Print this post Print this post

Behind Anti-White Advertising

"Cute" interracial mother-daughter pair in "Just Checking." "They spoke in the name of death," French novelist Jean Raspail noted bitterly. "Only a white woman can give birth to a white baby."

“Cute” interracial mother-daughter pair in “Just Checking.” “They spoke in the name of death,” French novelist Jean Raspail noted bitterly. “Only a white woman can give birth to a white baby.”

2,498 words

In May 2013 Minneapolis-based General Mills, the multibillion-dollar food company, aired a television commercial for its Cheerios brand cereal promoting Aryan hybridization with blacks (depicting, as usual, a white woman and a black man).

It is unclear what selling cereal has to do with destroying the white race, but the advertising industry, like the entertainment media it serves, has this high on its agenda.

In the revolution from above corporations like General Mills uncomplainingly fund the hate. Both parties, big business and ad agencies, know there will be—can be—no meaningful backlash to their loathsome behavior in an unfree society.

The “Just Checking” commercial [30 secs.] as it is called, features a little mulatto girl who asks her white mother if Cheerios is heart-healthy. When the mother responds that it is, the child naïvely (so “cute”) empties the contents of the cereal box onto her dozing Negro father’s chest.

The priests and rabbis of the controlled media squawked long and loud about public reaction to the ad, claiming it generated widespread “hate” from the American audience. (What else is new?) The feigned indignation apparently centered on some negative comments about the ad on YouTube.

I’m skeptical, to put it mildly, since race-mixing propaganda is ubiquitous in films, ad campaigns, pornography, and television. But the recurrent “racist” media template possesses a life of its own. Even Big Lies feed upon themselves as they resound again and again through the massive media echo chamber, implanting falsehoods as “real” in everybody’s minds.

In characteristic fashion, General Mills responded that it was proud of what it had done—and then disabled and removed all public comments from its YouTube spot. Are you Politically Incorrect? “No speakee!”

The important point is that cultural artifacts like “Just Checking” don’t just happen. Specific companies and specific individuals with specific motives create and disseminate them.

Non-Jews lose sight of this fact because they play no role in the generation of culture through the electronic media. Therefore they focus solely upon images and stories rather than the processes and people that generate them. They flip a switch and television washes over them. Or they go to a movie, rent a DVD, or stream Netflix. Everything conveniently—far too conveniently—happens. Like magic, it’s there. The infrastructure and process of electronic creation is completely alien to whites. They have no control over TV or movie content—not even veto power—and no independent input into production or distribution.

Yet it is vital to pay attention to such mechanisms, to tear away the curtain and make the wizard visible. After all, what do the Jews do? They focus on content, yes. But then they identify specific institutions and individuals and attack them. They don’t pretend that no one is to blame.

A winning strategy must eventually adopt the same approach. Of course, unlike Jews, whites presently do not have the power to defame their attackers, or compel the mass media, social institutions, and peers to revile, disown, shun, and ostracize them. Whites can’t destroy their enemies’ families and marriages, impoverish them, order the authorities to harass them, have them beaten while the police and press turn a blind eye, imprison, or even kill them.

But Jews (the Left, the government) have dictated the ground rules. They insist upon playing dirty. It is a particularly nasty form of conflict, but it is not going away. And it will be considerably less nasty once it is no longer a one-way street, when the enemy is fed a stiff dose of his own medicine with the same mercilessness.

But the first step is simply to become aware of the people responsible, to shine the light on them, dispel the protective shadows within which they operate.

At present, propaganda messages proceed unidirectionally. Promotion of social propaganda in television commercials requires two primary parties in addition to the networks that broadcast it: the corporate sponsor and the ad agency.

Airing “Just Checking” required no courage on General Mills’ part. The anti-white Cheerios ad was not motivated by profit, but by a deep desire to harm whites—which raises the question of General Mills’ motive.

When I was a young Democrat, local school teachers and administrators—even principals and superintendents—invariably welcomed Democratic lawn signs during campaign season. The tangible benefits in the form of patronage they received from the Democratic Party as school employees far outweighed any social costs they experienced.

In stark contrast, local businessmen, even Democratic ones, were either unwilling or extremely reluctant to have signs placed on their lawns. In the absence of underhanded dealing (e.g., companies like Google, Facebook, or Microsoft, where the interests of organized Jewry, government, and corporations converge), competition and the profit motive are not conducive to flaunting one’s political affiliations and needlessly alienating potential customers. Business is dog eat dog, with an incredibly high failure rate even among conscientious, hard-working owners. Who needs the hassle?

