republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
There is little doubt that illegal immigration has reached epidemic proportions — amounting to an invasion. As bad as it has been in the past, it has escalated exponentially as the political winds have shifted leftward. As more and more liberals become more and more militant in making illegal immigrants the poster children of their political campaigns, the illegal immigration invasion has nearly doubled in flow over the last year and is, in fact almost equal to that of the past two years combined.Recent numbers from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) show that by the end of the fiscal year (September 30), Border Patrol agents will encounter 1.1 million people attempting to illegally cross into the United States. That projection is based on the fact that as of June 30, Border Patrol agents had already encountered 905,926 migrants who were not legally able to enter the United States. Of 905,926, 694,229 had already entered illegally and were apprehended. The numbers do not include those who managed to enter without being detected.To put those numbers into perspective, a statistics page on CBP’s website shows that in fiscal year 2017, the total of enforcement actions (those turned away plus those apprehended) was 526,901 and in fiscal year 2018, it was 683,178.Of the 683,178 attempted or successful illegal crossings, 404,142 were apprehensions of those who had entered illegally, but were caught doing so. Of those, 369,579 were along the Mexico/U.S. border — leaving only 34,563 coming in from any other direction. That means that the number of attempted or successful illegal border crossings along our southwest border grew substantially from FY2017 to FY2018, but has taken off like a rocket in FY2019 — with an increase of nearly 100 percent.Any honest effort to describe the inflow of illegal immigrants across the southwest border almost dictates the use of the word “invasion,” though some erroneously see that description as racist. And — to put in the for-what-it’s-worth column — the use of that word takes into account the salient fact that those who enter into the United States illegally do so because, despite the existence of a process for legal immigration, they do not qualify to do so legally. They are already breaking the law by breaking into this country; to expect them to then act as law-abiding visitors is unrealistic. In fact, statistics show that illegal immigrants are responsible for a disproportionate amount of crime— including violent crime — committed each year. If the crisis of illegal immigrants pouring into the United States is not an invasion, the word is without definition.And while whiners and complainers on the Left use the “plight of immigrants” detained in Border Patrol detention facilities to decry the inhumanity of America — likening those facilities to Nazi concentration camps — the reality is that their shrieks and cries appeal only to those who have already decided to agree that America is evil and illegal immigration should be legal. Ignoring facts will never make a wrong position right. And as Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Chairman Ron Johnson stated, “Given this flow, no one should be surprised that Border Patrol stations are well beyond their capacity," adding, "Rather than point fingers at the brave men and women of DHS, who have done their best with the limited resources we have provided them, members of Congress should be acting on legislation to solve the underlying problems.”Along that same line is a statement in March by Acting Homeland Security Secretary Kevin McAleenan that CBP facilities were designed to be capable of comfortably holding 4,000 detainees, with “crisis level” reached at 6,000. As of his statement, an “unprecedented” 13,400 were in custody and occupying those facilities. As of this writing, that number is more than 19,000.In short, those who would illegally cross the border, but instead find themselves apprehended and detained in overcrowded facilities have themselves and their “friends” on the Left to thank for their plight. Themselves, because they are knowingly breaking the law in attempting their illegal entry; their “friends” on the Left, because those “friends” are lying to them and using them as fodder in their political revolution against the basic principles of America.The next time you hear leftist revolutionaries whining about those “poor migrants” suffering in “concentration camps,” remember that they are part of a criminal invasion — the likes of which America has never seen — who have been lied to by those very leftist revolutionaries who are lying to America. And remember that an invasion of this nature is much, much more than America is prepared to deal with.Blaming the victim of an unprecedented invasion for not being prepared to deal with the unexpected magnitude of that invasion in the humane manner in which it has always dealt with more manageable numbers of invaders in the past is beyond ridiculous. It can only be understood by the realization that the Left has deliberately manufactured the crisis as something to use as a revolutionary tool and that those illegal immigrants are not victims of America, but of the Left.
