#identitypolitics

[karl-says]

Capitalism and the Patriarchy

Through the breaking down of our puritan beliefs about gender and dismantling restrictive gender roles and stereotypes, we bind ourselves, we can take crucial steps toward true freedom. The patriarchy and capitalism so are deeply intertwined, each benefiting and reinforcing the other; the former, through these gender roles, perpetuates inequality an thrives on the hierarchical structures it creates. While capitalism, exploits these divisions to maximize profit and control. Only when they saw more profit and labor did they finally accept women into the workplace.

[operationalinsights]

Woke Capital: The Corporate Conquest of Culture and the Battle for Consumer Sovereignty

In the ever-evolving landscape of modern capitalism, a new force has emerged that is reshaping not only how businesses operate, but also how they engage with culture, politics, and society at large. Woke Capital essay delves into this profound shift, where large corporations—traditionally focused on maximizing profits and serving consumers—have transformed into ideological agents that wield considerable influence over social norms and political discourse. This shift, often referred to as woke capitalism, has prompted intense debates about the role corporations should play in societal change, and whether the public has the power to hold them accountable.

Historically, capitalism was defined by a straightforward equation: businesses existed to serve customers, generate profits, and grow market share. Companies' success hinged on their ability to meet the needs of their consumers, build brand loyalty, and remain competitive in the marketplace. Yet, in the past few decades, this model has increasingly given way to a new paradigm—one in which companies are not only driven by economic objectives, but also by an ideological commitment to progressive social causes. This new approach, centered on issues like racial and gender equality, environmental sustainability, LGBTQ+ rights, and broader social justice concerns, has led many corporations to embrace activism as part of their brand identity.

This ideological pivot has been facilitated by a confluence of factors. First, the rise of powerful institutional investors like BlackRock and Vanguard has driven corporations to prioritize Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) initiatives—standards that promote corporate responsibility on issues ranging from climate change to diversity and inclusion. These institutional investors not only wield massive financial influence but also play a role in shaping corporate priorities, often pushing companies to adopt social and environmental agendas. Secondly, the cultural forces of the digital age—particularly the rise of social media—have given consumers unprecedented power to influence corporate behavior. Today, brands can no longer ignore public sentiment, and every tweet, post, or viral video can lead to swift public backlash or praise. This has led some companies to make bold political statements or align themselves with progressive causes, hoping to attract younger, more socially-conscious consumers.

However, the embrace of "woke" ideologies by corporations is not without its controversies. Many critics argue that corporations are abandoning their core responsibility to their shareholders and consumers in favor of social engineering. For instance, when companies like Bud Light or Harley-Davidson wade into politically charged waters by promoting progressive values, they risk alienating a large segment of their traditional consumer base, which may feel that their products no longer reflect their values. This tension is especially pronounced in sectors like sports, entertainment, and consumer goods, where corporate activism can clash with deeply-held cultural traditions and values.

At the heart of Woke Capital essay is the question: what happens when corporations become more concerned with social justice and political correctness than with the needs and desires of their customers? What are the consequences for brands that try to balance these competing interests? And, perhaps most critically, who truly holds power in this new corporate ecosystem���the consumers, or the ideologically-driven investors and activists behind the scenes?

In answering these questions, Woke Capital essay examines both the rise of this new corporate activism and the backlash it has provoked. Conservative activists, pundits, and grassroots movements have begun to challenge woke capitalism, organizing boycotts and mobilizing consumers through alternative media channels to resist what they see as corporate overreach. These activists argue that the rise of woke capitalism not only undermines traditional market principles, but also forces social and political agendas on consumers who may not share those views. By looking at case studies of iconic brands like Bud Light, Harley-Davidson, and others, the book offers a nuanced analysis of the financial and cultural risks corporations face when they take political stances without considering their broader consumer base.

This essay does not merely serve as a critique of woke capitalism; it also explores the potential for consumer sovereignty to return to the forefront of the corporate agenda. Through the lens of conservative activism, we see how social media, alternative media outlets, and grassroots campaigns are empowering ordinary consumers to reclaim their influence over the marketplace. The rise of these movements represents a potential shift back toward a more consumer-driven capitalism, where businesses must again cater to the needs and desires of their customer base, rather than pushing political ideologies.

Ultimately, Woke Capital offers readers a comprehensive view of the evolving relationship between corporations, consumers, and culture in the modern age. It explores the power dynamics at play within corporate boardrooms, the role of institutional investors in shaping corporate policy, and the growing influence of consumer-led activism in pushing back against ideological overreach. By examining both the rise of woke capitalism and the increasing pushback against it, the book provides a critical roadmap for understanding how the future of corporate America might unfold in a politically polarized society. It challenges readers to consider whether the ideological turn in business is sustainable, and if so, at what cost to both brands and consumers alike.

This essay is for anyone interested in understanding the intersection of corporate power, consumer influence, and political ideology in the 21st century. It serves as both a critique and a guide, offering readers an in-depth look at how the corporate world has become a battleground for cultural and ideological warfare, and how consumers can fight back to reclaim their sovereignty in the marketplace.

The Rise of Woke Capitalism

The phenomenon of woke capitalism did not emerge overnight. It represents the culmination of decades of cultural, economic, and political shifts that have redefined the role of corporations in society. To understand how we arrived at this moment, we must first look at the changing nature of activism and how it has evolved from the classic economic struggles of Marxist thought to a more cultural and ideological focus—one that has embedded itself within the very structures of corporate America.

At its core, woke capitalism is a response to a broader cultural shift, where political and social activism has moved away from traditional, materialistic concerns—such as labor rights or wealth redistribution—to focus more on identity, diversity, and social justice. The left, traditionally concerned with economic equity and class struggles, has increasingly prioritized cultural issues. This shift has paved the way for corporations to not only engage in economic activities but to become major players in the cultural and ideological battles of our time.

From Economic Struggles to Cultural Leverage

In classic Marxism, activism was deeply rooted in economic inequality—workers rising against the bourgeoisie, with the ultimate goal of overturning capitalist structures. The struggle was focused on wealth redistribution, labor rights, and control over the means of production. However, in the late 20th century, a new form of activism began to emerge. This new leftist movement, sometimes referred to as "cultural Marxism," did not focus solely on the economic exploitation of workers but expanded the scope of its critique to include cultural and social systems of power. The oppression of marginalized groups based on race, gender, sexuality, and other identity markers became central to progressive activism.

This cultural shift was aided by the rise of technology and the globalization of media. As communication networks grew and social media platforms flourished, ideas about social justice, environmentalism, and identity politics began to gain traction in public discourse. Instead of marching in the streets with calls for economic revolution, activists began to target institutions—especially the corporate world—through boycotts, public pressure campaigns, and shareholder activism. Corporations, with their vast reach and immense influence, became the new battleground for cultural warfare.

The Corporate Embrace of Ideology

By the early 2000s, some of the world’s largest corporations, particularly those in the tech sector, began to recognize the growing influence of this cultural shift. For companies like Google, Facebook, and Twitter, this was not merely a matter of participating in social debates—it was a strategic business decision. In a globalized, hyper-connected world, corporate brands were no longer just selling products—they were selling identities. Consumers were increasingly looking for brands that shared their values, whether those values were centered around environmental sustainability, social justice, diversity, or inclusion. The rise of the so-called "conscious consumer" created a marketplace in which corporate values mattered as much as the products themselves.

For tech giants like Google and Facebook, whose products were often invisible to the end consumer, aligning with progressive values was a way to build loyalty and legitimacy in a highly competitive market. These companies began promoting progressive stances on everything from LGBTQ+ rights to racial justice, often making bold political statements both in their public communications and internal policies. Google's famous “Don’t Be Evil” mantra became a cornerstone of its brand identity, while Facebook's commitment to "community standards" seemed to offer a more inclusive vision for the digital age.

However, this ideological commitment was not always universally embraced, even within these companies. Critics within these firms noted that while these companies projected progressive ideals to the public, their internal structures and profit-maximizing strategies often ran counter to those very values. Yet, the public image was clear: these were companies that stood for progressive change, and they were willing to embrace activism as part of their corporate identity.

