Sunday, July 11, 2010

Hello Chocolate Lovers, Watch This



I hope a nuclear weapon goes off a couple miles from the company office so that the employees can watch in horror as their children's skin melts off their faces and they scream in agonizing pain as they are dragged out of a crumpled glass building by their legs and their skin comes off as if it's oily fried chicken skin.

Any time you want me to stop posting such horrible videos, just say the word. I can hardly do it myself.

41 comments:

  1. Fuck you Andrew and Brian.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Considering that the product itself has black and white ingredients, I can't see how this commercial could have been made with actors of the same color. Verdict: not anti-white.

    That you would respond to this commercial by wishing for innocent children to get hurt tells me all I need to know about how the racist mind works...

    ReplyDelete
  3. Oh get off your high horse, idiot. You'd just as soon turn around and see white kids get pimped into pornography and hooked on drugs and gang raped just because you get off on it and it makes you feel better about being an anti-racist.

    If it's not deliberate how come you NEVER see a commercial featuring a white man with a black woman?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Well if anything its a 2 way racism..

    The worship of the black man,

    And the exclusion of black women, because the media tells us a black woman is not attractive unless she has "white" features.

    You might think that all the race weapons in the media peddled by the sleazebags who control media favors one race over another...But in the end we are all getting fucked, even if one race received a temporary glorification.

    Likely the desired result of this race programming is to cause tension between races, as they set up world government and total banking control. Similar to how they cause tension between police and civilians.

    In the end they are not the true enemy.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "If it's not deliberate how come you NEVER see a commercial featuring a white man with a black woman?"

    Here you go:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52FVcN-yKzo

    The difference between you and me is that when I see a commercial with a white couple, I don't complain that it is anti-interracial.

    "Any time you want me to stop posting such horrible videos, just say the word."

    Yes, please stop. Post videos like this one instead that will actually help us:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dp-K163VhP4

    "cause tension between races"

    You got that right, Anonymous. And Johnny is a perfect example of their success.

    “We have set one against the other the personal and national reckonings of the Goyim, religious and race hatreds, which we have fostered into a huge growth over the past twenty centuries.” – Protocols of the Elders of Zion

    ReplyDelete
  6. This commercial makes me want to hurl. A black man painted in white and a white woman painted in mud. There is only 1 winner there, and it's definelty not whitey. This is just another lame as attempt at showing that skin color doesn't matter, when it really does. For instance, there are certain race-based diseases, and if miscegenation occurs, those disease that normally wouldn't be spread to the white population, are. When lefties say we are all homo sapiens, well that's true, but all dogs are cannis familiaris, but would you say there's a difference if you were bit by a Pit Bull or a Chihuahua?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Time to support the only political party that fights against anti-white discrimination.

    The American Third Position Party

    Check them out: http://american3p.org/

    ReplyDelete
  8. I want to talk about the examples of the chocolate ad AND the IKEA ad (that anon posted above).

    The marketing depts of the companies that commission ads like this work very carefully and deliberately on these things. Tens of millions of dollars and very high-paying careers are at stake. Nothing, and I mean NOTHING happens by accident in these ads.

    The marketing depts are trying to appeal to a certain demographic, by giving them imagery that is considered cool and hip, even a bit edgy - or best of all, edgy in the sense of making the targeted group feeling as though it were on the forefront of things rather than stodgy and old. Pitting a young demo against an older one is perfectly fair game. The presentation of "challenging" imagery gives the product an aura of relevance and avant-garde coolness.

    In the fast-paced world of advertising and pop culture, interracial sex between a black man/white woman is even considered a bit tired, which is why the ever-hip IKEA reversed the race-mixing equation. The IKEA ad creators have already anticipated "why is it always a black man/white woman?" objection, but from the point of view of their college-educated audience that is well versed in the usual multicultural arguments. The makers of the chocolate ad might be more old school, but they've attempted to breathe new life into the cliched black man/white woman pairing by at least being more explicit sexually than usual.

    But the two ads aren't at odds. The overall message is the same. Interracial sex is not only perfectly okay, in fact it's cool .

    Now, say you're a kid who, like the vast majority of people, is not really that into interracial sex. Say you're a kid who even finds the idea of it makes you uncomfortable. The lesson being taught by the ads is that if you feel that way then you're the one who is abnormal, even though it's been perfectly normal and natural to feel that way for millenia. If you're not cool with it, then you have to accept that you're not where your demographic cohorts are, you're not on the cutting edge.

    The multiculturalist might reply that the ads are a good thing because they "include" interracial couples, and perhaps help people involved in them feel "normal" for a change. Well, good for them.

    Personally, I care far more about the majority of white kids out there who will see these ads and wonder whether there's something wrong with them for not being attracted to people of other races. And what's even worse is that we all know what would happen if this majority of kids were to speak up and actually state this very natural, normal preference for people of one's own race.

