The War Against Whites in Advertising
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%. I wondered if the purpose of “diverse” advertising was to sell more products, or really to indoctrinate, to condition, and signal how “progressive” they are.
Based on small glimpses of culture, one might assume half or more of all relationships involve some sort of race-mixing. If a person who had no information about the US or Europe were to see our television, magazine, billboard, and storefront advertisements, he might assume there were virtually zero normal white men anywhere to be found. The combination of white women with black men is hands down, the most common mixed-race couple depicted in advertising; that combination will be the focus of this essay.
I thought about the probability that two of the three advertisement couples I saw in the mall that afternoon were there by mere coincidence. Between men and women, white, black, Hispanic, Asian, and “other,” there are 25 possible combinations of couples. Twenty of which are interracial. Here are the possible interracial combinations.
Mixed-Race Couple Combinations
White women: black man, Asian man, Hispanic man, other man.
White men: black woman, Asian woman, Hispanic woman, other woman.
Black man: Asian woman, Hispanic woman, other woman.
Black woman: Asian man, Hispanic man, other man.
Asian man: Hispanic woman, other woman.
Asian woman: Hispanic man, other man.
Hispanic man: other woman.
Hispanic woman: other man.
If the “diversity” in advertising was truly about appealing to the greatest number of customers or potential customers, showing white women with black men at such a high level, seems to be a very odd strategy. To focus so much on one combination, while ignoring so many others – there simply must be some other goal beyond selling merchandise.
There is a notable and interesting body of research on interracial relationships and marriages, it is not exhaustive by any means, but we can synthesize the available data to form an accurate view of such relationships. Pew Research 2012 conducted a large study of interracial marriage that provides a considerable amount of data. Since 1980, the total percent of interracial marriages has risen from 3.2% to 8.4%. Of new marriages, the rate rose from 6.7% to 15.1%. In 2010 the most common intermarriage was white/Hispanic, at 43.3%, other mixed at 30.4%, white/Asian at 14.4% and white/black, the least common, at 11.9%. Not all interracial relationships, of course, are marriages, but we can use the marriage data to reasonably extrapolate the information to the wider society and relationships.
As of 2010, whites, on average, were the least likely to marry outside of their race, less than 10% of whites intermarry, while Hispanics, blacks, and Asians are all two to three times more likely to intermarry.
In terms of combined median incomes of interracial marriages, black husbands with white wives earned the lowest amount of any other combination. The black husband and white wife combination were also the least educated. Of the interracial combinations, marriages between whites and blacks were found to be the least stable, and the most likely to result in divorce. The divorce rate is higher in all interracial marriages for white women relative to a white marriage.
A study of over two million online dating interactions revealed distinct racial preferences between groups. White women responded most frequently to white men, and least frequently to black men. In light of this data it is all the more bizarre that the combination of a white woman with a black man is seen so frequently in advertising.
A 2015 study examined the outcomes of women that have children with black men, the results were staggering. 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. The vast majority of white women that have children with black men live far below the poverty line.
A 2013 study of intimate partner violence in relationships, surveyed nearly ten-thousand people, the authors hypothesized that interracial couples would experience higher levels of violence compared to intra-racial relationships. They found that compared to white relationships, both black couples and interracial couples experience statistically significant higher levels of relationship violence. Intimate partner violence is classified as threats, physical, or emotional violence between two people in a committed relationship. The National Center for Injury Prevention and Control estimates that relationship violence costs around $4.1 billion a year in medical and mental health care costs.
Among whites in 1958, only 4% approved interracial marriages between whites and blacks; in 2007, 75% of whites reported they approve of such unions. Historically and contemporarily, blacks and Hispanics have always held a higher approval rating of interracial marriages.
From a 2011 Pew Research study, 40% of whites, 51% of blacks, and 48% of Hispanics report that more people of different races marrying is a change for the better in society. 12% of whites, 8% of blacks, and 9% of Hispanics say it is for the worse, and the remaining of those surveyed said there is no difference. The younger the cohort, the more likely they were to say the increase of interracial marriage is for the better, liberals were more likely than conservatives to say interracial marriages is for the better, and college graduates were also more likely to support the notion.
