And I thought American commercials were anti-white

Posted by Andy Wooster on January 23, 2007, 08:43 AM | #

Wow… That is definitely an escalation.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on January 23, 2007, 10:07 AM | #

Any way of learning the ethnicity of the Italian reponsible for that commercial?  Jewish is my bet.  Reason:  Jews love to promote the replacement of Euro men in the eyes, in the lives, and especially in the beds of Euro women, with Negro men.  They absolutely adore doing that.  Just look at Hollywood and the U.S. television industry.  Jews don’t see themselves as white, so are in no way attacking themselves in these never-ending anti-white campaigns of theirs.  They’re attacking what they see as their age-old mortal enemy, Euros (Eurochristians).  In their eyes, absolutely none of the white-race-destroying stuff they spout applies to them, only to Euros.  When Jews such as Alon Ziv and Noël Ignatiev use the word “white” in a racial/political context it’s a code-word meaning Eurochristians, their hated enemy whom they’d absolutely love to see race-replaced.

On an obliquely-related subject:  here is the most important letter ever published in the history of the world.

Posted by Guessedworker on January 23, 2007, 10:56 AM | #

The ad industry is not wholly gentile.  One has to assume, I think, that the soap manufacturer was probably gentile, but stupid, ignorant, weak or a combination of all three.

Posted by Matra on January 23, 2007, 02:01 PM | #

Fred,

Like Jews, homosexuals are also prominent in media, including advertising, particularly in the US and Canada. It wouldn’t surprise me if the situation is the same in Italy.

A quick search turned up little other than the product belonging to a company called Guaber whose president is called Paul Gualandi. The commercial “Coloured is better” is one of the finalists at the New York Festivals advertisements of the year contest. The advertising agency appears to be Aldo Biasi Communicazione of Milan. I’ll do a search later if I’ve time and see what comes up.

Posted by Matra on January 23, 2007, 06:17 PM | #

Last time I was here there was a second and longer post by Andy W. Strange that it has vanished.

Posted by Guessedworker on January 23, 2007, 06:28 PM | #

My mistake, I’m sure.  I just had to remove a hundred or so spam-entries by hand.  Probably got a bit sloppy about the eighty mark!

Posted by Guessedworker on January 23, 2007, 06:30 PM | #

Apologies to Andy, of course.

Posted by Matra on January 23, 2007, 07:55 PM | #

OK. For a minute there I thought I was imagining things.

Posted by Francis on January 24, 2007, 08:48 PM | #

The advertising industry does seem to be heavily jewish as well as homosexual, so instead of just advertising products, services, ect… must be “edgy”, ” modern” and cosmopolitan, which these days seems to me anti-male, anti-white, anti-establishment.  Jews and gays always seem to be “challenging dominant paradigms” as my lesbian theology professor used to put it in college.  In other words, tearing down whites (white men in particular), Western values, heterosexuality and promoting race mixing of the most vile sort.  Just put it under the cover of being progressive. 
Not my original theory, but I’ll try and give it a go:  Look at the fashion industry, really a branch of advertising.  Both heavily jewish (or Jews using Anglo names) and heavily homosexual.  Has anyone taken a look at female models these days?  They have hardly any attributes that one would consider makes females, females.  Homosexual fashion designers don’t want their models to look like females is my belief.  It pushes the homosexual agenda in a subtle way.  Jews seem to have no problem with this for reasons stated better above than I can put it.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on January 24, 2007, 10:01 PM | #

If you just watch television or movies these days you see the same thing, more and more masculine women being cast.

Posted by Al Ross on January 25, 2007, 07:58 PM | #

Yes, Svy, and the campaign for ‘gender neutral’ names continues in the media.

I watched (and enjoyed, ironically) some episodes of a BBC farrago of Marxoid refuse called ‘Judge John Deed’ which was scripted by an unreconstructed old Leftie called GF Newman.

The programme’s female characters, none of whom are,of course, happily married to White males, are named Charlie, Georgie and Jo and the complete absence of minatory Black criminals lends the tripe a surrealistic air.

Posted by Robert of the Rohirrim on January 25, 2007, 09:15 PM | #

Who did this commercial?  It’s disgusting!!! They must be made to answer for this!  Traitorous swine!

Posted by Uberto on January 25, 2007, 09:57 PM | #

I am apalled by this commercial as much as any of the rest of you - yet I myself am a homosexual.  Do not be so quick to dismiss all of us as enemies.  Some of us (though we are not “breeders” like you) believe that our culture and people are worth preserving too.  We don’t want mixed race neices, nephews, or cousins any more than the rest of you want half-breed grandchildren.  I’m not speaking as a gay emissary but rather to enlighten you on a perspective that you might not have considered. 

