“Women used to be ladies”

The latest meme making an irritating entrance into popular thought.

TLDR; read bolded.

It’s intended to insult clubbing culture (fine, ban clubs, otherwise, STFU about them).

Like most memes appealing to history, it’s misled at best, misleading at worst.

Rewind to the earliest times with video.
Ladies have fun too. Anything less is an overhanging lie from the Sexual Revolution.

“Yes but women used to be demure and coy, they didn’t dress and act like sluts.”

It is ironic the modern man has such a lax definition, as if looking at a man ‘the wrong way’ is slutty.

Women have always ‘made eyes’ at men, because we have eyes. When we use them, we’re accused of making eyes because studies show men are acutely sensitive to social overtures from women.


Maybe, just maybe, the nature of people doesn’t change much over time, and not everything is about you and how hard done-by you are? The term for that is a victim complex.
Look up the Evelyn Nesbit scandal, it was their OJ.
They even had versions of the Kardashians, pin-up girls before pin-ups, which really date back to the 18th century and painted adverts. If you believe any advert, it’s a de-facto IQ test and you lost.


Maybe read some social history before acting like you understand all women?

Especially those in other time periods.

^If that were true, you’d be a billionaire selling us bullshit. Advertising people understand people.

Funnily enough, women tend to be up on social history, so I find a meme that relies on our collective ignorance of it rather entertaining. The average woman knows as much social history trivia as a man knows military.

In perfect truth, such males want to castigate degeneracy without drawing attention to their own.

Let alone limiting it. R-types playing K.

This is intellectually dishonest, an argument based on bad rhetoric, bad faith, historical ignorance and makes for a coward. If you’re irritated that, in a world where sex is freer than ever, you still cannot get laid, perhaps the problem is not the people you fail to impress?

Maybe the problem is that you keep bitching like a gay guy.

Don’t look at a pretty woman and think the modern version of ‘ANKLE?!!!!‘ only to wonder why you’re labelled a creep and become a social leper. Offended people on this stuff are dull from birth.

Look and think ‘that’s nice’ and move on with your day because this superficial shit is not, by definition, important.

The women least likely to wear a miniskirt are prostitutes, because the goods are not given away for free.

Everything you know is wrong.

Ask a man with sisters if he judges their sexual desperation on what they wear.

Imagine if we applied the same judgementalism to men – all short-sleeve shirts are hereby signs of a gigolo. Shorts? Whore! Wear trousers like a proper man!

Only in the 20th century did it suddenly become acceptable (imho, no) for an adult man to wear shorts. It was considered ridiculous and you’d be mocked for it like turning up to a funeral in assless chaps, as was going topless until coal-miners striked because of job demands. This is the God’s honest truth. Look it all up. Shorts are literally the most immodest thing a man can wear, the male mini-skirt. It’s worse than a mini-skirt because things can play peek-a-boo. Short sleeves come in a close second and were taken up by the Italians with the sleeveless ‘wife-beater’ where they both should have been left, men couldn’t show their waistcoat at the beginning of the 20th Century.

Casual or modest, pick ONE.

I heard this meme from Clarey on YT years ago – he immediately began to criticize every modest fashion going, with an emphasis of vitriol for the maxi skirt. …That’s just a skirt. It’s a term for a proper skirt.

This stuck in my mind because I assumed it was a joke and waited for the punchline, the hypocrisy was so overt to a non-American. You have no idea what you want, but you know how much you want it!

He hated totally normal skirt lengths, pictured in the Edwardian videos, because it covered women up and he couldn’t ogle them, no more than five seconds after saying, to paraphrase- Why don’t women dress like ladies anymore?

The problem is male demand.

Male demand for risque fashions. Rappers are the main problem.

You can see how years of this from Kindergarten can make for avoidance of anyone who tries to pull it.

You can’t countersignal if nobody values your opinion to begin with. Look through the photos of the men saying these things and you’ll quickly realize they attract casual women because they are casual men. I haven’t seen a single one that owns a single (ONE) good suit. A good suit, by style standards and formality rules. Not a great suit, not an impressive suit, not an elegant suit, not a gentleman’s suit. A single decent item.

Which brings me to my next point: how do you intend to pay for that?

More fabric, more $$$$$. That is not a typo. A suitable wardrobe is 4-figures, a good one is five. This is based on wear and variety for activities. Being formal is more expensive, rappers lie.

Look at the guys making these claims about ladies. Are they gents?

Any woman looking at these guys will immediately notice the discrepancy, it’s like…

Which fork, Forney?

They have no clue of basic etiquette and try to prattle on like a stage mother.
They are alcoholics who couldn’t tell you the difference between a white wine and red wine goblet if their lives depended on it.

Nobody takes this ‘advice’ seriously. They have nothing to offer but opinion and personal complaint.

The funniest thing my society friends ever heard about women’s fashion was one drab man telling, loudly, anyone who would listen, that spaghetti straps were the sign of a slut.

This story still does the rounds and I’ve heard people quoting it without getting the joke.
Guess the nationality. Go on, guess. I think we all know.
Guess what he was wearing with his bad tan and fake Rolex he kept showing to people who could tell the difference.

These are the guys who refuse to buy a drink to assert interest (formal politeness) or buy a dinner they invited their intended to (the formal rule) but they want a woman with expensive taste?

Are you quite sure?

They slob around in t-shirts and shorts, in general, and wonder why the women draped in £3,000 Dolce don’t give them a second look. Class does come into it. The problem is, they have none.

Therefore, they refuse to see it as an issue…. because it IS the issue.

Women do not qualify to men. Eggs are expensive.

However, not looking like ‘Kevin the teenager’ helps.

Would you show up for a job interview wearing this? Are you using it for a sport? If the answer to both is NO, do NOT wear it out of the house and for the love of Christ get a good suit before you start spouting off on Patriarchy and the dire need of male leadership.