General Mills, of course, is not a small, local business. Nevertheless, from a strictly profit perspective the principle still holds, as one anti-white ad industry reporter admitted: “It wasn’t so much the backdrop of racism that seemed to make General Mills uncomfortable. It was any special attention whatsoever.” Other things being equal, such reticence is par for the course in business affairs.

The Leftist narrative maintains that corporate advertising controls mass media content in pro-white and pro-capitalist ways. Yet corporate advertising is demonstrably anti-white. In this respect the tail seems to wag the dog: ad agencies create propaganda content (stupid white husbands, fathers, and boyfriends; wise, all-knowing blacks; interracialism; empowered womyn) that corporations accept without demur.

The major exception was back when newspapers still mattered and some were Gentile-owned. In order to censor white news and editorial content, Jewish advertisers threatened to pull their ads. It is not clear why this should have worked, since Jewish businessmen needed ad exposure as much as newspapers needed their money. In all probability it was extra-financial pressure that actually did the trick: intense individual psychological strain, violence and threats of violence, and so on.

Who were the advertising people behind “Just Checking”? Though thousands and thousands of words were spilled about the allegedly “racist” responses to the racist commercial, attention never focused on the ad’s creators, even though, objectively, they were a big part of the story.

The ad agency responsible for the campaign was giant New York City-based Saatchi & Saatchi, founded by Jewish brothers Maurice (now Lord) Saatchi and art collector Charles Saatchi in 1970. They left the company in 1995. A former CEO was the late Robert Louis-Dreyfus, grandson of Léopold Louis-Dreyfus, the Jewish founder of one of the world’s monster grain trading companies and France’s then-largest private firm. Robert was also the cousin of Jewish TV star Julia Louis-Dreyfus (Seinfeld, The New Adventures of Old Christine), who is likewise a direct descendant of Léopold.

In 2000, Saatchi & Saatchi was acquired by its present owner, France’s Publicis Groupe, a multinational ad agency and PR firm that is one of the ad industry’s global Big Three. Publicis Groupe’s Jewish CEO is Maurice Lévy. Since 2007 Saatchi and Saatchi has been the official ad agency of Britain’s Labour Party, which notoriously plotted in secret to destroy the white population of Britain through mass colored immigration and brutally repressive anti-white laws. (“Labour wanted mass immigration to make UK more multicultural, says former adviser,” The Telegraph [UK], Oct. 23, 2009; “Immigrants? We sent out search parties to get them to come… and made it hard for Britons to get work, says [Jewish Labour Lord Peter] Mandelson,” Daily Mail [UK], May 13, 2013)

Because Adweek selected General Mills’ follow-up Cheerios commercial to “Just Checking” (which was not interracial) as its “Ad of the Week,” we can view the detailed ad agency production credits for the second commercial. Comparison of its credits with a slightly sketchier list of credits for the racist commercial itself reveals that the same ad agency, Saatchi & Saatchi, and production company, Community Films, made both TV spots, and that the personnel in both cases were virtually the same.

Community Films' "diversity": L. to R: Seth Gordon, Lizzie Schwartz, Matt Smukler, Jared Hess, Pam Thomas, Carl Swan.  Their "Just Checking" ad propagandizes OUR racial destruction.

Community Films’ “diversity”: L. to R: Seth Gordon, Lizzie Schwartz, Matt Smukler, Jared Hess, Pam Thomas, Carl Swan. Their “Just Checking” ad propagandizes OUR racial destruction.

Matt Smukler was the director of the Cheerios spot. His firm’s website highlights another of his TV commercials, for Oreo cookies, which likewise features heavy-handed, Politically Correct Negro-white themes.

There is no doubt that many ad people, like their Hollywood counterparts, harbor hatred and contempt for white Americans and, indeed, for capitalism itself (see, e.g., S. Robert Lichter, Stanley Rothman, and Linda Lichter, The Media Elite: America’s New Power-Brokers, 1986, and Ben Stein, The View from Sunset Boulevard: America As Brought to You by the People Who Make Television, 1979), and are primarily in the business because of the socially and racially destructive opportunities it affords—not to mention the money. There is no empirical inconsistency in this, only moral hypocrisy. Jews are always well-to-do, even when they are Communists. Think of Armand Hammer, or the many Communist Party screenwriters and directors during Hollywood’s Golden Age.