    That's why these ads suck.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Good commentary, Vick.

    Sensible morality and individual feelings towards what should normally be a contentious subject goes right out the window when money is concerned. What then, is the difference between this mentality and a Jewish one? They most operate on the same principle.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Second that by Vick.Superb analysis.

    This is a good record of brainwashing. Handy for people to refer to. Keep up the good work! (even if it is grim to do it).

    ReplyDelete
  11. @Vick

    First of all, the ads are trying to market their product. By showing more than one ethnicity in their ads, they indicate that their product is relevant to all ethnicities, thereby pitching to a larger market. This is the simplest reason why ads are often multiethnic: they bring more customers this way.

    I have no idea where you get the impression that the 'vast majority' of people oppose interracial couples. Most people simply do not exclude any potential partners on the basis of race, but go on a case-by-case basis. Only a few people make race a criterion, whether by actively seeking out or by actively avoiding dating someone of another ethnicity. Even fewer care about what ethnicity OTHER PEOPLE date, regardless of their personal ethnic preferences. Most people treat people as individuals.

    Someone who views people as individuals would not even think about 'normality' when watching ads featuring interracial couples; he would not be comparing himself with anyone else in the first place.

    This is why I said, when I see a white couple, I don't complain that it is anti-interracial. But racists like yourself see an interracial couple and complain that it is anti-white. See the difference between us? In the same way, your entire argument is to persuade people that the racist preference is 'normal', whereas I don't care if my preferences are normal or not, they are what they are. See the difference between us?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Here are a few ads. Not sure if you've already mentioned these.

    There's the "Axe Cleans Your Balls" ad. Note the blond guy has "small balls" but the black guy has a "big ball sack":

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0AlcVU-de4

    Then there's the ridiculously negrophilic Old Spice ad:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owGykVbfgUE

    Brinks Home Security ad (white woman attacked by crazed white man, calls security, is assisted by mystery meat):

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKI4t5MFG1E

    And finally two ads pushing an "emasculated white male carrying a purse" meme:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRecos7TcA0

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8iawDvGfDBc

    ReplyDelete
  13. Yes, Anon, those have all been catalogued.

    ReplyDelete
  14. "...ads are often multiethnic: they bring more customers this way."

    Yes, you're right that some ads are cast with a smattering of different racial groups in order to widen their appeal. But that's not what these two ads I wrote about are doing.

    Remember what I said about how carefully television ads are put together. If you think that spending millions to portray interracial couples having sex on television is done merely to be "inclusive" of a wider audience, then you are willfully ignoring the fact that for many, many people in this country the subject of interracial sex and relationships is a complicated, charged topic. If they just merely wanted to be inclusive, then why show an interracial couple having sex at all? Why not just have a multicultural cast of friends at a dinner party or whatever?

    IKEA and Andrew and Brian are intentionally playing on the "edginess" of interracial sex. Whatever intention there is to speak to blacks is secondary at best to the goal of cutting through the noise of the media marketplace to create imagery that's cuts through and has impact. The creators of the ads are aware of that edginess, and I'm certain most people watching are aware of it. Interracial sex and relationships are still comparatively rare in this country - they've chosen to display it to get our attention. It's that simple.

    Next, most people may not "oppose interracial couples" - at least not explicitly - but they do know it's not for them. How do I know this? Because the rates of interracial marriage are still low, even after 50 years of multicultural indoctrination to the contrary.

    Your description of how people look for potential mates is hilariously wrong. People only look at each other as individuals, eh? If you were right then probably about half of the population would be involved in homosexual relationships. The fact is, people take all sorts of things into account when looking for a partner that have very little to do with the individual person standing before them. Gender is the biggest by far. Race is too. Physical appearance is huge. And then we can go down the list - money, socioeconomic status, religious background, ethnicity, speaking the same language, and so on. I hate to break it to you but your potential mates see you as an entire package, many elements of which are entirely out of your control and have nothing to with your "individuality." Sorry, but that's life.

    Race is an important one of many "lenses" that people look through when they look around for a potential mate. And it's been this way for hundreds of thousands of years. This is what I mean by describing it as normal and natural. It's something that takes place unconsciously, in much the same way that sexual orientation is something deep and unalterable. That racial preferences in selecting for a mate are undeniable is why it is flat out wrong for a marketing dept of some multinational corporation to exploit discomfort with interracial sex just to make ads that "cut through" and which also have the effect of making white viewers (and probably many black viewers too) question who they find attractive. Who are these companies to f*ck with people's heads like this? We're not their lab rats.