Case Studies in Ideological Shift: Google and Facebook

Take Google, for example. Once considered a neutral platform for search and information, Google’s political engagement has grown markedly in the past decade. The company has taken stances on everything from climate change (committing to carbon neutrality by 2020) to social issues like racial justice. In 2018, Google employees staged a walkout in protest of the company’s handling of sexual harassment allegations against high-ranking executives, marking a moment when employee activism became part of the corporate culture. The company’s response to this internal pressure further solidified its identity as a corporation deeply embedded in the social issues of the day.

Facebook’s evolution is also emblematic of the rise of woke capitalism. Originally launched as a social networking platform designed to connect people, Facebook soon realized the power it wielded not only as a business but as a cultural force. Over time, the platform has become a key player in political discourse, and its policies have often reflected progressive ideals. For instance, Facebook’s content moderation policies, which were designed to curb hate speech and promote safe spaces for marginalized communities, have often been accused of disproportionately targeting conservative viewpoints. Additionally, the company’s involvement in high-profile political issues—such as its stance on LGBTQ+ rights or its decisions about climate change—has made it a lightning rod for criticism from both the left and the right.

These tech giants have not only shaped the digital landscape but have also set the stage for the broader corporate embrace of progressive causes. The ideology that was once confined to social movements has now become a selling point for some of the largest and most influential companies in the world.

The Role of Institutional Investors and Corporate Governance

While individual companies like Google and Facebook have been at the forefront of the woke capitalism movement, it is also important to recognize the role of institutional investors in promoting these values. Large financial entities like BlackRock and Vanguard, which control trillions of dollars in assets, have played an increasingly influential role in shaping corporate agendas. These investors have pushed companies to adopt Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) criteria as part of their business models. In many cases, ESG considerations have become as important as profit margins in determining the success of a company, particularly for publicly traded firms.

The influence of institutional investors has been particularly pronounced in sectors like energy, finance, and retail, where public perception and regulatory concerns can have a direct impact on a company’s bottom line. By prioritizing social and environmental issues alongside financial ones, these investors have helped shape a new corporate culture that blends social activism with economic goals. For many corporations, aligning with ESG standards has become an essential part of staying competitive in the global market.

The Expansion of Corporate Activism

As we enter the 2020s, the rise of woke capitalism is unmistakable. It is no longer limited to the tech giants of Silicon Valley but has spread across industries from fashion and entertainment to finance and consumer goods. Companies like Nike, which once focused exclusively on selling athletic gear, now engage in political activism, endorsing social justice movements like Black Lives Matter and even making high-profile statements about police brutality and systemic racism. Similarly, companies like Starbucks and Ben & Jerry’s have used their platforms to promote progressive causes, from climate change awareness to refugee rights.

In each case, the embrace of social causes has come with significant risks. When companies take ideological stances, they expose themselves to the possibility of backlash from consumers who disagree with their positions. However, in a world where social issues are increasingly central to political identity, aligning with progressive values has become an essential part of building a brand that resonates with younger, more diverse consumers.

Conclusion: The New Corporate Power

The rise of woke capitalism signals a profound transformation in the role of corporations within society. No longer just economic entities driven by profit, companies are increasingly becoming ideological players that influence cultural and political landscapes. This shift is a response to broader social changes, including the rise of identity politics, the growing importance of consumer activism, and the influence of institutional investors. As corporations take on this new role, they must navigate the challenges of balancing ideological commitments with financial sustainability, all while responding to a growing backlash from consumers and political opponents who feel alienated by this corporate activism.

In the next sections, we will explore the consequences of this shift in greater detail—looking at the contradictions inherent in woke capitalism, the financial risks involved, and the rise of consumer activism as a counterbalance to corporate ideological power. But first, it is crucial to understand the foundational change in corporate priorities that has set the stage for this cultural battle. Woke capitalism, it seems, is here to stay—but its future is anything but uncertain.

The End of "Customer is King"

In the traditional framework of capitalism, the mantra "the customer is king" was the guiding principle of business strategy. Companies existed to serve the needs of their customers, ensuring satisfaction through quality products, competitive pricing, and responsive customer service. The idea was simple: meet the demands of the consumer, and the profits would follow. This model prioritized the consumer's wants and preferences as the ultimate measure of business success. A company that could anticipate and cater to its customer base would thrive, while one that ignored or alienated its consumers would fail.

However, with the rise of woke capitalism, this customer-centric approach has been fundamentally disrupted. Increasingly, companies are not merely concerned with satisfying their consumer base, but are instead aligning their business practices with political, social, and environmental goals—often to the detriment of the very customers they once served. This shift reflects a broader cultural and economic transformation where corporate priorities are increasingly shaped by the demands of political elites, activist movements, and institutional investors, rather than the purchasing preferences of individual consumers.

The Shift Toward ESG Priorities

At the heart of this transformation is the increasing influence of Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) criteria. ESG standards are designed to ensure that companies not only pursue profit but also contribute to social good, environmental sustainability, and ethical governance. While these goals can sound appealing on paper, their implementation in corporate strategy often requires a departure from traditional business practices that prioritize customer satisfaction and shareholder value.

Institutional investors like BlackRock and Vanguard—two of the largest asset management firms in the world—have played a significant role in driving the shift toward ESG. As major stakeholders in countless corporations, these firms have pushed companies to adopt ESG frameworks, often linking financial incentives to the achievement of certain social and environmental goals. This pressure has led companies across industries to adopt progressive stances on issues such as climate change, diversity and inclusion, and corporate governance reform. The consequences of this shift are multifaceted, and the result is an increasing prioritization of political and financial elites over the preferences of the average consumer.

For example, BlackRock’s CEO, Larry Fink, has been a vocal advocate for ESG investing, famously stating that companies should focus not just on profits but on "purpose." In his annual letters to CEOs, Fink has emphasized the need for businesses to show their commitment to environmental sustainability, diversity, and long-term social goals. As one of the largest asset managers in the world, BlackRock has the financial clout to influence corporate behavior on a massive scale. Their push for ESG-focused business practices has led many companies to reorient their strategies to meet the expectations of investors like BlackRock, even when such changes might alienate certain segments of their consumer base.

Financial Elites Shape Corporate Identity

The influence of financial elites like BlackRock and Vanguard has led to a shift in corporate priorities from serving customers to serving the demands of investors who prioritize long-term sustainability and social responsibility. Companies, particularly publicly traded ones, are increasingly beholden not only to their consumers but also to shareholders who seek to align their investments with their political and ideological values.

For instance, when financial firms push companies to adopt climate-focused policies or promote diversity initiatives, the immediate focus often shifts from the consumer’s wants to the investor’s interests. In a world where public companies are under increasing pressure from institutional investors to adopt ESG practices, a corporation may find that adhering to these expectations provides a competitive edge in attracting capital—even at the cost of alienating some customers. This has become particularly noticeable in industries like energy, transportation, and consumer goods, where public perceptions of corporate responsibility play an outsized role in driving investment.

In many cases, companies find themselves walking a fine line between pleasing investors and avoiding backlash from consumers who may view these ESG-driven changes as unnecessary or out of touch with their needs. For example, when large oil and gas companies announce ambitious plans to reduce carbon emissions or invest in renewable energy, they may face criticism from their traditional customer base—such as working-class communities who rely on affordable energy—while satisfying the expectations of investors who prioritize sustainability.

Case Study: The Corporate Shift in Retail and Consumer Goods

A striking example of the tension between ESG goals and customer interests can be seen in the retail and consumer goods industries. Over the past decade, major brands like Nike, Patagonia, and Ben & Jerry’s have made public commitments to progressive causes, from environmental sustainability to social justice. While these moves have garnered praise from certain consumer segments and activist groups, they have also sparked backlash from others who feel that these companies are pushing political agendas at the expense of the products they sell.

