It’s 1986, and J. Robert Thomas is excited as he awaits the approval from the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America to kosher certify Bickel’s Potato Chips. Thomas is Bickel’s General Manager, and in a small newspaper from Lancaster, PA, he tells the reporter “We feel there are a lot of people who look for that stamp of approval. It is a rather strict inspection and people know that the product is kosher.”[1] In perusing the article, it is amusing to read “Most chips fried in lard cannot be approved as kosher, because lard is usually a pork by-product and pork is forbidden to Jews.” Having reported on kosher certification for four years now, we have heard many tales of removing lard from the traditional recipes in American cooking, only to be replaced with vegetable oils to accommodate Kashrus law. This, alone, is a fascinating subject, probing how an entire food industry can transform its tastes and production for the demands of a religious diet and whether the added vegetable oils affect our health. But lard removal is not the topic of our piece today. Thomas continues “It lets people know we have a kind of Good Housekeeping seal.” And so 1986 was one of the earliest mentions we could find in our research comparing the kosher seal to that of Good Housekeeping.

This 1986 example is far from the only one. In fact, for over 30 years the kosher-certifying industry has been telling us  that their seal is like a Good Housekeeping seal—basically certifying that the product meets high standards. If that’s true, one would think that  companies would want to display their kosher seals prominently and clearly label them. First, here’s some more examples.

• Ann Wainright, Manager of Public Relations for Pepperidge Farms, Inc. tells New York Times journalist Joan Nathan that “The decision to kosher-certify our products was a logical one. Kosher consumers appreciate the quality that goes into our products. We don’t think it offends anyone, and the kosher symbol is like a Good Housekeeping endorsement.”[2] [emphasis added] That was 1989.
• Sheila Lebovitz, owner of the kosher restaurant Sheila’s Café in San Diego, was interviewed in 2001 for The Californian[3], a Temecula, CA newspaper, and in it she proclaimed that “Having a kosher mark is like giving it the Good Housekeeping Seal.”
• Four years later in 2005: Elizabeth LeSure of the Associated Press wrote an article titled Medications start getting kosher certification[4]. She quotes Rabbi Eliyahu Safran as saying “Consumers are more sophisticated today,” and  she went on to say that “[Safran] likened the symbol of kosher certification to a Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval.”
• In the same year the Orthodox Union got into the act and began marketing its kosher certification online by comparing it to that famous seal found in America since 1909: “The OU kosher symbol has come to be as universally recognized and respected as the Good Housekeeping Seal.”[5] Then in 2006 the OU claimed it was “the world’s largest kosher certification agency, certifying over 275,000 products produced in nearly 6,000 plants located in 68 countries around the world (now it’s up to 8000 plants in 104 countries).  This vast array includes consumer items, industrial ingredients, and food services. Like the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval, the logo, one of the world’s best-known trademarks, instills confidence in the purchaser that the product has passed inspection and meets high quality standards.”[6]  

They have continued to make such claims ever since, including a 2008 OU Kosher article article  in which Jeremy Fingerman, the CEO of of the R.A.B. Food Group (which owns Manischewitz and several other leading kosher brands), claims “Our research says that kosher certification is perceived like the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval.” Was he sincere in this statement, praising OU Kosher repute, or was this interview more or less arranged as a continuation of a four-year marketing ploy to hang their eminence on the coat tails of Good Housekeeping?

 

In Essays in Economic and Business History (2003) we find a great deal presented on the Good Housekeeping Seal: “The full extent of consumer awareness of the Seal in its mature years can be seen in the findings of Parkinson’s 1975 study. Working with a sample in Delaware, he found that the Good Housekeeping Seal had a consumer recognition rate of 98 percent, higher than any other seal or certification mark, including “U.S.D.A. Choice” and “Underwriters’ Laboratory.”[9] It adds regarding younger consumers: “Another study from the same time period (1980) found 60.4 percent of high school graduates and 48.2 percent of college graduates reported looking for seals before buying a product.” A 1997 reference from this history indicates that “a recent study showed 92 percent of [American Women] were familiar with the Good Housekeeping seal of Approval.”