    And again, I will raise this very simple point: what would happen if a bunch of white kids watched the chocolate ad and the IKEA ad and said, "we don't like it, it makes us feel uncomfortable - we prefer to have sex and partner up with people of our own race."

    What would US society today say about those kids? How would they be characterized?

    ReplyDelete
  15. I want high rates of race-mixing between Jews and Arabs, as an effective tool that Whites can throttle to control Jewish mind-warping of our young women. My first step toward helping bring that along: pro-Palestinian activism within a feigned leftist/globalist agenda among leftists/globalists, and concern for the human rights of Palestinian Christians among Christians.. WNs: tell your Christian relatives and friends that apartheid in Israel persecutes the spat upon Palestinian Christians. Practice kind, convincing deception if necessary among the genocidal left. This is war, and our would be genetic murderers have no right to our forthrightness. And support White nationalism and White cooperation everywhere!

    ReplyDelete
  16. @Vick

    "If they just merely wanted to be inclusive, then why show an interracial couple having sex at all? Why not just have a multicultural cast of friends at a dinner party or whatever?"

    It depends on the product being advertized. For example, the ad above is for a chocolate with two layers which combine inside your mouth. Sex is not a bad metaphor for the fusion of ingredients. There are also plenty of other ads (including on this blog) which feature multiracial, non-sexual situations.

    "Interracial sex and relationships are still comparatively rare in this country - they've chosen to display it to get our attention."

    Agreed, but aren't ads supposed to get our attention? When people watch a series of ads in a row, the one that stands out and sticks in memory (for whatever reason) is the more successful one. That they are using something 'edgy' to get our attention doesn't equate to them promoting the 'edgy' idea itself. Brokeback Mountain was 'edgy' in the way it depicted a homosexual couple, but nobody suspects Ang Lee of promoting homosexuality to his audience.

    "Next, most people may not "oppose interracial couples" - at least not explicitly - but they do know it's not for them. How do I know this? Because the rates of interracial marriage are still low, even after 50 years of multicultural indoctrination to the contrary."

    This is my point. Most people who have no problem with a partner of a different ethnicity also do not actively seek one out, therefore are statistically unlikely of ending up with one. Most people who have a partner of the same ethnicity could easily have ended up with a partner of a different ethnicity if the dice fell differently. If you ask anyone whether they would have married their husband/wife if he/she were the exact same person but of a different ethnicity, almost all would say yes. Most people are just looking for someone who is right for them, which is hard enough without further limiting one's choices by race.

    "If you were right then probably about half of the population would be involved in homosexual relationships."

    Look at the ancient world. People married heterosexually for reproduction, but to have homosexual relationships at the same time was common and expected, and certainly not controversial. It was Judaism which brought in this idea that homosexuality was somehow 'forbidden'.

    "Physical appearance is huge."

    Agreed, but physical appearance is something you judge when the individual is standing before you, which is my very point about viewing people as individuals.

    "And again, I will raise this very simple point: what would happen if a bunch of white kids watched the chocolate ad and the IKEA ad and said, "we don't like it, it makes us feel uncomfortable - we prefer to have sex and partner up with people of our own race." What would US society today say about those kids? How would they be characterized?"

    They would be considered racists, which is indeed what they are. In saying "we prefer to have sex and partner up with people of our own race", they have already ceased to treat the people they meet as individuals, in that they exclude certain people from consideration in advance of judging them individually. All I advocate is treating people as individuals; what is so hard to understand about this?

    As I said, if it is justified for an intraracial dater to be offended by seeing interracial couples, is it equally justified for an interracial dater to be offended by seeing intraracial couples?

    @Ethnostates Now!

    Those who are anti-Israel but pro-WN are hypocrites, because they basically want a white version of Israel.

    WN = Jew wannabes; both believe their race is 'chosen' and must be preserved even if it means screwing everyone else.

    I am 100% anti-Zionist, and 100% anti-WN.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Boiling all this down, I have two very simple points for you to refute or concede:

    The first is that attraction to people of the same race is something very deep seated within people. I don't think racial attraction is as hardwired and unalterable as sexual orientation - but it functions is a very similar way. You can not like it, you can call the majority of the people in the world who feel that way "racists" but I think in the end you will have about as much luck changing people's very natural, very normal attraction to members of the same race as you will in changing homosexual's sexual orientation through "reversion therapy."

    Following from that, I think it is offensive for a multinational corporation to play on that very deep seated feeling, to profit it off of it by either making fun of it or showing imagery related to it that makes people feel uncomfortable, all in the name of being "edgy." Like I said before, we're not their lab rats.