As a side note, my personal opinion from a considerable amount of spent time in academia is that “more educated” members of our society are not more “open-minded” than “less educated” members. It is my contention that on average, the longer one spends in academia, the more apt one is to be indoctrinated by critical theory. There is likely also a self-selection bias at work as well. Those who are more likely to buy into the narrative of critical theory, are more likely to thrive in an environment that echoes their sentiments.
Pew Research 2010 found that 69% of people surveyed said that single women having children is a bad thing, 43% say unmarried couples raising children is a bad thing, yet only 14% say interracial marriage is a bad thing. There is something oddly ironic about being in favor of interracial relationships, while at the same time abhorring the logical outcomes of those relationships.
Both Pew Research and Gallup’s latest findings report the majority of US citizens approve of interracial marriage and relationships. Although these are generally self-reporting surveys and anonymous, a study of brain scans suggests that there is a social desirability bias coming into play. Social desirability bias is the tendency of survey and study participants to reply to socially contentious questions in a way that is socially and publicly acceptable, even when the surveys are anonymous.
A 2017 study in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology looked at insula activity in the brain when participants viewed images of interracial couples compared to same-race couples. Insula activation is responsible for a variety of emotions. Evidence shows that insula activity is present when a person experiences disgust and is thought to be a reliable marker of both disgust and aversion. The study found statistical significance between insula activation of participants looking at same-race couples compared to interracial couples. Despite a minority of participants explicitly stating they disagree with interracial dating and marriage, the electroencephalogram (EEG), told a different story.
This study also used an implicit association task (IAT) to measure response times of participants in categorizing interracial couples and same-race couples with either a silhouette of a human or a silhouette of an animal. Participants were placed in two conditions, one primed with disgusting images, the other with positive images. Researchers found that all participants showed an implicit bias towards matching interracial couples with animals, and the condition primed to be disgusted was even faster, showing a greater implicit bias against interracial couples. There was both a neural reaction of disgust and an implicit reaction of disgust, to interracial couples. The authors write in the abstract of this paper that “These findings are particularly concerning, given evidence of antisocial reactions (e.g., aggression, perpetration of violence) to dehumanized targets.”
We now know that whites are the least likely to marry outside of their race. We know that when white women marry outside of their race they are more likely to be abused, to become a single-mothers, live in poverty, and that whites dating outside of their race exposes us to a higher chance of contracting a sexually transmitted disease. We know that despite the feigned acceptance, white people show a legitimate disgust response to interracial relationships. We also know that despite the barrage of “diversity” in films, television, and in advertisements, same-race couples are still the most common, by far. So, what’s the purpose of the blatant propaganda?
David Vinjamuri for Forbes writes; “What’s the advantage of a wider variety of gender, ethnicity and sexual presence represented in media and advertising? Simply put, we are more likely to identify with someone that looks like us.”
Michelle Castillo for CNBC suggests that Americans want even more “diversity” in ads, where she cites a survey of 2,000 people, where 66% report diversity in advertising is a factor to consider when purchasing a product.
These are excuses, at best. We still have not answered why we see the very particular arrangement of white women with black men, time and time again. I do not believe for a second that interracial advertising under the guise of “diversity” is about selling clothes or laundry detergent or cereal. It is propaganda through and through. The purpose of which is to present a distorted worldview, to humiliate, to mock, and to make complacent. White men are the last vanguard against this occupation of a hostile elite. White women are displayed with non-white men not to sell items, but as a tactic of psychological warfare against our civilization. Very rarely anymore are white men portrayed in a favorable light, they are often the overweight, goofy, clumsy, half-wit that relies on women and non-whites to save the day. From films to television to advertisements, this is an increasingly common anti-white canard.
The increasing acceptance of interracial relationships over the last 70 years has not been a function of anything other than increased propaganda efforts. The outcomes are socially and individually undesirable, little if any good comes from promoting white women to date and marry outside of their race. What we are seeing is a systemic attack on white identity, we are seeing but one of many aspects of the war on whites becoming a creeping normality in the West.
The psychological effects of advertising have been well-documented. Advertising has the ability to make people chose an inferior product simply by manipulating the affective conditioning. Studies suggest the average American is exposed to as many as 5,000 advertisements in a day. The American Psychological Association has concluded there is a link between unhealthy food advertisements to childhood obesity, and a link between tobacco and alcohol advertisements to underage smoking and drinking. The APA found these effects to be so strong they have called for strict regulations on advertisements that are marketed to children.