Nike’s decision to feature Colin Kaepernick, the controversial NFL quarterback who took a knee during the national anthem to protest racial injustice, was a prime example of this shift. The move was praised by many within the progressive left and was viewed as a bold statement on social justice. However, it also alienated a significant portion of Nike’s core customer base—particularly older, more conservative consumers who felt that the company was inserting politics into sports. The fallout included boycotts and calls for a consumer backlash, yet Nike ultimately saw a surge in sales, especially among younger consumers who viewed the brand's stance as an endorsement of their values.

Similarly, Ben & Jerry’s has long been an outspoken advocate for progressive causes, from climate change action to racial equality. While these positions have resonated with its target demographic—largely younger, liberal consumers—the company has also faced criticism from those who believe its focus on social issues detracts from its core business of making ice cream. In one notable instance, Ben & Jerry’s took a strong stand against the Israeli government’s policies toward Palestine, leading to calls for a boycott from consumers who felt that the company had no place in international politics.

The Cost of Alienating Consumers

The central question is: What happens when companies prioritize the political or social views of their investors or activists at the expense of their customer base? The answer is that, in many cases, they risk alienating loyal consumers who feel that their needs and values are being ignored in favor of corporate virtue signaling. In industries where brand loyalty is paramount—such as automobiles, fashion, or consumer electronics—companies that stray too far from customer expectations risk significant financial consequences.

Take, for example, the backlash faced by companies in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. As businesses were forced to adopt new health and safety protocols, some corporations, particularly in the service and retail sectors, were met with anger from customers who felt that their personal liberties were being infringed upon by corporate mandates related to mask-wearing or vaccine requirements. In these cases, corporations found themselves in a difficult position, balancing the political and social pressure to adopt public health measures with the risk of alienating customers who saw these actions as overreach.

The Backlash Against ESG and Corporate Virtue Signaling

The growing prominence of ESG goals has sparked a significant backlash from conservative activists and consumer groups who argue that corporations are abandoning their primary responsibility to deliver value to shareholders and customers in favor of pursuing political causes. Critics contend that companies that prioritize ESG over traditional business practices are engaging in “virtue signaling”—a superficial attempt to align with progressive ideals without regard for the long-term consequences.

This backlash has taken many forms, from organized boycotts to public campaigns calling for companies to “stick to business.” Conservative figures like Robbie Starbuck have used platforms like social media to galvanize opposition to corporate activism, rallying consumers to reject brands that they perceive as pandering to political correctness. In response, some companies have had to recalibrate their approach, walking back certain initiatives or reassessing the extent to which they embrace political causes.

Conclusion: A New Business Landscape

The rise of woke capitalism marks the end of an era where the customer was unequivocally king. In its place, we have a new model in which companies are increasingly beholden to the demands of political and financial elites—especially institutional investors—who prioritize long-term social and environmental goals over short-term consumer satisfaction. While this shift has been driven in part by the need to appeal to the conscious consumer and attract investment, it has also created a new set of tensions between corporate values and customer expectations.

As we continue to witness the evolution of this phenomenon, the question remains: Can companies truly succeed in a world where their ideological commitments come at the expense of customer loyalty? Will the rise of woke capitalism prove sustainable in the long term, or will the customer, once again, assert their power in the marketplace? This section has outlined the ways in which the traditional customer-first model is being replaced, but the future of corporate America—caught between social justice agendas and consumer interests—remains uncertain. The next section will explore the contradictions inherent in woke capitalism, examining whether this ideological shift can be reconciled with the fundamental profit motives that drive businesses.

The Paradox of Woke Capitalism

The rise of woke capitalism has sparked a heated debate about the fundamental contradictions within this new model of corporate governance. On the surface, it appears to be a curious blend of profit-driven business and ideological activism—a combination that some critics argue is incompatible with the very principles of capitalism. At its core, woke capitalism embraces progressive social causes such as diversity, environmental sustainability, and social justice, but these ideals are often framed in ways that challenge the profit-maximizing ethos that traditionally defined capitalism. This section seeks to explore the paradox that exists when companies, which have historically been driven by the imperative to generate profit, embrace what some view as “neo-Marxist” policies and ideals that seem more at odds with profit motives than aligned with them.

Woke Capitalism and Its Anti-Capitalist Tensions

The term "woke capitalism" itself is somewhat of an oxymoron. Historically, capitalism has been associated with individual liberty, private ownership, and the pursuit of profit above all else. Capitalism thrives on the maximization of wealth, competition, and consumer choice. The shift toward prioritizing social issues—environmental sustainability, gender equality, racial justice—seems to run counter to these traditional capitalist principles, especially when these goals are achieved at the expense of profitability.

In some ways, woke capitalism seems to align more closely with anti-capitalist ideologies, particularly those advanced by left-wing critics of the profit-driven system. For instance, many progressive policies—such as corporate diversity quotas, anti-discrimination mandates, and environmental regulations—are not always designed to maximize profits. Instead, they are often grounded in a desire to correct perceived societal imbalances or injustices. Policies that demand companies to reduce carbon emissions or adopt progressive social stances do not always lead to increased market share or higher earnings. In fact, they can sometimes alienate traditional customer bases or increase operational costs, as companies may have to invest in new technologies, reformulate products, or adjust business models to meet these demands.

Moreover, many of the values associated with woke capitalism, such as a focus on intersectionality or social justice, resonate with movements that critique capitalist structures as inherently exploitative or unjust. This ideological alignment with movements that are often at odds with the profit-maximizing principles of capitalism raises the question: Are companies genuinely embracing these values because they are economically viable, or is this just a means of staying relevant in a rapidly changing cultural landscape?

The Role of Diversity, Social Justice, and ESG

One of the most prominent elements of woke capitalism is the integration of diversity, social justice, and environmentalism into corporate strategies. On paper, these initiatives may appear to be benign or even beneficial for business: diversity initiatives are believed to increase creativity and innovation, while environmental policies appeal to the growing number of consumers who prioritize sustainability. However, when examined more closely, the implementation of these ideals often involves the adoption of policies that prioritize ideology over profit, with mixed results.

Diversity Quotas and Social Justice Branding In many sectors, companies have implemented diversity quotas or adopted branding strategies that emphasize social justice issues. For example, tech companies like Google and Facebook have committed to diversifying their workforce and creating more inclusive environments. While these efforts are presented as morally commendable, they can also introduce a degree of tension within the corporate structure. Diversity quotas, in particular, can be seen as undermining meritocratic principles by prioritizing demographic characteristics over skills and qualifications. This is a delicate balancing act: companies may promote diversity as a core value, but doing so might alienate employees or customers who view these efforts as tokenistic or as a deviation from traditional business priorities.

Social Justice Branding Similarly, companies that engage in "social justice branding"—such as Nike's endorsement of Colin Kaepernick or Ben & Jerry's outspoken support for Black Lives Matter—may align themselves with progressive movements, but at what cost? These initiatives are designed to appeal to younger, more progressive consumers, but they can risk alienating other customer segments. By taking these ideological stances, companies place themselves in a precarious position, often choosing political alignment over customer neutrality.

While many corporations argue that aligning with social justice causes enhances their brand’s reputation and appeals to a values-driven generation of consumers, this approach raises the question of whether they are sacrificing long-term profitability for short-term cultural relevance. In some cases, the backlash from more conservative consumers can result in boycotts or a decline in brand loyalty, leading to significant financial repercussions.

Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) Initiatives Perhaps the most notable manifestation of woke capitalism is the push for companies to adopt ESG initiatives—environmental sustainability practices, social justice goals, and governance reforms. ESG investing has become a major force in global financial markets, with investors demanding that companies take responsibility for not just profits, but also their social and environmental impact. Large investment firms like BlackRock and Vanguard have been vocal advocates for ESG, urging companies to consider the long-term impact of their business practices on the environment and society.

While ESG standards align with certain progressive values, they also present a conundrum for businesses that are ultimately judged by their bottom line. For example, adopting green energy solutions or reducing carbon footprints often requires significant investments in infrastructure, which can diminish short-term profitability. Additionally, companies may face backlash from consumers who feel that the costs of such initiatives—whether reflected in higher prices or changes to product offerings—are being passed onto them without a tangible benefit.