As Tomislav Sunic stated in his recent radio interview, it is the FOREIGN element, including Levantine religion (Judaism and Christianity), that needs to be uprooted from European society; it is this foreign element on which you should concentrate, not on fellow countrymen and sympathizers who have historically enriched European society (think DaVinci, Michelangelo, and many other artists). 

I should not even have to state this, but homosexuality is not disappearing any time soon.  It exists in every generation in 2-5% of the population - and guess what - no one knows what causes it (it might even be a prenatal virus), and beyond that, we didn’t ask for it.  Homosexuals, like the rest of you, have to live the best lives we can - and we, too, must stand up and fight for what we believe in.

Posted by Robert of the Rohirrim on January 25, 2007, 10:33 PM | #

I will never believe a faggot.  Years ago fags made cute remarks about how funny straights were when they accused the fags of trying to recruit their children.  Ha ha funny. “Recruit your children?  Get real, we would never do that!”  Gay clubs are in the public schools and by law cannot be kept out.  Elementary school children are taught not to make fun of “alternative lifestyles” and are given introductory sex ed materials at school (I’ve seen that too.  There is a father in prison for protesting it; it’s really happening, folks, get your head out yer ass).

Legislation is passing that criminalizes criticism of fags and Jews (no coincidence, that).

About 15 years ago, the faggots marched on Washington, demanding such things as lowering the legal age of consent to 12 (I saw this with my own eyes, so don’t give me any shit). 

These are sick puppies.  “Log cabin Republicans” turned out to be just another group of commie infiltrators from the Jewish side of the fence.  Eat shit fags (oh, I forgot, you like that don’t you, you anus-licking rimmer sicko?) 

Stay away from my children or I’ll shoot you myself.

Posted by Bud White on January 25, 2007, 11:55 PM | #

“Elementary school children are taught not to make fun of “alternative lifestyles” and are given introductory sex ed materials at school (I’ve seen that too.”—Robert of the Rohirrim

Tammy Bruce;lesbian;former president Los Angeles chapter of NOW, wrote an excellent book on that very subject, titled- “The Death of Right and Wrong.” She was part of the inner sanctum of radical feminists/lesbians who acually formulated policies and strategies for the radical feminist NOW agenda.

Because she was part of the radical leftist crowd, she provides valuable and credible insight into the perverted/malignant radical gay and lesbian agenda that is permeating the public education system, especially K thru 6th grade. It’s definitely a worthwhile read.

http://www.amazon.com/Death-Right-Wrong-Exposing-Assault/dp/1400052947

Posted by Uberto on January 25, 2007, 11:59 PM | #

Thank you for that cogent post, including the ad hominem attack, “Robert of the Rohirrim”. 

For clarification, I’m not championing gay rights, I’m simply articulating my views on this subject. 

And by the way, perverts come in all sexual orientations - they have become all too common in the current era as a result of moral decay.  Although it is true that most gay men are promiscuous, this is ALSO true of men in general - and esp. true of the least intelligent members of society.  Intelligent gay men, like intelligent straight men, are capable of controlling their ids.  As for gays who advocate sleeping with children, they are called pedophiles and fall into the pervert category. 

Oh yeah, and Robert, the people who react most defensively while discussing ideas in polite conversation are the most insecure - the most vehement racists are the ones who are insecure about their own ancestry; likewise the most vehement homophobes are the ones who sometimes question aspects of their own sexualities.  Take a good look in the mirror before slinging mud again.

Posted by alex zeka on January 26, 2007, 05:08 AM | #

Oh yeah, and Robert, the people who react most defensively while discussing ideas in polite conversation are the most insecure - the most vehement racists are the ones who are insecure about their own ancestry; likewise the most vehement homophobes are the ones who sometimes question aspects of their own sexualities.  Take a good look in the mirror before slinging mud again.

Presumably, then, your own vehemence in reaction to what you call ‘homophobes’ and ‘racists’ demonstrates that you yourself are a closet homophobe/racist? As Private Eye likes to say, I think we should be told.

Posted by Al Ross on January 26, 2007, 05:35 AM | #

“React most defensively”?
‘Defensive’ simply means, ” It is totally outrageous that you should even attempt to counter my Marxist logic”.

