Exposing the Subtle and Blatant Ways in Which the Media Seeks to Denigrate, Humiliate, and Ultimately Exterminate People of European or Caucasian Descent, One Image at a Time.
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
Self-Preservation is Evil (according to this "Anti-Racist" psychopath)
ATTENTION WOMEN EVERYWHERE: Never let anyone make you feel guilty for having self-defense instincts.
I am white. I go into an elevator every day. Sometimes I am in an elevator late at night. Sometimes, when I go into an elevator at an odd hour, there's a woman in there by herself and I can sense that her she is mildly fearful that I might attack her. I can tell it at least crosses her mind. This is normal. I am glad it crosses her mind, because self-defense is a good thing. People should be alert to predation, especially single women.
Apparently this guy, this black Napoleon-complex asshole, has a problem with women acting on their instincts of self-preservation.
Apparently the people who made this video, too, have a problem with women, especially white women, acting on their instincts of self-preservation.
I don't begrudge a woman her right to be fearful, to put some distance between herself and myself or any man, to guard her purse.
But this black ass apparently feels morally justified in going apeshit over the slightest slight, the mildest interpersonal friction, a foot or two of personal space.
He considers himself morally justified in lashing out at this "bitch," this worthless racist white "bitch" who deserves nothin' but a good smack-down. Bitch!
We wonder why black crime is so high? Why black men attack white women at such an alarming rate relative to the rate at which white males attack black females? Well, AWM media turds like this make black men feel morally entitled to their rage, their savage violence against an imagined "racist" white woman.
If I was that lady, and that man said boo to me like that, I would have already sprayed his face with oven cleaner before his lips got pursed around that last O.
The makers of this Public Service Announcement probably thought they were being anti-racist. What they really are is anti-white.
Anti-racist is just a code word for anti-white.
Hat tip: Artur
Linder was right.
ReplyDeleteThe Jews really do enjoy the rape, murder, mayhem.
And there is your proof.
Dr. Frankenboas's delightful concotion. Love child of Sandra Bernhardt and Kanye West. And check out dem fine thredz. who u see wearin' such a swish waistocat theze days. like sherlock holmes up in dis.
ReplyDelete"such a swish waistocat"
ReplyDeleteshiiiit you knows deys white wimminz be liken deh bilbo baggins look and shit.
"Anti-racist is just a code word for anti-white"
ReplyDeleteNow where have I heard this before? Sounds so familiar.... Oh, I know!
"Anti-Zionist is just a code word for anti-Semite."
Yep, everyone, it is now official: Bob Whitaker is the white version of Abraham Foxman.
"I don't begrudge a woman her right to be fearful, to put some distance between herself and myself or any man, to guard her purse."
That wasn't what the PSA was about. It was about prejudging individuals on the basis of their race. If a woman guards her purse from others regardless of their race, she is simply untrusting of people in general, which is her prerogative. But if a woman chooses whether or not to guard her purse based on the race of someone whom she does not know as an indivudual, she is prejudiced, and she should not then complain when others treat her with contempt.
no. anti-zionist and anti-semite are interchangeable because of the jewish nature of zionism. but so-called anti-racists purport to bash racism indiscriminately from any and all sectors when in fact, if you call them on it, they are only ever bashing white self-interest.
ReplyDeletetranslation: ask an anti-racist whether it is cool to flood the congo with millions of whites. he or she will say that's bad for the congo and its native inhabitants or that's racist, colonialist, etc. but ask an anti-racist if scotland should be flooded with blacks. the anti-racist will argue that to oppose such a measure is itself racist. flood scotland, ireland, the netherlands, all white countries, with non-whites. that's good, according to the anti-racist. the connection between judiasm and zionism is so tight that, while not all zionists are jews, there is an explicit denial of the jewish homeland in the definition of anti-zionism. however there is not an explicit denial of the white or any racial homeland in anti-racism. anti-racists maintain that racial homelands are fine for blacks in the congo while they consistently deny a homeland to one group: whites. that’s the special, hidden hypocrisy in “anti-racist.” get it now?
