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.
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.