In many cases, these efforts are driven more by pressure from institutional investors than by consumer demand. Companies may be reluctant to take bold stances on social or environmental issues unless it is seen as a way to secure investment or improve shareholder returns in the long term. This creates a paradox: companies may be embracing ESG not out of a genuine desire to make the world a better place, but as a strategic maneuver to secure financial backing and remain competitive in a market that increasingly rewards corporate virtue signaling.

Can Woke Capitalism Be Sustained?

At the heart of this paradox lies a critical question: Is woke capitalism a sustainable business model, or is it merely a trend designed to appeal to a politically engaged consumer base and institutional investors? On the one hand, embracing social justice causes and prioritizing ESG goals can enhance a company’s public image, increase consumer loyalty among progressive groups, and attract investors who value ethical practices. On the other hand, this approach may alienate core customers, reduce profitability, and place companies in the crosshairs of political opponents.

The sustainability of woke capitalism depends on a number of factors:

Consumer Behavior: As much as corporations have aligned with progressive causes, they still operate in a market driven by consumer demand. If consumers, particularly those from more conservative or traditional backgrounds, begin to push back against companies’ ideological stances, businesses may find that the financial costs of "woke" initiatives outweigh the benefits. The backlash against brands like Bud Light and Target, for example, suggests that there are limits to how far companies can push social agendas before facing a consumer revolt.

Profitability vs. Ideology: At the core of capitalism is the imperative to make a profit. If a company’s commitment to progressive values starts to negatively impact its bottom line—whether through increased operational costs or loss of customer base—it may be forced to reconsider its position. The challenge for businesses is to find a balance between satisfying social or political expectations and maintaining profitability. The growing pressure from institutional investors to adopt ESG criteria only complicates this balance, as businesses must navigate the tension between social responsibility and financial performance.

Long-Term Cultural Shifts: Another critical factor is the trajectory of broader cultural and political trends. Will progressive values continue to dominate public discourse, or will there be a resurgence of more conservative, market-driven principles? Companies may need to adapt to changing social dynamics, especially as younger generations, who are more likely to prioritize social issues, gradually become the primary consumer demographic.

Corporate Authenticity: One of the key critiques of woke capitalism is the perception of corporate virtue signaling—companies adopting progressive causes as a marketing strategy rather than out of genuine commitment. If consumers begin to see these corporate stances as inauthentic or opportunistic, it could erode trust and loyalty. For woke capitalism to be sustainable, it must be seen as genuine and aligned with the values of both the company and its customers.

Conclusion: The Paradox Persists

The paradox of woke capitalism lies in the tension between the ideological commitments to social justice and environmentalism, and the profit-driven nature of the companies that embrace these ideals. While woke capitalism may help companies resonate with a younger, more progressive consumer base and align with the expectations of institutional investors, it remains to be seen whether this strategy is sustainable in the long run. The reality is that businesses cannot easily reconcile the demands of social activism with the need for profitability, and the contradictions inherent in this model will likely continue to fuel debates about the future of corporate America and the world at large.

In the next section, we will explore the backlash against woke capitalism and the rise of a new kind of consumer activism, one that seeks to push back against corporate ideological stances and reclaim the power of the consumer in shaping corporate behavior.

The Backlash Begins – A New Kind of Consumer Activism

As woke capitalism has risen to prominence, so too has a powerful counter-movement—a coalition of consumers, influencers, and activists who reject the ideological shift that corporations are making. This backlash is rooted in the belief that businesses should prioritize serving their customers, not pushing political or social agendas. Key figures like conservative commentator Robbie Starbuck have emerged as vocal critics of woke capitalism, using grassroots activism and social media to challenge corporations that they argue are pandering to progressive causes at the expense of their core customers.

Starbuck, along with other critics, has taken aim at a growing number of brands—especially those in traditionally conservative or working-class industries—that have embraced woke ideals, pushing for a return to a consumer-focused model. This section will explore how these critics are reshaping the way corporations engage with both their customers and the broader social landscape. By mobilizing consumer activism through boycotts, targeted campaigns, and alternative media outlets, these critics are redefining the rules of corporate accountability.

The Rise of Consumer-Driven Activism

In an era where corporations have been increasingly willing to sacrifice customer loyalty for the sake of political correctness, a new form of consumer activism has emerged—one that seeks to hold these companies accountable for straying too far from their customers' values. The rise of social media, coupled with widespread disillusionment with mainstream media narratives, has empowered everyday consumers to organize, protest, and mobilize with unprecedented speed.

Figures like Robbie Starbuck have capitalized on this shift, using platforms like Twitter, Instagram, and YouTube to amplify their messages and rally like-minded individuals. Unlike traditional forms of activism, which were often driven by grassroots organizations or political movements, this new wave of consumer activism is decentralized and driven by individuals. Social media gives these critics the ability to engage in direct communication with companies, expose corporate missteps, and rally consumers to take action—all from the comfort of their homes.

Robbie Starbuck and the Call for Corporate Accountability

Robbie Starbuck, a conservative commentator and filmmaker, has become one of the most prominent figures leading the charge against woke capitalism. Known for his outspoken criticism of corporate virtue signaling, Starbuck has used his platform to hold brands accountable for deviating from what he sees as their core identities. Through his campaigns, Starbuck has highlighted the way in which companies are increasingly prioritizing progressive social agendas over the needs and values of their customers.

A key target in Starbuck’s campaign has been Tractor Supply, a brand that has long been associated with rural America and conservative values. Tractor Supply, traditionally a retailer serving farmers, ranchers, and rural communities, faced criticism when it was perceived to be aligning with progressive causes, including diversity initiatives and pro-LGBTQ+ stances. Starbuck argued that by adopting these positions, the company was alienating its core customer base—working-class, conservative Americans who felt that their values were being undermined by the company’s sudden pivot toward social conformity.

Through Twitter threads, YouTube videos, and direct appeals to his followers, Starbuck was able to generate significant backlash against Tractor Supply, calling for boycotts and demanding that the company return to its traditional roots. His campaign, amplified by his large social media following, created a ripple effect, encouraging others to speak out and to demand that companies “stay in their lane”—focusing on providing quality products, not promoting political or social causes. This is a striking example of how consumer activism, fueled by digital platforms, can impact a brand’s bottom line and force companies to rethink their approach to social and political issues.

Harley-Davidson: A Case Study in Identity Crisis

Another high-profile target of conservative consumer activism has been Harley-Davidson, an iconic American brand long associated with rugged individualism, freedom, and a certain anti-establishment ethos. Over the years, Harley-Davidson has been an emblem of Americana, especially within working-class and libertarian circles. However, in recent years, the company has faced criticism for adopting more progressive stances on issues like diversity, inclusion, and environmentalism, which many felt were at odds with its brand identity.

Starbuck, alongside other critics, has argued that Harley-Davidson’s embrace of “woke” values has led the company to abandon its roots, alienating its loyal customer base in the process. A notable moment in this controversy was Harley-Davidson's decision to support environmental causes by adopting electric motorcycles, despite the fact that many of its core riders were enthusiastic supporters of the traditional, gasoline-powered bike. The company's focus on appealing to a more environmentally conscious demographic was seen by some as an effort to cater to the growing progressive movement, rather than remaining faithful to the hard-edged, freedom-loving image that had defined the brand for decades.

Starbuck’s campaign against Harley-Davidson echoed a broader sentiment among traditional consumers who felt that the company had lost touch with what made it unique. Through social media posts and direct appeals to his followers, Starbuck encouraged consumers to boycott Harley-Davidson, using the hashtag #DefendHarley and rallying those who felt the brand was pandering to the left. The campaign garnered attention from conservative groups, motorcycle clubs, and fans of the brand who resented the shift in the company’s priorities.

While Harley-Davidson, like Tractor Supply, may have made these shifts in an attempt to appeal to a more socially progressive audience, the backlash from its core customer base shows the dangers of moving too far away from a brand’s foundational identity. For many of these traditional consumers, the adoption of progressive values wasn’t just a business misstep; it was an existential threat to the core principles of the brand.