The Establishment’s spin on the supposed white reaction to the Cheerios commercial was predictable: whites are evil racists, our genocide is “inevitable” (just as they previously contended Communism was), and no one must dare to breathe a positive word on behalf of our people.

Alina Adams, a Jewish writer for Kveller.com, a website that provides “A Jewish Twist on Parenting,” offered a more Talmudic, but no better, take on the commercial. Her analysis demonstrates how flexible and creative Jewish logic-chopping can be. From a photo on her web page it appears that she is married to a Negro herself, and has three black Jewish children by him.

Adams maintained that she “totally gets” why the ad was offensive to so many people. Certainly, like the others involved, she knows exactly what’s going on: “Show an interracial family, and you’re disrespecting a culture and all but promoting its genocide.”

Her takeaway, however, was this:

I get that black women—who make up the largest number of unmarried people in the United States, with estimates ranging from 42 to 70 percent due to a variety of factors, including being more educated and affluent than their male counterparts, the incarceration rates of black males, and simple male/female ratio demographics—could look at this commercial, featuring a “good, black man” with his white woman and little girl, and feel slighted. . . .

Such an incendiary subject [emphasis added] is by no means foreign to the Jewish community. When Jews discourage intermarriage, is it a case of racism or self-preservation? Are they trying to keep others out or merely themselves together?

But, Jews being pilpulistic by nature, Adams saw in the Jewish TV spot something no one else did—that it was anti-black:

I saw a white mom hard at work paying the household bills. (Look at how she’s sitting, holding a pen, and at the stack of envelopes by her side). Meanwhile, the black dad—who presumably suffers from high-cholesterol due to the unhealthy food (Fried chicken? Pork rinds? Bacon fat?) he eats; or so we deduce from the little girl’s concern about his heart health, it’s got to be something she’s heard adults talking about—is taking a nice (lazy, shiftless) nap on the couch in the middle of the day.

You can see from such mental gymnastics how easily Jews run psychological circles around whites. Heads they win, tails we lose. Shit like this cries out for the satiric gifts of a Mark Twain or an H. L. Mencken unbound by timid conventionalism, a satirist who completely cuts loose on the Jews rather than coyly dancing around the edges of the subject. Holier-than-thou phonies like Matt Smukler and Alina Adams deserve to be mercilessly skewered.

1950s Cheerios TV Commercial

Switching gears completely, there is a Cheerios TV commercial I’ve seen numerous times while watching old episodes of an enjoyable ’50s sitcom called Trouble with Father (ABC, 1950–1955) starring Stu Erwin.

Of course, it’s from another era, another America. Today’s General Mills is a different beast, with different people and anti-values. Today’s company and cereal coast on the inertia of their Aryan past.

Cheerios was introduced in 1941 as CheeriOats. What struck me as I watched the commercial, which I saw before “Just Checking” aired, was the up-to-the-minute nutrition angle it promoted—especially striking from the perspective of today’s culture, where obesity is such a problem. The message emerged both from the visuals shown in the film and the accompanying narration.

The film showed a (roughly) 1 cup serving of Cheerios in a bowl with a small amount of milk poured over it. A small sugar bowl was nearby, but none was put on the cereal in the commercial. Six fresh peach slices topped the milk and cereal. A half (?) slice of toast, possibly wheat, with a small pat of butter was also shown. That’s all. An incredibly well-drawn picture of a meager but healthy breakfast.

The narrator said, “A breakfast of Cheerios with milk, fruit, and buttered toast is all you need.” Cheerios, he added, are made from “energy-packed oats with all the vitamins and minerals you need for healthy nerves, good red blood, and strong teeth and bones.”

The information presented made perfect sense for a non-laboring, non-farming population. Especially noteworthy were the extremely small portion sizes shown, which sharply limited overall caloric intake. The implicit message was, “This is all you need for your morning meal, don’t eat more.”

It made quite an impression on me, an impression reinforced a few days ago when I read a GQ article dated August 13, 2013 that identified old-fashioned Cheerios “with a heaping scoop of fresh fruit” as the healthiest breakfast cereal on the market today—unwittingly tracking the ’50s commercial almost exactly. (The fresh fruit in the ’50s commercial, however, was far from “heaping”—fruit contains calories, too.)

The GQ article even alluded to the “miniscule serving size,” 1 cup, “which feels like half of what you feed your dog for breakfast.”

Jim White, a registered dietitian and spokesman for the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, said, “Most guys grab a bowl and put [in] as much as they can. They don’t realize it could be three to five times the serving. You have to watch that portion size.”

