Marketing Miscegenation

Since “cutting the cable” several years ago, I have felt secure behind my own personal immigration wall, free of the barrage of marketing demands and political poltroons upon my time and money. During the Christmas holidays, however, I ventured onto the major networks (NBC, ABC, and CBS) with an external antenna affixed to the TV to satisfy my curiosity of what had been happening in the “real” world since my self-imposed exile.

My attention was immediately attracted to a commercial featuring the Paddington Bear. In the commercial a non-traditional looking Santa is aided by Paddington Brown in sorting Christmas presents for one particular family. At the end, all is well as Santa and Paddington peer through the window at the family enjoying opening presents under the tree in their living room.

The family was composed of the mother, who was an auburn-haired White woman, the father, who was Black, and their mixed-race children, a boy and a girl.

I was not shocked or even surprised at this portrayal of miscegenated merriment, as I naively assumed it was an isolated attempt by the commercial’s creator to appeal to two different segments of the consuming public with one commercial.

I was wrong.

As I continued to watch TV that day, it didn’t take long for the intrusive appeal of the commercials to outweigh that of the programs. There were simply so many of these commercials featuring mixed-race families and couples that I suspected something else was being presented.

Next, I watched a Taco Bell commercial featuring a young Black man and a White woman in what appeared to be a shared living space during which she eats all the junk food to the chagrin of her Black wannabe taco eater.

Later in the day, there was a commercial for the movie The Mountain Between Us starring Kate Winslet, a White actress (I suppose I should say “actor” to be PC), and Idris Elba, a Black actor. The film is about the crash of a private plane in a snow-covered mountain range and the couples’ ensuing battle to survive. Apparently, their battle did not employ fighting very hard against having sexual intercourse with each other, but perhaps they were using a deliberate survival strategy to stay warm.

I was beginning to form the opinion that corporations and their ad creators had decided that there was a preference for portraying a couple’s mise en scene of chirpy inter-racialism with a Black man and White woman. But then appeared the sepia-noir-ambiance of the Calvin Klein Eternity cologne commercial, which featured the White looking though Jewish Jake Gyllenhaal and Black model/actress Liya Kebede and their four-year-old son.

So, it seemed that I might be mistaken and this could be an equal opportunity Yule season for actors of both races and both genders. Sure enough, about that time there appeared on my screen, Amazon’s commercial for their somewhat creepy Echo. This commercial featured a Black woman, a White man, and their two children, a boy and girl, seated at the breakfast table as the woman purrs to the Echo assistant named Alexa to play some “wake-up music.”

But lest older Whites are calcified to the acceptance of inter-racial romance, the marketers have begun rolling out not only interracial commercials, but also novels and soap opera TV shows depicting the hormone-fueled joy of jungle fever between our youth.

But Madison Avenue knows when promoting miscegenation advances its agenda and when it doesn’t. Thus, it seems that they have thrown in the towel in order to pitch Chrysler’s 300C to the car’s primary buyers—Black people. I cannot explain the ubiquitous appeal of this car to Blacks, but the consequence of this promotion has left no doubt that White flight not only occurs in neighborhoods but on car dealer showroom floors as well. As if by default, Motown Records’ Barry Gordy is the new non-singing commercial representative for the Chrysler 300C.

The promotion of race mixing over sales is not limited to US television commercials. The giant corporation that controls TJ Maxx has a British doppelganger named TK Maxx that this past Christmas promised to deliver real snow to your front door. The commercial featured the White grandfather as the family patriarch stoking the home fire and passing out the presents to his White wife and son, Black daughter-in-law and her Black mother, and the two bi-racial children. It was refreshing, however, to see that the TK Maxx dump truck delivered white, not beige snow to their door—at least Mother Nature has retained the colors of her true nature.

I bet my White girlfriend that every pro-Black and every anti-White identity ad in our subway was produced by Jews, who profit from racial coalition politics. She didn’t believe me.

If I’m a Jewish guy and notice this, how exactly do you think most White people feel? pic.twitter.com/FDU9qNoEFs

— Frame Game Radio () (@FrameGames) February 7, 2018

What is happening here?