You don’t care how you look? Yes, it shows.

Hate sluttiness? Push to ban all contraception and sexual health clinics. Yes, all.

Hate immodest clothing? Push for Elizabethan clothing laws. Yes, in social history, there are many, many actual, literal laws that restricted things like length for modesty, and most women are aware of these. It would also mean strippers are illegal and you can’t pretend to be rich in clubs without actually being rich.

I don’t expect these guys to grow the balls, ..do you?

Conformity is a feminine virtue, as I mentioned earlier, so don’t blame all women for the actions or obscenity of singular examples, otherwise, all men are like Jack the Ripper; non sequiturs about men would be far more insulting.

Why aren’t women virtuous, they ask, not a virgin themselves.

Because none of the previous words will get through to ‘these’ people.

We mock idiots like you.

Cultural Marxism: the conspiracy within a conspiracy

Do not click: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/19/cultural-marxism-a-uniting-theory-for-rightwingers-who-love-to-play-the-victim <SEO>

I waited almost a year to go on about this. I wanted to see if anything would come of it. This is going to be as short as I can make it, so yes, I will miss things out. You can add things yourself and link them in the comments. I’m broadening out the topic too, for a laugh. Technically way OT in places but funny with it. Fun with it. Hopefully.
Welcome to The Magical Mystery Tour of Cultural Marxism.

Bravo and good tidings<joke about holes>

CM.

Child Molester?
Chief Manager?
Cuck Maestro?
Acronyms can mean many things. The usual meaning for CM online in these times, thanks to gg truthers, is Cultural Marxism. What is Cultural Marxism? It refers to an undemocratic system of political control via media brainwashing. It refers to an undemocratic system of political control via media brainwashing. It refers to an undemocratic system of political control via media brainwashing. Because pop culture never gets stuck in your head, that’s just crazy.

But never throw away your TV because reasons.

Aragorn for president

Why is advertising so expensive, eh? The limited number of channels excuse doesn’t fly anymore.

n.b. This is uncannily similar to the notion of the Cathedral btw: comprised of Academia, Media and Government, who often tend to mimic one another somehow in a harmonizing array of vacuous lies to keep you docile and arguably, falsely conscious.
Hey, if they’re going to mock us….
Despite all the studies on how subliminal messaging is BS yet its brother priming is totally real, and the effect of barrages of propaganda on real populations, somehow this is still considered a conspiracy. In a world where adverts blare over loudspeaker in public and your phone is watching you. As if the sociopaths with power (pick a Poison) were to look at those findings, shrug them off and proceed to do nothing with them. Sounds legit.

If you were to ask 100 people: do you believe in conspiracy theories, most would say No. When pressed, they’d evoke a media image: with an aluminium hat. Hmm. Whereas if you asked: do you believe in abuse of power, the underlying premise of every single conspiracy theory, you’d achieve astronomical amounts of agreement. Same people, same topic, different questions. Different words. It’s almost like the media output shapes our ability to consider certain subjects. Restricts us to talking points from cognitive load. Like a mild version of PTSD, engrained from a young age, we have visceral visual responses (flashbacks) to something we have seen, not in real life, but on a screen.

Aawww yeah, that’s the stuff. Mock me baby, mock me, you can’t satire a satire!

But sitting your kid in front of the TV is good for them, despite that pesky evidence. Kid’s shows never have any subtle political points, memory tactics or adult humour. We freely admit to flashbacks of pleasant things, like beloved cartoons. Remember when…? That reminds me… Who else saw…?

What if the perception is true or proven? huh?

It’s become the new cultural touchstone, above national heritage symbols and stories. It has replaced history. As a friend of mine said: We are all Americans now.

err what wut wtf scared rdjONE OF US. ONE OF US. ONE OF US.

The term CM has slowly permeated into the mainstream via Twitter. So much so the Guardian, far-left right-on rag, had to cover it. This wasn’t a choice, it was a re-action. A decent rebuttal of the BS is here:
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/01/the_emguardiansem_jason_wilson_on_cultural_marxism.html

If it’s illusory, it begs the question, what’s the harm in discussing it? Like the sociopolitical implications of Elrond’s Rivendell.

The usual ad hominem ensued in the up-top article. You don’t debate AH (rhetoric) with dialectic (logos). That isn’t the way to kill it. You must mock it. I can do both so… fuck it.

You see, every time these words are now spoken, even in jest, the SJWs can link to that article, and remain oblivious to what the theory is about. Think about that – a group obsessed with definitions. So I’m here to fuck their shit up, 9 months later, like the demonic spawn of their critical ideology, since who TF is going to check for feedback on that article this late? Let alone mess up its SEO? We know most of their interns probably studied English, right?

and here we go joker come on

First, note: They keep referring to the ‘conspiracy’ as CM, instead of how it is commonly referred to: The Frankfurt School. Because if they called it that, their readers might think, wait, does that school exist? Did it ever exist? We could easily disprove these obvious hateful bigoted xeno-Nazis!

The title alone is intellectually dishonest. I haven’t seen anyone pick up on that for starters.

This is considered cool for a reason, it's the reaction of a person who can handle their shit
This is why I speak last.

CM is actually a division of The Frankfurt School’s works. A sub-division. Lesser than the whole of their theory.

Visual AIDs. I really wanna get this cited.

Visual AIDs. Made with ecoterrorist Green, Commie Red and Lib Dem yellow.
I really wanna get this cited. The black was being inclusive. It hurts my eyes.

When the thicko Guardian reader would care to look up the term “Frankfurt School building” on image search in rabid anticipation of finding precisely FA, the first hit is…

Looks pretty fucking real to me. Would the Marxists lie to you, Guardian reader?
https://www.marxists.org/subject/frankfurt-school/ Comrade?
OK. We have you on that count. Batter up!