Emphasized in the GQ article is the fact that a cup of Cheerios is only 100 calories, the first ingredient is whole-grain oats, there is only one gram of sugar, the fruit topping increases fiber content and keeps people full longer, and milk contains “protein to build muscles, calcium to help support strong bones, electrolytes to help replace after a hard workout, and water to help hydrate the body.”

Again, the parallelism between the nutritious themes, visual and verbal, in the 1950s TV commercial, and today’s nutrition data, was uncanny. The fundamentals of good nutrition have been known for a long time.

 

If you enjoyed this piece, and wish to encourage more like it, give a tip through Paypal. You can earmark your tip directly to the author or translator, or you can put it in a general fund. (Be sure to specify which in the "Add special instructions to seller" box at Paypal.)
This entry was posted in North American New Right and tagged , , , , , , , , . Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

30 Comments

  1. rhondda
    Posted August 27, 2013 at 6:07 pm | Permalink

    For those of you who are caught up in the psychotherapy aspect of how the tribe project their neurosis onto whites I do recommend this e-book. When one has been ‘gaslighted’ by this kind of nonsense, it is good to see it’s origin.

    http://www.historiographttp://www.historiography-project.com/books/exiles/index.htmlhy-project.com/index.html
    definition of gaslighting:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting

  2. Andrew Hamilton
    Posted August 27, 2013 at 2:27 pm | Permalink

    Thanks for the support!

    Actually, I think I’m moving toward using “Aryan” more frequently. It fills a necessary void that “white,” or any ethnic or national subtype designation, does not capture.

    I dismiss objections to the term by Jews, academics, and other anti-white elements out of hand. These people are intentionally committing genocide, and deliberately destroy both our truths and our myths. One of them even condescendingly wrote a book, The Aryan Myth, informing us what we must and mustn’t think—while his group promotes the Holocaust, the Chosen people myth, the lie of white racism, “biological race does not exist,” and every other form of arrant nonsense. I’m no longer listening.

    As for the objections you raise concerning the word’s denotation, they cannot be conclusively refuted. Many pro-white advocates have made the same argument over the years. An Iranian woman once wrote an indignant post on Stormfront arbitrarily claiming that only Persians and Indians were entitled to use the term descriptively.

    However, my Webster’s Third New International Dictionary (1981)—the thick, authoritative tome you see in libraries on its own stand—indicates clearly that my use is (one) correct one. (Of course, they can change that for ideological reasons at any time.) A definition for aryanize/aryanization is “To clear of non-Aryan (as Semitic) personnel, control, or influence.” In Germany, Aryan was an official legal term. It is that sense that I am primarily invoking—I exclude the Asian groups you mention when I use the term in this manner. (Sorry, Iranian girl!)

    As to people being offended, my short answer is that whites make far too many (wrong) assumptions about a) what is offensive and b) whether it matters. You can actually be very offensive and get away with it—otherwise Jews never could have seized power. They were endlessly, unremittingly offensive, and still are. Finally, 95% of white people are offended that we simply assert our right to exist—despite morality, despite international law, despite everything! To hell with their sense of propriety.

    Years ago I attended a radical meeting. The featured speaker was a man whose name you, and virtually every knowledgeable American, would know. He was reviled by the media and the power elite as a “racist” and “anti-Semite”—but when it comes to “anti-Semitism” I’m from Missouri: I require absolute proof. My default position is that no Gentile is anti-Jewish.

    Anyway, in his speech he was critical of “Zionists.” So, in the Q & A, I asked him if by “Zionists” he meant Jews. He danced around the subject and refused to answer the question directly. But afterward he cornered me privately, so I had the opportunity to speak to him frankly face to face. He did in fact oppose Jewish evil. There is no doubt about that. In particular, I’ll always remember his out of the blue response to a question I asked about Wilmot Robertson (the author of The Dispossessed Majority and editor of Instauration magazine): “I know him well. He’s a good Aryan.”

    I liked the term then and I like it now. It has a force, a power, all its own.

    • Armor
      Posted August 27, 2013 at 9:24 pm | Permalink

      “One of them even condescendingly wrote a book, The Aryan Myth”

      We are told that the Aryans or Indo-Europeans actually didn’t really exist. Human races also don’t exist. I’ve heard the same rhetoric about the Celts. Academics usually accept that Germanic peoples have existed, but for some reason, they tend to become relativists when the subject is the Celts!