These are certainly percentages that a worldwide kosher agency like New York City-based OU Kosher would strive for, especially after being in the food certification business since 1923.[10] And so it is understandable that they attempt to make this claim for similarity of brand recognition, as it probably helps this religious, tax-exempt, financial-disclosure-exempt non-profit grow its supremacy[11] over the secular marketplace. But the team behind Koschertfied found quite a different story after several surveys and a research study on the industry. In fact, in a survey[12] screening in particular for big-box retail members of Costco, we found that only 10% of these savvy consumers recognized the OU Kosher Seal (shown below). And this comes from a store where it is challenging to find any food products free from kosher certification.

Another survey of ours gauged the general familiarity of various symbols found on package labels, and here we discovered only 14% recognizing the OU kosher seal, while 88% recognized the recyclable symbol, 69% recognized the Gluten-Free seal (only in existence since 2005), and 73% recognized the Registered Trademark symbol properly.

Keep in mind that this Gluten-Free certification seal is always accompanied by descriptive text “Gluten-Free Certified”, although we didn’t include that in our survey. But it should provoke the reader to ask why “Kosher Certified” or “Kosher” text does not accompany the OU symbol in most cases[13].

And so the largest kosher agency in the world, in existence for 97 years now, has been for decades building its reputation and selling its religious intervention services by comparing its trademarked symbol with the iconic Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval, while realistically only getting 10-14% recognition at best from the general consumer. 

There’s only 14 years separating the age of the two certification seals, but the differences are astounding, and they should alert the reader to ulterior motives on the side of the kosher agency. We summed it up in our Quantitative Study On Kosher Certification, and it’s all about transparency: No text descriptors; small seal areas averaging just 10% the size of other same package seals; segregation of seals from others on label; mono-colored as the norm, sometimes even camouflaged. In fact, we couldn’t help but conclude from that study that there was a systemic deceptive trade practice in play — highly secretive within the food and kitchen product industry, and purposely driven to keep consumers from becoming aware of the ubiquitous nature of kosher certification. In fact, in the process of researching for this article we discovered that even the Gluten-Free Certification is performed by Jewish OU inspectors through GFCO. But while the non-religious Gluten-Free non-profit[14] is a separate 501(c)3, they apparently care to have their trademarked symbol be easily noticed, no matter what package it falls on.

There are few products found in the supermarket that bare both seals, OU Kosher and Good Housekeeping. But allow us to use the most popular dishwashing detergent on the market as our prime example: Cascade.

The kosher seal here measures just 3.33mm² in area while the Good Housekeeping comes in at 317.94 mm² – for an area ratio of 95.5 times as large in favor of Good Housekeeping! The kosher seal is the same size as the registered trademark symbol found below and to the right of the “e” in “Cascade”, and many consumers likely confuse the kosher seal for that, and it literally is so small that many adults might require a magnifying glass to identify it.

Every word and number on the Good Housekeeping seal is legible, and the distinctive oval shape is large enough to be easily noticed, drawing the consumer to appreciating the quality and dependability that the seal represents. While the kosher seal is located on the front label, the Good Housekeeping seal (found on the side) still appears more like a true marketing feature for this product. The two seals are dissimilar in shape, size and legibility. And despite all the stipulations that probably are written into the contract arranging the kosher seal display, the low transparency must not bother either party. Indeed, the Cascade Team replied to our inquiry on the small size of their kosher seal by stating “The way it’s currently displayed is in-line with the guidance for use of the symbol.” When challenging them for specific details in the cost for this religious certification, they responded “[W]e pay a standard annual fee for each of our manufacturing plants”. Well, that explains it all!

The Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval is an honest marketing symbol recognized by a majority of consumers, even 111 years after its inception. It is in a category completely separate from the equally aged OU Kosher seal. And to see a large company like Procter & Gamble display the diminutive kosher seal as if hoping that nobody would notice it, it should give cause to infer suspicious motives underlying the entire kosher certification affair. In fact, Cascade’s OU kosher seal is one of the smallest we have found in four years of research, while their Good Housekeeping seal is the largest certification we’ve come across.

In conclusion, we find a religious organization, the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations, successfully parlaying its Kashrus dietary laws on an unsuspecting consumer populace in the secular marketplace – and reaping millions of dollars of disclosure-free revenue in the process. About one tenth of the public may recognize their symbol on products, but that does not automatically convey that all of them seek to purchase items because of its kosher representation. The Cascade example and their vague response to our inquiries suggests that they do not want consumers to discover their religious intervention complicity, and maybe they are even embarrassed for kosherizing an inedible product, especially as there is much pilpul[15] required in justifying this[16]. This is obviously much different as to how they proudly display the Good Housekeeping seal. And so is there a realistic comparison? Our opinion: Not a chance!