"But if a woman chooses whether or not to guard her purse based on the race of someone whom she does not know as an individual, she is prejudiced, and she should not then complain when others treat her with contempt."
now how do you fucking know what goes on in a woman's mind? whether she guards her purse based on race or gender or musculature or tattoos or scar tissue or any other consideration? you presume the example in the video is based on race. and based on that presumption you would think it is fine and dandy to treat this poor woman with contempt. what else would you be fine with? what else would your presumptions excuse? rape? battery? murder?
i doubt you have a girlfriend, but if you do i feel really really bad for her. fucko.
"ask an anti-racist whether it is cool to flood the congo with millions of whites. he or she will say that's bad for the congo and its native inhabitants or that's racist, colonialist"
ReplyDeleteRubbish. If whites wanted to IMMIGRATE to the Congo and become Congolese and intermarry with the local population, that is not colonialism and I as an anti-racist have no problem with it at all. Colonialism is when white troops INVADE the Congo and create a country for themselves from Congolese land (like Israel was created from Palestine, or like the US was created from Native American land). If you do not understand the difference between immigration with the intent to integrate and colonization with the intent to steal land, there is no hope for you.
"anti-racists maintain that racial homelands are fine for blacks in the congo"
Wrong. Totally wrong. Anti-racists reject the idea of racial homelands, period. All people should be able to live wherever they want as long as they are prepared to integrate into the local population. No exceptions.
"you presume the example in the video is based on race"
I presume nothing. The guy in the PSA describes the woman as a "racist ass", so the PSA's intention was to show an example based on race.
"Anti-racists reject the idea of racial homelands, period. All people should be able to live wherever they want as long as they are prepared to integrate into the local population."
ReplyDeleteYou aren't much of an anti-racist are you? You'd get a failing grade if you made a comment like that in Anti-Racism 101.
Integration is so 1960s. Multiculturalism, when you look under the hood at the theoretical bullshit underneath, holds that every unique human culture deserves the right to exist as such, and that in a society with multiple cultures living alongside one another, no one culture should be promoted or privileged over another.
These ideas are held in contrast to concepts like "assimilation" and "integration" - ideas which used to be commonplace which held that in situations where there was a dominant majority culture, minority cultures should be expected to adapt and change and become more like them.
In other words, what you said in the quote above would now be considered racist heresy. You're a racist, lol.
I'll also add that while multiculturalism might sound good to a lot of people on paper (it does to me, at least) in the abstract, it is almost always put into practice in an utterly hypocritical way. In cases of countries with majority/minority dynamics, minorities are always privileged and promoted at the expense of the majorities. In many cases, like here in the US, even expressing pride in being a member of the majority is considered racist and shameful.
The fact that this happens over and over again in multiculturalist discourse tells us that multiculturalism was never really about ensuring that all cultures get a fair shake - it was always about tearing down traditional white cultures first and foremost.
"Rubbish. If whites wanted to IMMIGRATE to the Congo and become Congolese and intermarry with the local population, that is not colonialism and I as an anti-racist have no problem with it at all."
ReplyDeleteRubbish to your rubbish. If this is indeed your view, then I at least give you credit for trying to be consistent on one level. However I think you are 1) living in a fantasy land and 2) (as Vick thinks) out of the norm set by your anti-racist peers. Firstly, I think you are in a fantasy world by thinking that there is a clearly defined distinction between "immigration" on the one hand and "invasion" on the other. That distinction is never clear. Turks in the Balkans: Immigrants or Invaders? Chinese in Tibet: Immigrants or Invaders? Mongolians in China: Immigrants or Invaders? Moors in Spain: Immigrants or Invaders? French in Morocco: Immigrants or Invaders? Scots in Ireland: Immigrants or Invaders? Saxons in Wessex: Immigrants or Invaders? Mexicans in the US: Immigrants or Invaders? Americans in Mexico: Immigrants or Invaders? If you give me some bullshit answer like: Well if they intermarry and breed with the locals then it is immigration and if they enslave and murder them then it is an invasion then I will have to counter by saying that a) intermarriage and enslavement and murder occurred in all of these examples and b) that interbreeding with a group has historically been a demoralization tactic in invasion and colonialism. So if you think interbreeding with the Congolese is so great, why don’t you get all your white friends to go down to the Congo to find themselves wives. And when the Congolese males complain that there are some smooth-talking western-educated white princes with means and savings accounts stealing all their wimminz, then you can proceed to call them racist and just shove your breeding programme down the locals’ throats. You see where the rubber of you’re multiculti philosophy hits the road of reality is where you are just as much of an imperialist as the Catholic Spanish conquistadors in South America, who wanted to save the souls of the Inca. Convert those schwartzy heathens to multiracialist holocaustianity with your white penis of imperial authority. My point 2) that you are out of the norm of your peer group: Most “anti-racists” would look at my list above and call each instance in which a white group moved into a non-white area “invasion” and call each instance in which a non-white group moved into a white area “immigration.” You clearly do not think this way, because you think that it all depends on whether there is brute force or penises involved. I say there is always both involved and it is always both immigration and invasion. The Congolese “immigrants” now living in south London are there as an invasive force because the local white population was never given a vote on whether or not they should be invited in the first place and can now lose their livelihoods and face ostracism if they complain.