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
The “tolerant” Left continues to reveal it is anything but if allegations from a former Google engineer are founded.Kevin Cernekee, a former engineer for Google, claims to have been fired because he advocated for conservative employees who had been subjected to harassment and retaliation by company superiors. And while Google denies these allegations, Cernekee notes he was fired shortly after a colleague complained about him on one of the message boards and asked, “Can’t we just fire the poisonous a**holes already?”Cernekee contends several of his posts on the company’s internal message boards in 2015 angered some of his colleagues, prompting an official warning from human resources about disrespectful conduct. He says around the same time, his name appeared on a senior manager’s “written blacklist.”Over the next three years, Cernekee states he battled Google and its unfair treatment of conservative employees until he was terminated in June 2018.Google denies Cernekee’s accusations, however, asserting the employee was fired for “misuing company equipment.” The media giant claims he used a personal device to download tens of thousands of confidential internal documents, The Hill reports.A Google spokesperson told The Hill it welcomes “lively debate” and diverse viewpoints.Not true, says one of Cernekee’s former colleagues, James Damore, a former Google software engineer. Damore claims he too experienced bias at Google after writing an internal blog post in which he argued women on average were less suited for tech jobs than men, the Wall Street Journal writes.Damore told YouTube chat-show host Stefan Molyneux in a 2017 interview that he wrote a 10-page memo entitled “Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber” after attending a “secretive” diversity training session that rubbed him the wrong way. The memo, which was posted on an internal mailing list and was shared throughout the company, criticizes Google’s diversity policy, which attempts to create equal representation of women in technology and leadership. According to Damore, the policy is unrealistic because it does not take into account the “personality differences” between men and women and the unequal distribution of men and women in the industry in general. As such, Damore contends that the policy is “unfair, divisive, and bad for business.”According to Google’s thought police, better known as its vice president of diversity, integrity, and governance — Danielle Brown, who has since left the company — Damore’s memo violated the company’s policy against “advancing harmful gender stereotypes,” Vox reports. But what Damore really seemed to do was violate the company’s policy of falling in line with Google’s groupthink.WSJ reports Damore is in arbitration with Google over his termination.Cernekee believes he was also targeted because he stood up for a colleague who was being harassed for daring to suggest that Google not consider race or gender in its hiring decisions.“A bunch of people jumped on him and started cussing him out and calling him names,” Cernekee recalls. “And then his manager showed up in the thread and denounced him in public. I was very disturbed by that.”Cernekee has spent more than $100,000 in legal fees to fight what he is claiming is wrongful termination. He also has an active claim against the company with the National Labor Relations Board, The Hill reports.Cernekee’s allegations follow an explosive claim last week from Greg Coppola, a Google senior softwater engineer and whistleblower who told Project Veritas that Google algorithms actively censor conservative thought.“I’ve been coding since I was ten [years old],” Coppola told Project Veritas. “I have a Ph.D., I have five years’ experience at Google and I just know how algorithms are. They don’t write themselves. We write them to do what we want them to do. I think for a while we had tech that was politically neutral. Now we have tech that really, first of all is taking sides in a political contest, which I think, you know, anytime you have big corporate power merging with political parties can be dangerous.”Coppola has been placed on administrative leave for his report to Project Veritas. Coppola fully expects to be terminated for “expressing concern that big tech is taking sides in elections” and has created a GoFundMe account in the hopes of raising $16,000. His concerns are not unfounded, as noted by Newsbusters, which reports that Coppola would be “the third public victim of Google’s inherent bias toward conservative engineers,” if his employment is terminated. Fortunately for Coppola, his GoFundMe account has surpassed that goal and has already raised more than $20,000.Coppola believes President Trump’s presidential run was the turning point for Big Tech.“I think as the election started to ramp up, the angle that the Democrats and the media took was that anyone who liked Donald Trump was a racist,“ he said. “And that got picked up everywhere. I mean, every tech company, everybody in New York, everybody in the field of computer science basically believed that.”Google continues to deny its searches are biased.