---

[1] “Bickel’s Potato Chips Will Get New Kosher Stamp of Approval”, Intelligencer Journal, p.39, 4/30/86, by Michael J. Olimpi

[2] “Kosher Foods are Gaining a Much Broader Audience”, The Sheboygan Press, p.9, 1/17/89, by Joan Nathan

[3] “Kosher seen as healthier choice”, The Californian, p.25, 4/27/2001 by Jeri Westerson,

[4] “Medications start getting kosher certification”, The Ithaca Journal, p.8,  2/23/2005 by Elizabeth LeSure

[5] https://oukosher.org/blog/industrial-kosher/ou-kosher-bringing-boom-for-business-consistent-quality-to-consumers/

[6] https://oukosher.org/blog/corporate/ou-facts/

[7] https://oukosher.org/blog/consumer-news/survey-finds-ou-the-clear-leader-in-kosher-certification/

[8] https://oukosher.org/kosher-overview/why-go-kosher/

[9] “The Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval From Innovative Consumer Protection to Popular Badge of Quality”, Essays in Economic and Business History (2003) by Lauren Strach and Malcolm Russell of Andrews University, file:///C:/Users/User/Downloads/118-Article%20Text-237-1-10-20200329.pdf

[10] Heinz Vegetarian Beans were first mass kosher certified in 1923

[11] “Consider the following scenario. A large pastry manufacturer, using hundreds of ingredients, applies for kosher certification. Ten of its regular suppliers lack adequate kosher supervision. The pastry company informs them that they either go kosher or it can no longer use their services. Each time another manufacturer attains kosher status, this domino effect accelerates and the kosher food market rapidly expands further.”

“Once, the OU had to inform an ice cream manufacturer that due to a lack of cooperation, supervision would be discontinued. The OU distributed notices to that effect. The owner of the company wasted no time phoning the OU’s main office (in an obvious state of panic). “Rabbi, I just purchased this company for $30 million,” he said. “Without the OU, it won’t be worth two cents. Almost all our business is private label supermarket brands, and if we lose your symbol, we will lose most of these accounts.”

https://oukosher.org/blog/industrial-kosher/ou-kosher-bringing-boom-for-business-consistent-quality-to-consumers/

[12] http://www.thekosherquestion.com/#!our-blog/symbol-recognition:-our-commissioned-survey-results

[13] It often does in products produced strictly for the Kosher marketplace

[14] Gluten Intolerance Group of North America featuring “Certified Gluten-Free” seal

[15] Hebrew for Talmudic rationalizing

[16] https://oukosher.org/blog/kosher-professionals/the-kashrus-of-soaps/

Editor’s note: This is a 2-part article. The link to the second part is at the bottom of this one.

Understandably, at this point in time after the 2020 elections, many observers are laser focused on the struggle for the Presidency between the incumbent and the cadaver. Accounts of voter fraud are mildly interesting, but observers are, in my view, missing the larger and far more important story: The race war against Whites has reached a new level, yet many people who shouldn’t be are distracted by the details of day-to-day politics, much to our collective peril. Today I will try to remedy this by using a method falling between essay writing and a video: I will use a photo essay to represent what is being done to the White race in real time. This will be ugly.

In essence, I will use my academic background to show why images are important in a struggle for existence and power, and how those images are used by a certain group to weaken the White race.
Over a decade ago, I began on this site an examination of the changing representations of who we Americans are. As part of that, I introduced academic texts that — to be honest — accurately showed “the deep-rooted stereotypes which have fueled anti-black prejudice” and buttressed White dominance, which is not really surprising given that Whites comprised roughly 90% of America’s population (and all of the elite) for the entirety of European settlement in the lands that were to become The United States. Breathlessly, we read in grad school books such as Ceramic Uncles & Celluloid Mammies: Black Images and Their Influence on Culture and White on Black: Images of Africa and Blacks in Western Popular Culture that dutifully convicted the American majority of racism. In short, all such accounts concluded: “White Man Bad.”

