Please boycott this bestiality promoting online retailer

[Allah the Pig-Fucker]

I think we should have a special list of nigger-coddling and/or bestiality promoting companies. We can call it The Chimpout Blacklist. It will be immensely helpful to know which businesses/companies/etc to avoid.

I just saw this disgusting online ad while I was on a news website. Plesse boycott these bastards. The company's name is Very, a British online retailer.

[CreepyAssNigger]

Unfortunately, in the USA, almost all major companies have coddling advertisements for niggers.

This can make things difficult for some of us.

[Allah the Pig-Fucker]

Unfortunately, in the USA, almost all major companies have coddling advertisements for niggers.

This can make things difficult for some of us.

Personally, as a matter of principle, I will NEVER do business with bestiality promoting companies. I'd rather die than see this earth turned into a giant shithole populated with groids and revolting mulatto abominations.

[IseDaDiva]

It's rather interesting that the coalburners in these ads - who are all young, slim and lovely - sharply contrast with real-life mudsharks who are usually pathetic, morbidly obese hosebeasts or obvious whores. The brain-washing campaign seems to be working though.

[Allah the Pig-Fucker]

It's rather interesting that the coalburners in these ads - who are all young, slim and lovely - sharply contrast with real-life mudsharks who are usually pathetic, morbidly obese hosebeasts or obvious whores. The brain-washing campaign seems to be working though.

Well-spotted!

I've noticed that almost all of these infuriating bestiality ads feature a male groid alongside a mudshark. It's always mudsharking. You rarely see ads promoting shit-drilling.

What are your thoughts on this as a woman? Why do you think women are the speciial target?

[CreepyAssNigger]

Well-spotted!

I've noticed that almost all of these infuriating bestiality ads feature a male groid alongside a mudshark. It's always mudsharking. You rarely see ads promoting shit-drilling.

What are your thoughts on this as a woman? Why do you think women are the speciial target?

I'm not a woman, but I think it has to do with nigger bucks trying to present themselves as being heterosexual, instead of as downlow homosexuals.

[IseDaDiva]

Well-spotted!

I've noticed that almost all of these infuriating bestiality ads feature a male groid alongside a mudshark. It's always mudsharking. You rarely see ads promoting shit-drilling.

What are your thoughts on this as a woman? Why do you think women are the speciial target?

I think it's due to young women/girls being more easily manipulated into wanting to be hip and cool than are young men. I was a teen once and also wanted to fit in, although luckily that did not require a nigger boyfriend then. This generation of girls is being hammered constantly from an early age by the media, peer pressure and abominations like the Kartrashian whores to truly think that hooking up with niggers is the trendy thing to do, even if they don't want to. They really think it's racist if they don't have a pet nigger boyfriend and these days being racist is the worst possible accusation of all.

The more parents or parental figures try to stop them, the more determined they are. Rebellion is natural for the young. My beautiful, blue-eyed, blond, super-smart niece (my surrogate daughter) seemed to be heading in that direction once in her late teens. Although she never did have any nigger boyfriends, she asked me if I thought certain celeb-niggers were "cute." I had to be careful in the way I answered her. I talked to her about conflicting cultures, the way women are treated by them, etc and I think it did some good because now she is grown up and happily married to a nice Irish guy. I was so relieved.

That girls these days get all their ideas, education and opinions from FB, Tumblr and a bombardment of ads is a major factor, IMO.

[Allah the Pig-Fucker]

I think it's due to young women/girls being more easily manipulated into wanting to be hip and cool than are young men. I was a teen once and also wanted to fit in, although luckily that did not require a nigger boyfriend then. This generation of girls is being hammered constantly from an early age by the media, peer pressure and abominations like the Kartrashian whores to truly think that hooking up with niggers is the trendy thing to do, even if they don't want to. They really think it's racist if they don't have a pet nigger boyfriend and these days being racist is the worst possible accusation of all.

The more parents or parental figures try to stop them, the more determined they are. Rebellion is natural for the young. My beautiful, blue-eyed, blond, super-smart niece (my surrogate daughter) seemed to be heading in that direction once in her late teens. Although she never did have any nigger boyfriends, she asked me if I thought certain celeb-niggers were "cute." I had to be careful in the way I answered her. I talked to her about conflicting cultures, the way women are treated by them, etc and I think it did some good because now she is grown up and happily married to a nice Irish guy. I was so relieved.

That girls these days get all their ideas, education and opinions from FB, Tumblr and a bombardment of ads is a major factor, IMO.

[Bottle_of_Hate]

If we in the USA were to boycot all retailers that used burning and drilling in their advertising we would live in cardboard boxes. They put niggers into everything now. If it isn't the attractive woman and a buck it is the beta white male, helpless without his sow.

[Ignatow]

Humira, an arthritis drug, promoted oildrilling. My doctor gave me a better prescription.

