Attacks on Target for Using White Annie in Ads Demonstrate the Nature of Racism

Andrew Anglin
Daily Stormer
December 31, 2014

Face of pure hatred.

Many people are deeply confused about what the Marxist hordes are actually talking about when they constantly scream “racism.” The term seems to very often people employed when Whites do something normal and then Blacks respond with anti-social behavior, and thus does not seem to be directly linked to the actual behavior of Whites in anything but an indirect fashion.

However, a recent protest against an ad shows that sometimes it is the behavior of Whites that is being labelled racist, and shows the logic behind that act.

Target is being attacked and protested on Change.org for using a White model in a display for products relating to the recently released film Annie, a film which features a half-monkey playing the role of the title character.

Can you even begin to fathom these feelings, goyim?

lol they actually used multiple White girls and no Blacks in any of the ads.

Blacks found out about this (though no one is sure how, since they tend to shop at Wal-Mart and Costco, not Target) and launched a protest, claiming it was racist and demanding Target remove the ads and issue a public apology to Quvenzhané Wallis, the ape actress from the film.

The new Annie

I started a feel and started the whole world feelings

So, though one could argue that this is just a normal behavior which Blacks have responded to negatively and thus the normal behavior has become a racist act after the fact, I think it is fair to say that the producers of these ads knew that the Annie in the new film was a colored girl, and consciously chose to use White models more reminiscent of the original film.

The reason for the decision was presumably just the obvious fact that any and all test audiences respond better to advertisements featuring White people.  I doubt it had much to do with individual advertisers having an active personal hatred for Blacks – that just sounds cartoonish and stupid – but even if all the advertisers were card-holding members of the KKK, they made the same decision that non-racist advertisers would have made if they were motivated purely by creating effective advertisement rather than serving a social justice agenda.

This man was photographed in Target, having just walked by the ads of the White Annie.  He cried for three hours straight until a White cop showed up and shot him in the back.

In other words, this is a racist act because White people (or Jews or whoever – advertisement so it was probably Jews, but they are “White people” too in the mind of the Blacks and many SJWs) acted in self-interest, choosing increased monetary gain while ignoring the possibility that a Black person’s feelings could potentially be hurt.

So here is one of the multiple definitions of “racism” that SJWs are presently working with:

Any act engaged in by a White person where he or she acts purely in self-interest, without consideration for the possibility that by acting in pure self-interest, their actions could lead to emotional pain for a person of color.

So, as a person of privilege, it is your duty to consider the possibility that any behavior you engage in could possibly hurt the feelings of a non-White person, and to harm your own self if these acts could indeed harm the feelings of a protected class.  And “I didn’t know your feelings would be hurt” is not an excuse – that is just more privileged “higher than thou” unwillingness to understand the limitless capacity for hurt feelings that is a part of non-White culture.