Stephen Hofmann
Well-Known Member
Still remember the first time I saw them on the Tube. How cool they were.
That's the nicest thing you've ever said to me.You don't have a white identity.
So, you think that Jewish people (collectively and monolithically, as always) use the advertising industry to exact revenge on white Europeans by inserting black families into a whopping 37% of the commercials "they" run on television. And you'd like to preach this without being called racist. Sometimes I don't think you realize how funny you actually are.
The problem with this "psyop" is that it only works if its victims are innately offended by the very sight of a black person, which most people are not. That would be your issue, you oppression fantasy. I could sit on my couch and watch television for hours and be inundated with advertisements featuring nothing but black and hispanic families and it wouldn't weaken or dismantle my "sense of whiteness" one iota. Why? Because I'm not racist and I'm not an idiot. Two traits that unfortunately serve as the foundation for your entire identity.!
Their second album is a five star classic. And I always felt their guitarist had a similar style to Marr.Still remember the first time I saw them on the Tube. How cool they were.
1. The figure 37% is from 18 months ago - I hardly noticed it then. The figure now is remarkably higher.
2. You live in America which has been a multicultural (albeit still generally segregated) country for a lot longer than Britain. I'm talking about advertisements in Britain (a place where they tell us blacks stand at 3%).
3. Blacks are way over-represented in UK advertising, and are now being shoehorned into historical drams set in times when no blacks lived in Britain.
4. South Asians are Britain's largest minority, yet they do not feature in advertising to anywhere near the same extent as blacks. Why? I know the answer to this, but I'd like to hear some alternative answers.
5. The media, corporations. establishment and wokesters constantly preach to blacks that their skin and race matters, and blacks lap it up saying they are "proud to be black"/ "black is beautiful" etc. whereas when it comes to whites they tell us we shouldn't feel any kind of white identity or "sense of whiteness" as this is evil and idiotic. Can you see the double standards here?
I'm cool with that. I find foul-mouthed thickos like you much more offensive.
1. The figure 37% is from 18 months ago - I hardly noticed it then. The figure now is remarkably higher.
2. You live in America which has been a multicultural (albeit still generally segregated) country for a lot longer than Britain. I'm talking about advertisements in Britain (a place where they tell us blacks stand at 3%).
3. Blacks are way over-represented in UK advertising, and are now being shoehorned into historical drams set in times when no blacks lived in Britain.
4. South Asians are Britain's largest minority, yet they do not feature in advertising to anywhere near the same extent as blacks. Why? I know the answer to this, but I'd like to hear some alternative answers.
5. The media, corporations. establishment and wokesters constantly preach to blacks that their skin and race matters, and blacks lap it up saying they are "proud to be black"/ "black is beautiful" etc. whereas when it comes to whites they tell us we shouldn't feel any kind of white identity or "sense of whiteness" as this is evil and idiotic. Can you see the double standards here?
6. Saying that Jews generally run the ad industry industry does not mean that all Jews run it. So stop being deliberately obtuse.
1. Citation needed. We all know your word is meaningless, you lie about these things constantly.1. The figure 37% is from 18 months ago - I hardly noticed it then. The figure now is remarkably higher.
2. You live in America which has been a multicultural (albeit still generally segregated) country for a lot longer than Britain. I'm talking about advertisements in Britain (a place where they tell us blacks stand at 3%).
3. Blacks are way over-represented in UK advertising, and are now being shoehorned into historical drams set in times when no blacks lived in Britain.
4. South Asians are Britain's largest minority, yet they do not feature in advertising to anywhere near the same extent as blacks. Why? I know the answer to this, but I'd like to hear some alternative answers.
5. The media, corporations. establishment and wokesters constantly preach to blacks that their skin and race matters, and blacks lap it up saying they are "proud to be black"/ "black is beautiful" etc. whereas when it comes to whites they tell us we shouldn't feel any kind of white identity or "sense of whiteness" as this is evil and idiotic. Can you see the double standards here?
6. Saying that Jews generally run the ad industry industry does not mean that all Jews run it. So stop being deliberately obtuse.
Which historical dramas? Roughly what date do you think black people started living in Britain?3. Blacks are way over-represented in UK advertising, and are now being shoehorned into historical drams set in times when no blacks lived in Britain.
She's referring to the ever-so-slightly higher brow equivalent of when Marvel makes a new Spiderman movie but this time he's black and a throng of triggered nerds go into racist fits. It's a massive WHO CARES if there ever was one.Which historical dramas? Roughly what date do you think black people started living in Britain?
I did wonder if she was referring to the recent news that a black actor is to play Anne Boleyn in a new TV series.She's referring to the ever-so-slightly higher brow equivalent of when Marvel makes a new Spiderman movie but this time he's black and a throng of triggered nerds go into racist fits. It's a massive WHO CARES if there ever was one.
1. Citation needed. We all know your word is meaningless, you lie about these things constantly.
2. Most large advertising agencies are multinational. It's not surprising that aesthetic trends would cross-pollinate. Taking America's multicultural landscape into consideration, it's very simple to see where this originates. On top of everything else, add in the fact that these agencies are in quiet competition with one another to perform these neoliberal exhibitions of inclusivity.