That doesn’t prove anything! We don’t know who occupied these buildings during that time! 

Thankfully these people liked to brag about their involvement.
Here’s what comes up from the same Marxists’ site under, I shit you not, group photo: 

frankfurt school group photo

Let’s look at the wikipedia page currently headed Cultural Marxism (the subject was almost deleted previously from the entire site but in Reddit uproar was reinstated).

Although sometimes only loosely affiliated, Frankfurt School theorists spoke with a common paradigm in mind, thus sharing the same assumptions and being preoccupied with similar questions.The school’s main figures sought to learn from and synthesize the works of such varied thinkers as Kant, Hegel, Marx,Freud, Weber, and Lukács.

Yet under Early Influences, Marx is clearly listed. Making them Marxists.

“The Institute made major contributions in two areas relating to the possibility of human subjects to be rational, i.e., individuals who could act rationally to take charge of their own society and their own history. The first consisted of social phenomena previously considered in Marxism as part of the “superstructure” or as ideology: personality, family and authority structures (one of the earliest works published bore the title Studies of Authority and the Family), and the realm of aesthetics and mass culture. Studies saw a common concern here in the ability of capitalism to destroy the preconditions of critical, revolutionary political consciousness. This meant arriving at a sophisticated awareness of the depth dimension in which social oppression sustains itself. It also meant the beginning of critical theory‘s recognition of ideology as part of the foundations of social structure.”

And what did they wish to do with that structure, pray tell? Lower down;

“During this period, Frankfurt School critical theory particularly influenced some segments of the left wing and leftist thought, particularly the New Left. …Their critique of technology, totality, teleology and (occasionally) civilization is an influence on anarcho-primitivism. Their work also heavily influenced intellectual discourse on popular culture and scholarly popular culture studies.”

And they tried the Stalinist tactic of dismissing criticism by calling their opponents crazy: “criticized the Frankfurt School’s initial tendencies towards “automatically” rejecting opposing political criticisms on “psychiatric” grounds:” If you see anything wrong with this in Government-funded academia, I guess you’re a crazy conspiracy nutjob. As if to describe all champagne socialists in one fell swoop, the ‘academics’ were said to suffer from “bourgeois idealism” by people who knew what the hell they were talking about.
We’d never see anything like that today:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1071634/

At the bottom, way down the page, it tries to be balanced;

“A 21st-century conspiracy theory regards the Frankfurt School as the origin of a contemporary movement in the political left to destroy western culture, referred to as “Cultural Marxism” by theory proponents.[51][52] It advocates the idea that multiculturalism and political correctness are products of critical theory, which originated with the Frankfurt School.”

But…. you just said………..all that?

I've been waiting ages to use this one, it's so apt to academics

These people made Marxist theory their life’s work, publishing essays and books (look those up separately, it was a whole school after all I can’t cover that much) and we’re supposed to believe they aren’t Communist? Riiiight. What else connected them?
Their only alternate connection appears to be their Jewish religion, as others have pointed out, “predominantly German Jews”. Hey, here’s a book about it by some unknown publisher nobody respects: http://www.cambridge.org/gb/academic/subjects/philosophy/history-philosophy/frankfurt-school-jewish-lives-and-antisemitism and the blurb;

The history of the Frankfurt School cannot be fully told without examining the relationships of Critical Theorists to their Jewish family backgrounds. Jewish matters had significant effects on key figures in the Frankfurt School, including Max Horkheimer, Theodor W. Adorno, Erich Fromm, Leo Lowenthal and Herbert Marcuse. At some points, their Jewish family backgrounds clarify their life paths; at others, these backgrounds help to explain why the leaders of the School stressed the significance of antisemitism. In the post-Second World War era, the differing relationships of Critical Theorists to their Jewish origins illuminate their distinctive stances toward Israel. This book investigates how the Jewish backgrounds of major Critical Theorists, and the ways in which they related to their origins, impacted upon their work, the history of the Frankfurt School, and differences that emerged among them over time.

Why might this concern people? It isn’t as if they wish to control us or cause us harm in our homeland. After all, we wouldn’t dream of bossing around Israel or hurting their way of life. Take it away, the adroitly named Barbara Spectre!

Narrator: She believes Jews have an important role to play in a country undergoing profound change.
BS: I think there’s a resurgence of anti-Semitism because at this point in time Europe has not yet learned to be multicultural. And I think we’re gonna be part of the throes of that, of that transformation, which must take place, Europe is not gonna be (smiles) the monolithic, uh, uh, societies that they once were in the last century. (brief cut) Jews are gonna be at the center of that. It’s a huge transformation for Europe to make, they are now going into a multicultural mode – and Jews will be resented because of our leading role (nose in the air) but without that leading role and without that transformation Europe will not survive. (a small nod of approval, as camera cuts)

You know you can tell a lot about a person’s inner world by their body language. Micro-expressions in particular. When I said nose in the air

barbspectresnoot
Face of a leader.

Lest you think I’m being unfair, many non-Jews are supporting this goal to “rub the Right’s nose in diversity” with multiculturalism and mass immigration. source In Europe only, of course. The rest of the world doesn’t require ‘enrichment’ for some strange reason.

There are many accusations along the lines of a ‘Master Race’ levied at Jews (calling yourselves the Chosen People doesn’t help) but I’m sure the passages stating for example, that non-Jews aren’t human? I’m sure that sort of thing is just a misunderstanding, a mistranslation: http://talmud.faithweb.com/articles/man.html “There are those who infer from these passages that the Talmud considers gentiles to be sub-human. After all, if the Talmud says that gentiles are not called man they must be considered sub-human” that does seem rather logical though. Given the context of the Chosen People bit? It isn’t as if they want to lead us like a flock of sheep, wherever did you get that idea?

