Group of Corporate CEOs Declare Their Core Goal is No Longer Making Money – It is Promoting Anal Sex

Andrew Anglin
Daily Stormer
August 19, 2019

“Yes, I’ll have a double McAnal, an antibiotic-resistant McGonorrhea and a McProlapse. To go, please.”

Our corporate overlords are declaring a desire to treat us like loving fathers rather than rapist step fathers.

Should we trust them?

Washington Post:

The organization representing the nation’s most powerful chief executives is rewriting how it views the purpose of a corporation, updating its decades-old endorsement of the theory that shareholders’ interests should come above all else.

The new statement, released Monday by the Business Roundtable, suggests balancing the needs of a company’s various constituencies and comes at a time of widening income inequality, rising expectations from the public for corporate behavior and proposals from Democratic lawmakers that aim to revamp or even restructure American capitalism.

“Americans deserve an economy that allows each person to succeed through hard work and creativity and to lead a life of meaning and dignity,” reads the statement from the organization, which is chaired by JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon.

The group says its members “share a fundamental commitment to all of our stakeholders,” and commit to doing well by their customers, employees, suppliers and local communities. “Each of our stakeholders is essential,” the group adds. “We commit to deliver value to all of them, for the future success of our companies, our communities and our country.”

The new statement comes as the gap between the compensation growth of corporate executives and American workers has grown at staggering rates. An analysis released Aug. 14 by the Economic Policy Institute, a left-leaning think tank, found that chief executive compensation had grown 940 percent since 1978, by one measure, while typical worker compensation had risen just 12 percent over the same period.

A range of lawmakers, meanwhile, are trying to force companies to consider society’s larger goals when they do business or be penalized. Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Elizabeth Warren (Mass.) has proposed a plan that would require U.S. corporations to turn over part of their board of directors to members chosen by employees. Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, another 2020 hopeful, would prohibit corporations from buying back their own stock — a move that drives up share prices — unless they offer a certain level of pay and benefits for workers. Other efforts include bills to penalize companies for data breaches or improve the diversity of corporate boards.

Basically, this would all seem reasonable.

But actually, it isn’t.

The WaPo eventually spills the beans on what this is actually about:

Meanwhile, corporations are facing increasing pressure — whether from customers, employees or public groups — to take stands on issues that impact society at large. Tech companies have had employees push back against contracts with immigration and border control agencies. Walmart has faced calls to stop selling guns after a recent mass shooting in one of its stores and senior corporate leaders have been increasingly vocal on social issues ranging from racism to LGBTQ rights as consumers increasingly look to spend money with companies that share their views.

The statement is short. It doesn’t contain the “LGBTQ” term, let alone the term “anal sex with men,” but it does say “foster diversity and inclusion.”

And we all know what that means.

As far as the moral behavior they’re saying they’re going to start displaying – those are just vague platitudes.

Look at these terms:

  • Delivering value
  • Exceeding customer expectations
  • Investing in our employees
  • Dealing fairly
  • Serving as good partners
  • Supporting the community

None of those has any concrete meaning that I can ascertain. The only one I understand is “diversity and inclusion,” which means “anal sex, women and black people.”

Further, the term “stakeholder” is simply a focus group tested buzzword.

You might also note that this is far from the first time corporations have said “we believe in values.”

This is all a hoax on a number of different levels.

Anal First Corporate Shilling

Firstly, I think it’s already obvious that the plan is to cover up their evil machinations by promoting anal sex.

These companies have been going nuts lately, outright demanding that their customers get fucked up the ass. Burger King and Mercedes-Benz are two notable mega-corporations that recently released ads instructing their customers that if they are moral people, they are getting railed up their rectums by men.

The fact is that anal sex is the most important thing to the left in America today. They will whine about the economy and the fact that they don’t have any money, but if you make them choose between more money and anal sex, most of them will choose anal sex.