3. And? You sound like the "wokesters" you spend your every waking moment denigrating, suddenly so concerned with "representation." Women make up something like 52% of the population in the UK, yet they make up only 27% of the House of Lords. Are you going to cry about that?
4. I believe this is simply laziness on behalf of the advertising agencies. Black people become an easy catch-all signifier for ethnic inclusivity. It's not as if the creative directors for these firms don't have their own blind-spots. I'd also wager that there are more black people in show business than South Asians.
5. Welcome to Earth, double standards exist. There is a very obvious historical context that contributes to the differences in language and ethnic self-perception. Your inability to get past this sort of thing (or even observe it with intellectual neutrality) is simply more evidence of your immaturity. Try reading a book.
6. You didn't say that Jews "generally run the ad industry." You said that there was Jewish scheme to destroy "white" morale by running advertisements featuring black people and that this was "revenge" for their treatment before and during WWII. An absurd, idiotic and racist projection that's predictably par for the course for you.
1. Don't know exact percentage - but no way is it still a mere 37%. And white families in particular are no longer shown on adverts.1. Citation needed. We all know your word is meaningless, you lie about these things constantly.
2. Most large advertising agencies are multinational. It's not surprising that aesthetic trends would cross-pollinate. Taking America's multicultural landscape into consideration, it's very simple to see where this originates. On top of everything else, add in the fact that these agencies are in quiet competition with one another to perform these neoliberal exhibitions of inclusivity.
3. And? You sound like the "wokesters" you spend your every waking moment denigrating, suddenly so concerned with "representation." Women make up something like 52% of the population in the UK, yet they make up only 27% of the House of Lords. Are you going to cry about that?
4. I believe this is simply laziness on behalf of the advertising agencies. Black people become an easy catch-all signifier for ethnic inclusivity. It's not as if the creative directors for these firms don't have their own blind-spots. I'd also wager that there are more black people in show business than South Asians.
5. Welcome to Earth, double standards exist. There is a very obvious historical context that contributes to the differences in language and ethnic self-perception. Your inability to get past this sort of thing (or even observe it with intellectual neutrality) is simply more evidence of your immaturity. Try reading a book.
6. You didn't say that Jews "generally run the ad industry." You said that there was Jewish scheme to destroy "white" morale by running advertisements featuring black people and that this was "revenge" for their treatment before and during WWII. An absurd, idiotic and racist projection that's predictably par for the course for you.
Woof, you really show the limitations of your intellect when you spell your thought process out like that for all to see. There isn't a shred of substance in any of this. You know that, right? Your anonymous racist cohort up there tried to give you some advice, you should consider taking it. When a guy like that acts as a voice of reason, you know you're f***ed.1. Don't know exact percentage - but no way is it still a mere 37%. And white families in particular are no longer shown on adverts.
2. There must be an overall umbrella organisation that sends down directives. Follow the rules (include more blacks) or else.
3. No. I want the House of Lords abolished.
4. It's not laziness, it's a concerted effort that I've only noticed in 2020 - just coincidentally the year of the media led hysterical BLM psy op.
5. Again this is a concerted double standard that the media, establishment and corporations (and you yourself) continually preach - knowing full well their hypocrisy but insisting we shouldn't notice or point it out ("or we'll silence you by calling you a racist") . By any logic if blacks are allowed to say "Black is beautiful and special" then I should be allowed to say the same without being shouted down from all quarters as an evil racist.
6. Yes, that's what I believe - it's the only conclusion with any weight (another one is that blacks are particularly targeted in ads because ad agencies believe the Bell Curve research that they have "low impulse control" meaning they are more easily sold to - which at least would make financial sense). But what I'd rather see is somebody here offering me an alternative explanation. Instead I get one or two things. Denial that my initial argument is even valid, or the usual unimaginative broken record: "You're a racist" (meaning: you know the tacit rule - you shouldn't notice or talk about these things) . That's beside the point as I don't care whether I am "racist" or not - and nor should anyone as the term is solely used as a weapon and silencer these days.
There was virtually none living here before Windrush in '48. The number was very small and was mainly around certain docks. But of course this is being rewritten as we speak and soon the BBc etc will be telling us they've always been here in numbers - something you obviously believe already.Which historical dramas? Roughly what date do you think black people started living in Britain?
Total dismissive cop out from you.Woof, you really show the limitations of your intellect when you spell your thought process out like that for all to see. There isn't a shred of substance in any of this. You know that, right? Your anonymous racist cohort up there tried to give you some advice, you should consider taking it. When a guy like that acts as a voice of reason, you know you're f***ed.
There's nothing to dismiss, you didn't say a thing.Total dismissive cop out from you.
There is evidence of black people here in Britain in Roman times. Probably not a huge number but they have been a presence ever since then. There were plenty here in the 19th century.There was virtually none living here before Windrush in '48. The number was very small and was mainly around certain docks. But of course this is being rewritten as we speak and soon the BBc etc will be telling us they've always been here in numbers - something you obviously believe already.
Watch any historical drama made in the last three years and you will see blacks included in the cast.
You just know you cannot address my points with any logic.There's nothing to dismiss, you didn't say a thing.