Marx himself heard so little on the front of Jews in academia that he wrote this:
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/jewish-question/
That’s right, the so-called Jewish Question is a Marxist invention! It’s so post-modern! We may only wonder at what he’d have had to say to the German Jews of the Frankfurt School.

“…You Jews are egoists if you demand a special emancipation for yourselves as Jews. As Germans, you ought to work for the political emancipation of Germany, and as human beings, for the emancipation of mankind, and you should feel the particular kind of your oppression and your shame not as an exception to the rule, but on the contrary as a confirmation of the rule….”

On the World Socialist Website, they quote;

“What is the object of the Jew’s worship in this world?” Marx asks. “Usury. What is his worldly god? Money…. What is the foundation of the Jew in this world? Practical necessity, private advantage…. The bill of exchange is the Jew’s real God. His God is the illusory bill of exchange.”

In fact, Marx seems to have been quite racially aware, by looking for real explanations in race itself:
http://www.commdiginews.com/politics-2/karl-marx-communist-leader-and-blatant-racist-18393/ He wouldn’t last five minutes among his own academics.

It is ironic that the most acceptable white male in the curriculum for “diversity” on many campuses is Karl Marx, a world-class bigot. At one time, Marx referred to a Creole man who married his niece as a “gorilla offspring.”

Imagine the letters if he’d been pen-pals with Che G.
Other Marx/Engels quotes are to be found here, and they are well-sourced from the materials open to correction.
Bear in mind, we see many example of Marxist thought in everyday language. Objectification, for instance, is a Marxist idea borrowed by feminism. Originally called reification, it encompasses the process of a subject becoming an object.

Let’s do a reality check here.
Are the academic essays, books and theories imaginary?
The building is real.
The people are real.
Their written works (whatever their value) do exist.
Their influence is certainly real or we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
OT: The European Jewish Fund is certainly real (Spectre’s sponsors in the video), as they go about “reinforcing Jews’ cultural pride and counteracting assimilation. The EJF actively fights xenophobia, antisemitism and racial discrimination”
Have there been any proofs of pop culture propaganda? I don’t mean the Red Scare.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/25699366?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
https://books.google.co.uk/books?isbn=1317591232
http://criticalworld.net/about-2/what-is-popular-culture/
https://www.marxists.org/history/erol/ncm-6/punk.htm

“But what is most important in the music of the Gang of Four, and those groups who share their approach, is that for the first time since Brecht’s plays received wide attention in the 1920s, we are seeing a conscious intervention by socialists to fuse advanced Marxist theory with widely popular culture.
“All such Marxists fail to see that potential exists to channel such expressions in a progressive direction.”

Point scored, I think.

Why multiculturalism, you ask? Why is that a social policy weapon? It’s a polite term for multi-racialism. It oppresses the working class (in revenge for not rising up before, the reason the school was founded) by driving down wages, living standards and outnumbers them for State assistance a la Cloward-Piven Strategy. Divide and conquer. 

e.g. http://www.jewishnews.co.uk/editors-opinion-jews-grateful-uk-multiculturalism/
Historically, they thought this would keep the host culture from turning on them, too busy with the others.

Implicit within this clear violation of the freedom of association is the forced miscegenation intended to outbreed regular white people from existence in those countries, their native homelands (again, only Europe), with adverts everywhere you look in promotion of mixed races as superior to all others (rooted in the dangerous myth of Hybrid Vigour).
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/04/mixed-race-couples-in-ads-cheerios-ad_n_3384297.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/11205165/Mixed-race-in-the-UK-am-I-the-future-face-of-this-country.html
Ask yourself: Isn’t this explicitly anti-white stuff all… a bit racist? Specifically all the anti-white part?

Even when the Guardian encourages whiteface? Nothing twinges? Nothing seems a tad wrong?
https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2015/04/16/meanwhile-at-the-guardian-whiting-up/

Don’t look up the UN definition of genocide and its implications (wiping out any race in their homeland):
https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2015/10/05/video-the-death-of-europe-gene-wars/
https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2014/10/26/the-ultimate-guide-to-cultural-marxist-genocide-part-6/
https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2015/05/28/yes-diversity-is-about-getting-rid-of-white-people/

Public incitement of such genocide is also a crime.

Could this be Exhibit A at your trial for treason?

Moving on, Standpoint theory is a post-modern theory also used in feminism (this is a lot of coincidence) to lend credence to the opinion that minorities have the most or only valid perspectives, their word is always true (as their experience is never false) and a literal majority of people are probably wrong, because the density of their sheer numbers blind them with power or some vague excuse like ‘privilege’. It’s as silly as Magic Dirt and completely undemocratic, as a point of fact, it’s anti-democracy. Whenever you see these people trying something like the Progressive Stack and banging on like their opinions are important and can never be questioned because of what they were born, you see Standpoint Theory in action. It’s their pass to everything. They can do no wrong. The theory is also complete tosh. Applying it to Africa aka the most densely populated continent, white Africans would have more legitimate opinions on the structure of Government. They aren’t willing to apply this theory against anyone other than white, straight normal people who just want to be left alone by this PC stuff. Ironically, white people are a global minority, making them the most important people if we apply it …fairly. It gives rise to infographics like this.

It’s alright to exist, yes. To continue to live. In peace.

12107236_1029079387113274_8488524656403080763_n

When name-calling is all you’ve got, you’ve lost the argument.

Critical theory (also used in feminism) is a similarly flawless means of derailing and dissembling a possibly productive conversation. It is defined in practice by never listening to evidence and never offering a solution to the social problems, and they’re always social problems (never quantifiable). ALL IT DOES IS COMPLAIN. It’s a license to nag you under the guise of the credentialism’s overeducated moral authority.
The only solution to social problems on the Left? Government spending! Despite national debt.

