← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Valley Forge
Thread ID: 11400 | Posts: 11 | Started: 2003-12-08
2003-12-08 00:46 | User Profile
*Here we see the usual anti-White double standard at work. It's perfectly OK for negroes to sell to other negroes using negro models, but it's not OK for Whites to do the same thing. I'd be delighted to see Abercrombie fight this suit, but I have no doubt they'll knuckle under and start featuring more non-Whites in their sexually themed advertising.
Whatever you think of Abercrombie from a moral standpoint, it cannot be denied that their advertising features some very beautiful White people. That, perhaps, is what our enemies hate about this company more than anything else -- the notion that non-Whites don't rise to the standards of beauty used in Abercrombie's advertising.*
====================
Discrimination Lawsuit Filed Against Abercrombie & Fitch Co.
On June 16, 2003, a coalition of four organizations, including the national law firm of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund ("MALDEF"), the Asian Pacific American Legal Center ("APALC") and the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., filed an employment discrimination class action lawsuit against Abercrombie & Fitch Company. The named plaintiffs allege that Abercrombie discriminates against people of color, including Latinos, Asian Americans, and African Americans, in the hiring, job assignment, compensation, termination and other terms and conditions of employment.
Abercrombie & Fitch Co. is a clothing retailer marketing to young adults, teenagers and children. It employs over 22,000 employees, most of whom are college-age adults, in over 600 stores throughout the United States.
[url]http://www.afjustice.com/[/url]
2003-12-08 03:42 | User Profile
Valley Forge,
Yes you are most Right! [QUOTE]Here we see the usual anti-White double standard at work. It's perfectly OK for negroes to sell to other negroes using negro models, but it's not OK for Whites to do the same thing. I'd be delighted to see Abercrombie fight this suit, but I have no doubt they'll knuckle under and start featuring more non-Whites in their sexually themed advertising.
Whatever you think of Abercrombie from a moral standpoint, it cannot be denied that their advertising features some very beautiful White people. That, perhaps, is what our enemies hate about this company more than anything else -- the notion that non-Whites don't rise to the standards of beauty used in Abercrombie's advertising.[/QUOTE]
A shame Abercrombie used a high end Hunting and Fishing Store that sold shotguns, rifles, rods, heavy hunting coats! :sad:
50 years ago a teenager could buy a box of .30-06 anywhere, but he would have a hard time getting a box of condoms.
2003-12-08 19:19 | User Profile
"60 minutes" had a (black) conservative on who explained that not every business is aimed at the mainstream. His example was FUBU, which means "for us by us" and is a black clothing line, and he compared it to Abercrombie saying that it was a similar principle: you CAN market to specific races and communities. The "60 minutes" narrator got subversive and compared the modelling industry in general to Abercrombie, saying it was suspicious how clothes were always modelled by beautiful people (and presumably not fat, retarded, ugly, deformed ones). It's amazing how this Judeo-Christian symbolic egalitarian drives away all common sense.
The name of this black conservative was Elder - Robert, or Richard, I think. I had mixed feelings about this, but when you think about it, "60 minutes" is playing it safe - if you get someone from a protected racial group to say it, no charges of "racism" will be levlled at "60 minutes."
2003-12-08 19:50 | User Profile
What's wrong with a business choosing their marketing strategy? The excess of the non-whites in advertising is obvious, and doesn't make any marketing sense, unless the product is aimed directly at the boolies, for example.
2003-12-08 19:54 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Craig Smith]...Judeo-Christian symbolic egalitarian...[/QUOTE]
:lol: Nice try, Craig.
2003-12-08 20:27 | User Profile
Tex, you are ever vigilant.
2003-12-08 20:29 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]:lol: Nice try, Craig.[/QUOTE]
We is ekwal in the Lawd's hologram, TD.
2003-12-08 20:41 | User Profile
[QUOTE=madrussian]Tex, you are ever vigilant.[/QUOTE]
:lol: Just lookin' out for my peepuls. :afro:
2003-12-10 04:49 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]:lol: Nice try, Craig.[/QUOTE]
I don't understand. Are you disagreeing with the precept or the conclusion?
2003-12-10 04:50 | User Profile
[QUOTE=t_electric]We is ekwal in the Lawd's hologram, TD.[/QUOTE]
Exactly. All that you work for will be defeated if you support the Jewish Christ.