    Second, we could have a long drawn out debate about how exactly ads affect behavior and whether or not these ads are "promoting" interracial sex. I think they are, but in the end rather than going back and forth over it, I will just say that what is most offensive to me is that the terms of debate have been set in such a way that for simply being themselves and honestly acknowledging racial attraction, people are put into a position by these ads of either speaking up and getting called a racist, or else they must sit there, shut up and take it. It's hardly a fair debate. The makers of the ad are fully aware that as offensive as their ads are to many people, they know that those people can't or won't speak up because of fear of being labeled a backward, hating racist.

    Explain to me how in a society where so much care is put into not offending all the various minorities and identity groups, for some reason it's deemed acceptable to offend a large majority of people who aren't interested in interracial sex or relationships? Why is it okay to make many white kids and black kids wonder if there's something wrong with themselves because they're not attracted to members of different races and then not allow their parents to say something about it?

    The interracial and intraracial daters will be on the same level playing field when one side isn't unfairly smeared for merely being themselves and following their hearts and guts when it comes to who they desire.

    ReplyDelete
  18. @Vick

    "The first is that attraction to people of the same race is something very deep seated within people."

    Within SOME people.

    (Incidentally, a lot of the WNs on here think black men as a whole are more attracted to white women than to black women. Why don't you argue with them?)

    "I think it is offensive for a multinational corporation to play on that very deep seated feeling"

    Different people have very deep seated feelings about different issues. Should multinational corporations avoid ALL these possible issues in their ads? And if not, why should THIS issue receive special treatment?

    "what is most offensive to me is that the terms of debate have been set in such a way that for simply being themselves and honestly acknowledging racial attraction, people are put into a position by these ads of either speaking up and getting called a racist, or else they must sit there, shut up and take it. It's hardly a fair debate"

    There exist women who are only attracted to tall men, and believe it is natural and normal and deep-seated for women to be attracted to tall men. What would you think if one of these women sees an ad pairing a woman with a short man, and in response she complains that multinational corporations are using her as a 'lab rat', and conditioning kids to suspect that there is something wrong with themselves for preferring tall men? What if she then explains how offensive it is that the terms of debate have been set in such a way that for simply being themselves and honestly acknowledging height attraction, people are put into a position by these ads of either speaking up and getting called a 'height freak', or else they must sit there, shut up and take it? It's hardly a fair debate, she says.

    My question to her would be, why does she see the need to speak up about it in the first place?

    My question to you is, how are you different from this woman?

    "Explain to me how in a society where so much care is put into not offending all the various minorities and identity groups, for some reason it's deemed acceptable to offend a large majority of people who aren't interested in interracial sex or relationships?"

    A majority of people are also heterosexual. But most heterosexuals are not offended by seeing homosexual relationships. The people offended by homosexual relationships are not 'heterosexuals', but a tiny minority of heterosexuals known as homophobes.

    Similarly, most intraracialists are also not offended by seeing interracial relationships. The people offended by interracial relationships are not 'intraracialists', but a tiny minority of intraracialists known as racists.

    I do not deem it acceptable to offend intraracialists. I only deem it acceptable to offend racists.

    "Why is it okay to make many white kids and black kids wonder if there's something wrong with themselves because they're not attracted to members of different races and then not allow their parents to say something about it?"

    I do not believe kids will wonder if there is something wrong with themselves in the first place. They will just watch the ad and conclude that different people have different tastes.

    To be honest, I'm MUCH more worried about parents who - because they themselves are not attracted to people of other races - forbid their kids from dating people of other races, even when the kids want to. THAT is the real tyranny, the real abuse.

    "The interracial and intraracial daters will be on the same level playing field when one side isn't unfairly smeared for merely being themselves and following their hearts and guts when it comes to who they desire."

    Agreed. Tell the WNs to stop calling the interracial daters "race traitors", and I'll stop calling them "racists".

    ReplyDelete
  19. The debate you 2 have going is pretty entertaining; great points made on both sides. But if I were a kid coming up and saw this commercial on the tube I honestly wouldn’t think anything about it, well because of the years upon years of public schooling and media conditioning; I would see it as just another commercial. It’s time people wake up and see the scheme for what it is-the eventual genocide of the white race. After all, what do multicultis think will be the ultimate result of all this forced diversity and immigration? I don’t recall that the people ever got a vote or not on if they wanted integration, a vast majority of whites were against it, and believe it or not, most blacks opposed it.

    Now just because I want to be around whites only, doesn’t mean that I “hate” any other race. I just think everyone has a rightful place to call home. Hispanics have P.R., Mexico, Dominican Republic, etc, etc, blacks have Uganda, Somalia, Haiti, Africa, Liberia, etc, etc. Jews have Israel. Indians have India. Chin ease have China. Whites have no where to go but the “melting pot” of America. I just don’t think it fair that every other race has a totally separate homeland AND they’re given special rights and privileges to usurp the natives here, but whites are confined to the US and only the US. We are victims of a murderous, racist, genocidal agenda, and we had better wake up soon! This commercial is just another notch on the Zionists’ belt that is being used to strangle us.