Not surprisingly, during this period of shift from written to visual culture, professors poured out non-written texts such as oral histories and film, giving us budding academics more ways to cement that overweening verdict: “White Man Bad.” Thus, in more than one graduate class, we were treated to multiple showings of documentaries such as Ethnic Notions, which promised:
Through these images we can begin to understand the evolution of racial consciousness in America. Loyal Toms, carefree Sambos, faithful Mammies, grinning Coons, savage Brutes, and wide-eyed Pickaninnies roll across the screen in cartoons, feature films, popular songs, minstrel shows, advertisements, folklore, household artifacts, even children’s rhymes. These dehumanizing caricatures permeated popular culture from the 1820s to the Civil Rights period and implanted themselves deep in the American psyche.

This focus on African Americans soon gave way to a growing range of “lament” groups who clamored to give their own version of “White Man Bad,” resulting in, for instance, studies of Asian Americans. In 1988, for example came Slaying the Dragon, which offered a “comprehensive look at Hollywood’s treatment of Asian and Asian American women since the silent era.” Or consider Picturing Oriental Girls: A [Re]Educational Videotape, an excursion through film, television and more providing a “text from ‘mail-order bride’ catalogs and men’s magazines, clips from over 25 films and television programs [that] explicate the orientalism and exoticism prevalent in mass media images of Asian American women.” Here the White Man is Bad for creating the sexual objectification of Asian women in Hollywood films and film’s successor, television. Of course, we savvy TOO comrades know, the location of film production in America should be written as (((Hollywood))), a point to which we shall steadfastly turn below.

Very quickly during those propaganda sessions, I tried a two-pronged approach upon experiencing this onslaught against a Nice White Guy like myself. First, I appropriated those analytical tools to show how the tide had been turning against Whites in visual realms since at least the 1970s, and second, I pointed out that those creating this growing stable of less-than-positive portrayals of White men were not exactly White themselves. Rather, they came from that “Culture of Critique” crowd that had been assaulting White civilization for centuries.

Swiftly, however, I was informed that these new academic tools were not to be used by White men, for we had already an abundant basket of privileges that would never expire. Further, I was informed in ways ranging from implicit to explicit that no longer would straight White men like me work again in the academy, the prophetic results of which you can see in almost any American university today.
Mine was a mighty battle just to slink out of grad school with an actual Ph.D. in hand, and sadly, I watched this Cultural Marxism seep out like an unappetizing poison throughout the wider culture, year after year … after year. Off in some forgotten corner of the globe, I was able to craft university lessons about this ominous development and have shared the fruits of my efforts here on TOO and in TOQ, so I have continuously been attuned to how imagery has been used in the Great Racial Battle Against Whites. Reader, the situation is extremely dire, as I will unenthusiastically show below.

It is not surprising that my approach has well matched the overall intent and direction of our editor Kevin MacDonald’s vision, for I was taking the written evidence from The Culture of Critique and extending it to film and other popular culture. The package may differ, but the weaponized content is the same. By the way, the term “critique” is far too polite; in actual fact it is unbridled warfare.
MacDonald has been tireless in addressing this topic on TOO, also encouraging many of us contributors to share our own expertise on the subject, much of which can be found on the site under Jews as a Hostile Elite, one of the most numerous categories available on TOO. MacDonald has consistently argued that Jewish activism has been in opposition to White civilization, with the awful year of 2020 and its events right up to the currently contested election. This development, MacDonald tells us, is about “removing the traditional culture of America, and … removing Whites from the center of the American story. It is about replacement — first the monuments and the culture, then the people.”
In perhaps more boisterous form than Prof. MacDonald’s dispassionate writing, I’ve contributed countless TOO articles with this theme, practically from the beginning. For instance, as far back as mid-2008, I wrote, “Hollywood, it seems, has not favored us [Whites] over the last half century or so. Either they supplant favorable White images with favorable images of African Americans and more recent Americans such as Jews. Or they create images of Whites that are far more negative than typical of the first half of Hollywood’s existence. Why the change?”

Of course the vast majority of TOO readers understand the reasons for this change, but here my point is that I’ve consistently been warning our Tribe that we face a clear and present danger, literally one over our very existence. Though toning it down a bit, I concluded, “Speaking only for myself, I fear that such fictional images of the dispossession of white males signal a real desire on the part of some segments of society to dispossess White males in real life. What then will future films look like when in fact the majority has been eclipsed?”

Ominously, we are now seeing far more of that dismal future.

