Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="BarrontheTigercat" data-source="post: 1486221" data-attributes="member: 21308">Isn&#039; t this very similar to what Gilette did with its anti-male advertising?I&#039;m sure we all remember Gillette reported a $8 billion write-down during the following fiscal fourth quarter, pushing its parent company Proctor &amp; Gamble into a loss for the period.Gillette CEO Gary Coombe (((google a picture of him if u&#039;re wondering his ethnicity))) then marshalled his media campaign and said &quot;Gillette decided to “take a chance in an emotionally-charged way.” it was a designated cultural marxist campaign because &quot;for the majority of people to fall more deeply in love with today’s brands you have to risk upsetting a small minority (???) and that’s what we’ve done.”As a poster said at the time: a) he was very honest b) he was unrepentant c) the job of the global CEO seems to be to implement cultural marxist social mores using their financial clout.Furthermore Coombe had employed New York advertising agency &quot;Grey&quot; for this damaging (to his own brand) advertising campaign.From Grey&#039;s website &quot;Grey takes on the name of its Jewish founders to spearhead a 5 point &quot;diversity&quot; plan&quot;. Susan Reiner, the Jewish CEO, won an award for it. A campaign that lost 8Billion for its client and forced its parent company, one of the worlds biggest multinationals, into a loss was rewarded...IIRC, instead of ditching its politically-charged messages, Gillette dug in deeper. On Father&#039;s Day, the company launched an ad about a dad teaching his &quot;son&quot; -- who happens to be a biological girl -- how to shave. Classic cultural marxism inversion agenda. The founders of the Frankfurt school would be proud.This looks like the same agenda as the Coof.Rubbing our noses in the absurdity of it all, knowing that at first glance we are powerless but to acknowledge they can do what they want on many different levels (including satanic temple levels) whilst we can only look on.Epstein&#039;s (((Handler/Sponsor))) doing something stupid and brutal and ugly with his own Victorias Secret brand because well,.. because he can.. because he&#039;s the ownership class.. and we&#039;re just serfs..The (((financial elites))), to use a euphemism for them, can bankroll this marketplace suicide, at considerable expense, with a nod and a wink at us as they do it.Demoralisation.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="BarrontheTigercat, post: 1486221, member: 21308"] Isn' t this very similar to what Gilette did with its anti-male advertising? I'm sure we all remember Gillette reported a $8 billion write-down during the following fiscal fourth quarter, pushing its parent company Proctor & Gamble into a loss for the period. Gillette CEO Gary Coombe (((google a picture of him if u're wondering his ethnicity))) then marshalled his media campaign and said "Gillette decided to “take a chance in an emotionally-charged way.” it was a designated cultural marxist campaign because "for the majority of people to fall more deeply in love with today’s brands you have to risk upsetting a small minority (???) and that’s what we’ve done.” As a poster said at the time: a) he was very honest b) he was unrepentant c) the job of the global CEO seems to be to implement cultural marxist social mores using their financial clout. Furthermore Coombe had employed New York advertising agency "Grey" for this damaging (to his own brand) advertising campaign. From Grey's website "Grey takes on the name of its Jewish founders to spearhead a 5 point "diversity" plan". Susan Reiner, the Jewish CEO, won an award for it. A campaign that lost 8Billion for its client and forced its parent company, one of the worlds biggest multinationals, into a loss was rewarded... IIRC, instead of ditching its politically-charged messages, Gillette dug in deeper. On Father's Day, the company launched an ad about a dad teaching his "son" -- who happens to be a biological girl -- how to shave. Classic cultural marxism inversion agenda. The founders of the Frankfurt school would be proud. This looks like the same agenda as the Coof. Rubbing our noses in the absurdity of it all, knowing that at first glance we are powerless but to acknowledge they can do what they want on many different levels (including satanic temple levels) whilst we can only look on. Epstein's (((Handler/Sponsor))) doing something stupid and brutal and ugly with his own Victorias Secret brand because well,.. because he can.. because he's the ownership class.. and we're just serfs.. The (((financial elites))), to use a euphemism for them, can bankroll this marketplace suicide, at considerable expense, with a nod and a wink at us as they do it. Demoralisation. [/QUOTE]

Verification