    ReplyDelete
  20. @anonymous

    First of all, it's nice to see you concede and agree with me that for many people attraction based on race is something very deep seated and personal to them. You've made a good first step down the road towards seeing things from someone else's point of view for a change. Keep it up.

    "Different people have very deep seated feelings about different issues. Should multinational corporations avoid ALL these possible issues in their ads?"

    Multinational corporations DO go out of their way to avoid offending people. They do it ALL the time. Explain to me why they go to great lengths to avoid offending some groups, but people who are offended by interracial dating are fair game?

    Nevermind, I'll explain why for you. It's because the dominant culture - the one cooked up in academia and in other high culture strongholds in the US and Europe - holds that interracial dating, interracial sex and interracial relationships aren't just okay, they're what we should hold up as the ideal for the future.

    Keep in mind that if you hold the view that racial attraction is bad for some reason or another, then you have to admit that the ideal world is one where people have been conditioned somehow to no longer be that way. There's no half way measures in this worldview. This is why it's okay to offend people who have deeply seated racial attraction - because we don't count, we don't fit into the dominant ideology that is being foisted on us, whether we want it or not.

    (You should also be aware that by simply admitting as you did that there are many people out there who have deep seated attraction to people based on race, and that it's okay for them to feel that way, that you have put yourself at odds with this worldview I described above. I wouldn't go around stating it in public if I were you. People might call you a racist. Sucks, huh?)

    Next, your "height freak" example doesn't work because people who are partial to tall people aren't demonized when they publicly state that preference.

    "But most heterosexuals are not offended by seeing homosexual relationships."

    Actually, you don't seem to be very aware of the sort of stuff homosexual political groups talk about amongst themselves. "Heteronormativity," as they call it, is something they consider very oppressive to them and they are quite vocal about it. And yet they don't get called "heterophobic" do they?

    "I do not believe kids will wonder if there is something wrong with themselves in the first place."

    Then you don't understand how advertising works. Making people feel insecure about themselves is Advertising 101 stuff. Look into it.

    "Tell the WNs to stop calling the interracial daters "race traitors", and I'll stop calling them "racists"."

    Again, you seem to be a bit blind to the power imbalance between the two sides in this society. It is tantamount to a thoughtcrime to consider a WN point of view in this country, much less state it in public. Calling someone a racist? Wow, how edgy.

    ReplyDelete
  21. @Shane

    "I just think everyone has a rightful place to call home. ... Jews have Israel."

    The problem begins here. If you support Israel, there is nothing worth discussing with you.

    "I just don’t think it fair that every other race has a totally separate homeland AND they’re given special rights and privileges to usurp the natives here, but whites are confined to the US and only the US"

    Where is the separate homeland of the Native Americans? Oh, whites stole it from them, just like Jews stole Palestine.

    "We are victims of a murderous, racist, genocidal agenda, and we had better wake up soon!"

    You sound just like a Jew talking about the 'anti-Semitism' and the 'Holocaust' and how that entitles them to steal land from the Palestinians.

    @Vick

    "it's nice to see you concede and agree with me that for many people attraction based on race is something very deep seated and personal to them"

    SOME, not many. Do not misrepresent me.

    "by simply admitting as you did that there are many people out there who have deep seated attraction to people based on race"

    SOME, not many. Again, do not misrepresent me.

    "Explain to me why they go to great lengths to avoid offending some groups, but people who are offended by interracial dating are fair game?"

    Because you have no reason to be offended by OTHER PEOPLE's dating preferences. What is so hard to understand about this?

    "Next, your "height freak" example doesn't work because people who are partial to tall people aren't demonized when they publicly state that preference."

    People who prefer intraracial dating are not demonized either. The only people demonized (and justly) are those who attempt to discourage interracial dating among others.

    ""Heteronormativity," as they call it, is something they consider very oppressive to them and they are quite vocal about it. And yet they don't get called "heterophobic" do they?"

    Heteronormativity is the attitude of those who try to make heterosexuality the default, which is indeed homophobic. Homosexuals, on the other hand, do not try to make homosexuality the default, therefore indeed are not heterophobic.

    Similarly, you are an "intranormative", and hence racist. On the other hand, those who date intraracially themselves but do not consider their preference a default are not racists. Do you see the difference yet?

    "Then you don't understand how advertising works. Making people feel insecure about themselves is Advertising 101 stuff."