Since 2008, I’ve continued my emphasis on leading visual trends in America more generally regarding the proper race of “Americans.” In short, it’s been very bad for White males. Should we graph the number of affirmative portrayals of White men, the graph would point ever downward, while negative portrayals would steadily trend upward.

Take, for example, the direction ads have gone. In the first decade of this century, Microsoft, which didn’t need to advertise to make more money, began a series of ads in The Atlantic and elsewhere that airbrushed White males out of the picture entirely. The caption below reads “We see a rocket scientist,” and in the center of the two-page spread is a black youth as the future rocket scientist. Around him are an Asian boy, a presumably Hispanic boy, a mulatto girl, and two White girls. Real White male rocket scientists and astronauts need not apply.

Microsoft ad: “We see a rocket scientist” (I don’t)

I

Microsoft was not the only large tech company featuring ads sans White males. In The Atlantic again we see Lockheed Martin spurning the overwhelming majority of its past and present engineers with this absurd dream for its future:

Lockheed Martin ad featuring non-White female aerospace designers

In what alternate universe would this financially benefit Lockheed Martin or provide technically superior products? None, I tell you. This is being done for completely other reasons, which I intend to explore more fully in this essay.

Similar impact no doubt comes from a constant theme Hollywood has been pushing for decades now: that of “The Numinous Negro,” initially enlisting Morgan Freeman and Denzel Washington as such negroes. The word “numinous” is a Roman term for “the presiding divinity . . . of a place.” It also means “spiritually elevated.” Accordingly, “the Numinous Negro presides over America …” If there’s any consistent theme I’ve emphasized in my Hollywood writing, it is this, and readers can find explicit unpacking of the many films of both Freeman and Washington, here and here, respectively. (For later parsing of Washington films, see here and here I & II.)

What Hollywood accomplishes by blatantly using these two Black actors is a race reversal through visual sleight of hand. In short, the characters played by Freeman and Washington are full of agency and morality (most of the time), while the White males are either evil or mentored by the older Blacks. The meme: Blacks in America are naturally more powerful and moral, quite in contrast to reality. (For a fully academic treatment of these topics, see my TOQ article “Understanding Hollywood: Racial Role Reversals.”)

Why this propagandistic trend? Essentially, the facts show, it has to do with the “Culture of Critique” ethnic group that has amassed unrivaled power in the modern West. One arm of that power, of course, is Hollywood, which writer Neal Gabler correctly described as Jews’ “Empire of Their Own.” With respect to blacks and Hollywood, Kevin MacDonald demonstrated in his 2007 collection Cultural Insurrections: Essays on Western Civilization, Jewish Influence, and Anti-Semitism, that for Jews, “making alliances with other minority groups has been a critically important part” of their effort to unseat Majority Whites as primary power holders in America. (See in particular Chapter 6, “Jews, Blacks, and Race.”)

Blacks, in reality, have been used as foot soldiers in a war on Whites. Again, the TOO audiences knows this, but much to my amazement and concern, as the George Floyd and other riots (“mostly peaceful,” of course) raged across America in the spring and summer of 2020, some Dissident Right sites inexplicably described these developments as a result of Black agency when there was overwhelming evidence that these were top-down events promoted and enabled by our hostile elite standing aside as arrests weren’t made, or if they were, the arrestees were immediately released without bail.

Returning to the contention that media is creating a picture of America that in no way reflects reality, I again offer a 2009 skit from The Daily Show With John Stewart [Leibowitz], coming right after Obama assumed office. Called White in America—the Children, it flaunted the dismal truth that Whites’ days as majority Americans were numbered. Stewart opened the skit by announcing that “President Obama was elected on a message of change. But is that change good for everyone?” Light-skinned Black Larry Wilmore adopted the role of reporter, introducing one set of Americans at risk: “There is one group of Americans who are now facing the biggest challenge in their history: White people.”