Posted by J Richards on January 26, 2007, 07:36 AM | #

Robert of the Rohirrim,

Talk about rabid commentary!  Uberto has not made a case for “gay rights,” and if he didn’t mention that he is a homosexual, I don’t think you would have a problem with him.  If a Western nation started approaching numerical dominance by non-whites, especially Muslims, then white homosexuals would be much worse off than white heterosexuals.  For instance, according to Islamic law, homosexuals are supposed to be killed in the worst possible manner.  In other words, white gays and lesbians need to wake up, ditch the leftist politics their leaders are pursuing, and start thinking about preserving the West.  Uberto undoubtedly knows this, and regardless of whether you consider him a potential ally with respect to this site’s purpose, rabidly anti-homosexual commentary will not help get white homosexuals in general to reevaluate their political stances.

Posted by Robert of the Rohorrim on January 26, 2007, 09:16 AM | #

Uberto, I’ve heard all your lies and psychological mumbo jumbo before.  I am not the one doing unnatural things to others.  I am healthy in body and mind and I will keep myself, my children, and my community healthy.  That does not make me insecure, it makes me a protector. 

J Richards, I am not trying to get homos to reevaluate their political stance.  I am saying that they are not welcome in a wholesome white society.  The muslims can do what they will with you, I do not care.  Your group has betrayed our trust.  You homos, together with your benefactors and butt-buddies, the Jews,  have caused much social destruction among the healthy white populations.  Piss off and stay away from me and my family.

Posted by ben tillman on January 26, 2007, 11:37 AM | #

“Do not be so quick to dismiss all of us as enemies.”

Most of us understand this.

Posted by reasonable brute on January 26, 2007, 11:59 AM | #

“I am apalled by this commercial as much as any of the rest of you - yet I myself am a homosexual.  Do not be so quick to dismiss all of us as enemies.  Some of us (though we are not “breeders” like you) believe that our culture and people are worth preserving too.  We don’t want mixed race neices, nephews, or cousins any more than the rest of you want half-breed grandchildren.  I’m not speaking as a gay emissary but rather to enlighten you on a perspective that you might not have considered.”

Uberto, Frank Salter has a small section in his book “On Genetic Interests” (see Transaction Publishers) on homosexuals (basically a paragraph or two) stating that, yes, of course, homosexuals have ethnic genetic interests.

In fact, since most do not produce children of their own, even more of their genetic interest can be invested in their ethny.

I myself am relatively uninterested in the “homosexual question” and am more concerned that people promote their ethnic genetic interests.  So, I certainly don’t see you as an enemy.

I would advise though not to use the word “breeders.”  It has a negative use among even childless heterosexuals, yuppie types, who demean those who have children.  It is a racially nihilistic term, and is best avoided, regardless of the context.

If we want to build bridges between the heterosexual WN majority and the homosexual minority, we need to be reasonable on both sides.

We also need to have honorable behavior on both sides.  This has nothing to do with you personally, but I rememember years ago some overtly homosexual WN group that basically was just adverts of men to each other looking for sexual encounters, including such perversions as “U piss, I drink.”

I assume you agree that such has no place in the sort of high-tone racialism we are interested in.  If homosexuals want a place at the table in discussing the future of western man, they need to put race and culture first, and put sexual issues on the back burner - and certainly not use WN forums as a “personals column.”

Posted by alex zeka on January 26, 2007, 04:14 PM | #

Ah, but to what extent can a practising homosexual put race and culture first? After all, isn’t the decision not to pass on one’s genetic inheritance the ultimate statement of genetic nihilism, one that goes beyond mere adherence to the dogmas of liberalism in the abstract and involves actually putting them into practice in your own life?

In other words, is the ‘personals column’ nature of the other homosexual WN group you mention an accident? What about the extent of homosexual support for racial liberalism? I for one believe that there are no accidents, as the Marxists used to put it, when it comes to political alliances. The reason race suicidaires have allied with homosexuals is that they’ve found fertile soil for their ideas in that demographic.

Really, what we’re doing is looking to the future, while homosexuals are characterised by low time preferences (i.e. the place a high value on having X good now rather than later).

That said, anyone of such inclinations who nonetheless goes down and does his duty for England has my heartiest respect. Then again, they probably don’t rabbit on about their gayness, and derail discussion groups with “U piss, i drink”.  In fact, there might be many among our commentariat.  They don’t flaunt, and we don’t inquire, as it used to be in the old days.

