You have to understand just how bad the situation is with the current conservative leadership and establishment. The only group of people who tried MORE than the conservative establishment to make FAILED POLICIES work is the black community. It’s just instead of 60 years of pursuing socialist policies for blacks, the conservative movement has been pursuing this spineless pussy-footing strategy of appeasement and reason for the past 30. And unless we want to see if cowardice and being “democrat light” will work on the 31st year, like the black community ANY ideas are by default better because there’s at least a CHANCE they may work. Even if they don’t, they would at least serve the benefit of experimentation to the point we develop strategies that do.
So what are these new tactics?
Well, I’d love to tell you, but it is here in all honesty I must admit I cannot divulge all my thoughts on the many and infinitely more effective tactics I believe will work in winning over the American people. The reason is simple – I charge for advice. And like the Joker says, “If you’re good at something, never do it for free.” Additionally, after making several approaches to the republican party, not to mention delivering two speeches to them, their ineptitude and utter lack of action thoroughly convinced me it would be infinitely easier to simply start a new party and obsolete them…or perhaps consult the democrat party instead. Two ideas I actually am kicking around.
Still, it doesn’t make sense to most people as to why an increasing number of corporations would advocate and advance leftist political issues when in the end it just means higher corporate taxes. But if you stop thinking logically and instead look at this phenomenon through a different set of eyes it’s actually quite apparent what corporations are doing. And what you’ll find is that it’s a combination of today’s Gen X’ers taking over corporate leadership roles combined with a lack of any new ideas or talent.
Welcome to the new marketing strategy of corporate America.
Let us be very clear why there’s a seemingly leftist bend in corporations – the current generation of business leaders plain have no new plans or ideas. Gen X is not particularly bright, most business leaders aren’t real leaders as much as they are obedient, very average MBA clones. And until the millennials came on the scene we were hands down the laziest generation this country had ever begotten. But worse, Gen X is the first generation and “SJW prototype” to have been brainwashed by leftist indoctrination as it pertains to businesses.
But I still could not help but watch the 60 inch TV that was sitting directly in front of my face, and it was one word;
Perhaps I’ve been inoculated against political news coverage.
Perhaps I’ve just gotten older and, thus, wiser and can ID BS when I see it.
Or maybe my most recent book made me even more disdainful of what the commoners consume.
But as I watched Anderson Cooper and Wolf Blitzer cover the recent kerfuffle between Trump and Cruz, Hillary and Bernie, not to mention their representative mouth pieces, my mouth dropped not because of what they were saying, but because all of them:
The interviewees and
The CNN staff
treat you people like genuine f*cking idiots.
. . . . .
Then there were the politicians. News clips of them talking to their respective bases, but by god, the idiotic things they were saying. It was worse than any presidential speech (which is what originally made me swear off of political news). Generic pablum that is made for people with low IQ’s who are the epitome of those who’d rather hear what they want to hear over the truth any day. Mindless sycophants, with nothing better to do in their lives than take up political crusades, hinging on every word of their politician (who all magically utter thousands of words, but still managing to say nothing).
And then the spokes people. Hilary’s spokesperson I wanted to beat. A pretty boy-Floyd from the east coast who did not answer ONE question directly, but always managed to turn his answer into a scripted, puke-inducing, ass-kissing ad for Hilary. A congressman came on for Ted Cruz, and during the interview was the only person who was honest and not rushing to plant his ass on some politician’s behind. But this was a fleeting moment of genuine political insight as he was quickly replaced by spokespeople for Cruz, Christie, and Sanders.
“The battered woman syndrome” is just another way of politely saying “generic female sexual nature”, because all women, to lesser or greater degree, desire their submission to a powerful and dominant alpha male. And the dominant alpha male needn’t be manifest through the individual man; the strict orthodoxies of patriarchal religions like Islam also fill the role of authority that people, but particularly women, deeply and profoundly crave, beyond even conscious apprehension.