This “once proud race” faces dispossession at the hands of Blacks, Asians “and most rapidly, Latinos” (the transition being represented in the skit by White minivans being replaced by Black cars, Asian motorcycles and low-rider Mexican American cars). In a faux-serious interview, Wilmore faces a group of eight White children and tries to make them understand that their future is bleak. The children — brainwashed already by a steady diet of multiculturalism — are not only in denial about their prospects, they positively welcome the coming change. Talk about rubbing our noses in deliberate extirpation.
Again, some Whites do see and acknowledge this war on Whites. For example, American Renaissance ran a good article about a woman who experienced this through raising her son. In Motherhood Changed the Way I See Race she wrote:

Over the past 20 years I have raised the most reviled creature on the planet — a healthy white male, my son.
It was only after he was born that I began to fully notice the relentless propaganda of the mainstream media, and how it promotes miscegenation and presents men like my son as bumbling weak fools. I saw how our people’s history is appropriated and manipulated in arts and entertainment, and how our nation’s heroes are twisted and discredited — their monuments torn down and replaced. I’ve shopped for children’s books and been unable to find one with a protagonist who was a positive example of a white male. I’ve filled out countless college and scholarship applications only to find that opportunities for white males are reduced or blocked entirely — regardless of his good grades and impressive test scores. Each one of these things, combined with my experiences at work, pushed me toward the truth about which race is truly disenfranchised and oppressed in our country. It was a realization that fully awoke the protective mothering instincts inside me.

And with that, the ground is set for a visual exploration of what America has come to digitally like during the reign of Donald Trump since 2017.

“Condition Red: Your Visual Displacement is Complete”

Three years ago, one of the best commenters on TOO articles, Franklin Ryckaert, provided a heart-stopping account of what was visually being done to the White race. Introduced by former TOO contributor Lasha Darkmoon, it came with the blunt title of “White Genocide by Design: The Role of the Mass Media in the Destruction of the European People” and featured this incredibly unsettling picture:

IS THIS THE FUTURE?

Darkmoon begin her introduction with a quote from the essay:

Miscegenation cannot be commanded, but it can be promoted. Depriving Whites of the possibility to be among themselves in terms of residence, study, work and recreation is one thing. Suggesting miscegenation in films, TV series and commercials is another thing. There is nowadays hardly any form of media that is not full of this race-mixing propaganda, mostly in subliminal form, and it is the Jews who control the media.

There, in the second half of the above quote (emphasis added), can be found a large portion of the message in the present photo essay. None of it can be denied.

Reasons for Reluctance
In contrast to my productivity with TOO articles in years past, I sat on this photo essay for nearly a year, weighed down by two things. First, other worthy writers have aptly addressed this obvious trend — and being so obvious, it seemed unnecessary to repeat. Second, this is an unusually depressing reality with which we are facing, and Lord knows we on the Dissident Right have been producing copious amounts of depressing written and spoken words for decades, further demoralizing ourselves and giving succor to our racial enemies. Because I’m as guilty of that as any other writer, I was reluctant to continue in the same vein. In the end, however, I felt the mendacious narrative must be shown.

Thus far, I’ve assumed TOO readers have been in agreement with me about the larger interpretation of Jewish power, but I’m not sure how widespread is the conclusion that an important change in Jewish-Gentile relations came about after WWII. On the whole, I concur with Ryckaert’s assertions here:
Because it was mostly European countries that expelled them, the Jews came to consider Europeans as their greatest enemies.

After WWII and the intense Holocaust propaganda it brought in its wake … the organized Jewish community became convinced that Europeans were a threat to them as a race and that they should therefore be neutralized as a race; in other words, that GENOCIDE of the European people, now better known as “White genocide”, would be the “final solution” to the European problem.

But how could a small ethnic group of only 15 million people like the Jews exterminate ONE BILLION people of European descent spread out all over the world ? The Jews came to the conclusion that it would be possible to neutralize Europeans racially, not by physically exterminating them, but by causing them to mix with other races, thus losing their racial characteristics for good….

The real purpose of these productions is not to sell goods or to entertain, but to promote the inglorious end of the white race through miscegenation, dispossession and race war.

Two More Images from Ryckaert’s Essay:

In addition to Ryckaert’s essay, there are many other sources addressing this trend. Years ago, I remember a flurry of articles about how the advertising industry worked so hard to picture mixed couples — and the articles went on to show that advertising in North America and Europe was overwhelmingly a Jewish preserve. That knowledge is so common that I won’t even bother to cite it here.

More recently, we still find accounts of how miscegenation is portrayed in advertising. Take this truly despicable image for example:

How old is this girl? Fifteen? She can’t be his daughter. One is left to think that he is preying on her shamelessly. One can only imagine what kind of father she has (if any).