Austerity is a joke.

Let’s go with the Frankfurt School theory for a second. HYPOTHETICALLY.
How would you hide it?

Cultural as this consolidation of ideological power is, it requires cultural defense of itself. As it is undemocratic (so the idea goes) it must hide this institutionalized power structure from the populace by cultural denial. Deny or die. In the same way it suppresses other ideas. Ideally, it should blame its enemies for everything evil in the world. It must find a scapegoat for the hegemony, something easily recognizable as cultural shorthand for evil, especially when those people are dead and can’t argue or sue. If they fail to deny any truth to the matter, the whole house of cards will collapse. Elsewhere, there must be a dumbing down of culture, to the lowest common denominator.
Hm, what does the media see as shorthand for evil? We know from lab experiments that uniform carries a number of social role implications, which uniform could possibly become the trope for unquestionable evil baddie?

Naturally, if you repeat these cultural memes enough, you will run out of novelty. After a few decades. It will seem as if the main peddlers of this media are running out of original ideas. Hey, you could even make a meme out of it. Parodies and gags. Trope inversions. Make it self-aware. That’ll work for a while. However, you couldn’t possibly do anything about it, because that would be off-message. You must stick to the Party Line. The official Narrative. The Politically Correct version of the truth in this subjective postmodern reality, where all perspectives are theoretically true simultaneously. Don’t let them take that to the logical conclusion and side with your diametric enemies, better to outgroup them for the crime of… rejecting the outgroup? …What does the PC line do, exactly? Why follow it? Why must we? What does it accomplish for us? Who decided and told us to? Where does it even come from? We must never ask this question, Comrade. Sign this petition. Go to this demo. Buy this t-shirt. What question? There is no question, I thought we all agreed?

After all, it’s called Public Relations, not Public Information.

Gee, that Guardian article is looking like a real shoot in the foot, ain’t it?

this is awkward

It might as well have been titled;

Cultural Marxism: a uniting theory to explain why left-wingers love to play victim

honestly subtitled;

Deny this because it’s stupid and lies but also dangerous enough to us somehow to cover in the first place and we need rhetorical excuses, enclosed.

You know the easiest way you can tell you’re being brainwashed? [aside from blatant over-reliance on logical fallacies]

When the person talking to you tells you to never look up the other side. You must never go there, Simba. Never read their materials. Never listen to their arguments. Close your ears, Sweet Summer Child, because you have no mind of your own and your uncritical thinking abilities will be overwhelmed by their Satanic silvertongue! We’d never hide anything from you! We love you! We’re all about the love! Gee, this is beginning to sound like a church sermon.

I may appear smug, in fact that's just the sound of maths rushing through my mind

Frankfurt School Denialists, continue. The Streisand Effect means all your work are belong to us.

12065987_1027652963922583_804645555544339895_n

This requires a hegemony of culture to work – what would this look like? Liberal privilege in academia, an overwhelming bias in the humanities and social research, upon which government policy is based? Media suppression of conservative ideas, even in comedy, as hateful? How many right-wing comedians are there to left, as a ratio? The Government supporting public sector workers in their partisan causes e.g. SWP?

Naturally, we’d never see this type of propaganda launched at children, in media aimed at children, say, in comics. That would really screw them when it comes to the people saying they’re undemocratic, by targeting future voters and influencing them before critical thinking kicks in.communismcomicWe’d never see the Modern Left target comics. Never at all: http://www.captaineuro.eu/
Actual quote: “Europe without Britain is incomplete. Like a pizza without tomato sauce.” – Captain Euro, source How am I supposed to parody that? 
In light of recent events, this one is my fave: http://www.captaineuro.eu/comic-strips/angela-merkel-learns-to-bluff/
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/euroscola/en/how_to_prepare/classroom.html
http://everydayfeminism.com/2014/01/creating-a-feminist-classroom/
In the Long March Through the Institutions, there was an emphasis on New = Good, which is very convenient when you’re the new kid on the scene. When the right wing were dominant in these fields (and we got many classics out of it) they said to them ‘be open’ as the appeal to get their ideas in, and once they were out of power they seemed to dance with joy about how ‘out’ those notions were and remain. It’s disturbing how they fully believe they have an exclusive claim to moral authority imparted by this power and taxpayer cash. The rise of obstructive fascism (a left-wing invention uniting Stalin up to the National Socialists) currently uses suppression techniques at Universities that are beginning to be used for in-fighting (such as TERFs vs. other feminists) as the Left eats itself. They’re also taking steps of questionable legality by ‘no-platform’-ing a public space, a Government-funded public institution. Rules for Radicals would condone these type of acts. There are extremist factions wishing for trouble, like the UAF, hoping their Communist utopia will rise from the ashes. I haven’t seen them comment on Holodomor.

