Greg Karber Punishes Capitalism With A Blowjob

In response to Abercrombie & Fitch CEO Mike Jeffries not wanting “not so cool” kids or women who wear size large to wear his company’s clothes, Greg Karber has come up with a funny and creative way to readjust the Abercrombie & Fitch brand.

He’s giving their clothes to the homeless. [Link]

It is a profoundly-sad reflection of our age that Greg Karber’s actions in the video are confused with actual human kindness. All I see is a man throwing clothes at some smelly human-shaped objects for the purpose of getting the librul wimminz moist.

…What, you didn’t notice that the focus is on the clothing, and not the human beings?

A few million psychopaths didn’t notice, either.

Guess what they vote for?

Trigger Warning: Exploitation.
Trigger Warning: Exploitation.
I.

This dude totally deserves the respect of the dildocrats, braving the dangers of an outlet mall and those homeless props to make a popularly-banal statement.

One can only hope this progressive-thinker and self-described “entrepreneur” achieves his ultimate goal of profit… Though perhaps it may be seen as a bit hypocritical: Karber attacking Mike Jeffries for pandering to a specific audience is in effect pandering to another specific audience.

It’s a good thing Huffpo’s demographic aren’t known for being deep or attentive minds, what with them being dildo-worshipers and all. Btw, did you see what (dildo) celebrity x was wearing at y? If you see it, it’s for you.

II.

One thing that strikes me as lulzier still is the idea that buying a company’s product is a means of protesting them.

The image of elitism is what sells A&F’s product, it is a means to an end, and not the end itself. Buying Abercrombie to consume in protest of their “elitism” doesn’t subvert Abercrombie, it doesn’t troll Mike Jeffries, and it doesn’t fundamentally change realty. It certainly doesn’t advance a meaningful idea. If anything, it just solidifies the reasons why Jeffries is Jeffries and Karber is not Jeffries.

Or, if I can be permitted a judicious use of psychoanalytic jargon: it’s the rationalization that allows you to blow a guy you can’t stand, “I hate him but I’m going to make him cum so hard he’ll just want more of me, which will be his punishment.” Let that analogy sink in for a moment. From his perspective, not only did he still get blown, he liked it even more*NB: in this analogy, the guy is capitalism and you’re not. [link]
*

III.

Western Dildocracy is a surprisingly-nuanced system of governance, where the engorged lumpenprole caste are empowered enough to be stupid and happy, while simultaneously disempowered enough to be happy and stupid. It is a collaborative effort of numerous forces, not all of them even aware of their true purpose within the system. That’s a good Goyim.

Of course, mixing uppers and downers have been known to stop the heart, but we’ll cross that bridge when we get there.

Understanding how the system works, you recognize that Jeffries and Karber form a dialectic within dildocracy (a dildolectic, if you will).  Mike Jeffries gives you your stupid conflict, and Greg Karber gives you your stupid resolution.

That nothing is fundamentally changed is immaterial; the orgasm has been achieved cheaply, with very little danger to both the consumer and the system. Christian Grey is pleased.

So fucking brave.
Trigger warning: Irony
> You gave the system you don’t like a spectacular blowjob, and then try to punish it by making it want you more. From the system’s perspective, not only did it still get blown, it liked it even more. In this analogy, the system is the system and you’re not.

Amen.

Author image
Bulbasaur is a blue collar worker and part-time polemicist from the Southern U.S.