    Making them insecure with reference to not being a customer of the advertized product is how advertizing works. It does not benefit the ad make its viewers feel insecure on completely unrelated issues. The ad above has about as much chance of causing insecurity about dating preferences as about the viewer's ability to swing on a vine.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Anonymous, you seem to be stuck on the idea that people view each others as individuals. This is far from the case other than in an idealized world of romance, which itself was created by White men, but does not exist in actuality particularly among human mating preferences combined with many different factors of the modern psyche such as racial hangups, Freudian 'daddy issues,' insatiable lust, and under the duress of an extremely hostile media that undeniably purports that interracial romances are better, if not more normal than intraracial romances. Visiting China where women throw themselves at White men because of conceptions of superiority, beauty, or masculinity is just one example.

    I have a cartoon which demonstrates this idea:

    http://i40.tinypic.com/332tgg2.jpg

    Breeding up is a universal tendency. Without a doubt a darker member of a race will universally prefer a lighter companion if given the choice. Only under exceptional mental manipulation will the opposite be chosen.

    ReplyDelete
  23. @ Anonymous

    “The problem begins here. If you support Israel, there is nothing worth discussing with you.”


    Where did I even mention that I support Israel, actually if you can gleam anything from what I wrote about it, I implied that Jews do not belong in the US, they have a home. Way to jump to conclusions!


    “Where is the separate homeland of the Native Americans? Oh, whites stole it from them, just like Jews stole Palestine.”

    Now Native Americans fall into the “minority excuse card”, even though it’s not common, they are still very much a minority, even though their numbers are so small as to render their status insignificant. Certainly you agree that minorities have clear advantages over whites. Native Americans *might* have been here first, and I stress might. But we made laws, erected a statue of our freedom, fashioned a Constitution, where they lived in straw huts and painted their faces. But I don’t think you are getting at who belongs here, but comparing whites to Jews is like comparing the Nazis to the Red Cross. My point was that every single ethnic group that claims oppression, has a whole nother chunk of land carved out and set aside just for them, and they wish for dominion of this one too. The white man is forced to share this country, the only sanctuary we have, with them. Now don’t get me wrong, whites are abundant in other places too, but they’re sparsely located on separate nations-no nation is 100% white. If you have a huge house, do you think it fair if you are obligated into renting 1 of the rooms out to someone who has another house all to themselves across the country? Wouldn’t it be right if they go live in their own home, and you keep your entire house?


    "You sound just like a Jew talking about the 'anti-Semitism' and the 'Holocaust' and how that entitles them to steal land from the Palestinians."

    There you go with Jews yet again. You desperately need to get over your little pipe dream. Now just because we are targeted for genocide, doesn’t entitle us to “steal land”, as you can’t steal what is yours anyway. We bought Texas from Mexico for 15 million during the Mexican Succession. It is not their land. That’s a bit like if you sell your car to someone and see it parked in their driveway. You run over and try to open the door and the new owner comes out and you claim it’s yours. They bought it, a sum of money changed hands, it’s no longer yours. The same with Texas. The whole of the US is ours, some bought with money, some won through blood, but nobody on this side is “stealing” anything.

    ReplyDelete
  24. This time around, I want to focus on one very simple point where it seems like you're making some progress.

    Some or many - what difference does it make? - my point is that you have yet to refute my claim that there are many people out there (even a small percentage equals a great many people) who have a very deeply-based attraction to people of their own race.

    You seem to be okay with these people because I'm guessing that you recognize that forcing them to change somehow would be about as sensible and fair as it would be to try and change people's sexual orientation.

    I commend you for making this step in understanding and I can see that this exchange hasn't been a waste of time.

    My next challenge to you is to try and see why it is unfair and unjust to smear this group as "evil racists" (or pick your epithet) for expressing this attraction which comes naturally to them.

    Let's hear you say it - don't you agree it's wrong to persecute these folks, these friends, family members, neighbors and fellow citizens who are simply being themselves? Remember that you have already agreed that there are people who naturally, normally feel that way. Don't back away from that sensible position.

    ReplyDelete
  25. I want to see an argument between Johnny and Vick. Johnny claims darker preferring lighter is the default, Vick claims preferring the same color is the default. Until they resolve this, their disagreement seems like evidence of MY claim: that different people have different preferences, but many people are so bigoted that they imagine their own preference must be the default.

    @Vick

    "don't you agree it's wrong to persecute these folks, these friends, family members, neighbors and fellow citizens who are simply being themselves?"

    To prefer dating intraracially oneself is not racist, and undeserving of persecution. To take offense at OTHER PEOPLE (including ad characters) dating interracially is racist, and deserving of persecution. Define "being themselves" and you have my answer.

    @Shane

    "I implied that Jews do not belong in the US, they have a home"

    By saying Jews 'have a home' in Israel, are you not supporting its existence?

    "But we made laws, erected a statue of our freedom, fashioned a Constitution, where they lived in straw huts and painted their faces."

    Jews say the same about Israel: they made it the only democracy in the area, etc. etc., while the Palestinians live in the stone age and cover their faces.