"The guy in the PSA describes the woman as a "racist ass", so the PSA's intention was to show an example based on race."
ReplyDeleteMy point was that neither you nor he could possibly know why it was that that woman moved away from him in the elevator. You both jumped to conclusion of racism and used that assumption to justify the smack-down. I find that repulsive.
"I think you are in a fantasy world by thinking that there is a clearly defined distinction between "immigration" on the one hand and "invasion" on the other."
ReplyDeleteThe distinction is simple: do the people entering the land want to integrate into the existing society? If so, it is immigration. Apply this rule to the examples you brought up.
"interbreeding with a group has historically been a demoralization tactic in invasion and colonialism"
You are talking about one-way interbreeding, namely newcomer-male with local-female, as you yourself implied:
"Congolese males complain that there are some smooth-talking western-educated white princes with means and savings accounts stealing all their wimminz"
I am talking about two-way interbreeding, namely both newcomer-male with local-female and newcomer-female with local-male. In other words, I suspect the Congolese men would not complain about immigrant men marrying some of their women as long as the deficit is compensated by immigrant women.
"you are just as much of an imperialist as the Catholic Spanish conquistadors in South America"
No, the Spanish conquistadors had no intention of integrating into the local population. They were in South America not because they no longer wanted to be Spanish and wanted to be Incan instead, but because they wanted to augment Spanish power with Incan resources. Which is why I condemn them. The fact that they made Spanish the prevalent language of South America should have been your clue.
"you are out of the norm of your peer group"
I probably know my own peer group better than you do, since it seems that everything you know of them was described to you by Bob Whitaker.
"The distinction is simple: do the people entering the land want to integrate into the existing society? If so, it is immigration. Apply this rule to the examples you brought up."
ReplyDeleteThe distinction is anything but simple. Each example had a bit of both: some wanting to integrate, some wanting to subjugate. These things happen simultaneously. For instance, among the Mexicans in the Southwest United States, some just want to “innocently” get a job and raise a family, while others like La Raza members promote armed reconquista. It is always like that. Every invading/immigrating ethnic enclave that has ever moved into a region has had a wide range of motives and methods.
"I suspect the Congolese men would not complain"
You sure do presume a lot. I wouldn't presume to speak for the Congolese. You are the epitome of the high and mighty ivory tower white liberal who wants to impose their worldview on all human groups. Get the Bantu to be Londoners and the Londoners to be Bantu and you are happy, while in 100 years there will be neither, just a brownish mass of debt slaves working at McStarbucks wearing joo-wear and downloading “nigga please” onto their i-glasses.
THIS is why they are pure garbage:
ReplyDelete"...But if a woman chooses whether or not to guard her purse based on the race of someone whom she does not know as an indivudual, she is prejudiced, and she should not then complain when others treat her with contempt..."
This ape, like them all, has nothing to offer but violence.
Because he says she is "prejudiced" she has no right to complain about a violent assault.
So the woman is OWED a savage beating, because she moved away, and held onto her belongings? The What??
They really DO "think" this way. They are genetically programmed for violence - either committing it, or justifying it.
Guess what, puke. The woman is allowed to guard her stuff FOR ANY REASON SHE CHOOSES. You are not allowed to commit violence on another for any reason other than self defense.
This is lost on negroes. They are truly garbage.
Joe
This wasn't a PSA, it was a comedy skit, this is the original link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HRfjLfyXYlA
ReplyDeleteIt's a comedy skit. This guy also does online gamer making fun of hard core call of duty players
ReplyDeleteand why not? I mean everybody have the right to defense they life, so no matter if you are man or women, black or white, the only that really matter is your life.
ReplyDelete