Posted by Robert of the Rohirrim on January 26, 2007, 05:01 PM | #

Do not be so quick to dismiss all of us as enemies.”
Most of us understand this.
Posted by ben tillman on Friday, January 26, 2007 at 03:37 PM | #

Bullshit.  The homos have never been on the side of conservatives in the US.  They have undermined our every effort and sided with the Jews on many major issues.  They are selfish and untrustworthy, now and evermore.  They will never fight for a normal way of life.  Just like the Jews they say Trust Me, I’m not like the others.  But they lie. 

Just 20 years ago, few would even admit to being a pervet and no one would discuss this or any other sexual perversion on the public airwaves.  But look at our culture today, gay this, gay that, gay, gay, gay talk dominates popular culture everywhere, even on “conservative” talk radio.  There’s no escaping it, in the public square, in advertising, on front pages of magazines everywhere, even gay education in primary schools.  Even Sponge Bob’s best friend, Patrick, has made his appearance dressed as a dominatrix.  I have to screen everything my children watch because gay this and gay that have are appearing in everything, from children’s magazines to tv programs.  You are not targeting children?  Fuck you, you lying pieces of shit. 

Raising a family is tough enough in this emerging Soviet state without a bunch of perverts constantly airing their disgusting preferences in public.  Now the gays constantly attack “breeder” marriage and agitate for “equal rights.”  (Gee, where have I heard that line before?)

I remember what a more normal society was just a few years ago.  Thanks to the exploitation of Jews and homos, that world was destroyed.  The Muslims can have you twisted freaks.

Posted by Uberto on January 27, 2007, 06:30 PM | #

“Ah, but to what extent can a practising homosexual put race and culture first?  After all, isn’t the decision not to pass on one’s genetic inheritance the ultimate statement of genetic nihilism, one that goes beyond mere adherence to the dogmas of liberalism in the abstract and involves actually putting them into practice in your own life?”
Posted by alex zeka on Friday, January 26, 2007 at 08:14 PM | #

Did I assert that I am a practicing homosexual?  How about childless heterosexuals like Matt Nuenke?  By your same logic he is a genetic nihilist;  because he has no children are you asserting that he too has no ethnic genetic interests?  I doubt it… 

“The homos have never been on the side of conservatives in the US.”
Posted by Robert of the Rohirrim on Friday, January 26, 2007 at 09:01 PM | #

This is because conservative parties in the US have traditionally been dominated by fundamentalists Christians. 

Also the conservative party in the US has historically (at least in recent history) resisted legislation that protects the environment.  Obviously for a society/civilization to endure, it needs functioning ecosystem services as well as plentiful natural resources (i.e. think of the future).  Anyway, the “conservative” Republican party in the US is a joke (as of course is the Democratic party).
—

It’s interesting that on this post many seem to think homo = Marxist. 

It’s true that the gay minority has historically allied itself with the Left, but this has more to do with the Left’s philosophy of uniting diverse minority groups to fight for the rights (read “special privelidges”) of these interest groups.

Also, I agree that sexuality should not be flaunted in the streets (or on radio and tv) for all to see.  I think the “gay issue” is all over the place right now because it stirs up controversy in the media - and the Left loves that.  At the same time, however, I’m not going to cower under the woodworks for fear of being lynched by an angry mob.  I am who I am, and I assert that independence - however I also temper it with respect for my family and community.

Finally, I apologize for “derailing” this thread (it was certainly not intended as a “personals ad”), but I think there is only so much you can say about this Italian commercial.  It sucks - on that I think we all can agree.

Posted by alex zeka on January 28, 2007, 04:46 AM | #

Did I assert that I am a practicing homosexual?  How about childless heterosexuals like Matt Nuenke?  By your same logic he is a genetic nihilist; because he has no children are you asserting that he too has no ethnic genetic interests?  I doubt it…

The operative questions aren’t ‘is he childless’, but ‘does he foresee having children’ and ‘does he identify with those who have children’. Did he arrive here proclaiming his childlessness? Does he get het up and start criticising us every time we complain about low birth rates?

Do you remember the caveat I put at the end of my post? That I don’t at all object to those of homosexual inclinations who keep this to themselves? Obviously, you’d only react to my post if either a.you felt this didn’t apply to you (i.e. you were a practising homosexual) or b.if you didn’t bother reading all that I’d written and just jumped straight in at the first bad word about your sexual tribe. Either way, that makes you suspect in my eyes.

Anyhoo, you’re more than welcome to stay. I’d prefer to judge you by the logic and honesty of your posts rather than by this unseemly spat. Don’t flaunt, and I won’t inquire.