 uafaresearch
https://www.marxists.org/subject/frankfurt-school/jay/ch01.htm “How problematical that goal…”
The linguistic use of domination-suppression techniques can be expert by CMs, and they use the excuse of teaching how to avoid it to simply… teach it: https://organizingforpower.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/forms-of-domination.pdf As reliable as crying wolf and crocodile tears when you doubt their sob story.
There’s the Diamond technique for swaying opinion at public gatherings without public consensus, because what democracy?
https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2015/09/05/the-communist-diamond-tactic-at-public-debates/
The ‘spiral of silence’ and ‘chilling effect’ on freedom of expression (look them up yourself) exert effects too.
What’s all this mean combined? Self-censorship is the goal, if they can get you to lie to yourself, it’s over and they can gain control over personal, private relationships with it. We see this already with various judgements of personal relationships beginning with sexuality and now moving into preference. Sexual tastes are immutable by their doctrines (LGB+) yet men are being shamed for rejecting fat women (fat acceptance) and white men for finding non-white women less desirable: http://everydayfeminism.com/2013/11/racial-preferences-are-racist/ Slowly it creeps and intrudes further and further into the most intimate parts of our life. Who do these people think they are? No wonder there’s a pushback forming to the Little Hitlers. Stay out of our bedrooms, you nutjobs.
Subverting democracy (by direct action and monstering mobs) like this are within the range of tactics admissable in a culture war.
Recall, Marx himself said “the new society can be shortened, simplified and concentrated, and that way is revolutionary terrorism.” The technological censorship comprises partisan community guidelines, surveillance, monitoring and includes Twitter block lists – and suddenly the user base of normal people (non-SJWs) is leaving in droves.
The very phrase “Political Correctness” is no longer PC, Kosher or ‘polite’ – because people are asking too many questions about it. The historical revisionism into an identity politics lens is blatantly dishonest i.e. (group) in (time period) rather than studying (time period). In context, demographic division is an IRL distraction from these moderated influences over decades, drip-fed through the media machine every day like soap operas and we usually pay them to do it. They say “___ is a myth” in reply as if their mere pronouncements ended all debate, as insanity only need occur once (based on cognitive dissonance) before it becomes permanent. If you ignore the reality of a situation once, that’s it. If you take up the doublethink or crimestop or Narrative, they’ve won. You aren’t questioning them because you gave them the authority of acceptable thoughts they presumed to have. And people wonder why print is dying and Alternative Media is picking up….
There is the feminist link to Communism and overlap naturally: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxist_feminism
http://socialistworker.org/2013/01/31/marxism-feminism-and-womens-liberation
http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/103231/marxist-roots-feminism-spyridon-mitsotakis
Social Justice (a recent branch of feminism) also takes its origins from Communism and its torrid history: www.jstor.org/stable/591359
archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=13978
http://www.countercurrents.org/qazi050511.htm
The post-war economy needed more workers, including women, to carry on growth patterns (and suppress average wages by sudden booms in supply) and telling women it was more fun to work than stay home contributed to the novelty of low happiness scores ever since:
http://www.law.yale.edu/documents/pdf/Intellectual_Life/Stevenson_ParadoxDecliningFemaleHappiness_Dec08.pdf
The active propaganda of polls (see: groupthink, minority influence, Asch’s Lines etc) is leading to a sharp disconnect between what we see predicted pre-GE and the real result (see the past two General Elections in the UK). The democratic mandate for the unions and other Reds or their lackeys to call themselves the instrument of the People has dissipated with it. Given their hegemony, we see them neutrally deride this as a Rise of the Right.
Who came up with ‘culture war’? KulturkampfIt’s as German as the Frankfurt School academics. Then why is it false to discuss the notion, according to CM denialists? It predates the place by some decades. If it isn’t real, why is their fear of the topic very real?
In this century, most Marxists are middle class Champagne socialists waiting for Mumsy and Daddy to snuff it so they can collect the inheritance they believe is evil when right-wingers claim it (in all forms, including cultural inheritance) and the common suspects pushing a CM Narrative are rarely exceptions to this rule. As quoted above, they are idealists – what they expect is unrealistic. As for family money, their Boomers parents have probably spent it all regardless, going by the trends I covered for excessive debt and cruising.
It’s funny they push a Hollywood image of battle, good vs. evil despite rejecting religion, as Horseshoe theory in the face of moral relativism has produced the philosophically novel outcome: nobody is evil. They’ll blame anyone but the human being who did the thing. It was society! It was his background! He was forced! The agent? Barely a whisper. Where were the feminists after Rotherham came out? Councils and other governmental bodies are shredding abuse documentation to prevent this embarrassment again, the feminists don’t give a shit about children or girls. Sacrifices for the Narrative. Ignore the MAO genes’ link to aggression and other behavioral genetics coming out.
As leaps into subjects like a unified crime theory have posited, r/K selection explains much of this partisan behaviour; evolutionary theories make liars uneasy because it’s hard to argue with Darwin or testable hypotheses without seeming like an anti-science bigot. There is also suppression of social studies that make Conservatives look good or skewing of results (what hegemony?) in favour of the Left wing when covered by MSM e.g.:
https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2015/09/09/rk-mindsets-in-psychology-liberals-more-weird-than-conservatives/
https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2014/11/12/study-conservatives-are-smarter-than-liberals/

Terrified of true opposition as they are (even in the form of Trump) they are already falling back on Godwin’s Law and crying Nazi simply for being the opposition to the dominant Narrative. Without real opposition, what is the point of elections again? Which means they lose the argument (the lesser known meaning of Godwin’s Law).
http://www.cracked.com/blog/how-90s-pop-band-secretly-sold-nazism-to-america_p2/

If we assume this were true, it begs questions. Doesn’t brainwashing work? How many musicians were Communist again? What about the Holodomor, worse statistically than any fanciful evaluation of the Holocaust? Why don’t these cultural outlets ever turn on the Left? Why don’t we use other figures like Stalin too? No enemies to the Left? They gloat about Overton Window shifts like gay marriage (the we’ve won/we’re winning articles like they’re trying to convince themselves laws can’t be repealed) but it’s never enough (‘there is more work to be done’ robots). It’s bizarre to watch from outside the media bubble. I guess from that Far Left, everyone else does look like a Nazi by comparison?

As Carlin said, we’re ‘circling the drain’ of their BS, the pendulum is swinging rightward overdue. They understand and acknowledge the Slippery Slope, it isn’t a political fallacy, especially when applied to moral trends (‘gay marriage’ polls taken in urban areas, anyone?) or any of the ‘changing attitudes’ that always seem to work in the Prog’s direction. We must be imagining it.