Another example comes with Thomas Goodrich, writing on the National Vanguard site, who correctly puts this image into context, explaining that “Jewish enablers have been pushing White genocide via replacement with hordes of darks flooding the Euro nations of earth. Now, while this program has been in place since the end of WWII, Jews are currently ramping up their attacks against Whites in advertising. Just as with population replacement, the end game of Jewish advertising is also nothing less than our extermination.”

The same photo is also used by a liberal source, “Inside the Biracial Advertising Boom” to celebrate the direction White nations are taking. While the writer is too stupid to understand the long-term implications of this practice, we White Nationalists can still learn what these advertising images are really peddling.

For a more in-depth treatment of this unwelcome trend, see Richard Houck’s 4,000-word article, “The War Against Whites in Advertising.” He begins by writing:

The mass-marketing of interracial relationships, particularly white women with black men, has become so ubiquitous and so militant, even the least observant members of our culture have begun to notice. Walking through a mall recently I noticed three large marketing images of couples in three different stores. Two of the three were interracial couples, depicting a white woman and black man; the third couple was white. Perhaps what struck me as most peculiar was the fact that the city where I was shopping, whites make up about 97% of the population, blacks are less than 2%.

Methodically, Houck lays out the case against White women breeding with Blacks.

Currently, 70% of black children are born out of wedlock, however when the mother is white and the father black, the rate jumps to 97%. 98% of white mothers studied reported the father does not support their children financially, 97% report the father is not in the child’s life, and 97% of the women have used welfare to help support themselves and their children. Only 10% of women that have children with black men out of wedlock end up marrying. … White women are displayed with non-white men not to sell items, but as a tactic of psychological warfare against our civilization.

And Houck shows that he sees the Jews behind this genocidal campaign and what their aim is. Here, contemplate this “ad,” then realize it was created out of pure hate for Whites:

(Since only about nine people under the age of forty are ever going to read more than a few paragraphs of anything, direct them to this more visual video format of Houck’s work. This will surely shake things up around the clan dinner table at Thanksgiving and Christmas.)

This expose was so good that readers of the article offered further examples and clamored for more documentation of the literal war on the White race. You can find the results in Houck’s follow-up article (with video) here. This “War on Whites in Advertising: A Follow-Up” is also extremely well done, though highly disturbing — and infuriating, opening as it does with this vile image from an advertising video:

This turned out to be one of the rare cases where a completed ad was rejected for public consumption, but the point is, someone thought it important enough to do. In his research into the ad, Houck found that the ad “depicts a white, blonde woman on her knees in front of a black man, and we hear her thinking, ‘I could really go for a Sprite right now’ as she performs oral sex on him, and at the end she has Sprite foam sprayed all over her face while she thinks, ‘I love Sprite!’”

Not at all to my surprise, I found a Usual Suspect behind this ad. As Houck writes, this ad “goes much deeper into the woods. The Huffington Post article that discussed the ad mentioned that the name of the producer and director was Max Isaacson . . . Isaacson? Interesting last name.”

Even though no network picked up this race-mixing video, it still had a considerable impact, as Houck shows. “This particular spec ad hit over a million views within days after first being published online, and has since been viewed millions more times as it has been re-uploaded and shared on social media and Websites.”

From Race Mixing to Race Nixing
Images of racial mixing are one thing, but my true emphasis here is on the next stage: full-on replacement of White males (and I need only point out briefly that once actual White males have been eliminated in the real world, White women will surely follow them into oblivion in a generation).

White males, as noted, are symbolically eliminated when statues of White men are removed or destroyed, as they have been since the 2017 protests over such statues in Charlottesville, Virginia. Long before that, however, we had to deal with universities routinely downgrading creations of White males and replacing them with the concoctions of women and non-Whites, you know, “The Eternally Oppressed,” resulting in removal of “Dead White Males” from university canons. Even before that, we had the tremendous power of the American government itself hobbling millions of White males in their honest quest to compete fairly for careers and employment, despite the fact they had personally committed no crimes or infractions themselves other than being White. Out with the old, in with the new, I guess is the general shallow thinking.

I’ve grown up with this over the decades, and, as mentioned, have studied the trends in depth. Still, beginning late last year (2019), I was stunned at the audacity of our advertising image creators to take the blatant step of doing away with White males altogether. Poof! Gone. And this was well before the anti-White riots ramped up in late May upon the death of George Floyd, immediately anointed a SAINT by the liberal media.