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
Iran is well established as a world sponsor of jihad terror, with its proxies operating globally. With Trump’s exit from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action and subsequent imposition of tough sanctions, Iran’s economy has plummeted, and its leaders are growing increasingly desperate. According to the Investigative Project:The radical Shi’ite regime has already provided the world with a sample of its ability to order attacks that destabilize the Middle East. Iranian-backed Houthis in Yemen recently launched explosive drones and cruise missiles, targeting Saudi Arabian oil installations and airports. An Iranian-backed Shi’ite militia in Iraq, Katai’b Hizballah, is suspected of firing rockets at U.S. interests, and the Islamic Republican Guards Corps (IRGC) launched mine attacks on civilian oil tankers in the Strait of Hormuz and the Gulf of Oman.Add to that Iran’s own admission that it has exceeded limits on its enriched-uranium stockpile, plus assertions by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that Iran is stockpiling nuclear weapons. The region, and beyond, is facing an escalating threat from the jihadist state of Iran, whose leaders also ascribe to an apocalyptic worldview that could lead them to unleash nuclear weapons.Meanwhile, as Breitbart has reported:The U.S. has requested naval cooperation from Germany in the Strait of Hormuz as tensions with Iran escalate, but the political leaders of the European nation have refused to assist their NATO allies.This is despite the fact that “Germany’s allies, including the U.S. and the UK, have been attacked in the Persian Gulf by Iran in recent months.” The free world needs to unite against the Iranian regime. Instead, Germany and other reluctant allies are essentially giving a green light to the expansionist regime to escalate.Germany’s Social Democrat foreign policy spokesman Nils Schmid has announced that “participation is out of the question,” adding: “We could suddenly find ourselves on the side of the Americans in a war with Iran. European nations should be very careful to keep a distance from the military mission of the Americans.” Blaming the bully’s target so as to not upset the bully is nothing new: it is the tactic of cowards and parasites who enable the bully in the hope that the bully will somehow be defeated eventually without their involvement.Trump’s response to Iran does not indicate that he is eager for war with Iran, as was demonstrated when Trump suddenly pulled back on a military strike after after Iran shot down a US Navy drone with a missile. His approach is to watch, wait and see how things unfold.In contrast, the behavior of German authorities tells Iran that Westerners are too afraid of a war, therefore do as you wish. In the same manner, Islamic supremacists allied with the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) have frightened Western leaders into submission. Those leaders send the message to MB operatives that they can do as they wish and say as they wish, because the leaders are too afraid of being called “racists” and “Islamophobes.” Westerners have adopted a losing strategy of appeasement in the face of the rapidly advancing global jihad war against infidels.The German government is counting on “diplomatic means to ‘de-escalate tensions.'” Yet these are the same means that have taken them nowhere. As Iran tests the waters with Western governments, it is calculating its next move accordingly. Diplomacy is not and has never been anything more than a deceptive strategy for the Iranian mullahs, to buy them time as they continue working to subvert the House of War.Despite Germany’s explanations of why it has chosen to opt out, this is telling:U.S. Ambassador Richard Grenell has criticised Germany’s lack of participation in foreign NATO operations in the past…Grenell also noted Germany’s lack of military readiness, stating: ‘German military officials know that the readiness issue is a serious problem’…The German military has seen a number of readiness issues going back years, including an incident in 2014 in which the army was forced to use broom handles in place of firearms during a joint NATO exercise.“NATO ‘Ally’ Germany Won’t Back U.S. in Gulf to Avoid War with Iran,” by Chris Tomlinson, Breitbart, July 31, 2019:The U.S. has requested naval cooperation from Germany in the Strait of Hormuz as tensions with Iran escalate, but the political leaders of the European nation have refused to assist their NATO allies. The German Federal Foreign Office said that Washington has approached them to contribute to a new surveillance mission in the Persian Gulf but had rejected the appeal saying there was no prospect of a contribution, German tabloid Bild reports.Germany’s allies, including the U.S. and the UK, have been attacked in the Persian Gulf by Iran in recent months. and under the doctrine of collective defence guaranteed by the NATO alliance, Germany is duty-bound to come to the aid of its allies if asked. Yet senior members of Angela Merkel’s left-centrist coalition government have made clear working with the U.S. is out of the question.Social Democrat (SPD) foreign policy spokesman Nils Schmid told German newspaper Tagesspiegel that “participation is out of the question,” adding: “Germany will not participate in a U.S. mission.“We could suddenly find ourselves on the side of the Americans in a war with Iran. European nations should be very careful to keep a distance from the military mission of the Americans.”Another foreign office source told the tabloid: “Participation in the American strategy of maximum pressure is out of the question for us.” He added the German government was looking instead to use diplomatic means to “de-escalate tensions”. Germany, along with the European Union, has been a keen supporter of the failed Iran nuclear deal, which could be the diplomatic measures to which the spokesman was referring.A spokesman for the U.S. embassy to Germany confirmed: “We have formally asked Germany to work with France and Britain to help secure the Strait of Hormuz and fight Iranian aggression.”Germany’s position contrasts strongly with that of South Korea, which is not a member of the NATO alliance, but which nonetheless is considering contributing to the security of the Persian Gulf, Breitbart London reported.Former Christian Democratic Union (CDU) Secretary of State for Defence Christian Schmidt disagreed on the government’s stance, however. He said of the decision: “Pure observation is not enough; we must also be able to actively protect our merchant ships.” He added that the safe passage of vessels was “existential” for Germany.Germany, like all developed nations, relies on the free flow of oil tankers that pass through the Strait of Hormuz from the Persian Gulf to the rest of the world….