This is an important topic, because it befuddles not just equalist leftoids (who were never going to be un-befuddled) but also race-aware white knights who despite their willingness to grapple with many ugly truths that frighten mass media and the culture gatekeepers, nonetheless exhibit a strong allergy to thinking clearly when the subject is (White) women and their peculiar habits of mind. (These alt-white knights also co-opt a rhetorical crutch preferred by the shitlibs they hate: glib and snarky ad hominem against those who do speak truthfully about female nature.)
Men invade, women invite. The essential sex distinction is the male disposition to conquer and acquire power and the female disposition to accede and acquire the charity of the powerful. All real world evidence points to these diverging male and female essences. It would be funny if it weren’t dead serious that every single global crisis contradicts the feminist (and lickspittle manlet) worldview.
DTFability is similar to, but not the same as, sluttiness. For a woman to qualify as a slut, she has to have racked up a higher-than-average cock count. A better synonym for DTFability would be skankitude, which embodies the stylistic and behavioral qualities of sluttiness but not necessarily the high cock count that is the trademark of the slut.
A woman who is commonly considered by men to be “down to fuck” is a sexpot identified by her skimpy clothes, whore hoop earrings, tattoos, slut eye and other quirks of appearance, as well as by her seductive flirtations and aggressively sexual demeanor. Masculinized women with the telltale “manjaw” and careerist ambitions are representative of the DTF woman; they don’t play coy and they love giving head.
Marriageability refers to women who are “marriage material”. These women are the polar opposite of down-to-fuckable women. A marriageable woman, by her appearance, style and demeanor, implies a low risk of unfaithfulness and a high disposition to romantic loyalty, and following from these implications she likely possesses a pretty good maternal instinct as well. These things matter to men who are considering settling down and starting a family with “the right woman”. A faithful, loving, affectionate woman is a woman who is unlikely to frivorce or cuckold a man.
Looks-wise, marriageable and down-to-fuckable women aren’t all that different from each other. Beauties can be found in both groups, although DTF girls tend to a “hard” look and a psychotic thousand-cock stare, while marriageable girls tend to look softer, kinder and, less encouragingly, diffident. DTF girls inspire horniness in men; marriageable girls inspire romance in men.
America corrupts her women, and America corrupts wherever She goes. Obesity, skankitude, deracination, mudsharkery, single mommery, faggotry, equalist dehumanization, social atomization… every corner of the globe touched by America has seen a rise in all these negative indicators of societal health.
The solution is clear: reform America, before She destroys everything in Her path.
Or destroy America, and start anew.
A good, if abstractedly imperfect, test of a woman’s love for you is to ask if she would she die for you. You can ask yourself this question, and if you’re honest you’ll know the answer.
Would she die for you?
Because most women wouldn’t.
Tradcons and feminists have more in common than either would care to confront. Browsing popular alt-right outposts, I’ve found that a significant number of them — not all; I don’t mean this to be a sweeping indictment of the tradcon right — share with feminists a misunderstanding of sex differences and of the functioning of the sexual market (hint: it’s transactional in nature, and sneering at the messenger won’t change that fact).
So what false notions do tradcons and feminists share?
Feminists like to point to statistics that supposedly show that divorced women experience a fall in their standard of living as proof that wives are reluctantly initiating divorces to get out of marriages to ill-behaving husbands. There are two problems with this highly misleading statistic (assuming the stat is true in the sense it is being used):
1. The presumption that women are thinking through the long-term and less tangible financial consequences of divorce when the short-term and more tangible incentives are all in the woman’s favor.
A woman who knows she will get half, the house, and custody with child support thinks she will hit the jackpot in the event of divorce, because those rewards are immediate and tangible. She won’t be as likely to think through the prospect of diminished career potential or sexual market value. Incentives matter in human behavior, and front-loaded incentives matter more than downstream disincentives.
2. The drop in a divorced woman’s standard of living, if true, is likely based on a faulty comparison with her standard of living while she was married. The better and more relevant comparison is between the standard of living of a divorced woman and her life as a single woman before she got married. Do divorced women live better than they did as single women BEFORE they got married? That is the useful metric which will shed light on whether divorce really is a bad economic decision for women.