[Weewuzzkangs]

...My beautiful, blue-eyed, blond, super-smart niece (my surrogate daughter)...

I know, you mean that metaphorically. There's not anything more menacing than surrogate mothers providing anything but Fred McMurray D.I.L.F.-type Father Knows Best dads with sons:

Bishop J. Strickland auf X: „Please read this brief paragraph and acknowledge the tragic message it delivers. To use the word purchase in connection with children created by God is a devastating comment on the brokenness of our society. These children are God’s, not a project, they are not a commodity to“ / X



https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2017/03/18769/

...Rubin and Peterson avoid mentioning a truth of equal importance: For a child to have a fully actualized life, having both a mom and a dad is an integral part of being a son or daughter.
Surrogacy is one of the gravest social/medical evils of the 21st century

Rubin, then in his mid-forties and legally “married” since 2015 to Dave Janet, took Peterson’s message to heart, and the two contracted with two surrogates so each could carry on their own bloodline with a child.
And while Bishop Strickland assumed that Rubin and Janet’s two children had been obtained through adoption, the reality is even more troubling: They were procured through two surrogates, a process fraught with misery for everyone involved except the wealthy adults using this extreme means to become parents.
It has become a trend among wealthy homosexuals to have “pseudo-twins.” That is, each would-be father contracts to have a child with his own surrogate using his own sperm at about the same time. This represents the pinnacle of male narcissism and displays the vast difference between “married” homosexuals and male-female couples: the children produced in complementary marriages through a loving marital union clearly belong to both husband and wife, not one or the other.

Surrogacy necessarily involves IVF

When couples or individuals choose to create children using IVF, many more eggs are fertilized than necessary as an insurance policy in case first attempt(s) at successful pregnancies fail. Embryos stored cryogenically who are deemed to be no longer necessary for the parents’ pursuit of a family – often numbering a dozen or more, and sometimes as many as 30 – are discarded as medical waste or are donated for “research.” This is the fate of 93+ percent of all children created for IVF procedures.
Surrogacy treats women as nothing more than “breeders.” It’s the ultimate expression of misogyny, a fact that the children of homosexuals who come into the world via surrogacy will easily infer.
Rubin and Janet are far from being able to legitimately describe themselves as conservative after having chosen to bring children into the world via surrogacy.
In fact, their actions are antithetical to conservatism, to timeless principles that have defined married and family life down through the ages in nearly every society and religion around the globe.
To actually be loving fathers, homosexuals such as Rubin and Janet have a single course of action available to them to guarantee the happiness, security, and well-being of their soon-to-be-born children: They must dissolve their so-called “marriage” and wed the mother of their children.
And that of course is far more complicated than it sounds, because both of their children come from not one but two mothers: An egg donor mom and a surrogate mom who carried him or her in her womb for nine months. One is the genetic mom, and the other is the nurturing, gestational mom.
Rubin and Janet’s rationale for utilizing surrogacy – insisting on the importance of carrying on their genetic lines so they might see themselves in their children – is the ultimate in male vanity and arrogant adolescent narcissism.
Addressing Rubin and Janet at the time, I wrote:

Because of your unwillingness to marry (instead preferring to imitate marriage, the real thing) and to produce children by having natural sexual relations with your wives, your children are motherless victims, and you are their victimizers.
You have replaced the role of their mothers with a small army of other women: Your egg donor(s), your surrogates, your female family members and other daytime caretakers, your night nurses, and your breast milk providers.
Sadly, your wife could have performed ALL these roles and done so brilliantly while also establishing the natural maternal bond your children will so desire.
But nothing you are doing is even close to being deemed natural. You are creating a synthetic, pro-homosexual, misogynist environment for your kids.

Perhaps ironically, Rubin and Peterson have attained fame by calling out the worst of wokeness, yet once again they are loudly, publicly surrendering to it.

[IseDaDiva]

I know, you mean that metaphorically. There's not anything more menacing than surrogate mothers providing anything but Fred McMurray D.I.L.F.-type Father Knows Best dads with sons:

Bishop J. Strickland auf X: „Please read this brief paragraph and acknowledge the tragic message it delivers. To use the word purchase in connection with children created by God is a devastating comment on the brokenness of our society. These children are God’s, not a project, they are not a commodity to“ / X



https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2017/03/18769/

...Rubin and Peterson avoid mentioning a truth of equal importance: For a child to have a fully actualized life, having both a mom and a dad is an integral part of being a son or daughter.
Surrogacy is one of the gravest social/medical evils of the 21st century

Rubin, then in his mid-forties and legally “married” since 2015 to Dave Janet, took Peterson’s message to heart, and the two contracted with two surrogates so each could carry on their own bloodline with a child.
And while Bishop Strickland assumed that Rubin and Janet’s two children had been obtained through adoption, the reality is even more troubling: They were procured through two surrogates, a process fraught with misery for everyone involved except the wealthy adults using this extreme means to become parents.
It has become a trend among wealthy homosexuals to have “pseudo-twins.” That is, each would-be father contracts to have a child with his own surrogate using his own sperm at about the same time. This represents the pinnacle of male narcissism and displays the vast difference between “married” homosexuals and male-female couples: the children produced in complementary marriages through a loving marital union clearly belong to both husband and wife, not one or the other.