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
Speaking at a packed rally for supporters in Cincinnati, Ohio, President Trump slammed the so called ‘squad’ of Democrats, and “the far-left’s destructive agenda.”“While Republicans are working every day to build up our country, the rage-filled Democrat Party is trying to tear America apart,” Trump said.“The Democrat Party is now being led by four left-wing extremists who reject everything that we hold dear.” the President added, referring to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ayanna Pressley, Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib.The crowd applauded in agreement but did not repeat the chants of “Send her/them back” previously heard in North Carolina. Instead they chanted “USA!” and “Drain the Swamp!”The President had said earlier in the day that “I’d prefer that they don’t” chant the ‘send her back’ taunt, but admitted that he could not stop the crowd if they chose to do so.When Trump spoke about Hillary Clinton, the crowd also chanted ‘lock her up.’“Do you remember when Hillary used the word ‘deplorable’?” he said. “Deplorable was not a good day for Hillary. Crooked Hillary. She is a crooked one,” he said, adding, “She is crooked.”"Lock her up" chants after Trump brings up Hillary Clinton pic.twitter.com/zlyhmcUWEl— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) August 1, 2019Trump once again raised the issue of crime infested poor neighborhoods in the inner cities, saying that Democrats are to blame.“No one has paid a higher price for the far-left destructive agenda than Americans living in our nation’s inner cities.” Trump said.“For decades these communities have been run exclusively by Democrat politicians and it’s been total one-party control of the inner cities.” Trump also noted.“For 100 years it’s been one-party control, and look at them,” Trump claimed, adding “We can name one after another, but I won’t do that because I don’t want to be controversial.”When protesters holding a banner that read “Immigrants built America” interrupted Trump’s speech and were removed, he quipped “you must have a Democrat mayor”.Trump raised the issues of homelessness, and singled out California, saying that what the Democrats are doing there is “a disgrace to our country”.Trump also took a shot at “Sleepy” Joe Biden, claiming that he ‘doesn’t have a clue what the hell he is doing’.Full rally below:
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
This has been common knowledge for anyone researching this for decades. Below is an excellent, very well-researched break down from Intrepid Report:CFR-Trilateral Pedophile Jeffrey Epstein’s Corporate Philanthropy Tied to Transhumanist Neo-Eugenics By John Klyczek Jeffrey Epstein is currently infamous for his conviction for soliciting a fourteen-year-old girl for prostitution and for allegedly orchestrating underage “sex slave” orgies at his private Virgin Island mansion, where he purportedly pimped out underage girls to elite political figures such as Prince Andrew, Alan Dershowitz, and probably Bill Clinton as well (he also traveled to Thailand in 2001 with Prince Andrew, probably to indulge in the country’s rampant child sex trade).But before these sex scandals were the highlight of Epstein’s celebrity, he was better known not just for his financial prowess, but also for his extensive funding of biotechnological and evolutionary science. With his bankster riches, he founded the Jeffrey Epstein VI Foundation which established Harvard University’s Program for Evolutionary Dynamics.Epstein, a former CFR and Trilateral Commission Member, also sat on the board of Harvard’s Mind, Brain, and Behavior Committee. He has furthermore been “actively involved in . . . the Theoretical Biology Initiative at the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton, the Quantum Gravity Program at the University of Pennsylvania,” and the Santa Fe Institute, which “is a transdisciplinary research community that expands the boundaries of scientific understanding . . . to discover, comprehend, and communicate the common fundamental principles in complex physical, computational, biological, and social systems.”The scope of Epstein’s various science projects spans research into genetics, neuroscience, robotics, computer science, and artificial intelligence (AI). Altogether, the convergence of these science subfields comprises an interdisciplinary science known as “transhumanism”: the artificial “perfection” of human evolution through humankind’s merger with technology. In fact, Epstein partners with Humanity+, a major transhumanism interest group.Transhumanists believe that technologically “upgrading” humankind into a singularity will bring about a utopia in which “poor health, the ravages of old age and even death itself will all be things of the past.” In fact, eminent