EXCLUSIVE: Leaked Policy Exposes Fox News Stances on Woke Ideology

[Anti Federalist]

https://twitter.com/bryrobinson/status/1661071651923021824

To me that explains the "how", but still leaves they "why" unanswered.

I remain convinced that the "why" is threefold:

1 - Weirdosexualism in all its forms, is a genetic dead end. Without a steady flow of new and younger "recruits" it would, by nature, fizzle out and die.

2 - On a personal level, this moves the ball further down the field towards the public acceptance of further and more grotesque perversions, such as pedophilia.

3 - And the last is most important because this is why the Marxist left around the world has joined in this cause with a full throated roar. It forces the average person to reject reality, reject what their eyes and ears and brain tells them, and substitutes it with absurdity, that they must comply with, under penalty of law.

What say you?

 

[Occam's Banana]

To me that explains the "how", but still leaves they "why" unanswered.

I remain convinced that the "why" is threefold:

1 - Weirdosexualism in all its forms, is a genetic dead end. Without a steady flow of new and younger "recruits" it would, by nature, fizzle out and die.

2 - On a personal level, this moves the ball further down the field towards the public acceptance of further and more grotesque perversions, such as pedophilia.

3 - And the last is most important because this is why the Marxist left around the world has joined in this cause with a full throated roar. It forces the average person to reject reality, reject what their eyes and ears and brain tells them, and substitutes it with absurdity, that they must comply with, under penalty of law.

What say you?

Those are some elements of the ideological "Marxist Robber-Wreckers" side of the "why" (which is especially prominent in Hollywood). But there's also the side of the opportunistic exploiters who see the enactment of things such as wokism-as-corporate-policy (in the form of ESG scores and the like) as a way of curtailing competition - or leashing it on an easily-yanked chain. [1]

When investment capital and financial services (especially in the form of credit lines) come with "woke" ESG-type strings attached (from the likes of BlackRock [2] and others), companies like Disney, Amazon, Target, etc. are far better able to afford any losses from reactionary backlash than their smaller competitors who haven't hopped on the bandwagon for whatever reason.

As I said earlier:

Will they really lose money and/or market share, though?

It is not at all clear that they will, what with the increasing use of ESG-type "social credit scores" for corporate entities as a gatekeeping metric for institutional investing & finance, marketing services, etc. (Keep in mind here that Fox News' "market" is its investors and advertisers, not its audience - the audience is just the product.)

Smaller entities that don't "get with the program" will become increasingly untenable, and the marginal ones will go under - leaving their revenues and market share up for grabs by the established players. The same kind of dynamic is at the root of why, for example, Amazon supports increasing mandatory minimum wages, despite the fact that paying higher wages will, ceteris paribus, reduce their own revenues in the short term. They can better afford to take the hit for the sake of the longer-term revenues (and market share) they'll gain when their smaller, more marginal competitors go up against the ropes (or down for the count).

Or, to put it much more succinctly:

It doesn't matter if nobody really wants Victory Gin, if it's the only gin on offer.

[1] However, these two "sides" are really only allies of convenience (the Iger/Kennedy dynamic I touched upon earlier might be an example of this). They're all just cutthroats whose strategies happen to align, even though their ultimate purposes are different. Either would likely try to eliminate or subdue the other if they stop being useful to each other for their respective purposes:

The Marxist ghouls themselves may not want to make money, but many of their enablers and ad hoc allies do. The more subsidies, grants, anti-competitive regulations, government (or government-adjacent) contracts, etc. they can bring within the ambit of their influence and control (using schemes like ESG), the less sensitive to the market the HyperMegaGloboCorps need to be (and then it's Victory Gin all around ...).

Of course, each group (the profit-hat[ers] on the one hand, and their profit-seeking allies/enablers on the other) probably imagines that it is using the other, and that it can eliminate the other (or subdue it to its purpose) once it has secured the upper hand in corporate/government executive and administrative bureaucracies.

Of course, I'm sure there are plenty of hybrid hypocrites in the mix who partake of the ambitions of both sides (i.e., ideological wreckers who simultaneously seek to enrich themselves and their cronies relative to everyone else upon whom they wish to foist their ideology).

[2] And regarding BlackRock, see chairman and CEO Larry Fink's remarks @ 20:22 in the next-to-last video in the following post (here).