The Power of Boycotts and Alternative Media

Boycotts, once seen as a tool of the left, have become a powerful weapon in the hands of conservative consumers. Fueled by social media, conservative critics have made boycott campaigns an effective method of holding companies accountable for their ideological stances. A successful boycott can not only hit a company’s bottom line but can also send a message that resonates far beyond the financials—affirming that consumers do have the power to shape corporate behavior.

But beyond boycotts, alternative media outlets have played a key role in amplifying the message of consumer activists. Platforms like The Daily Wire, Breitbart, and independent podcasts have become central hubs for critics of woke capitalism, providing a space for alternative viewpoints and corporate critiques that often go unreported in mainstream media. These outlets have given voice to a growing segment of the population that feels disenfranchised by the increasing political correctness in corporate America.

Figures like Starbuck have appeared as guests on these alternative media platforms, expanding their reach and increasing their influence. Through these channels, conservative activists have been able to connect with like-minded consumers, build solidarity, and organize boycotts in ways that were previously unimaginable. The decentralization of media has allowed these movements to flourish outside the gatekeepers of traditional news outlets, creating a more direct line between consumer concerns and corporate accountability.

The Impact on Corporate Strategy

The growing backlash against woke capitalism is forcing companies to reconsider how they engage with social and political issues. For many brands, the fear of alienating their core customers is becoming a serious concern. While the younger, more progressive demographic may seem appealing, traditional consumers remain a large and influential force in the market. Companies that fail to balance these competing priorities may find themselves caught in a cultural and financial bind.

In response to consumer activism, some companies are beginning to recalibrate their approach. For instance, Home Depot and Chick-fil-A, once targeted by critics for their perceived political stances, have learned to navigate these waters more cautiously. In some cases, brands have dialed back their political or social activism, focusing instead on their products and services. Others have sought to engage with their customer base more directly, conducting surveys or hosting town hall discussions to better understand the needs and concerns of their core demographic.

At the same time, some companies are choosing to double down on their progressive positions, fully embracing the woke capitalism model. For example, Nike, Ben & Jerry’s, and Patagonia have made it clear that their commitment to social causes is non-negotiable, even if it means losing some customers. These companies may be betting that the long-term financial and reputational rewards of aligning with progressive values outweigh the risks.

Conclusion: The New Face of Consumer Power

The rise of conservative-driven consumer activism marks a shift in how companies must navigate the complex intersection of politics, culture, and business. Figures like Robbie Starbuck and others who have embraced this new model of grassroots organizing are reshaping the conversation about corporate responsibility, challenging the idea that corporations can remain neutral or cater exclusively to the values of the progressive left.

Through boycotts, media campaigns, and direct engagement, these activists are forcing companies to rethink their political stances and consider the views of their broader customer base. The backlash against woke capitalism is not just a temporary trend; it represents a deeper cultural divide that corporations must address if they wish to maintain long-term viability in an increasingly polarized society.

As the battle for consumer sovereignty intensifies, companies will face difficult choices. Will they continue to embrace the progressive ideals of woke capitalism, or will they return to a more customer-centric approach, free from the pressures of political correctness? The outcome of this battle will likely shape the future of corporate America—and may well redefine the role of business in society for years to come.

[tmarshconnors]

"The successful people are the ones who keep on going regardless of what is being thrown at them"

Dr. Jordan Peterson is a Canadian clinical psychologist.

[poetrythreesixfive]

Identified

I exist within this slant-world of dogmatic assumptions

somehow insanely unaligned with the grace of rational

thought so evident to my functional senses desperately

attempting to reconcile the inconsistencies and hypocrisies

and blight of a worldgonemad that openly, and with clear

intent, declares its greed, its animosity, its intent to ruin me,

hate me not for who I am but for what everyone who ever

looked like me, who were never me, had done to someone

else I never met beneath any phase of the moon across the

sweep of nations within history, tokenized, brokenized,

ageistized, inverted into a trope with prejudice, in writing,

and told to shut up and sit down and stand aside and sit in

the back because it’s someone else’s turn, and any attempt

at resistance will be openly and publicly used against me;

rejected for my age, my color, my gender, my ancestry, for

what they think I can or cannot do, and if you are reading

this and feel the same, know that they have a choice about

whether or not to judge you, but you do not have a choice

about who you are, but you must choose how to respond.

                                                -GeorgeFilip

[sumirtheseeker]

The Rise and Rhetoric of Wokeism: Understanding the Phenomenon

I’ve been hearing about this WOKE business for some time. To some extent, I get the idea behind it. At its core, being WOKE means being aware of the issues of the day—issues like race, gender, and social imbalances. At least, that’s how it started. I had an engaging conversation with someone I admire for her curiosity and intellect. This allowed me to discover that my understanding only…

[mineofilms]

Inconveniens

And I just completely abandoned a 5000+ word essay on my thoughts about “after the election.” I was grinding, it was flowing, but then I realized, pretty much everything in this essay is more rehash of older ideas already hashed out over a three year span. I am just done doing that. I feel like even though there is a lot to say about what, how, why democrats lost the way they did and keep losing is just me kickin’ the dying, soon to be dead, that is progressive-woke, into the grave, but a deeper and darker one. So why bother? We all know what, how, why. We saw it. We lived it. We hated it. We voted it out. No reason to elaborate on the specifics. They are still not listening. The losers that double down are on an island all by themselves talking to air, posting to no one on bluesky. Spewing their “view” to a very small minority while the majority either stops watching or only watches for the unhinged meltdowns. There just isn’t a point. Besides. I have 2 to 4 years to be hyper-critical on what the new regime is going to do and I am sure I will have something to say about it, just like everyone else. I still have plenty of content I can draw from: AI, God, AI is God, God is AI, Rock and Metal Subgenres, more on Conceptual Horror, Is reality even real? Album, film review, breakdowns. Fiction, oh my gosh, fiction. Fiction actually pays the bills. I don’t need to write about identity politics, both the winning and losing sides. I said it before, it didn’t matter who won. Us, the people, will lose. I still have yet to see anything that makes me change that perspective. My cynical nature is still quite sound. I still believe the light at the end of the tunnel is just you waving you to go back. I at least applaud the winning side for trying to fix a sinking pirate ship with Popsicle sticks. I felt the breath of fresh air most felt. I heard that loud sigh. A glance over my shoulder to see the hopemonkey. Can they succeed? Well, they will try. I tend to agree with them more than the latter. That is why I did what I did with my vote. I still have issues with the winning side of this but not nearly as much as I do with the losing side. If I have to pick a side I choose the side that hurts me the least in all respects and buries the other side. However, spite. There is that…

These days modern discourse is less about understanding and more about who can shout the loudest. This is an ego-driven circus, performing for applause while tribalism runs the show. It's all projection—identity politics at its finest. Left, right, center, black, white, yellow, red, blue—it’s the same game, just with different colored jerseys. Nobody’s clean, no one’s blameless, no one is innocent. It’s branding, not beliefs. Existentialism whispers in the background, reminding us how meaningless most of it is—especially the outrage. Let’s face it: most of this outrage isn't about fixing anything. It's about influence, it’s about power, it’s about proving you're the “good one” in a society that couldn't care less and has even less “good ones” in it. Real progress?  Yeah, we’ll see about all that. Lately it’s been dead on arrival when people care more about their vibe and how the outside views them than the viability of actual solutions. What they call “progress” is often just running backward and slapping a fancy label on it called “progressivism.” Here’s the truth no one wants to admit: outrage is a drug. It’s not about justice or change. It’s performative, addictive, and pointless. It’s screaming into a digital abyss while real problems fester. And curiosity? Forget it. That died the second we all decided comfort in our echo chambers was better than engaging with the uncomfortable.