transhumanist Ray Kurzweil, chief of engineering at Google, believes that he will become “godlike” as a result of the singularity.But the truth is that transhumanism is merely a more high-tech revision of eugenics conceptualized by eugenicist and UNESCO Director-General Julian Huxley. And when corporate philanthropists like pedophile Epstein—as well as Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, Peter Thiel, and Google executives such as Eric Schmidt and Larry Page—are the major bankrollers behind these transhumanism projects, the whole enterprise seems ominously reminiscent of the corporate-philanthropic funding of American and Nazi eugenics.In America, Charles Davenport’s eugenics research at Cold Spring Harbor was bankrolled by elite financiers, such as the Harriman family, as well as robber barons and their nonprofit foundations such as the Rockefeller Foundation and the Carnegie Institute of Washington. Davenport collaborated with Nazi eugenicists who were likewise funded by the Rockefeller Foundation. In the end, these Rockefeller-funded eugenics programs contributed to the forced sterilization of over 60,000 Americans and the macabre human experimentation and genocide of the Nazi concentration camps. (This sinister collusion is thoroughly documented in War Against the Weak by award-winning investigative journalist Edwin Black).If history has shown us that these are the sordid bioethics that result from corporate-funded biosocial science, shouldn’t we be weary of the transhumanism projects of neo-robber barons like Epstein, Gates, Zuckerberg, Thiel, and the Google gang?It should be noted that Epstein once sat on the board of Rockefeller University. At the same time, the Rockefeller Foundation—which has continued to finance Cold Spring Harbor programs as recently as 2010—also funds the Santa Fe Institute and the New York Academy of Sciences, both of which Epstein has been actively involved in.The Rockefeller Foundation also funds the Malthusian-eugenic Population Council, which transhumanist Bill Gates likewise finances in carrying on the population reduction activism of his father, William H. Gates Sr.And in 2013, the Rockefeller Foundation funded a transhumanistic white paper titled “Dreaming the Future of Health for the Next 100 Years,” which explores “[r]e-engineering of humans into separate and unequal forms through genetic engineering or mixed human-robots.”So, considering that transhumanism—the outgrowth of eugenics—is being steered not only by twenty-first-century robber barons, but by corporatist monopoly men who are connected to the very transhumanist Rockefeller Foundation which funded Nazi eugenics, I suspect that transhumanist technology will not “upgrade” the common person. Rather, it will only be disseminated to the public in such a way—as Stanford University Professor Paul Saffo predicts—that converts social class hierarchies into bio(techno)logical hierarchies by artificially evolving the One Percent into a species separate from the “unfit” working poor, which will be downgraded as a slave class.In his 1932 eugenic-engineering dystopia, Brave New World, Aldous Huxley (Julian’s brother) depicts how biotechnology, drugs, and psychological conditioning would in the future be used to establish a Scientific Caste System ruled by a global scientific dictatorship. But Huxley was not warning us with his novel. As historian Joanne Woiak demonstrates in her journal article entitled “Designing a Brave New World: Eugenics, Politics, and Fiction,” Aldous’ “brave new world can . . . be understood as a serious design for social reform” (105). In a 1932 essay, titled “Science and Civilization,” Huxley promoted his eugenic caste system: “in a scientific civilization society must be organized on a caste basis. The rulers and their advisory experts will be a kind of Brahmins controlling, in virtue of a special and mysterious knowledge, vast hordes of the intellectual equivalents of Sudras and Untouchables” (153-154).With the aforementioned digital robber barons driving the burgeoning age of transhumanist neo-eugenics, I fear that Huxley’s Scientific Caste System may become a reality. And with Epstein behind the wheel, the new GMO Sudras will likely consist of not only unskilled labor slaves, but also child sex slaves who—like the preadolescents in Brave New World—will be brainwashed with “Elementary Sex” Education, which will inculcate them with a smash monogamy sexuality that will serve the elite “World Controllers.”
Corporate Attempt To Break Down Society Cost Company Billions The recent attempts of Gillette to tame masculinity and destroy the patriarchy have backfired to the tune of billions in losses.Also: Elite Pedophile Billionaire Wants To Be Humanity’s PimpJeffrey Epstein wanted to seed the population with his DNA in an effort to expand his hold over humanity.