    "My point was that every single ethnic group that claims oppression, has a whole nother chunk of land carved out and set aside just for them"

    Not the Native Americans. And what about the Hawaiians? Where is their chunk of land set aside just for them?

    "If you have a huge house, do you think it fair if you are obligated into renting 1 of the rooms out to someone who has another house all to themselves across the country?"

    Yes it is fair, because I stole the house, and because I stole stuff from their houses to build my house.

    "Wouldn’t it be right if they go live in their own home, and you keep your entire house?"

    No, because my house was stolen from them, and contains the stuff I stole from them.

    You sound like the Jew who tells Palestinians to go and live in Jordan.

    "The whole of the US is ours, some bought with money, some won through blood, but nobody on this side is “stealing” anything."

    That's what the Jew says about Israel. Palestine was 'won through blood'.

    You cannot be against Jews while being for whites, because they behave too much alike.

    ReplyDelete
  26. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  27. @ Anonymous

    “By saying Jews 'have a home' in Israel, are you not supporting its existence?”

    Well everybody has to live somewhere. I think Jews have every right to live amongst themselves, as does every other ethnic group. What I absolutely detest is how the US vehemently defends Israel and enables its terrorist activities. Now, I’m perfectly fine with the existence of a homeland for Jews, but I also want the same for people of European decent.

    “You cannot be against Jews while being for whites, because they behave too much alike.”

    Well for starters, I am not against Jews. I am against Zionists, there’s a distinct difference as to be a Zionist, you must be a Talmud-adhering Jew, and to be a Jew, you don’t have to be a Zionist. I only take issue with the Zionists who wield power, not the average Harvey Goldstein who lives down the street from me, because no matter what he believes, he can affect little to nothing. You can absolutely oppose Jewish interests while simultaneously being for white interests. I oppose Jewish Supremacism. In the Talmud, theres verses that instruct the Jews to rob from, cheat, and steal from Gentiles. It teaches that they are superior to all Gentiles. It doesn’t even stress to convert them to Judaism, it instructs Jews to conquer Gentiles. If we read that, then we can understand that those who follow the Talmud are the real enemies, and not the average Jew. The Zionists have collectively taken control over almost all of American media.It has taken untold years to get the American people to accept interracial relationships, and now, thanks to Zionist influence, they are 1 step closer to subduing the white race. No opposing all this nonsense, does not make one “anti-semetic”, or a hypocrite. Whites act nothing like Zionists. Whites don’t massively immigrate to host nations and destroy them from within. Whites are not cold-blooded parasites like the snakes on “V.” Whites do not crush our neighbors while defending our borders, when’s the last time you seen on the news that we are persecuting Mexicans, killing them needlessly at the border, etc? No, we pretty much have an open border policy, which is much, much more then I can say for Israel.

    ReplyDelete
  28. @anonymous

    "To prefer dating intraracially onself is not racist, and undeserving of persecution."

    Well done! Congratulations to you. You're making progress towards understanding where many white advocates are coming from.

    The next step I ask you to take is to be aware and pay attention to what happens when people publicly state their preference for dating and partnering with people of their own race. If you're serious when you say these folks are undeserving of persecution, then you should stick up for them even though you don't have the same preference. Don't sit idly by and allow these decent folks to get smeared. It happens all the time.

    I agree, it's a risky thing to do - you will probably get called a racist for even defending the rights of people like this to have and express such views - but at this point in the discussion it seems like we both agree it's the right thing to do. Good luck to you.

    ReplyDelete
  29. @Shane

    "Whites don’t massively immigrate to host nations and destroy them from within."

    "Whites do not crush our neighbors while defending our borders"

    You're ignoring the Native Americans and Hawaiians again. (I'm not even going to bring up the rest of the British Empire.)

    "it instructs Jews to conquer Gentiles"

    Similar to the historical white notion of Manifest Destiny.

    "It teaches that they are superior to all Gentiles"

    White superiority is also an explicit notion in historical white American literature. Better yet, just ask Johnny what he thinks.

    "to be a Jew, you don’t have to be a Zionist"

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIK3zSKdj6I

    @Vick

    "You're making progress"

    These have been my views all my life. Do not patronize me.

    "pay attention to what happens when people publicly state their preference for dating and partnering with people of their own race"

    And you pay attention to what happens when people state their preference for dating and partnering with people of a different race in racist hangouts.

    "you should stick up for them even though you don't have the same preference"

    And you should stick up for interracial daters even though you don't have the same preference.

    I want to hear you say that all the segregation and anti-miscegenation laws in America's past were unethical, and that you will never support reintroducing such laws. I want to hear you say that all parents who pressure their children against interracial dating are abusive, and that you will never support them. I want to hear you say that you would not feel uncomfortable by seeing any number of interracial couples in society, as long as intraracial couples are not persecuted.