Surrogacy necessarily involves IVF

When couples or individuals choose to create children using IVF, many more eggs are fertilized than necessary as an insurance policy in case first attempt(s) at successful pregnancies fail. Embryos stored cryogenically who are deemed to be no longer necessary for the parents’ pursuit of a family – often numbering a dozen or more, and sometimes as many as 30 – are discarded as medical waste or are donated for “research.” This is the fate of 93+ percent of all children created for IVF procedures.
Surrogacy treats women as nothing more than “breeders.” It’s the ultimate expression of misogyny, a fact that the children of homosexuals who come into the world via surrogacy will easily infer.
Rubin and Janet are far from being able to legitimately describe themselves as conservative after having chosen to bring children into the world via surrogacy.
In fact, their actions are antithetical to conservatism, to timeless principles that have defined married and family life down through the ages in nearly every society and religion around the globe.
To actually be loving fathers, homosexuals such as Rubin and Janet have a single course of action available to them to guarantee the happiness, security, and well-being of their soon-to-be-born children: They must dissolve their so-called “marriage” and wed the mother of their children.
And that of course is far more complicated than it sounds, because both of their children come from not one but two mothers: An egg donor mom and a surrogate mom who carried him or her in her womb for nine months. One is the genetic mom, and the other is the nurturing, gestational mom.
Rubin and Janet’s rationale for utilizing surrogacy – insisting on the importance of carrying on their genetic lines so they might see themselves in their children – is the ultimate in male vanity and arrogant adolescent narcissism.
Addressing Rubin and Janet at the time, I wrote:

Because of your unwillingness to marry (instead preferring to imitate marriage, the real thing) and to produce children by having natural sexual relations with your wives, your children are motherless victims, and you are their victimizers.
You have replaced the role of their mothers with a small army of other women: Your egg donor(s), your surrogates, your female family members and other daytime caretakers, your night nurses, and your breast milk providers.
Sadly, your wife could have performed ALL these roles and done so brilliantly while also establishing the natural maternal bond your children will so desire.
But nothing you are doing is even close to being deemed natural. You are creating a synthetic, pro-homosexual, misogynist environment for your kids.

Perhaps ironically, Rubin and Peterson have attained fame by calling out the worst of wokeness, yet once again they are loudly, publicly surrendering to it.

Oh, that was 5 years ago. I had to scroll up to see what I'd written.

re: My niece. Yes of course, I meant she's like my daughter in place of the daughter I never had.

The kind of surrogacy you're referring to is what I call "Rent a Uterus". Paid surrogacy is illegal, but everyone who does it gets around that law, i.e. those two in your post. (they want to "keep their bloodlines going"? Must be illustrious)They'll say they're merely covering expenses for the "gestational carrier" when in fact they are buying a baby, and probably for a very hefty price. That's how I've seen it ever since I first heard about it, years ago. No way is a woman going to go through all that for strangers and not be handsomely compensated. Isn't buying a human being called slavery?

Around here, if the woman decides to keep the baby after it's born, she is considered the legal mother, the buyers don't get a refund and a long and expensive legal battle might follow.

Apropos of nothing: Hearing men - straight or gay - say, "We're pregnant" is like nails on a chalkboard for me. THEY may be pregnant, but for sure he won't be the one getting stretch marks, varicose veins, and screaming in the delivery room while trying to push out something the size of a watermelon.

[Niggers are Useless]

Well said and well handled.

[Groid_Rage]

Almost every retailer or even online banking sticks nigger into everything. I like Venmo for no fees but...

[IseDaDiva]

Almost every retailer or even online banking sticks nigger into everything. I like Venmo for no fees but...

I got all this on my banking site. I've been with this bank since I was a teen, and if any niggers or muzzies ever darkened their door, I never saw them.

So, it seems they don't care to appeal to 95% of their clientele:

[Jim Crow]

If I took the boycott list of woke companies with me when I went shopping, I don’t think I’d have any items in the cart!

[Weewuzzkangs]

A local real estate agency oversteps their bounds:

[Nigroids]

A local real estate agency oversteps their bounds:

Not just a nigger, but some sort of wild wool Somalicoon. What planet do these doucheheads live on?

[IseDaDiva]

Not just a nigger, but some sort of wild wool Somalicoon. What planet do these doucheheads live on?

I can't read that, but they must be discussing life/car/home insurance, or the best mortgage rates for the lovely new home the mudshark and her feral are purchasing. All these things are of vital interest to niggers.