 

[Occam's Banana]

h/t @RJB for the videos: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...y-promotions&p=7173532&viewfull=1#post7173532

See especially @ 11:00+:

The BUD LIGHT Collapse: How ESG cost both DISNEY and ANHEUSER-BUSCH their customers
In the four years, Kathleen Kennedy drove away half the Star Wars audience. Marvel Studios drove away half their audience from the MCU in three years. Anheuser-Busch however, did the same for Bud Light overnight! All it took was the idealism of VP Alissa Heinerscheid and the services of influencer Dylan Mulvaney. There is however a common theme through all of these, and Bud Light presents an excellent case study in what that is, namely ESG - Environmental, Social, & Governance. In this video, we will begin by briefly breaking down the boycott against Bud Light, why ESG is the root cause for both Disney and Anheuser-Busch driving away their audience, and why THIS could be an infl[e]ction point!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExXEiMz5Z38


From BAD to WORSE for BUD LIGHT as ESG-rating is SLASHED!!!
In the past month, Anheiser-Busch beverages have lost as many customers it Star Wars and Marvel years to accomplish, but for AB Inbev, the problems are just getting started … because their ESG-rating was just downgraded, putting them at risk of insolvency! Miller Light and Dove are seemingly doing their best to take some of the heat off Bud Light, but in this, they are alone. In this editorial, Andre Einherjar will explain why the whole reason why they sponsored a certain influncer in the first place was in order to preserve their ESG rating, even if that put them at odds with their customers; and why it was all for naught, as their ESG rating just cratered anyways … and finally, what that means!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AduAdJBeiok

https://twitter.com/ConceptualJames/status/1663320293237043200

Here are the referenced videos:

Go to the 8:00 mark in this first one to skip the preamble matter and get to the meat - and see especially the section starting at 20:22, featuring Larry Fink, chairman and CEO of BlackRock (and just as a curious aside, notice how he speaks terms "citizen of the firm" at 21:37).

The Little Mermaid UNDERPERFORMS, Indiana Jones FLOPS, as Stakeholder Capitalism DESTROYS Disney
Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny is well on the path towards flopping, just like everything else in the recent history of Marvel, Star Wars and Lucasfilm, and depending of which metrics you use, The Little Mermaid can be added to that. Couple that with Reedy Creek, mass firings, and Disney Plus cancellations, and it’s amazing just how badly Disney are failing across the board – they might as well have told Anheuser-Busch to hold their Bud Light! How could it come to this?! Well, a big part of the reason why is Disney adopting ESG and Stakeholder Capitalism, both of which shall be explained in this video!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8K8tw1-rEI


Stakeholder Capitalism and the End of History
In 1844, Karl Marx explained that Communism, “as the positive transcendence of private property as human self-estrangement” is “the riddle of history solved, and it knows itself to be this solution. In 2016, 172 years later, Klaus Schwab’s World Economic Forum put forth a bold future-casting video proclaiming that by the year 2030 “you will own nothing, and you will be happy.” These, of course, are the same assertion. Flashing back, in 1964, in the book One-dimensional Man, Herbert Marcuse explained that to move forward with the Marxist project, socialism had to figure out how to become productive without abandoning its core values and capitalism had to be reined in to curb its inherent unsustainability. That is, Marcuse reframed the riddle of history and pointed in the direction of a way to solve it. This year, in 2023, just weeks ago in an interview resulting from the Davos meeting [1], Klaus Schwab articulated his vision for this solution: state capitalism on the one hand and shareholder capitalism on the other have to be reconsidered into a new model he calls “stakeholder capitalism” that incorporates certain aspects of “social responsibility.” Yet again, these are the same assertion. In this episode of the New Discourses Podcast, host James Lindsay explains these ideas in unprecedented depth, reading through and building off an essay he wrote for New Discourses on this very subject last October: “[URL="https://newdiscourses.com/2022/10/riddle-of-history-solved/"]The Riddle of History, Solved.” Join him to understand what “stakeholder capitalism” really is in terms of “productive socialism” and capitalism reframed in terms of the “sustainability” agenda.
https://odysee.com/@newdiscourses:9/stakeholder-capitalism-and-the-end-of:c

[1]	https://twitter.com/PressBritish/status/1585762270184935428

 

[Occam's Banana]

https://twitter.com/LibertyLockPod/status/1663778867880812545

[additional matter hidden to save space]

 

https://twitter.com/LibertyLockPod/status/1663778869000781825
to: https://twitter.com/LibertyLockPod/status/1663778892862091264

 

[jmdrake]

Epoc Times : Was Tucker let go for hurting Fox's ESG score?

 

[Occam's Banana]

THREAD: The Corporate Equality Index and the ESG Racket