Hope, if you squint hard enough, might still be alive. But let’s not kid ourselves—it’s mostly used as bait. Hope sells. Hope manipulates. And in the hands of really bad actors, it’s just another trick to keep us playing a rigged game. It’s like rearranging deck chairs on a sinking ship and calling it innovation. Cancel culture? Yeah, both sides are in on that racket as well. It’s not about accountability; it’s about control. Say the wrong thing, think the wrong thought, laugh at the inappropriate joke, and you’re canceled. Both sides love a good purge—it’s tribal behavior, plain and simple. And if you’re clinging to facts? Good luck. Those are as rare as curiosity. Today’s facts are facts, get this, till they’re not. We live in a society where people actually believe thinking something is real by default without actually validating its authenticity or not. Be it a thing or even a concept. How many times have you heard this nowadays? We’re together, till we’re not. It’s fun, till it’s not. It’s worth it till it’s not. It’s a thing, till it’s not. Our attention fixated on it either way has zero consequence to it being real or not, by default. What we’re left with are “facts” that are twisted into unrecognizable shapes to fit narratives that only reinforce the self-delusional tribe. Truth doesn’t matter. Just the tribe. The game is rigged to keep you fighting while nothing changes. Just for the tribe.

Schools are now battlegrounds for ideological supremacy, with “progress” being shoved down throats like it’s the gospel. For the Tribe. Except it’s not progress; it’s indoctrination in a shiny package. The elites are clueless, disconnected from the lives of the people they claim to lead. Credentials don’t equal wisdom, and guess what? People noticed. They noticed so much they came out in droves.  They’re saying, “No, thanks; go fuck yourself.” The Woke movement? It’s good at making noise, elevating minority issues to mainstream status like everyone’s on board when most weren’t and aren’t. Coercion isn’t progress—it’s manipulation. And the worst part? It’s all underpinned by the same human flaws: greed, hatred, power-lust, codependency, narcissistic-sociopathy. These aren’t ideological problems. They’re human problems, and they’re not going away. The 76,728,186 people who voted for Trump weren’t just casting ballots. They were saying, “This system is broken.” It’s not about left or right; it’s about a system that’s failing everyone. Both sides have bad ideas repackaged, and everyone pretends its gourmet sweet cakes when it’s just dressed-up poop.

So here we are, stuck in a cycle of outrage, tribalism, and stagnation. We’ve traded curiosity for conformity, dialogue for memes, relationships from an app and progress for branding. It’s a sinking ship, and the captain’s arguing over what color the lifeboats should be: brown, blue or pink? But hey, at least the memes are funny, right? The TikToks of Liberals melting the fuck down in their cars are entertaining, but also it is very sad people are actually like this. Even if they are living it up for the camera. Stop pretending your vote is some part of a magic fix for this. It won’t. Stop wasting your energy trying to “save the world” from itself.The world doesn’t care. They are too busy checking their likes and hearts on the media that isn’t so social. Find what matters to you—family, love, laughter—and hold onto it like it’s the last shred of sanity in an insane reality.

The rest? Noise. Don’t be noise.

Life’s too short to argue with clowns. Let the circus burn while you enjoy what’s real. Because in the end, we’re all compost. Make your moments count before you’re part of the pile. When we are part of the pile, it won’t matter what God you believe, color your skin was, whether or not you took it up the ass or like vagina. It really doesn’t matter. I know, how inconvenient for the minority, who we all now can point, snicker and laugh at, like we all wanted to from the beginning. It is no longer weird to not go along with the progressive plan. That is the old normal and how great it tastes that the limbs have been cut off. However, the head is still attached. The new normal should be giving value to learning. Real learning…

In January 21, 1980, Isaac Asimov wrote for his Newsweek column “A Cult of Ignorance/My Turn.” Source in the URL: 

“There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that “my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge. We have a new buzzword, too, for anyone who admires competence, knowledge, learning and skill, and who wishes to spread it around. People like that are called “elitists.” That’s the funniest buzzword ever invented because people who are not members of the intellectual elite don’t know what an “elitist” is, or how to pronounce the word. As soon as someone says “elitist” it becomes clear that he or she is a closet elitist who is feeling guilty about having gone to school. I believe that every human being with a physically normal brain can learn a great deal and can be surprisingly intellectual. I believe that what we badly need is social approval of learning and social rewards for learning. We can all be members of the intellectual elite and then, and only then, will a phrase like “America’s right to know” and, indeed, any true concept of democracy, have any meaning.”

Isaac Asimov once slammed society's growing love affair with ignorance, warning that too many folks mistake democracy for "my dumb opinion is just as good as your informed one." He mocked the distrust of experts, like saying, “Who needs a pilot? I’ve seen Top Gun twice!” Asimov stressed education was the only antidote to this nonsense but feared we’d rather binge gossip than learn facts. His cynicism oozed: in a world run by science, we can’t afford to act like cavemen with Wi-Fi. Basically, he thought stupidity wasn’t just annoying—it was a civilization-ending event waiting to happen. If he only knew…

“Yeah. Yeah, I got bad news for you. They don't have a monopoly on stupid. You wear "Queers for Palestine" T-shirts... (AUDIENCE LAUGHING) ...and masks two years after the pandemic ended. And you can't define "woman." I mean, person who menstrates. You're the teachers' union education party, and you've turned schools and colleges into a joke. You just lost a crazy contest to an actual crazy person. (AUDIENCE LAUGHING, APPLAUDING)” —Bill Maher, YouTube posting Nov 15th, 2024.

The world’s a dumpster fire of tribal outrage, created by the very ignorance that claims it fights against, and TikTok meltdowns—but hey, maybe while the world burns, you’ll find a nice spot on the beach to eat that apple and just say, FUCK… Stay curious, stay human—hope might just survive the dive.

Happy Thanksgiving Everyone…

Inconveniens Latin for Inconvenience by David-Angelo Mineo 11/25/2024 1,852 Words

[audreythompson1]

BREAKING: Marjorie Taylor Greene says Transgender Admiral Rachel Levine is “A Mentally Ill Man.” Do you agree with her? A. YES B. NO

[sublimeobservationarcade]

The Conservative Playbook: Dutton’s Political Strategy

The global conservative stratagem is founded on an appeal to the mediocrity of lazy members of our nations. Their message to the predominantly white voters is that you are just fine the way you are and the changing world is wrong. The conservative playbook: Dutton’s political strategy. On energy in Australia the LNP messaging to the populace is that climate change is too complex to worry about and not an Australian problem at its core. Therefore, they embrace property owners who don’t want their view besmirched by wind farms and value their minority concerns over the value to the community of renewable energy solutions to global warming. Instead, they champion nuclear power as an alternative to the safe and free power offered by wind and solar. This is despite Australia having no existing nuclear industry and the reality that it would take a decade or more to establish a viable reactor and the infrastructure around the sector at enormous cost (hundreds of billions of dollars).

LNP Promises No Nasty Wind Farms For Those Upset About Them

The Coalition’s message to a largely ignorant electorate is – “don’t worry we’ll take care of it for you.” Most Australians have no idea about the transition taking place in our energy sector and the power grid. They hear plenty of negative stuff from the Murdoch owned media group controlling our newspapers and radio networks (The Australian, Daily Telegraph, Courier Mail, Herald Sun, and 99 radio stations across AM, FM & DAB+). Rupert Murdoch and his News Corp are an organisation with a rabid right wing bias. See Fox News and Sky News Australia as clear examples of this non-objective op/ed fest in action on our airwaves and screens. Fossil fuel interests curry favour via  the campaign donations made to both main political parties in Australia. Their advertising budgets fuel News Corp’s survival as a media organisation. Australia has long been overly influenced by a duopoly of corporate media interests to the detriment of ordinary Australians. The media is now completely dominated by PR, as real investigative journalism disappears. You will never hear any positive messaging regarding renewable energy out of the LNP or the Murdoch press. Despite this Australian home owners have embraced solar power on their rooves in record numbers.

Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

Dutton’s Nuclear Option Pie In The Sky For Short Term Political Favour

The reality is that the old baseload power requirements of the energy grid are no longer relevant in the 21C. The demise of coal powered stations will not be replaced by a like for like type of energy generation. Gas powered stations are a short term gap filler. Renewable energy generated power is fast taking over the demands of our needs. We need to invest in more large scale batteries and storage technologies for all the free renewable power we generate. Nuclear powered energy is not something that will work with in concert with all of our free renewable generated electricity because it needs to be on all the time. You cannot switch nuclear on and off when the need arises like gas in the short term. Therefore, we would be wasting hundreds of billions of dollars on a type of energy generation not compatible with the transition already well underway. Peter Dutton is putting forward something completely outside of what we require. The business community and the energy sector does not support the nuclear option because they understand what is going on to some degree. The Coalition claims they will build these reactors themselves – this is laughable. Politicians cannot build anything and have been out of the game of actually running businesses and projects for decades. Remember neoliberalism and small government, Peter? Snowy 2.0 is an LNP fast tracked special project and that is literally bogged down in billion dollar delays. It is a good example of a government infrastructure project rushed and stuffed up. Dutton doing the same with nuclear reactor projects could be disastrous. Dutton Telling Australia It Can Stick Its Head In The Sand It is all part of the conservative playbook: Dutton’s political strategy of telling voters what they want to hear in the short term. You can stick your head in the sand and pretend global warming isn’t real. You can keep your unblemished view to keep your property prices tickety-boo. No need for any nasty wind turbines on the horizon. The solution? We will spend hundreds of billions of dollars on nuclear power, an unsuitable and incredibly expensive technology with never ending safety dangers. Australians are not the sharpest tools in the shed. I mean, we end up with asbestos products in the mulch around our parks and in our school yards. ‘She’ll be right mate’ wont cut it when things go Fukushima. But you will have a nice view as long as they didn’t build that reactor in your neighbourhood. They will probably locate them all in Labor electorates, however, just to be on the safe side.

LNP Courting Intolerance & Racism Similarly, the LNP has shifted to the far right to rub affectionately up against the intolerant members of our communities. Those condemning anybody different. Telling the racists and white supremacists its okay to hold onto their toxic beliefs. Dutton is dog whistling up intolerance toward immigrants, indigenous Australians, and the LGBTQI community. The strategy promotes divisiveness over acceptance. Gender identity politics sees a growing split between how men and women view issues within our society. Transgender members of our community are being made lightning rods by conservative forces in their cultural wars. Sky News Australia click baits on the back of inflammatory headlines about trans members seeking equality within our society. Christian fundamentalists want to maintain their Bronze Age dictated ideologies which promote the persecution and shunning of LGBTQI human beings from their schools, businesses, and organisations. The transgender debate is a media beat up, like the youth crime beat up at the state level. The numbers do not add up on either of these topics when multi million populations are taken into consideration. These are designed to inflame and enrage voters disproportionately to the actual statistical facts of what is occurring. The conservative playbook: Dutton’s political strategy. The Inaction Of Coalition Governments The LNP blame everything on Albo despite the fact that they had more than 9 years in office to oversee the economy we have right now. This is par for the course when it comes to Oppositions within the Westminster system. Apportioning blame rightly or wrongly is the name of the game. In reality, the housing crisis comes on the back of inaction by both LNP and Labor in this space for decades. Social housing what is that? That is a state problem. Neoliberalism and the credo – ‘the market is always right!’ This small government economic approach has been with us since Reagan and Thatcher influenced Australia in this direction back in the 1980s. The LNP message is that it is OK that we have the lowest fuel standards among the Western nations. You can keep your diesel beast poisoning our air quality. No worries. The Coalition actually achieve little when in government, they just roll over for their mates in the corporate sphere. Gutting the public service to direct billions of tax payer dollars to their mates in the consultancy sector. Lowering tax rates for the wealthy and looking after their friends is a constant theme underpinning their economic policies. Funny that we get bugger all tax from the gas and mining sectors in comparison to other resource rich nations, like Norway and Qatar. I wonder what that is all about? Jobs for the boys after a stint in parliament, perhaps. The big end of town hardly pays any tax at all, as they leave that to the poor schmucks who pay income tax. Family trusts and tax minimisation schemes are very popular in Oz. We do not tax wealth in this country, in fact we make it much easier for the rich to become exponentially much richer.

Photo by Arthur Ogleznev on Pexels.com Robodebt & The Coalition Robodebt was an ideological attack upon the poorest and most vulnerable members of our population. Many of these ideas come from America, where making poverty an individual failing has been a stratagem for years. Rich equals good, poor equates with bad. This simple credo allows the very wealthy end of town to avoid any responsibility for those suffering from the effects of poverty within our communities. Lowering and flattening tax rates for corporations and billionaires comes on the back of this. Making society into a game of winners and losers is the outcome of this political stratagem. Demonising welfare recipients is the next logical step in this game. Robodebt falsely accused 500, 000 Australians of owing large amounts of money to Centrelink and forced them to pay these funds back. Scott Morrison, Marise Payne, Stuart Robert and Alan Tudge were directly involved in this illegal government program. Some victims of Robodebt killed themselves in despair over being wrongly accused of owing large amounts of money. PwC was involved in the creation of Robodebt via its consultancy work. Kathryn Campbell was the senior bureaucrat running Robodebt for many years. A Royal Commission later found the program to be illegal and knowingly founded on dubious grounds by those at the very top. However, despite this and Robodebt costing tax payers $800 million in a settled class action brought by some of the victims nobody has been criminally prosecuted. This is the way things work in Australia, as hardly any politician or civil servant has been prosecuted for crimes associated with the misuse of their office. Many more pollies have been gaoled for sex crimes committed upon children. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Australian_politicians_convicted_of_crimes

Photo by Andrea Piacquadio on Pexels.com Campaign Donations Distorting Australian Democracy The allure of power takes careerists into amoral territory where they cross the line. The ridiculous system, we currently have, where influence can be bought via campaign donations to political parties sets us up for corruption and minority control of our democracy. The wealthy and corporate players have much louder voices within our democratic system of government. Why don’t we do something about this? We could end these donations tomorrow and replace it with tax payer funded electioneering. The two main political parties enjoy their close contact with power via the wealthy and will not willingly give it up. The lobbying by big business and vested interests increases day by day to the detriment of the majority of Australians. Your voice and mine are made much smaller as a result of the private funding of the political process in Australia. Conservative Smoke Screens & Identity Politics The continuing promotion of identity politics by conservative forces here and globally will see greater division between populations. Dutton beats the drum over the Voice and ensures its failure to achieve constitutional recognition. Racism rises in Australia during this period and since the vote. Dutton makes a disproportionate hoo-ha about a tiny number of refugees who had completed their prison sentences for crimes being released into the community via a High Court ruling. Another beat up designed to make ordinary Australians feel unsafe. The Coalition has been dragging its feet over Australia’s response to climate change and the energy transition for decades. Dutton’s championing of property owner’s impacted by new power line pathways for the energy grid and potential wind farms is more head in the sand stuff. Further to this is the pie in the sky idea about Oz going nuclear – this is already adversely impacting investment for renewables by creating uncertainty about future government energy policies. Dutton is a wrecker for his short term political ambitions. The LNP either do not understand the energy transition happening in terms of its technical requirements for the mix or are wilfully delaying it for their own interests and that of the fossil fuel industry. Gas has been embraced by both political parties as a transitional energy source but the question remains how long our dependency on it will last. The gas sector continues to pay bugger all tax despite the massive exports they sell internationally from mining our resources. Multinational corporations derive hundreds of billions and we get a few paltry million from dysfunctional taxes like the PRRT. “Australians will have often heard how our gas industry has been booming over the past 10 years, generating great wealth and supposedly leading our economy. Remember former Prime Minister, Scott Morrison calling for a “gas-led recovery”. Australians might be less aware of just how little gas companies – who are making massive profits off the back of the Russian invasion of Ukraine – pay in tax.” - (https://australiainstitute.org.au/post/yes-the-government-collects-more-money-from-hecs-than-it-does-from-the-petroleum-resource-rent-tax/)

Who Are You Going To Believe? Too many Australians do not question the agenda behind those media outlets feeding them news. We have been victims of duopolies for too long. A lack of real choice, apart from the ABC, means corporate media in Australia singing from the same song sheet. Even the ABC has become cowed of late, after many years of false accusations of bias by the LNP. Many journalists will not criticise News Corp’s newspapers and programs because they may want a well paid job with that major organisation in the near future. Recently, the ABC has been parroting News Corp slants on stories and so we get a Greek chorus of amplified and repetitive voices all saying the same thing. Everything has moved to the right in Australia and Dutton’s federal Liberals are ever closer to the far right. Telling lies to the Australian people and beating up social anxieties for political favour is the new order of the day.   Robert Sudha Hamilton is the author of America Matters: Pre-apocalyptic Posts & Essays in the Shadow of Trump. ©HouseTherapy Read the full article

[selfieculture-leah]

When racism is done in the name of protecting certain communities, efforts to counter it end up forcing individuals to put their marginalized identities on display and they face more vulnerability, not less.