The power of advertising is so strong, it has the ability to override central-route processing and rationality, to sow subconscious discord, persuade us to make irresponsible decisions. Further, advertising has the power to condition us to be more accepting and to usher in social change. The prevalence of mixed-race couples and an increase of LGBT representation in advertisements has in no small way changed social perception. Although visceral reactions of disgust remain, outward social attitudes have become accepting of all forms of degeneracy and social decay.
White people are not the only ones seeing constant images of white women with black men plastered across the Occident. These images have an effect on black men as well. They are being told by the film industry, TV, and advertising, that it is not only natural, but also common that white women are choosing black men. I have no doubt that this imagery plays no small part in the increased rate of victimization white women face at the hands of non-white men. These advertisements send a clear message to black men: white women desire you. This plays out in reality when black men, despite being conditioned by advertising to believe white women desire them, are rejected by white women in reality. They often become angry and lash out at the women (as seen in this video), believing they are taking “what is theirs.” Nearly 100% of interracial rapes are white women being raped by non-white men (National Crime Victimization Survey, 2008, Table 42). These advertising images, which have no small part in warping mentality, not only promote a dysgenic society, they place our people in a grave danger.
The most recent and perhaps belligerent example of anti-white propaganda came from Netflix via a set of three commercials for the company. The series of the three commercials is titled The Couple, which features a white woman and a black man. The commercial “Open Relationship” from the series depicts two couples, an interracial couple, and a white couple, where the white man is depicted as small, weak, insecure, “unprogressive,” and “closed-minded.” His white girlfriend quickly decides to cast him aside to spend the evening with the interracial couple, as the black man quite literally steals the man’s girlfriend in front of him, humiliating him. This is a commercial, with the alleged intent to encourage more people to subscribe to Netflix.
It came to my attention that this commercial was not a result of white ethnomasochism, but perhaps something far more disquieting. HLG Studios out of Los Angeles was behind the production of the three commercials. HLG has worked on advertising campaigns for a myriad of national brands, from fast food chains, to banks, technology companies, and clothing retailers. HLG Studios was founded by Yuri Baranovsky, the same man who directed Netflix’s race-mixing, anti-white propaganda pieces. Baranovsky is Jewish.
This revelation piqued my interest and sent me down a bit of a rabbit hole in the advertising industry. I quickly found that the marketing industry is very much akin to the media industry. Just four mega-corporations control the vast majority of all advertising agencies. The Omnicom Group of New York, WPP of London, Publicis of Paris, and Interpublic of New York are the key corporations in the West. Dentsu of Tokyo is the next largest group, and fifth globally.
The New York Times states that these companies are so powerful “they can indirectly set network television schedules and starve magazines to death or help them to flourish,” by deciding how and when to spend advertising dollars. Each company owns dozens if not hundreds of smaller agencies; Omnicom has bought over 150 firms alone.
CEO John Wren, of Irish descent, currently heads Omnicom Group. Omnicon was founded by Allen Rosenshine, Keith Reinhard, and John Bernbach, all three Jewish.
Long-standing CEO of Publicis (1987–2017) has been Maurice Lévy, who cited his Rabbi grandfather as his greatest inspiration. Lévy has been honored by the Anti-Defamation League, for his work fighting anti-Semitism, and his relentless promotion of “diversity”.
WPP of London was founded and is currently run by Martin Sorrell, of Jewish descent.
Chairman and CEO of the Interpublic Group (IPG), is Michael Isor Roth. I found no mention of his ethnicity. Roth did however condemn the “white supremacist ideology” at Charlottesville and founded the whole event to be “deeply disturbing,” as he wrote in an internal memo to 50,000 IPG employees. Roth further wrote that the actions cannot be tolerated, and that of course “diversity” is an American value. Finally, he suggested the events at Charlottesville are not political issues, but “an issue of basic humanity, and standing up for what is right.” I agree with the sentiments of Roth. This whole movement really isn’t political in many ways. This is about basic humanity and fighting for what is right. It just so happens, that some of us do not see our cultural genocide and dispossession as an issue beyond basic humanity. We have the right to exist, whether Roth and his ilk like it or not.