There is no debating the immense influence of advertising on the human mind and its capacity to influence buying in a predetermined direction. But can Madison Avenue tell you to “buy,” not just a physical product, but rather a certain manufactured culture with the goal that the advertised culture become normative? Clearly, if marketers did not believe that they could change the culture, our TV screens, computer CPUs, and print media would not be deluged by images of happy, racially blended couples. As Dana Wade, president of Spike DDB, a New York ad agency that uses multiracial images in most of its advertising said, “For so long, speaking to consumers of color has been absent from the landscape. It’s important to correct  that.”

Underlying the billions of dollars spent to make this propaganda a reality there is the assumption that there is something wrong, even psychologically diseased, about a White man and a White woman marrying and having White children. Since the Black nuclear family, however, is nearly extinct with 70 percent of Black children raised in single-parent homes, this marketing campaign is not directed at Blacks.

Once they assume that there’s something wrong with Whites marrying Whites, there has to be a collusion among Madison Avenue, K-Street, globalists, and Wall Street, to push this agenda—a global unified goal of the destruction of the White family. In recognition that only about 7 percent of US families are to some degree miscegenated, we are witnessing a glorification of open borders, more immigration, and zombification of White brains about race mixing.

And what better entity to organize this effort than the European Commission. Let us hear it emanating from the horse’s rear end:

Frans Timmermans, a Dutch diplomat and Vice-President of the European   Commission, urged all members of the EU parliament to increase efforts to “erase single, monocultural nation states” and accelerate the process in which “every single nation on earth must eventually become diverse.” [sic] During his speech in the EU Fundamental Rights Colloquium 2015 he put special emphasis on the importance of “not allowing even the remotest places on the planet to exist without diversity.“ [sic]

Timmermans believes that “race” is a social construct and any contrary belief is narrow-minded. Never mind the genetic data.

Almost overnight a plethora of beige children has appeared before us. On our TV screens they seem to be well-adjusted but what world are they adjusting to—the White world of one parent or the Black world of the other? There is scant peer-reviewed research on this issue, but anecdotally from what we read about the lives of famous children of mixed race parents and based on our own observations of people we know, the children adopt the speech patterns, the dress, and the behavior of Blacks. Moreover, they select their friends from their Black associates. More research will have to be done on the genetic heritability of the dominance of Black racial characteristics before these kinds of questions can be answered.

There is research showing that the children of Black-White interracial marriages are more likely to grow up in a single-parent home than children of White couples, and a great deal of research indicates that this is a risk factor for a wide variety of negative outcomes for children (low academic achievement, drug use,  behavior problems, etc.). Andrew Joyce summarizes the data from the UK:

The Runnymede Trust [a leftist NGO that promotes diversity] argues that at least “61% of mixed race children are being raised in single mother households. … African Caribbean fathers are twice as likely as white fathers to live apart from their children.” Black men are also the demographic least likely to enter into marriage, which accounts well for the fact that despite the rising number of mixed-race births, “interethnic marriages account for only 2% of all marriages in England and Wales. … Caribbeans have very low partner rates by comparison with other ethnic groups.” The overwhelming tendency then is for very short-term, low-commitment, sexual relationships between Black males and White females, resulting in high numbers of mixed-race children being raised in low-income single mother households. This is of course just one of the dark aspects of miscegenation that is left out of the panegyrics of its promoters.

In the meantime, outlier academics have postulated that bi-racial children have unique problems that need to be remedied—not by discouraging miscegenation but by providing more resources to the bi-racial community and increasing their numbers. How does it make sense to remedy a recognized behavior problem by encouraging the creation of more children with the problem? This field of scholarship is so biased and tainted with double-speak that it is impossible to separate the bull from the manure.

One study claimed that:

higher levels of perceived racial discrimination were related to lower levels of psychological adjustment (i.e., higher distress symptoms and negative affect). Also, higher levels of multiracial identity integration with low racial conflict was related to higher levels of psychological adjustment (i.e., lower distress symptoms and negative affect), whereas higher levels of multiracial identity integration with low racial distance was related to higher levels of psychological adjustment (i.e., lower negative affect).

That makes sense. It simply posits that you are happier if you don’t think you are being discriminated against and don’t have conflict that you attribute to your racial identity. But one of the problems with these kinds of studies is the researchers’ observation of the subjects’ perceptions of behavior. If the members of Black Lives Matters perceive that cops shoot and kill a greater number of Blacks than other racial groups, then the facts as gathered from real data do not matter to them. It is their perception that provides them with cohesiveness and racial bonding.