In Winnipeg, an electric menorah was taken down "preventatively" before Hannukah, because our mayor thought that Palestinian protestors might deface it. In response, some of us held a public menorah lighting and said a prayer for Palestine, and decided to post a selfie to say "this is who has been in your streets and in your ears-- Palestinians and Jews, side by side." Our faces were the message. This screenshotted, edited and reposted version had me rethinking visibility as a strategy in activism.

[undergroundusa]

https://www.undergroundusa.com/

[aheroicvisionoflife]

April 2023/1 Indifference to style ... is almost always symptomatic of the dogmatic sclerosis of content. Theodor Adorno, "Reconciliation under Duress," in Aesthetics and Politics, 1977

[tmarshconnors]

The LGBTQ2+ movement…

The LGBTQ2+ movement has undeniably become a powerful force in contemporary culture, pushing for expanded rights, visibility, and acceptance. However, as a staunch supporter of conservative ideals, I can’t help but notice a growing divide within this movement that threatens to undermine the very principles that the original LGBT community stood for. What started as a fight for equality, personal freedom, and dignity has, in many ways, evolved into something far more complex—something that seems to be at odds with the original spirit of the movement. I mean seriously what is LGBTQ2+?!?! It’s apparently an abbreviation that includes: lesbian, gay, bisexual, transsexual, transgender, two-spirited, intersex, quest, questioning and asexual. A genuine mouthful.

The Evolution of LGBT: A Movement Rooted in Personal Freedom

The early LGBT movement was centred around the principles of individual freedom, dignity, and the right to live without persecution. Gays and lesbians sought the same civil rights as everyone else—rights to marry, adopt, and live their lives free of discrimination. Trans individuals, though often marginalised, sought recognition and the right to live as their authentic selves. The goal was simple: equality under the law and respect for personal choices.

At its core, the LGBT movement was about personal freedom—the idea that individuals should be able to define themselves and their lives without fear of repression. This resonated with many, even those who held conservative views. After all, isn’t personal responsibility and freedom something conservatives also value deeply? The focus on equality and the right to pursue happiness aligned, in many ways, with the broader American ethos of individual liberty.

The LGBTQ2+ Movement: A Shift in Focus

However, the modern LGBTQ2+ movement has shifted its focus dramatically. What was once about individual rights and personal freedom has morphed into something broader, more ideological, and often more divisive. This expansion has introduced new complexities, and some argue, contradictions, that threaten to undo the progress made by the original LGBT movement.

One of the key concerns is that the LGBTQ2+ movement now seems to focus on identity politics and groupthink, rather than the core principles of personal freedom. Instead of fighting for the rights of individuals to make their own choices, the movement has become heavily politicised, with some factions pushing for societal conformity to their worldview. This shift from personal liberty to collective ideology is problematic for many reasons. It has really been warped by the radial left.

The Internal Conflict: Radicalism vs. Moderation

The rapid expansion of LGBTQ2+ identities has led to growing internal conflicts within the movement. For example, there is a divide between those who advocate for more radical changes in society—such as redefining gender entirely—and those who simply want equal treatment under the law. This has created tension between moderates who align with the original ideals of the LGBT movement and those who push for more extreme social changes.

Radical activism, while it garners attention, often alienates the very people it seeks to convert. Pushing ideas that challenge long-held beliefs about gender, biology, and social norms can feel coercive rather than liberating. Moreover, this radicalism creates fractures within the LGBTQ2+ community itself, as not all members agree with the direction the movement is taking. Gay, lesbian, and bisexual individuals, for instance, may feel their identities are being overshadowed by an overwhelming focus on gender ideology, which can dilute the original goals of the movement.

Alienating Allies and Fuelling Backlash

The broader LGBTQ2+ agenda has also alienated potential allies. Many who once supported the movement for its focus on equality and freedom are now questioning the direction it has taken. The push for societal conformity to ever-evolving concepts of identity and language can feel authoritarian.

The insistence on compliance with new norms—such as the use of certain pronouns or the acceptance of specific gender theories—can be seen as infringing on personal beliefs and free speech. This authoritarian bent, even if well-intentioned, often drives away those who value freedom of thought and expression.

Furthermore, this shift is fuelling a backlash that could potentially undo years of progress. When movements push too far, too fast, they risk sparking resistance from the very people they need to convince. Conservatives who might have been willing to support basic LGBT rights are now being driven into opposition by what they perceive as overreach. Even within more progressive circles, there is a growing discomfort with the direction the LGBTQ2+ movement is taking.

The LGBTQ2+ movement is at a crossroads. It can continue down its current path, pushing for ever more radical changes, but at the risk of alienating both its internal members and external allies. Or, it can refocus on the original ideals that once made it a powerful force for good: personal freedom, dignity, and equality under the law.

As a conservative, I believe in the importance of individual responsibility and freedom. While I may not agree the original LGBT movement stood for, I can respect its focus on equality and the right to live without persecution. However, the current direction of the LGBTQ2+ movement raises serious concerns—not just for conservatives, but for anyone who values the principles of liberty and personal freedom.

If the LGBTQ2+ movement is to remain relevant and successful, it must reconsider its approach. It must find a way to balance the needs of its most radical members with the broader principles that once united it. Otherwise, it risks undermining its own achievements and destroying the ideals that made it a force for change in the first place.

[bricehammack]

#IdentityPolitics #NewYorkCity #Manhattan #WestVillage #ChristmasTree #BriceDailyPhoto https://www.instagram.com/p/CnArR2nP7Y1/?igshid=NGJjMDIxMWI=

[dupaulart]

Studio Practice: “CITIZEN DUANE🌹!”#selfieimperfectduanepaul

Duane Paul’s photographic-sculptural-hybrids #multidisciplinary Sketch semi-impermanent photo based sculptures , layered, raw-edged, refined, tactile, fiber, #conceptual, stacking, identity, investigative, #identitypolitics personal, #historical, visual language, #popabstraction #selfieimperfctduanepaul , #duanepaul , studio work wall, #reflective, #Biomorphic, #urban#artistalphabet , #idiosyncratic-assemblage , #interwoven-assemblage , iconography #amorphous-assemblage #autobiographical #civic #streetposting #public ##contemporary, #sociopolitical

www.duanepaulawo.com. #duanepaulawo

[mineofilms]

(From 7/4/2024) As I continue to retrospectively convert my written blogs to A/V monolog/podcast-style for a more slipstream approach with my written works. In July I started to get mental and emotional fatigue from our current political landscape, bickering over who is “less-worse” to lead our decaying society. This blog dives into the frustrating, binary political landscape we’re stuck with, where both sides seem to fail us. I’ve tried to understand the madness, but it’s all just fear-mongering wrapped in media spin by people who think of themselves more important to the species than they actually are. This isn’t about picking sides anymore. It's about realizing the system is broken—piss or poop, we’re stuck choosing between bad options. It’s exhausting. After I wrote this I began shifting my focus away from this madness to what I really care about—horror and sci-fi. Let’s get real: the world is dark, nihilistic, and full of existential dread, and I’m here for it. If you want to know more, dive into the 2,388 spoken words of unfiltered thoughts. Stay curious. Stay critical. Don’t be a narcissistic-sociopathic clown… Enjoy Ascende tuum…