For a brief moment, I thought I was on to something. There seems to be a disproportionate number of Jews and those with Jewish sympathies involved in advertising. From small start-up firms to multi-billion-dollar corporations, all of which are promoting hostile anti-white canards, while praising “diversity” and “inclusion.” I’m sure it’s just another coincidence.
If you wanted to destroy a civilization, how would you go about it? If you wanted to create dysgenic chaos in a society, what would be your weapon? To destroy our civilization, you would want to start by destroying one of the cornerstones of our culture, the nuclear family. And what better way to destroy the white nuclear family, than to encourage white people, especially white women, to mate with foreign men that are unlikely to support them or raise their children. If you wanted to create a chaotic society that is easy to lord over, you would ensure that the children are raised by the state, the women are dependent upon the state, and that the men were marginalized and seen as social pariahs by their own people. What better way to destroy a people than to promote a relationship that can never produce white children and that is by nature dysgenic?
The media, the press, and advertisers have created a culture of anti-white hatred. These companies are not simply promoting “diversity” and trying to appeal to a wider range of consumers, they are promoting the increased abuse of white women. They are promoting heightened rates of communicable diseases amongst our people. They are promoting a generation of poor, fatherless children, where our tax dollars will be funneled. They are not just trying to sell products, they are trying to recreate a nation, our nation, without us. They are saying they do not want white children to be made. They are telling white men they have no place in society. And that is where we come in.
We need to stand guard with unwavering and watchful eyes, and shine a light on the constant barrage of attacks. Every single time I come across an advertisement that highlights “diversity” in an absurd way or promotes miscegenation, I make a point to share it online and with my friends and family. I personally take note of companies that insist on promoting miscegenation and do not spend my money with them. If they want the “diverse” consumer, they can have them. When the hostile elite sends a message that young white men have no place in society, it is our job to be there for them. To give them a place and more importantly a purpose. The future of civilization, the future for our people, is only being offered by one group of people, and that is us. We are in many ways the last vanguard against a system that would greatly prefer our extinction.
Every film that has a hostile anti-white message should be reviewed, critiqued, and dissected by those of us writing articles and creating podcasts. We have the intellectual ability to develop our very own critiques, to be the warriors against this cultural insurrection, and to let the current occupation know they can write us out of their silly commercials, awful sitcoms, degenerate films, and miscegenation promoting magazine ads, but that is all they will be able to accomplish.
And one last thing, as for Dentsu, the Japanese advertising giant? Their entire history of executives has been Japanese. Every July new employees and newly-promoted executives of the company travel to Mount Fuji to climb the mountain together. A company tradition dating back to the 1920s. Somewhere in this story of race-mixing propaganda amid the throes of degeneracy, there is a profound lesson to be learned from the Japanese. Although they are not without fault (Dentsu has a reputation of overworking their employees), there is something to be admired about a group of people honoring tradition, country, nature, nation, and each other.
And for us? We have our own Mount Fuji ahead of us, rising with the dawn and reaching towards the sky, waiting to be conquered. In a hostile environment that would much prefer we lie down and accept fate. I submit instead, we pull each other up that mountain — as we always have.
 Wang, Wendy. “Chapter 4: Public Attitudes on Intermarriage.” Pew Research Center’s Social & Demographic Trends Project, 15 Feb. 2012, www.pewsocialtrends.org/2012/02/16/chapter-4-public-attitudes-on-intermarriage/.
 Zhang, Yuanting, and Jennifer Van Hook. “Marital Dissolution Among Interracial Couples.” Journal of Marriage and Family, Blackwell Publishing Inc, 27 Jan. 2009, onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2008.00582.x/full.
 King, Ritchie. “The uncomfortable racial preferences revealed by online dating.” Quartz, Quartz, 20 Nov. 2013, qz.com/149342/the-uncomfortable-racial-preferences-revealed-by-online-dating/.
 “2016 Sexually Transmitted Diseases Surveillance.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 26 Sept. 2017, www.cdc.gov/std/stats16/minorities.htm.
 “Genital Herpes.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 22 Sept. 2017, www.cdc.gov/std/herpes/stats.htm.
 “HIV/AIDS.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 29 Nov. 2017, www.cdc.gov/hiv/statistics/overview/ataglance.html.