  3. Reisender
    Posted August 27, 2013 at 10:33 am | Permalink

    …is it really necessary to use the word “Aryan” all the time? Not only is it a word that is off-putting to most of the general public, it also undermines the fact that there were some actual civilizations in Europe even before the Aryan/Indo-European migrations, perhaps most notably the Vinča culture with its early writing system and beginning urbanization. What’s more, Europe isn’t by majority of proto-Indo-European ancestry, and if you just go by language and other cultural memes you’d also have to include much of India when speaking of Aryans, not to mention all those Pakistanis who are currently invading Europe and terrorizing the people of Greece and other places.

    Apart from that, interesting article as always, your work is one of the main reasons I visit this site.

  4. Posted August 26, 2013 at 4:15 pm | Permalink

    And now for something completely different:

    Halifax Advert – Football coach
    http://youtu.be/2BtIDkDIn0Q

    • Greg Johnson
      Posted August 26, 2013 at 9:50 pm | Permalink

      Absolutely vomit-inducing numinous Negro sanctimony.

  5. Andrew Hamilton
    Posted August 26, 2013 at 2:15 am | Permalink

    Yes, for some reason WNs are badly lagging in their awareness of the erasure of the color line in mating practice, and psychologically, as J Bonaccorsi describes. There are not as many white couples or families as most WNs seem to think, and even when there are, the mating has been largely fortuitous, not the result of explicit or even implicit racial choice. The couples could just as easily have mated with non-whites, and may still do so given the instability of relationships and frequent changing of partners and spouses.

    As for the change in TV commercials, I do not recall that so clearly in 1989. (But then, I didn’t watch much TV.) What I do recall, around 1970, was a radical shift in depiction of race and sex in movies and TV. That was the time of the so-called “rural purge” in American television. But the shift happened in movies, too. Just compare the James Bond films Dr. No (1962) and Live and Let Die (1973). The change is incredible. Pornographic movies also went mainstream around 1972, for the first time reaching a mass audience.

    Bruce Lee’s Enter the Dragon (1973), which was actually produced by Hollywood (it was not an indigenous Hong Kong production), displays totally contemporary racial tropes, including today’s interracial attitude toward nubile young white women re both Asians and blacks, as well as men like John Saxon mixing with black women (as Roger Moore also did in Live and Let Die). Of course, in real life, Bruce Lee married a white woman and had two children by her.

    I remember that change very well because it was so swift and radical, almost like a switch being thrown.

    • Posted August 26, 2013 at 12:16 pm | Permalink

      Yes, the de-ruralization of CBS was literally overnight and quite a shock, as these shows were their highest rated. The idea was that old and rural folks didn’t spend enough money so their ratings didn’t count, but I’m sure the real reason was ideological.

      I discuss some of this in my essay on the Liberal love of small town and rural America once it’s been ethnically cleansed — notice how Obama spent last week in Martha’s Vineyard? See “The Gilmore Girls Occupy Wall St.” here on CC and in my book, The Homo and the Negro. I start from Maury Knudsen’s insight that at one time, the rural was the home of virtue, and the city of vice, along with danger, city slickers, etc. Then, suddenly, everything shifted, and the city was “enlightened” and the rural was a dangerous land of toothless rednecks. From Mayberry to Deliverance in a couple years.

      Could that be when a Certain Group, known for their urban setting and shunning of farm labor, consolidated their hold on the media?

  6. Armor
    Posted August 25, 2013 at 6:47 pm | Permalink

    “In 2000, Saatchi & Saatchi was acquired by its present owner, France’s Publicis Groupe” / “Publicis Groupe’s Jewish CEO is Maurice Lévy”

    And the main stockholder and chairman of the supervisory board of Publicis is Elisabeth Badinter. She is a Jewish feminist and the wife of Jewish lawyer Robert Badinter, who was minister of Justice and later president of the Constitutional Council at the time when Jewish politician Laurent Fabius pushed through parliament a new law forbidding people in France to contradict the Jews about WW2 and the so-called “holocaust”.

    • White Republican
      Posted August 26, 2013 at 8:21 am | Permalink

      In National Socialism: The Biological World View, Povl Riis-Knudsen made this reference to Elisabeth Badinter:

      “It is no wonder that Elisabeth Badinter, a Jewish-French feminist, in a new book (L’un est l’autre = ‘One is the Other,’ published by O. Jacob (!), Paris, 1986, and, not surprisingly, translated into virtually every Western-European language) demands that uterus and ovaries be transplanted into men to ensure equality!”