    Then I will believe that you are merely against persecution of intraracial daters. Not before.

    ReplyDelete
  30. @ Anonymous

    Thank you Anonymous. You have really caused me to stop and think. The fact that native Hawains and Indians are an endangered species in their very own land, mostly thanks to European settlers, enforces my theory on why each race should have a distinct, separate homeland, enforce its borders toughly, and not allow immigration. I mean, at one time Indians were the majority here, and then European whites stormed in and changed things, with sheer numbers alone. The Indians probably felt the exact same way I do now.

    ReplyDelete
  31. @anonymous

    I got the main concession out of you that I wanted, so I was prepared to let the debate end at that, but as one last parting shot I have to point out that I think you're being dishonest when you say "these have been my views my hold life. Don't patronize me."

    Much earlier in our discussion I gave you an example of kids watching the IKEA ad. I asked you what they would be called if after watching the ad they said that they didn't like the ad and preferred to date and partner with people of the same race.

    You replied that they would be called racists and that they should be - that it was okay with you if they were called that.

    Later on in the discussion you came around to the much more sensible and more just point of view that it's unfair to smear and persecute people who are simply being themselves and expressing an attraction which comes naturally and normally to them.

    Yet in your last post you made it sound like you've held that view "all your life."

    So, I think everyone can see you're contradicting yourself. You either screwed up and forgot that you said that people with race-based attraction are racists, or you're lying when you say that people with race-based attraction shouldn't be smeared and persecuted.

    Which is it? I hope you just screwed up. You don't seem like a liar though I suppose I could be wrong about.

    ReplyDelete
  32. @Shane

    Nobody likes a person who steals from others and then is offended when others steal back from him. That person is called a hypocrite. We cannot change the past, but we can at least not be hypocritical about it.

    @Vick

    "I asked you what they would be called if after watching the ad they said that they didn't like the ad and preferred to date and partner with people of the same race. You replied that they would be called racists and that they should be"

    Yes. Intraracial daters who have no problem with OTHER PEOPLE's dating preferences have no reason to dislike the ad! Hence those who dislike the ad are more than just intraracial daters; they are racists. I have not changed my view.

    A non-racist intraracial dater would see an interracial couple and think: "Good for them that they have found each other." Is that what you think when you see an interracial couple? It is this response, not your own dating preferences, that determines racism or non-racism.

    ReplyDelete
  33. this ad certainly doesn't put me in the mood to go out and buy some chocolates; it makes me want to puke. it's a shame too, b/c the graphics were so neat and it was appealing before you see the people. it seems like the only demographic this is would remotely reach is black men. i don't think black women or any whites would be influenced.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Im a White woman and I love dark men..something about it is so masculine and domineering

    ReplyDelete
  35. this ad certainly doesn't put me in the mood to go out and buy some chocolates; it makes me want to puke. it's a shame too, b/c the graphics were so neat and it was appealing before you see the people. it seems like the only demographic this is would remotely reach is black men. i don't think black women or any whites would be influenced.

    I suspect the main market for chocolate is women. White women. So we know exactly why the ad is pitched the way it is.

    I will never buy this brand.

    ReplyDelete
  36. What The Fuck is wrong with you?

    ReplyDelete
  37. Actually new skeletons have been brought up in America that are of NORDIC origin - waaaaaay before the natives migrated here. Look it up , it's fairly new , and exciting!

    ReplyDelete
  38. It was Australia Day yesterday, and of course most news services led with with or emphasised stories about the many citizenship ceremonies around the country, and how many people (almost all non-White) "became Australians" on our national day.
    There was also television programs featuring immigrants, most non-White, pontificating about Australia, about who "we" are, and about how much "better" Australia Day is now than it was only a decade ago.
    On our national day!
    This is wrong, absolutely wrong, and all only further shows what is being done to us.
    It's got to stop!

    Scott

    ReplyDelete
  39. All of the oldest skeletal remains in North America are caucasoid and this earliest human population appears to have been genocided by later Mongoloid Asian immigrants. Google solutrian. Europeans appear to have reclaimed land that was taken from their kinsmen through genocide.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Someone posted an IKEA commercial which is actually a little shocking in the fact that they showed a white man with a black woman. That is the first ad I've seen like that. Not surprising that it's probably the last one I'll ever see too. But anyway, there definitely is a pattern here. EVERY interracial couple being portrayed is always a white person with a black person. Never Asian with Middle Eastern, or Hispanic with Native American, etc. ALWAYS black and white. Why? Because those are the two races everyone thinks about when they think of racism. It's definitely not a coincidence. Anyone who thinks it is, is just lying to themselves...

    ReplyDelete