 Calloway, Tiffany N. “Ninety Two Percent: Examining the Birth Trends, Family Structure, Economic Standing, Paternal Relationships, and Emotional Stability of Biracial Children with African American Fathers.” SSRN Electronic Journal, 2015, doi:10.2139/ssrn.2625893.
 Martin, Brittny A., et al. “Intimate Partner Violence in Interracial and Monoracial Couples.” Family Relations, vol. 62, no. 1, 2013, pp. 202–211., doi:10.1111/j.1741-3729.2012.00747.x.
 Gallup, Inc. “Most Americans Approve of Interracial Marriages.” Gallup.com, 16 Aug. 2007, news.gallup.com/poll/28417/most-americans-approve-interracial-marriages.aspx.
 Wang, Wendy. “Chapter 4: Public Attitudes on Intermarriage.” Pew Research Center’s Social & Demographic Trends Project, 15 Feb. 2012, www.pewsocialtrends.org/2012/02/16/chapter-4-public-attitudes-on-intermarriage/.
 Skinner, Allison L., and Caitlin M. Hudac. “Yuck, you disgust me!” Affective bias against interracial couples.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 68, 2017, pp. 68–77., doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2016.05.008.
 Vinjamuri, David. “Diversity In Advertising Is Good Marketing.” Forbes, Forbes Magazine, 20 Mar. 2017, www.forbes.com/sites/davidvinjamuri/2015/12/11/diversityinadsisgoodmarketing/#376232b54248.
 Castillo, Michelle. “Study: Americans want more diversity in ads.” CNBC, CNBC, 7 Mar. 2016, www.cnbc.com/2016/03/07/study-americans-want-more-diversity-in-ads.html.
 Markman, Art. “What Does Advertising Do?” Psychology Today, Sussex Publishers, 31 Aug. 2010, www.psychologytoday.com/blog/ulterior-motives/201008/what-does-advertising-do.
 Dittmanin, Meliss. “Protecting Children from Advertising.” Monitor on Psychology, American Psychological Association, June 2004, www.apa.org/monitor/jun04/protecting.aspx.
 Tytyk, Kimberly. “The Psychology of Advertising,Manipulation in Advertising | StopAd.” StopAd Blog: Practical Content and Insights, Not Just about Ads, StopAd, 323 Oct. 2017, stopad.io/blog/manipulating-maslow-how-advertising-is-hijacking-our-heads-and-making-us-unhappy.
 Scheybani, Omid. “How Advertising Has Become an Agent of Social Change.” Medium, Medium, 11 Feb. 2015, medium.com/@moonstorming/how-advertising-has-become-an-agent-of-social-change-148aa0ef303a.
 Black immigrants in France hit white girl for not giving number, https://vimeo.com/91783904
 “Biography Yuri Baranovsky.” IMDb, IMDb.com, www.imdb.com/name/nm3060354/bio?ref_=nm_ov_bio_sm.
  Elliott, Stuart. “Advertising’s Big Four: It’s Their World Now.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 30 Mar. 2002, www.nytimes.com/2002/03/31/business/advertising-s-big-four-it-s-their-world-now.html.
 Delo, Cotton. “DDB’s Keith Reinhard on the Origins of Omnicom – Beet.TV.” Beet.TV – The Root to the Media Revolution, 5 Aug. 2015, www.beet.tv/2015/08/reinhard-ddb-2.html.
 Thejc.com, www.thejc.com/news/world/maurice-levy-s-inspiration-his-grandfather-rabbi-1.43194.
 “French Advertising Magnate Honored By ADL.” Anti-Defamation League, www.adl.org/news/press-releases/french-advertising-magnate-honored-by-adl.
 Bunder, Leslie. “Top Jewish Earners.” Top Jewish Earners, 11 Mar. 2003, www.somethingjewish.co.uk/articles/553_top_jewish_earners.htm.
 Coffee, Patrick. “IPG’s Michael Roth Becomes First Holding Company CEO to Speak Out on Charlottesville Violence via Internal Memo.” AgencySpy, AgencySpy, www.adweek.com/agencyspy/ipgs-michael-roth-becomes-first-holding-company-ceo-to-speak-out-on-charlottesville-via-internal-memo/135876.
 “Corporate History.” Corporate History – WHO WE ARE – DENTSU INC., www.dentsu.com/whoweare/sp/summary/corporatehistory.html.