Another problem is that most of these studies start out with a hypothesis, and then gather information to support the hypothesis. Thus, we typically see these words, or a phrase like it, at the beginning of the abstract of the study—“as predicted or as hypothesized.” In the above quote, I purposely omitted the introductory two words—“As hypothesized…”

It has been stated that adolescents who do not have a stable racial identity show lower self-esteem. As such, it is vital for “mixed-race families to speak to their biracial or multiracial children about their mixed race and foster pride in their background.” But what background do they take pride in—the contribution of Western European people to the high culture of modern civilization or the phony narrative of ancient Egyptians being Black?

And how do these multiracial pimping researchers explain that mixed-race children perform better on standardized tests than Blacks? Could it be due to the contribution of their White parent’s genes? Of course not. It is because the multiracial testing “participants are more likely to understand that race is not biological, but rather, is a social construct.” There’s never an end to the rationalizations that academic activists can come up with.

Another example of questionable inference is that research has shown “that multiracial identity increases an appreciation and empathy for cultural diversity among others.” What does this even mean? When you take the time to parse all the double-speak in this study, it supports the idea that ethnic or racial groups tend to like sharing company with members of their same group. Didn’t we already know this? Similarity among friends has been replicated in hundreds of studies. In the words of the study:

Stigmatized group members experience greater wellbeing in the presence of similar others, which may be driven by the perception that similar others value their shared stigmatized identities (i.e., high public regard).

But the most telling statements are those that have paved the way for the tremendous increase in TV programming, commercials, and advertisements that portray the joy of being a member of a bi-racial family. The following is typical: “As a result of [being members of a] small population [subjected to] lack of media representation, multiracial youth may feel that they do not have a multiracial community and lack role models to help them understand their mixed identity.” (Italics added).

Not only are the advertisers showing more diversity—they have been doing that for a long time—now they are depicting pleasant scenes of domestic tranquility and promoting intimate romantic attachments between Black and White young adults. These commercials are fantasy models of racial utopias that have no counterpart in reality—at least not yet. According to the US Census Bureau, 80 percent of Whites still live in neighborhoods that are more than 95 percent White.

But this social chasm doesn’t bother Sonya Grier, a professor in the Department of Marketing at American University in Washington, D.C. She maintains her buoyed optimism on the thought that “ads reflect our aspirations, what we can be.” She obviously puts her money where her mouth is because this Spring she is teaching a class (one of two she teaches—being a professor—it’s a great life) on Marketing for Social Change. This course is, “Designed for students whose career goals involve working in or with organizations who desire to promote social change, or who are interested in understanding the role and application of marketing beyond commercial gain.”

So, there you have it.

If the media can only increase the “representation” of the multiracial community, there will be fewer objections to race mixing, more multiethnic neighborhoods, greater immigration, and many more well-adjusted mixed-race children.  That is what the media is doing; that is their role in combination with the EU, the global elite, our own government, and the George Soros- funded non-governmental organizations of the world is to dumb us down to the lowest common denominated consumer.

As far back as 1993, Noel Ignatiev a Jewish professor of American history at Massachusetts College sounded the clarion call of anti-White rhetoric when he declared “the key to solving the social problems of our age is to abolish the White race.”

Behind the high-sounding slogans and colorful commercials portraying miscegenation as morally beneficial, the motivation of its proponents is clear—they are telling us in every way possible: the intention is not to “save” or “redeem” the White race, but to destroy them. The only way to prevent this from happening is to know that this is being done to us and know who is doing it.

Read the original post:

Marketing Miscegenation

Related Post

February 23, 2018  Tags:   Posted in: Occidental Observer |

Fair Use Disclaimer

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Under the 'fair use' rule of copyright law, an author may make limited use of another author's work without asking permission. Fair use is based on the belief that the public is entitled to freely use portions of copyrighted materials for purposes of commentary and criticism. The fair use privilege is perhaps the most significant limitation on a copyright owner's exclusive rights.

Fair use as described at 17 U.S.C. Section 107:

"Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phono-records or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:

  • (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for or nonprofit educational purposes,
  • (2) the nature of the copyrighted work,
  • (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole, and
  • (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."