Waldo wrote:
> Brian Huntley wrote:
> > (Cross-postings removed)
>
> Cross-postings restored - there may be parties who are interested in
> seeing this Snopes article answered.
>
> > Waldo wrote:
> > > Kosher Certification means ONE thing: That the product conforms to
> > > Jewish Religious Superstition - or as in the case of bleach above, that
> > > the Jewish Kash-R-Us agencies are unscrupulous con artists that are
> > > busily doing what Jews have always done best - separating gullible
> > > Gentiles from their money.
> >
> > I doubt I can change your mind, but for the edification of others,
> > here's the Snopes page about this:
> > http://www.snopes.com/racial/business/kosher.htm
>
>
> Thanks for not attacking me with insults and epithets, Brian. As you
> were kind enough to post the Snopes article, would you indulge my
> commentary on the article and Barbara Mikkelson's analysis?
>
> My comments will appear in [brackets].
>
> Begin Snopes article:
>
> <quote>
>
> _______________________________________
>
> Claim: Certain symbols displayed on the packaging of a variety of
> grocery items signify that their manufacturers have paid a secret tax
> to the Jews.
>
> [First, Mikkelson is starting with a false premise: That the fees paid
> to the Kashrus (Kosher Certification) agencies, and the costs incurred
> by the companies in fulfilling the demands placed on them by the
> Kashrus agencies is a "tax". It is true that many ignorant and/or
> overzealous persons have incorrectly used the word "tax" to
> describe this financial burden, which is ultimately born by *all*
> consumers of the affected products, but the term is inaccurate, and
> defenders of the Kosher Kabal try valiantly to use this error to
> pooh-pooh the entire scheme]
>
> Status: False.
>
> [Remove the word "tax" form the false premise, and you can replace
> Mikkelson's "false" with "true".]
>
> Example: [Collected on the Internet, 2002]
>
> [It should be noted that Mikkelson was obviously careful to select an
> article that was written by persons who are ignorant on the subject,
> and have no credibility. Aztlan? Oh please!]
>
> [<begin article that Mikkelson intends to "debunk">]
>
>
> The "Kosher Nostra Scam" on the American Consumer
>
> By Ernesto Cienfuegos
> La Voz de Aztlan
>
> Los Angeles, Alta California - (ACN) La Voz de Aztlan receives
> quite a few "news tips" per week from our many subscribers and readers.
> Some we dismiss immediately but a very few catch our attention. Last
> week we receive an e-mail asking us if we knew the significance of the
> small encircled letter "U" or letter "K" that can be found printed on
> many food cans, food packages and on other kitchen products. The
> message gave us some clues and suggested that we do some research into
> the subject. What we found certainly was "news" to us and it both
> shocked and angered us.
>
> On arriving at my residence, I immediately went to the pantry to
> verify that what I had just learned was actually true. Sure enough,
> most of the packaged and canned foods from major companies, like
> Proctor & Gamble and others, did have the (U), the (K) or other similar
> markings. The Arrowhead water bottle, the instant Folgers Coffee, the
> Kelloggs box, the Jiff Peanut Butter, the Pepper container, the Trader
> Joe's tea box and even the Glads plastic sandwich bags carton had the
> (U) or (K) mark on them.
>
> [All true]
>
> We needed a little more verification so we called two major
> companies to asked some questions. We chose Proctor & Gamble that
> markets the Folgers Coffee and the Clorox Company that manufactures the
> Glads plastic zip lock sandwich bags. Each of the two companies, as
> well as most others, have 1-800 telephone numbers printed on their
> packages for consumers to call in case they have any questions about
> their products. When we asked the Proctor & Gamble representative what
> the (U) meant on their Folgers Coffee container, she asked us to wait
> until she consulted with her supervisor. She came back and informed us
> that the mark meant that the coffee was " certified kosher". We than
> asked her how and who certified the coffee to be "kosher" and whether
> it cost any money to do so. She refused to answer these and other
> questions. She suggested that we write to their Corporate Public
> Affairs Department.


What's wrong with that? You called the wrong department, fool. Public
affairs
is the ones who answer questions from the public. Only you would be
arrogant enough to tell a huge private corporation how to make policy
and run it's internal affairs.

It's none of your business, arrogant asshole.



We than called the Clorox Corporation to ask what
> the (U) meant on the package of their Glads plastic sandwich bags and
> she also said that the (U) meant that the plastic bags were "kosher"
> but refused to answer questions concerning payments the Clorox
> Corporation has to make in order to be able to print the (U) on their
> products.

Financial info like that will be listed in the financial statements, if
they are required to report it by the SEC. If the SEC does not require
that be reported, they won't divulge it.
You don't understand that the financial affairs of a private
Corporation, beyond what the SEC requires to be reported, are none of
your business.

>
> [Of course I can't verify the phone conversations, but all of the
> above appears to be factual. Indeed, companies are *very* tight lipped
> when it comes to their Kosher certification processes. I suspect that
> this is because of non-disclosure agreements they were required to sign
> when they entered contractual agreements with the Kashrus agencies.]


Your suspicions are not evidence.
>
> What we learned next, pretty much floored me personally. I learned
> that major food companies throughout America actually pay a Jewish Tax
> amounting to hundreds of million of dollars per year in order to
> receive protection.

It's not a tax if government doesn't impose it. A tax would affect all
of the brands, not just a few of them.
>
> [While I take exception to the words "tax" and "protection",
> the above statement is fairly accurate, though I have never found a
> reliable source citing the dollar amounts involved.]
>
> This hidden tax gets passed, of course, to all non-Jewish consumers of
> the products.

People who buy Kosher products compare prices just like those who don't
keep KOSHER
do.
>
> [Actually, the "tax" gets passed on to *all* consumers of the
> products, but as non-Jews outnumber Jews at a ratio of 49 to 1, you can
> guess who bears the bulk of the cost.]
>
> The scam is to coerce the companies to pay up or suffer the
> consequences of a Jewish boycott.

BULLSHIT. Then how come there are companies like Von's, Albertson's,
Kroger and Springfield who don't sell any Kosher products? These are
HUGE companies.


>
> Jewish consumers have learned not to buy any kitchen product that does
> not have the (U) the (K) and other similar markings.




Bullshit. I don't even look for those markings.
Nobody in olur family keeps Kosher and none of us look for them.

You're a ****ing liar.