  7. rhondda
    Posted August 25, 2013 at 3:09 pm | Permalink

    Bo, no to using feminine values. It won’t work. That is resistance only. What I want to know is why all these guys who are so good at game are not gaming the Jews?
    Mr. Hamilton is showing us why. Insidious advertizing is one such way. We are the ones being gamed! How are they gaming us? We have to know what they are doing before we can counter it or best it.
    Gandhi in India realized that the good sportsmanship and ideals of the English could be undermined and he did it. The Vietcong figured out how to undermine the French and Americans. The Jews figured out how to undermine the west. That figuring out is the masculine side. That’s not my forte. When you know, then you can act.

  8. WG
    Posted August 25, 2013 at 10:59 am | Permalink

    Excellent analysis. How could anyone fail to notice the anti-white message?

    I clearly remember, around 1989, that tv advertisements in the US suddenly featured a lot of blacks and other non-whites. I remember thinking, What happened to all the white men on tv? This change seemingly happened overnight. Does anyone else remember this? What might have caused so sudden a shift?

    • J Bonaccorsi, Phila
      Posted August 25, 2013 at 11:52 pm | Permalink

      1989 was the year Arsenio Hall’s late-night talk show began. I do remember someone’s remarking, around the time that that show was new, that blacks seemed to be everywhere on television. Here in northeast Philadelphia, there was a sharp increase in black-white couples–white woman, black man–almost immediately after the release of the Spike Lee film “Jungle Fever” (1991). I’m going by the couples I saw walking along sidewalks.

      Since that period, northeast Philadelphia has declined, demographically and economically (i.e., it’s less white and more poor). The white population that’s left seems mostly proletarian. If a white woman is part of a couple, walking down a street, her partner is almost invariably a black man. Though the white women in these mixed couples are, as I say, probably of the proletariat, they are not wretches. In other words, anyone who’s thinking that the white women drawn by black men are of low appeal is well behind the times, as far as I can observe. Within the last ten years or so, I began seeing, too, around here, white men with black women. Couples like that are still rare, but I saw a nice-looking white man with a black woman who was nothing special in a pizza shop late on a Friday night just a few weeks or so ago. This was a young couple, i.e., a couple that looked to be out on a date.

      The decline of the neighborhood is discussed in a Philadelphia magazine article that was published a few years ago. If you’re interested, Google “The Late Great Northeast.” When I see a white woman with a child or children in a supermarket, the child or children will usually be part black, it seems. Often the mother will be quite nice-looking.

    • Posted August 26, 2013 at 12:09 pm | Permalink

      Actually, I recall Flip Wilson making a joke about “how far we’ve come” since now, to judge by commercials, black folks now have dandruff, bad breath, athlete’s foot and everything else, just like White folks. I believe this was on his eponymous show, so it would be from 1970-74. That would have been the start of thin edge of the wedge.

      • J Bonaccorsi, Phila
        Posted August 26, 2013 at 8:49 pm | Permalink

        I can’t say I recall Flip Wilson’s making that joke; but from what I remember of the progression of events, I can believe that 1970-74, which you mention, is the period in which he made it. The joke itself, now that I think about it, is part of the onslaught. The commercials to which Wilson was referring were the tools by which blacks were mundaned, to coin a verb; blacks were transformed thereby from wretched or criminal outsiders to “nothing special.” The point of the joke is that their being nothing special is, well, nothing special; the lie is doubled.

        Four-decades-plus of this does not seem to have done anything to reduce the distance between blacks and whites, not if we may judge from the incessant small talk by which whites exert themselves to mundane blacks everywhere that they (whites) are in contact with them–from talk shows to workplaces to supermarket check-out lines. Liberals know this, because they are as aware as anyone else is that the distance is in the nature of things, in the difference between the races; that’s why they resist termination of affirmative action, whose abandonment, they know, would put things right back where they were forty-plus years ago.

        The commercials, the talk-show prattle, the workplace chatter–all of it–has nothing to do with reality; it’s ritual, a pretense by those who participate in it that they don’t know what they know. If you want mainstream social life in America, you must participate in the ritual; you must be a member of the church.

  9. Jaego
    Posted August 25, 2013 at 1:37 am | Permalink

    I’ve heard the magazine Ad Busters is Jew-wise. But I suppose they are totally Liberal in every other way.

  10. Joseph Bishop
    Posted August 24, 2013 at 10:39 pm | Permalink

    The executives of these companies would no doubt argue at their board meetings, that showing interracial couples etc. is an attention-gathering device. Sort of like having some salesperson with, say, an Australian accent. The idea there is that the viewer’s attention is grabbed, perhaps long enough to absorb the 15- or 30-second commercial.