______________________________________________________
SEE OUR PREVIOUS POSTS:
https://ratherexposethem.blogspot.com/2019/07/amazing-polly-in-depth-research-of.html
https://ratherexposethem.blogspot.com/2019/07/virgin-islands-pedophile-retreat-why.html
https://ratherexposethem.blogspot.com/2019/07/former-clinton-trump-friend-jeffrey.html
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
The popular razor brand Gillette, known for its motto “The Best a Man Can Get,” released a video to social media on Thursday that shows a father encouraging his daughter — who identifies as a man — as she shaves her face for the first time.“Growing up, I was always trying to figure out what kind of man I wanted to become and I’m still trying to figure out what kind of man I want to become,” the young woman, who now goes by the name Samson, says in the advertisement.“I always knew that I was different. I didn’t know that there was a term for the type of person that I was,” she states. “I went into my transition just wanting to be happy. I’m glad I’m at the point where I’m able to shave.”Samson then practices her strokes and her father affirms the motions. The two then go into the bathroom, where Samson has lathered up.“Don’t be scared,” Samson’s father coaches as the two stand over the sink. “Shaving’s about being confident.”“You are doing fine,” he encourages.“I’m at the point in my manhood where I’m actually happy,” Samson tells viewers. “It’s not just myself transitioning. It’s everybody around me transitioning.”The advertisement ends with Samson smiling as the motto for Gillette appears on the screen: “The Best a Man Can Get.”Gillette, which is owned by Procter & Gamble, stated on its Facebook page that the brand is “taking steps to be more inclusive with how gender is represented in our marketing.” It also responded to one commenter, “As a brand committed to helping men look, feel, and act their best, we think it’s important to embrace inclusivity in how we portray masculinity.”While a number of viewers praised Gillette for being “inclusive,” others expressed disappointment and vowed to never buy the brand again.“As the Mama Bear to an amazing young man who happens to be trans, I thank you from the bottom of my heart. The tears flowed watching this. Thank you for representing the trans community. This is so wonderful,” one commenter wrote.“Thank you, Gillette, for including all men in your advertising, and thank you Samson for sharing your story and helping me feel represented!” another stated.“As a trans woman who still has to shave her face frequently, I am happy to see Gillette representing the trans community. Btw Gillette, can I be your trans female spokesperson?” a third asked.“Why haven’t you learned from your other ads and over-the-top wokeness?” one opposing commenter wrote. “Just be a razor company and stop trying to force this down people’s throats.”“Just threw all my Gillette products away,” another advised. “This is ridiculous! They are razors, not political props!”“Gillette [is] really utilizing the crumbling morality of America to be in the spotlight,” a third lamented.As previously reported, the Bible teaches that there is “nothing new under the sun,” as all men are born with the Adamic sin nature, having various inherent inclinations that are contrary to the law of God and being utterly incapable of changing by themselves. Jesus taught that “out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks,” and that men must be supernaturally regenerated by the second birth, and be transformed from being in Adam to being in Christ, or they cannot see the kingdom of Heaven.“If any man walk in the day, he stumbleth not because he seeth the light of this world. But if a man walk in the night, he stumbleth, because there is no light in him,” he said in John 11:9-10.In John 8:12, Jesus declared, “I am the light of the world; He that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.”____________________________________________________________THE REACTION:PARODY: WHY RISK USING A RAZORWHEN YOU CAN USE AN ELECTRIC SHAVER?1983 Good News Razor from Gillette "two blades jingle" TV CommercialCANADIAN REVIEWGillette CEO Says Backlash to
‘Toxic Masculinity’
Ad a “Price Worth Paying”
Despite $8 Billion Writedown
BY PAUL JOSEPH WATSONrepublished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:PAUL JOSEPH WATSON EXPOSES THE CORPORATE ATTACKON WHITE NORMAL MALES & MASCULINITYGillette CEO Gary Coombe said the backlash to the company’s infamous ‘toxic masculinity’ ad was a “price worth paying” despite Procter & Gamble taking $8 billion writedown on its Gillette shaving business.As we previously reported, despite performing well in other areas, Procter & Gamble reported a net loss of $5.24 billion thanks to the $8 billion Gillette writedown.This led many to assert that the company was being punished by consumers for an ad earlier this year that took on ‘toxic masculinity’ by pandering to the #MeToo movement and suggested men need to be taught to not sexually harass women.However, Coombe is not fazed by the backlash, telling Marketing Week that the commercial was a justifiable effort to capture a declining market share from millennials thanks to competition from Harry’s and Dollar Shave Club.“It was pretty stark: we were losing share, we were losing awareness and penetration, and something had to be done,” he said, adding the company decided to “take a chance in an emotionally-charged way.”Coombe said that the intensity of the backlash surprised him but that it was still a “price worth paying.”“I don’t enjoy that some people were offended by the film and upset at the brand as a consequence,” said Coombe. “That’s not nice and goes against every ounce of training I’ve had in this industry over a third of a century. But I am absolutely of the view now that 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.”One wonders how small this “minority” was given the $8 billion writedown.