There is no way — ever — that I am going to believe that this was a coincidence. No, it was far too meticulously coordinated to be that. For advertisements without White males to be scripted and created takes time, meaning this was done in early 2019 at the latest. Then came the spring and summer riots enabled by You-Know-Who.

Part of this coordinated visual assault was superbly chronicled right here on TOO this summer, with Jack Antonio’s article “Fade to Black,” the subtitle of which reads, “The darkening of our screens and stages and its part in the theft of our past and future.” Written by a White male with a front-row seat to the systemic displacement of White males, it is an absolute must-read for the TOO audience, our relatives, friends and neighbors. While mostly writing about the British stage, this actor could just as easily be describing the scene in America.

Not Wakanda but Merrie Olde England

 

Based on his long experience, Antonio can confidently write that “I know the world of advertising and show business. And I know how, why, and (((by whom))) our screens are being darkened, I am being denied work, and our past and future are being stolen from us” [lovely parentheses added].
Antonio ends his article on the replacement of White males with this: “If you don’t believe me, just go to a movie or play. Turn on your radio or TV. Or, just open your eyes. It’s happening. It isn’t a sitcom or movie. It’s real. It’s deliberate.” But of course it is.

Trust Your Eyes
Now that I’ve set the stage, so to speak, I’ll commence with images from ads over the last year. I didn’t have to look for them; instead, they all came up on my screen through the normal use of my computer. You know, check your bank balance, your car insurance premiums, your healthcare provider — across the board the following are pictures I’ve seen every single time I fire up the computer, tablet or iPhone. An e-mail message arrives from the airline I use, and the pampered passenger is a black man. Or all the promotions offered this week from my supermarket feature non-Whites and women. It is pervasive. Go check ads from any big corporation. Like clockwork, all their ads show blacks, women, browns — but no White men. You know this is true because you’ve experienced this month after month — after month. Admit it.

Like Mr. Antonio, I know what is happening, why and how. This could come straight from the pages of Jacques Ellul’s classic “Propaganda: The Formation of Men’s Attitudes.” One of Ellul’s greatest insights concerns the need for repetition of the propaganda message. At first, it takes great effort to sway men from their set thinking, but, in Ellul’s words,

once the individual has been filled with and reshaped by propaganda, the smallest dose now suffices. It is enough to ‘refresh,’ to give a ‘booster shot,’ to repaint, and the individual behaves in striking fashion — like certain drunks who become intoxicated on one glass of wine. The individual no longer offers any resistance to propaganda; moreover, he has ceased to believe in it consciously. He no longer attaches importance to what it says, to its proclaimed objectives, but he acts according to the proper stimuli. The individual is arrested and crystallized with regard to his thinking.

Perhaps, on second thought, this quote is not exactly what I wanted, for I am no longer talking about “booster shots”; instead I am talking about non-stop salvos from hundreds of siege guns. The fact remains, however, men’s — and importantly now, women’s — minds have been formed by this media onslaught. And with that, I offer an endless display of the world an American now sees on the computer or other screen.

Let’s start with the most common character I’ve seen for twelve months running: The media-created “Peppy Mulatto.” Here she is:

Or here:

Or here, a bit older:

She’s everywhere, really. Younger versions frolicking on a suburban lawn, late teens at an Ivy League university, any of the above women greeting you from Exxon-Mobil. The bigger point is, however, Blacks of all hues have replaced Whites, unless we’re dealing with a mixed-race situation. Let’s say you want to log on to Yahoo Mail. Here’s what Yahoo forces you to see these Africans:

Next, let’s say you have a health plan at, for example, Kaiser Permanente. What are you bombarded with? This:

And who receives and provides the healthcare? People like this:

Don’t like Kaiser? Then try, say, Banner Health:

Or another health-related website:

You know it’s true. Whatever healthcare provider you use, whatever hospital lobby you walk into, all the screens and posters will show blacks, browns, and women even if you live in the Whitest Whitopia in America. Let’s move on.

Tax time? Go to H&R Block:

Shopping online? This:

Or these two examples:

(Asians pop up from time to time, too)

Continuing, we all have credit cards — Visa, MasterCard, whatever. Should you use an American Express card, you will be a visual slave to this:

Editor’s note: The rest of Edmund Connelly’s very ambitious and thorough article may be accessed here. A pdf of the entire article is here.