans had no rights White nations believed they were required to heed. This kind of agreement among White Europeans had not happened in the case of Asia or the Americas. However, the immense size of Africa and the multiplicity of European interests involved, made it sensible to avoid internecine conflict between Whites since such conflict would lower profits. The slave trade taught White Europeans that it was futile to fight each other to control their interests: Asiento became the norm. (The Asiento [Spanish: asiento] in the history of slavery refers to the permission given by the Spanish government to other countries to sell slaves to the Spanish colonies, between the years 1543 and 1834. In British history, it usually refers to the contract between Spain and Great Britain created in 1713 that dealt with the supply of African slaves for the Spanish territories in the Americas. The British government passed its rights to the South Sea Company.) Now that Black slavery was about to end, White colonization could begin in earnest. This had been a land-grabbing free-for-all that achieved formal recognition using one-sided treaties.

African nations and kingdoms reacted defiantly and indignantly throughout the continent in thousands of incidents of resistance to the imposition of foreign influences. These were the continuation of the resistance to slavery itself, since they considered the White supremacist arrangement as neither natural, necessary nor permanent. The Black agitation for Whites to leave Africa and the arbitrary boundaries established by Whites plague Africa into the twenty-first century. They did this by dividing already-existing nations and ethnic groups into separate governments; while bringing groups that may have had enmity between them under the same government. Given the intensification of the industrial revolution in Europe, the Berlin Conference ensured Whites continued their commercial advantage in the labor and raw materials' markets.

(Exemplary story to be placed here about Congo and Henry Morton Stanley and the Force Publique.

The "Public Force" or Force Publique (FP) was the official armed force for what is now the Democratic Republic of the Congo from 1885, (when the territory was known as the Congo Free State), through the period of direct Belgian rule (1908 to 1960). Immediately following independence, the FP was retitled as the Congo National Army (ANC).[1]

The FP was initially conceived in 1885 when King Léopold II of Belgium, who held the Congo Free State as his private property, ordered his Secretary of the Interior to create military and police forces for the State. Soon afterwards, in 1886, Leopold dispatched a number of Belgian officers and non- commissioned officers to the territory to create this military force. The officer corps of the Force Publique consisted entirely of whites. They comprised a mixture of Belgian regular soldiers and mercenaries from other countries who were drawn by the prospect of wealth or simply attracted to the adventure of service in Africa.

[edit]

Under the Congo Free State

Serving under these European officers were an ethnically-mixed African soldiery. Many were recruited from warrior tribes in the Upper Congo. Others were drawn from Zanzibar and West Africa. The role required of the Force Publique was to defend Free State territory and combat Arab slavers. Under Leopold however a major purpose of the force was to enforce the rubber quotas, and other forms of forced labor. Armed with modern weapons and the chicotte — a bull whip made of hippopotamus hide — soldiers of the FP often took and mistreated hostages (sometimes women, who were held captive in order to force their husbands to meet rubber quotas). Reports from foreign missionaries and consular officials detail a number of instances where Congolese men and women were flogged or raped by soldiers of the Force Publique, permitted to run amok by their officers and NCOs. They also burned recalcitrant villages, and there is photographic evidence that the FP soldiers took human hands as trophies, reportedly on the orders of Leopold to show that bullets had not been wasted. During the Free State period, the Force Publique suffered from institutional problems. During the early years of the force, mutinies of black soldiers occurred several times. By the early 1890s, much of the eastern portion of the Free State was under the control of Arab slave traders (though the Government was able to re-establish control over the east by the mid-1890s). Organizational problems were also quite prevalent during the Free State era. With many Force Publique detachments being stationed in remote areas of the territory, some officers took to using soldiers under their control to further private economic agendas rather than focusing on military concerns.[2]

The Force Publique fought in the 1892–1894 war in the Eastern Congo against Tippu Tip.)

Reeling from the onslaught of European Black slavery, colonization and resource exploitation, African leaders and their nations were in a persistent war. Rebellions in Central Africa: Angola, Mozambique, Nyasaland, Ethiopia, Northern Rhodesia (Zambia), Nigeria, Upper Volta (Burkina Faso), Somalia, Tucolor Empire, Kenya, Ivory Coast, Nyasaland (Malawi), South West Africa (Namibia), Tanganyika, Madagascar (Malagasy), Ghana, Dahomey and the Congo up until 1914. Under leaders such as Queen Yaa ASANTEWA, Mapondera, Kinjikitile Ngwale, Bambala, Mulama, Mensah SARBAH, Onyango DANDE, John CHILEMBWE, Sayyid Muhammad, Samori TURE, Ahmadu SEKU, King BEHANZIN, King IJEBU, Emperor MENELIK II (the most successful rebellion - in Ethiopia – at the battle of Adwa [Aduwa or Adowa]). What became clear in these struggles was that the White forces did not have more courageous soldiers nor any better generals but were in command of far greater firepower.


Copyright © 2011 Frank TALKER. Permission granted to reproduce and distribute it in any format; provided that mention of the author’s Weblog (http://franktalker.blogspot.com/) is included: E-mail notification requested. All other rights reserved. Frank TALKER is also the author of Sweaty Socks: A Treatise on the Inevitability of Toe Jam in Hot Weather (East Cheam Press: Groper Books, 1997) and is University of Bullshit Professor Emeritus of Madeupology.