They forsake quality to chase equality. They’ll never get it, it would be as futile as stumping tall people and giving short people stilts. The result is ridiculous and forced.

Irony is a hip response to PC. We might follow it in public, because we don’t believe it. The act of submission becomes one of rebellion. An object of mockery ceases to be an object of fear. Trust nothing from the machine and it loses power. This is building.

Conclusion

You can deny some of this, but you can’t deny all of it.

What does this all mean?

42.

I don’t know. You don’t either. I guess we’re equal.

snort lol laugh haha hmph derision yeah duh really uhuh mhmm princess bride

Why else would the internet be talking about it, dipshit?
Since when do we agree on anything?

p.s. Guardian, cite me IRL. Come at me ho.

Advertising stole feminism & they’re STILL complaining + Women on Board lies

When this ad trend goes down, usually we see a buoy from the opposite e.g. Old Spice vs. Pyjama Boy.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/11727478/How-advertising-hijacked-feminism.-Big-time.html

Feminists know when something smells fishy.

….Welcome to the world of femvertising: where the hard sell has been ‘pinkwashed’ and replaced by something resembling a social conscience, and where advertisers are falling over each other to climb on board the feminist bandwagon.

…On the face of it, this might seem like a giant step forward for the industry. But is it as heartwarming as it seems? Aren’t we still just being sold to? Surely half the world’s population can’t be ‘having a moment’….

Meanwhile, Protein World is showing them how it’s done.
Who makes you more money long-term – a loud minority niche group ready to trigger on you eventually or a silent majority tired of their BS? They’re looking for proof, and something to calm down the stockholders at the meetings, who pay too much attention to Twitter because they’re too ancient to realise it’s a microcosm echo chamber without corporate relevance.

…It’s what women want. Last year, lifestyle website SheKnows surveyed more than 600 women about femvertising. A staggering 91 per cent believed that how women are portrayed in ads has a direct impact on girls’ self-esteem, and 94 per cent said that depicting women as sex symbols is harmful.

These women aren’t the sharpest tools in the box.
Note how they didn’t report how many, of those, actually purchased? Like the Dove campaign, it actually made sales plummet, because they got all their goodfeels from the Product (TM) advert – why would they need to spend more money on the product itself? (Original purpose for goodfeels marketing).

It also showed that femvertising can pay – half (52 per cent) had purchased a product because they liked how the ads potrayed women.

Did they say that unprompted?
How fickle is this 50% of your share?

Blackett suggests the move towards honesty in advertising is, in part, down to the recession. But I think the answer is much simpler: social media.

This girl is dumb.

Women have long held the spending power. Now, through social media, we’ve found a place to communicate that. We can hold advertisers – and anyone else perceived not to be meeting our needs – directly accountable (think Protein World’s ‘beach body ready’ billboards).

We can expose the realities of female life (#EverydaySexism) and rally behind causes via hashtag activism (think #bringbackourgirls #iammalala #yesallwomen). We can go into battle to see Jane Austen out on the tenner or to defend the victims of Gamergate.

oh no oh dear hides facepalm double
Blogs own your job, bitch. It’s over. MSM/Print is dead.
Bloggers do your shit for free and better.

Here is a place where the soft power – read influence – of women has never been more apparent.

False equivalence, most women are not feminists.
View story at Medium.com

Our online presence is dominant (we use social media more, and we do 62 per cent of all online sharing).

Pictures of a druggie and stories about how much you hate yourselves don’t count.

We also have increasing power in the workplace – British boards now have 23.5 per cent women according to the latest Lord Davies report….

Actually in the FTSE250 in this report, as I said here;

FTSE250: 26% female MDs. Above the target of 25%.
YOU HAVE WHAT YOU WANTED ALREADY. THE DATA IS RIGHT THERE.

and

In the US, 40.2% of TEA was accounted for be women.

head desk blackadder give up
Strangely, this report has gone missing (cough sabotage cough). Thankfully we have a cache to the page: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:gQjjZsLE5u0J:www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN06152.pd+&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk

And it does link to a very recent briefing paper: http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN06152/SN06152.pdf
Which edits out the FTSE250 data and gives the 100 ONLY. That isn’t dodgy at all
This paper, yes, EU>our Government, snidely implies all-male boards will be banned in the top FTSE (I’m pretty sure this flouts corporate law and the rights of the stockholders with veto power), and since they’re publicly traded this can be regulated to an extent. On the economic losses, they have hidden their coverup of a lie in footnote 20 in this document, man I love the footnotes, protip always read those first: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201213/ldselect/ldeucom/58/58.pdf which reads;

It should be stressed that we reject any suggestion that improved diversity would be to the detriment of company performance, as was argued in some submissions we received.44 As the Employment Lawyers’ Association (ELA) stated, “it is difficult to see what disadvantages companies could suffer by reason of a higher representation of women on boards”.45 However, as the Minister said, “causality is probably impossible to prove one way or the other … ”.46 If this express link to financial performance cannot be proven more robustly, then it should be discarded from the argument. To do otherwise would put a case that cannot be proven at the centre of an argument for policy change. We urge the Government to argue forthrightly the case for improved gender diversity based on the “whole range of different advantages” that balance can bring,47 rather than on the direct financial impact of increased female board representation.

It cannot be proven if you suppress the evidence.
Notice they never outright lie? I love that about EU shills.
I’d sue or demand insurance that if the law forces them to take on bad hires, either they get the right to sack them and take on whomever they want or they get a massive payout greater than the loss. I did a little digging, for those who want to contact the people telling the truth on this.
The evidence to support this hatefact was submitted by Ray Russell, Michael Klein, and as ‘Campaign for Merit in Business’ and you can see the links here: https://c4mb.wordpress.com/2012/07/26/house-of-lords-select-committe-inquiry-on-women-on-boards-written-evidence-submitted/ who added “We’ve been in touch with most of these groups, and none has offered a shred of evidence of a positive causal relationship between more women on boards and enhanced corporate performance.