    Even if the viewer is angered or revolted by what he sees, he has absorbed the message. Somewhere or somehow it may be subliminally effective. In the supermarket his attention is drawn to the cereal (or whatever product) because of the ad that he took in and was shocked by. In the end he may even purchase it.

    One may recall the ‘United Colors’ adverts a while back, which heavily emphasized interracial togetherness. They were intended as shock-value assaults on the public imagination in order to grab attention and build product recognition, which inevitably trends product sales upwards.

    Or one may also recall the superbowl football ad a few years ago where the black athlete is confronted with a gorgeous blonde Aryan woman who drops her clothes and offers herself sexually to him. There was anger over that ad – remember? – but did it drop sales for the product or service? Did the NFL itself become unpopular?

    I am not saying that is the primary purpose of ads like this, although it could be. I agree completely with Andrew Hamilton’s overall view of these campaigns.

    I suppose the corollary point would be that once the shock value is gone, i.e. once the consumer so totally accepts these things, the ad loses its effectiveness. Of course, by then it is too late anyway.

    • Franklin Ryckaert
      Posted August 25, 2013 at 4:54 am | Permalink

      If the “shock value” in advertising works, no matter how much it goes against the grain of the public, how about “racist” themes in it? Imagine advertisements in which invariably ugly lazy stupid Blacks (or Hispanics) are rebuked by handsome active intelligent white men, who are therefore preferred by gorgeous blonde white women? And what about resurrecting the Shylock stereotype of the Jew? Such shocking themes will surely increase sales! And it will be pro-white (or anti-anti-white) to boot.

    • Sandy
      Posted August 25, 2013 at 11:49 am | Permalink

      The actors and actresses don’t have to participate in these betrayals. Some White women and men are prostitutes. That’s just the way it is.

    • Posted August 25, 2013 at 3:49 pm | Permalink

      Use of bizarre & hateful contents in advertising may very well be met with dismay and rejection, as this one did. I withdrew everything I had at WaMu and prevailed on two dozen friends to do the same…there’s always an action step.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJ7EIKbnnkw&feature=related

      Edmund Connolly provided that link July 2012 on another blog.

      But the zaniness in contemporary ads reminds me of the old time traveling medicine shows which featured a “doctor” selling the product (about 70 proof) with his staff of Indian Chief, recovered alcoholic, and one-man band. I remember when literal freak shows were banned from the county fair where I was raised, then they all popped up again on TV reality shows and TV ads. The ads these days are rather more sinister and suggestive as part of the anti-white narrative, but the old time freak show is back with us.

  11. Petronius
    Posted August 24, 2013 at 9:58 am | Permalink

    Obvious propaganda with an obnoxious sugarcoating… I wonder if spots like these will not rather produce more “racists”, as a simple allergic reaction…

  12. Posted August 23, 2013 at 9:27 pm | Permalink

    This is a negative, defeatist message: “…whites presently do not have the power to defame their attackers, or compel the mass media, social institutions, and peers to revile, disown, shun, and ostracize them.”

    Resisting Defamation has been engaged in attackback against purveyors of the anti-white narrative since 1989, and we have been very successful in some environments. We surely could use some help instead of reading that what we do cannot be done. See our web site at www [dog] resistingdefamation [dot] org or our Facebook page Resisting Defamation

    • rhondda
      Posted August 23, 2013 at 11:23 pm | Permalink

      You missed the point. It is good that you have made us aware of your website. However, Mr. Hamilton is talking about the bigger picture. Whites do not have control of the media, advertizing, or other means of disseminating the message. Resistance is not enough. Resisting is a negative value. (Evola would say a feminine value) Violence is not an option. Join, don’t condemn.

      • Posted August 24, 2013 at 2:00 pm | Permalink

        But rhondda, what are you advocating for us to do? Is it enough to call a successful program of action based on a feminine value? Sounds like a recipe for inaction, all considered.

    • Andrew Hamilton
      Posted August 24, 2013 at 5:01 pm | Permalink

      You have worked hard for a long time. I am not inclined to denigrate or disparage what you do, though my analysis, approach, and objectives are probably somewhat different from yours. You are doing something real, tangible, useful, and just.

  13. coinherence
    Posted August 23, 2013 at 7:02 pm | Permalink

    “…corporations accept without demurr”

    • Andrew Hamilton
      Posted August 23, 2013 at 8:49 pm | Permalink

      “. . . accept without demur,” yes—one r, no e.