[8.1] But you do not comprehend this? You are incapable of seeing something that required two thousand years to achieve victory? -- There is nothing to wonder at in that: all protracted things are hard to see, to see whole. That, however, is what has happened: from the trunk of that tree of vengefulness and hatred, Jewish hatred -- the profoundest and sublimest kind of hatred, capable of creating ideals and reversing values, the like of which has never existed on earth before -- there grew something equally incomparable, a new love, the profoundest and sublimest kind of love - and from what other trunk could it have grown? [8.2] One should not imagine it grew up as the denial of that thirst for revenge, as the opposite of Jewish hatred! No, the reverse is true! That love grew out of it as its crown, as its triumphant crown spreading itself farther and farther into the purest brightness and sunlight, driven as it were into the domain of light and the heights in pursuit of the goals of that hatred -- victory, spoil, and seduction -- by the same impulse that drove the roots of that hatred deeper and deeper and more and more covetously into all that was profound and evil. This Jesus of Nazareth, the incarnate gospel of love, this "Redeemer" who brought blessedness and victory to the poor, the sick, and the sinners -- was he not this seduction in its most uncanny and irresistible form, a seduction and bypath to precisely those Jewish values and new ideals? Did Israel not attain the ultimate goal of its sublime vengefulness precisely through the bypath of this "Redeemer," this ostensible opponent and disintegrator of Israel? Was it not part of the secret black art of truly grand politics of revenge, of a farseeing, subterranean, slowly advancing, and premeditated revenge, that Israel must itself deny the real instrument of its revenge before all the world as a mortal enemy and nail it to the cross, so that "all the world," namely all the opponents of Israel, could unhesitatingly swallow just this bait? And could spiritual subtlety imagine any more dangerous bait than this? Anything to equal the enticing, intoxicating, overwhelming, and undermining power of that symbol of the "holy cross," that ghastly paradox of a "God on the cross," that mystery of an unimaginable ultimate cruelty and self-crucifixion of God for the salvation of man?
[8.3] What is certain, at least, is that sub hoc signo' Israel, with its vengefulness and revaluation of all values, has hitherto triumphed again and again over all other ideals, over all nobler ideals.
9
[9.1] "But why are you talking about nobler ideals! Let us stick to the facts: the people have won -- or 'the slaves' or 'the mob' or 'the herd' or whatever you like to call them -- if this has happened through the Jews, very well! in that case no people ever had a more world-historic mission. 'The masters' have been disposed of; the morality of the common man has won. One may conceive of this victory as at the same time a blood-poisoning (it has mixed the races together) -- I shan't contradict; but this in-toxication has undoubtedly been successful. The 'redemption' of the human race (from 'the masters,' that is) is going forward; everything is visibly becoming Judaised, Christianised, mob-ised (what do the words matter!). The progress of this poison through the entire body of mankind seems irresistible, its pace and tempo may from now on even grow slower, subtler, less audible, more cautious -- there is plenty of time. -- To this end, does the church today still have any necessary role to play? Does it still have the right to exist? Or could one do without it? Quaeritur. It seems to hinder rather than hasten this progress. But perhaps that is its usefulness. -- Certainly it has, over the years, become something crude and boorish, something repellent to a more delicate intellect, to a truly modern taste. Ought it not to become at least a little more refined. -- Today it alienates rather than seduces. -- Which of us would be a free spirit if the church did not exist? It is the church, and not its poison, that repels us. -- Apart from the church, we, too, love the poison. -- "
[9.2] This is the epilogue of a "free spirit" to my speech; an honest animal, as he has abundantly revealed, and a democrat, moreover; he had been listening to me till then and could not endure to listen to my silence. For at this point I have much to be silent about.
10
[10.1] The slave revolt in morality begins when ressentiment itself becomes creative and gives birth to values: the ressentiment of natures that are denied the true reaction, that of deeds, and compensate themselves with an imaginary revenge. While every noble morality develops from a triumphant affirmation of itself, slave morality from the outset says No to what is "outside," what is "different," what is "not itself"; and this No is its creative deed. This inversion of the value-positing eye -- this need to direct one's view outward instead of back to oneself -- is of the essence of ressentiment: in order to exist, slave morality always first needs a hostile external world; it needs, physiologically speaking, external stimuli in order to act at all -- its action is fundamentally reaction.
[10.2] The reverse is the case with the noble mode of valuation: it acts and grows spontaneously, it seeks its opposite only so as to affirm itself more gratefully and triumphantly -- its negative concept "low," "common," "bad" is only a subsequently-invented pale, contrasting image in relation to its positive basic concept -- filled with life and passion through and through -- "we noble ones, we good, beautiful, happy ones!" When the noble mode of valuation blunders and sins against reality, it does so in respect to the sphere with which it is not sufficiently familiar, against a real knowledge of which it has indeed inflexibly guarded itself: in some circumstances it misunderstands the sphere it despises, that of the common man, of the lower orders; on the other hand, one should remember that, even supposing that the affect of contempt, of looking down from a superior height, falsifies the image of that which it despises, it will at any rate still be a much less serious falsification than that perpetrated on its opponent -- in effigy of course -- by the submerged hatred, the vengefulness of the impotent. There is indeed too much carelessness, too much taking lightly, too much looking away and impatience involved in contempt, even too much joyfulness, for it to be able to transform its object into a real caricature and monster. from The Geneaology of Morals by F.W. Nietzsche
2003-12-10 17:10 | User Profile
It's only common sense. Non-whites make ugly models and poor employees. Middle class whites don't want to be around blacks and Mexicans and therefore don't want to shop in stores that are full of blacks and/or mexicans.
I don't Abercrombie because they always play super loud dance music in the stores, and most of the clothes look like they are for teenagers.
Once upon a time A&F sold outdoor Elmer Fudd style clothing for middle-aged men.
A&F will probably shell out of abunch of money to this Kike law firm and agree to hire a teeming horde of Negroes which will only hurt it's bussiness.