It doesn’t exist, dawg. Technically, the law was brought through on a known lie, making it invalid and a breach of NGO power (you know they’re the ones pushing this). These companies could hustle together and file a class-action lawsuit. I mean, if they read silly little blogs like mine…
In Europe, recent legal changes allowed this if it’s in civilian benefit (they can be stockholders of the PLC structure) – just a thought….

Back to the dumb girl…

…. It’s a powerful message and one that’s also had plenty of ad-world back slapping (along with #LikeAGirl it won a coveted glass lion at the Cannes Lion ad awards earlier this month).

The starting point for the campaign was research: through talking to women came the realisation that they weren’t doing sport out of fear of being judged, even though 75 per cent wanted to…..

All the prestige and $$$$.
They must be hitting up against the original idea wall soon, like Hollywood. Scraping out the last of their credibility could be funny. We should mock them mercilessly when that day arrives.

…It smacked of a company adopting feminism because it seemed trendy; out of self interest. That’s where brands like Sport England and Always have got it right – they’re turning the mirror back on us. The moment those women in the first #LikeAGirl ad understood they’d been fed a cliche about their own gender was powerful, regardless of the motive. …

These people will never be happy.

…Indeed, femvertising is hugely popular with millennials who, recent studies show, value ethics over money. …

They have no money.

But this younger generation of women will see through such advertising strategies if they become too shallow. The more brands strive to appeal to them via ‘social movements’ or experiments, the more they risk becoming formulaic.

#Girls

…So where next for femvertising? Personally, I think we desperately need more diversity on our screens. …

Companies – They’re gonna destroy you. They only care about pushing their beliefs, they’re like the New Church Ladies.
Women don’t aspire to ugly. You will lose.


Go ahead, with my full blessing.
Do everything they say and when they drop you, the rest of us will let you go under.

…Plus, if femvertising is truly going to be real isn’t it about time we saw red, not blue, liquid used in ads for sanitary towels and tampons? (It’s a myth that ASA rules prohibit this). ..

See what I mean?

…”We need to normalise the experience of being a woman in advertising. If companies have any sense at all they will embrace it and future proof their business.” …

You made your bed, motherfuckers.

Video: Your average degenerate

I can see the point. I think this is r-type low-IQ low/no Need for Cognition dominance as culture panders to the lowest denominator who is crucially – easily parted with their credit cards. When the credit tap dries up, we’ll see a flip, in my estimation. Salesmen go where the money is. In a monetary vacuum, nobody looks up to these people. Adverts are a dream that consumer buys into. They matter. They have importance. There are things catered to them, after all. Increasingly, they shape their identity around what they are told is valuable about their ‘demo’ by the master puppeteers.

However, the use of degenerate in Europe refers to primarily sexual or rarely, other form of antisocial abuse with traumatic shockwaves to surrounding societal structures (mostly drugs, because the rush and risk is similar to sex).

These people complain when what society said would happen, does. The classic routes worked where none of the others did, it’s almost-Darwinian societal structure selection. See many atheist countries lately? Yet these individuals are ignorant of history and think their trendy opinions will lead them right forever. When they’re inevitably ruined, as society warned them from childhood they would be, they expect everyone else to play parent and clean up their mess. Bailouts. Everywhere. For adults. They complain they are oppressed and nobody listens to them whine. – Probably ‘cos they know they can’t talk you out of being stupid, it’s a lifelong condition. This is the rationale behind that Law of Power on the ‘unlucky’. The same faulty decision-making will fell you too, if such is the cause of their woe.

Take advice from a suicide on life? Sure, what’s the worst that could happen? They’re naive and destructive, a fatal combination in ANY OTHER SOCIETY IN HUMAN HISTORY.

They failed to grow up and each failure thereafter compounds their issues. Leave them be. The issue is assuming everyone is an expert for having an opinion. Nope, most opinion (has a right to exist but) is irrelevant beyond its dwelling place because it fails basic reality checks. They are marked by their ingratitude to people who humour them, and play parent, who tell them the truth. You don’t want to behave, you don’t want the truth, what do you want? ~ it is sensible to ask. To be God. A life with one half cut out. Rights and no responsibilities. Highs and no lows. These people are an insult to children, they may in future count as a form of antisocial retardation; the ignorance of the laws of physics applied to social beings, of the conflict between biology and agency, of chemistry applied to their under-developed brains. They are arrogant enough to believe they are exempt from the rule of the Universe they inhabit. There is no such thing as morality, there is no objective Universe. If you ask, they believe this. They may as well live in a social media cave (Plato) and be done with it. These people would honestly do better in an asylum than out in the harsh realities of a world they dispute to exist. If we lived out in space, we’d shoot these people out of the airlock for sport. They are a waste of resources and it’s a cosmic joke they support all abortion. A temporary boon in global fertility off the back of the tireless noble Victorian productivity (stone-dead two productive generations later, 1901-1961) they derisively mock allowed them an existential hurrah they have wasted for others before the next Malthusian population-levelling event pops up and takes them down into the sinking abyss of genetic irrelevance, the human equivalent of the Dodo. I laugh at these people, for what else is there to do? The village idiots are running the show, may as well enjoy it. We may not see the men in white coats approach them from the corner of our vision but trust, their time is approaching. As George Carlin said, we’re circling the drain, and things pick up speed as we near the end of this era, as we’ve seen in the past year or two. We are the spectators who live in interesting times.

Morality is a slippery slope, which isn’t a fallacy at all when applied to realpolitik, covered with a shiny hard plastic layer of Doublespeak and called a “trend” instead.