  14. Posted August 23, 2013 at 5:30 pm | Permalink

    “has three black Jewish children by him.” Newish?

    “Robert was also the cousin of Jewish TV star Julia Louis-Dreyfus (Seinfeld, The New Adventures of Old Christine…” And whose show displays the still-passing-for-white JLD as a drunken incompetent, whose only at least temporarily successful relationship is with a wise, handsome black man.

    “Non-Jews lose sight of this fact because they play no role in the generation of culture through the electronic media. … Of course, unlike Jews, whites presently do not have the power to defame their attackers, or compel the mass media, social institutions, and peers to revile, disown, shun, and ostracize them. Whites can’t destroy their enemies’ families and marriages, impoverish them, order the authorities to harass them, have them beaten while the police and press turn a blind eye, imprison, or even kill them.”

    Of course, by White you mean, White and straight. Now, this is essentially the point I’ve been hammering away at, such as in the articles collected as The Homo and the Negro. What you say here is true of so-called “gays” as well as Jews, but of course the former have been demonized by “the Right” and welcomed by the Left. Hence, their role in the anti-White agenda. Contrary to the conspiracy nonsense “conservatives” tell themselves, the Jews didn’t “put the fags in charge” but have always been the creators of White culture. Just like gentrification, any cultural change will follow the “gays,” so shouldn’t there be some effort put into bringing them back on board?

    • rhondda
      Posted August 23, 2013 at 8:31 pm | Permalink

      Yes, I agree with you James.
      Speaking of decoding movies, I just read vigilant citizen’s three part analysis of Eyes Wide Shut. He says the whole movie is a tantric raising of the kundalini. What he does not say is that Kubrick is Jewish and thus the perversion and voyeuristic atmosphere around it. It is absolutely essential to realize that the women who represent the feminine principal in that move are a Jewish idea of femininity which is made to be universal. The subconscious subliminal message for our left wing slut walkers no doubt and great expectations from men. It was an occult trick on the audience.

    • Jaego
      Posted August 24, 2013 at 5:27 pm | Permalink

      Back on board or back in charge? We aren’t going to exchange one system of slavery for another.

    Kindle Subscription
  • EXSURGO Apparel

    Our Titles

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater (2nd ed.)

    The Hypocrisies of Heaven

    Waking Up from the American Dream

    Green Nazis in Space!

    Truth, Justice, and a Nice White Country

    Heidegger in Chicago

    The End of an Era

    Sexual Utopia in Power

    What is a Rune? & Other Essays

    Son of Trevor Lynch's White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    The Lightning & the Sun

    The Eldritch Evola

    Western Civilization Bites Back

    New Right vs. Old Right

    Lost Violent Souls

    Journey Late at Night: Poems and Translations

    The Non-Hindu Indians & Indian Unity

    Baader Meinhof ceramic pistol, Charles Kraaft 2013

    Jonathan Bowden as Dirty Harry

    The Lost Philosopher, Second Expanded Edition

    Trevor Lynch's A White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    And Time Rolls On

    The Homo & the Negro

    Artists of the Right

    North American New Right, Vol. 1

    Forever and Ever

    Some Thoughts on Hitler

    Tikkun Olam and Other Poems

    Under the Nihil

    Summoning the Gods

    Hold Back This Day

    The Columbine Pilgrim

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater

    Taking Our Own Side

    Toward the White Republic

    Distributed Titles

    Tyr, Vol. 4

    Reuben

    The Node

    Axe

    Carl Schmitt Today

    A Sky Without Eagles

    The Way of Men

    Generation Identity

    Nietzsche's Coming God

    The Conservative

    The New Austerities

    Convergence of Catastrophes

    Demon

    Proofs of a Conspiracy

    Fascism viewed from the Right

    Notes on the Third Reich

    Morning Crafts

    New Culture, New Right

    The Fourth Political Theory

    Can Life Prevail?

    The Metaphysics of War

    Fighting for the Essence

    The Arctic Home in the Vedas

    Asatru: A Native European Spirituality

    The Shock of History

    The Prison Notes

    Sex and Deviance

    Standardbearers

    On the Brink of the Abyss

    Beyond Human Rights

    A Handbook of Traditional Living

    Why We Fight

    The Problem of Democracy

    Archeofuturism

    The Path of Cinnabar

    Tyr

    The Lost Philosopher

    Impeachment of Man

    Gold in the Furnace

    Defiance

    The Passing of a Profit & Other Forgotten Stories

    Revolution from Above