On the right, most people apparently believe that corporations should just be able to do whatever they want to anyone, and though Trump cracked that a little bit, most people will revert to it if pressed. If they’re able to get Tucker Carlson off the air – which they will do – all of their leaders will be saying the same thing, and so they will go along with it. They’re obviously comfortable with the idea that it is very important for multinational corporations to be allowed to destroy their lives with impunity.

“Self-Regulation” is a Stupid Concept

Secondly, this is proposed “self-regulation,” which is an attempt to cut off any attempts at regulation.

Although people care more about anal sex on the left and more about voodoo economics on the right, people all over the country are upset about the fact that corporations are going nuts, and there are populist movements on both sides calling for the government to regulate them.

If they make the claim that they will regulate themselves, they are able to avoid the government doing it, as we hurdle toward this weird future they have planned for us.

The reality is that even if they wanted to self-regulate because Jamie Dimon is just a really good and moral person, it would not be good for society. Markets have to exist, at least within our current order (a command economy is not really a realistic demand, even if you believe in it, until a whole litany of other aspects of the society are drastically changed – and if those things were changed, a command economy would no longer seem desirable). Corporations should be trying to make the most money possible within a set of hard rules. The job of the government should be to create regulations around which the market has to work.

For example, it is good that the food industry does its best to deliver food for the lowest price possible. What is not good is that the food is often poisonous or not really even food, due to the fact that corporations buy the cheapest possible ingredients in order to deliver food for the lowest prices. So what should happen is that the government implements regulations about food quality – a ban on soy, plastic, certain preservatives, corn syrup, trans fats, hormone injections and antibiotics in meat, etc. – and then the food companies are forced to work within those hard rules to produce the products and sell them as cheaply as possible.

The same is true for trade: it has to be regulated by the government. After NAFTA and GATT, there were actually corporations that wanted to stay in America – New Balance did – but they also said that it was impossible for them to stay in America when all of their competitors were moving to China. It would make it so they could not be competitive. Before NAFTA and GATT, there was trade regulation by the government which kept companies in America, so they had to work within that framework.

If such regulations were implemented, products would cost more, but wages would also go up. CEOs would get paid whatever the companies that hire them could afford to pay them (which is the same thing that is happening now).

A corporation cannot be expected to be moral, because any corporation who tried to be moral would be unseated by one who is less moral. Even if there is no one to unseat them because they are a monopoly, the entire structure of modern economics is driven by a profit motive, so there is just nowhere to inject morality there. Furthermore, these are massive companies, and there is no individual who can be expected to behave morally. People point to the CEOs, but they are still employees of the company, and hired by the company because it is believed they are the best possible person to do the job. Corporate morality is an unrealistic expectation.

The core of the problem is with the lobbying groups themselves, which manipulate the government into doing the bidding of these corporations. The group that published this paper is a lobbying group.

There should be a checks and balances system between the government and corporations, but when you allow corporations to lobby the government to change regulations, you eliminate that checks and balances system.

This is one of the many reasons that democracy was such a horrible mistake. The people have no one to complain to. A traditional power structure had a figure who could be held responsible for what happened in society, who the people could appeal to directly and state their demands. In democracy, you vote for people who are not obligated to do what they tell you they’re going to do, and then when they betray you, you vote for different people who also have zero obligations. This system utterly isolates the people from having any influence at all on the institutions of power.


None of this is likely to get fixed any time soon, because we are living in the absolute most corrupt system that has ever existed in all of human history.

I’m just explaining what the deal is.

You should expect this language to intensify, and you should expect the continued aggressive pandering to the social values of the far-left, as that is the target that needs to be isolated and silenced, as they are the ones using the most extreme anti-corporate rhetoric.

They are probably going to do something silly with the way CEOs are paid – some trick where they change the way that these massive sums of money are transferred to them.

Amazon might make some changes, just because their behavior has become so cartoonishly egregious, but they won’t be major changes. They will continue to push off the cost of paying their employees to the government.

I will say again what I have said many a time: nothing is going to change in this country until we change the fundamental way we look at human existence.