EXCLUSIVE: Leaked Policy Exposes Fox News Stances on Woke Ideology

[Anti Federalist]

EXCLUSIVE: Leaked Policy Exposes Fox News Stances on Woke Ideology

https://www.dailysignal.com/2023/05/...woke-ideology/

Mary Margaret Olohan / @MaryMargOlohan / May 22, 2023

FIRST ON THE DAILY SIGNAL—Fox News employees are allowed to use bathrooms that align with their gender identity, rather than their biological sex, and permitted to dress in alignment with their preferred gender. They must also be addressed by their preferred name and pronouns in the workplace.

These are just a few of the policies outlined in the company handbook, dated January 2021, a copy of which was shared with The Daily Signal. Fox also offers to help employees come up with a “Workplace Transition Plan” to ease their gender transition at work.

The revelations comes amid conservative consternation at Fox Digital’s use of activist language like “gender affirming care” in stories on its website, as well as the site’s consistent use of female pronouns for biological males like TikTok celebrity Dylan Mulvaney and swimmer Lia Thomas (formerly known as Will Thomas).

Fox also drew strong backlash for a June 2022 on-air segment praising a child’s gender transition as an “inspiration to others.” That segment briefly depicted California state Sen. Scott Weiner, a far-left Democrat who led the move to soften sex offender registry requirements for sodomy with minors, and highlighted the activist claim that a child might commit suicide if he or she is not permitted to transition.

The Daily Signal talked to current and former Fox employees who requested anonymity to speak candidly about the company.

“They want you to think it’s this place that supports traditionally conservative values,” a former producer for “Tucker Carlson Tonight” told The Daily Signal. “But in reality, they’re pushing this nonsense behind the scenes.”

Carlson’s show was canceled April 24, days after he delivered a viral speech at The Heritage Foundation’s 50th anniversary gala. Fox News Media has not given a reason, simply stating that the two parties “agreed to part ways.”

A source who still works at Fox News told The Daily Signal that after Carlson’s show was canceled in April, producers for the new 8 p.m. “Fox News Tonight” program were told not to bash Mulvaney. That directive came from high-level executives, the source said.

Fox News did not respond to The Daily Signal’s multiple requests for comment.

Under the category “Gender Transition,” Fox’s employee handbook promises that the company is dedicated to “expanding and strengthening” efforts to “sustain a more inclusive work environment.” The Fox employee handbook is posted on Workday, where employees can see company guidelines or policies, a former employee told The Daily Signal.

“Employees who are transitioning their gender have the right to be open about their transition if they so choose, and to work in an environment free of harassment, discrimination, or retaliation, and without fear of consequences or transphobia for living openly,” the policy says.

Citing the Human Rights Campaign, one of the most prominent LGBTQ organization in the country, the Fox handbook defines a slew of LGBTQ terms, including cisgender, gender expression, gender-fluid, gender identity, gender non-conforming, gender transition, LGBTQ, non-binary, and transgender.

For the past several years, Fox received a perfect score on the Human Rights Campaign’s Corporate Equality Index, “the nation’s foremost benchmarking survey and report measuring corporate policies and practices related to LGBTQ+ workplace equality.” A former Fox News employee told The Daily Signal that the company frequently mentions this perfect score in employee training materials.

“Fox News devotes hours of programming to attacking ‘woke companies,’ but ironically Fox is as woke as the rest of them,” another former Fox News employee told The Daily Signal, emphasizing that Fox viewers would be “astonished to find out what the company is like.”

Fox’s policies appear to be aligned with the legal requirements in New York City, where the company is headquartered.

The New York City Human Rights Law requires employers to use the name, pronouns, and title with which a person identifies, regardless of the sex assigned at birth. It is a violation of the NYCHRL to intentionally or repeatedly refuse to use a person’s preferred name, pronouns, or title.

Additionally, the New York City law requires that people “be permitted to use single gender facilities, such as restrooms or locker rooms…that most closely align with their gender, regardless of their gender expression, sex assigned at birth, anatomy, medical history, or the sex or gender indicated on their identification.”

If a biological woman objects to sharing a bathroom with a trans-identifying man, her objection will not be considered a “lawful reason to deny access” to the trans-identifying individual: “In those circumstances, a covered entity may offer alternatives for the individual expressing discomfort, by,
for example, providing a single-occupancy restroom to change in.”

The law also specifically states that it is “unlawful” to require a trans-identifying person to use a single-occupancy restroom “because they are transgender, non-binary, or gender non-conforming.” New York also outlines the “Workplace Transition Plan” mentioned in the Fox handbook.

More at link...

[unknown]

Fox has been exposed since 2008 when they attacked Ron Paul.

But are they a bunch of woke jagoffs by choice or due to NY law?

Imagine codifying this BS...

From the article:

The New York City Human Rights Law requires employers to use the name, pronouns, and title with which a person identifies, regardless of the sex assigned at birth. It is a violation of the NYCHRL to intentionally or repeatedly refuse to use a person’s preferred name, pronouns, or title.

Additionally, the New York City law requires that people “be permitted to use single gender facilities, such as restrooms or locker rooms…that most closely align with their gender, regardless of their gender expression, sex assigned at birth, anatomy, medical history, or the sex or gender indicated on their identification.”

If a biological woman objects to sharing a bathroom with a trans-identifying man, her objection will not be considered a “lawful reason to deny access” to the trans-identifying individual: “In those circumstances, a covered entity may offer alternatives for the individual expressing discomfort, by, for example, providing a single-occupancy restroom to change in.”

[jmdrake]

The firing of Tucker Carlson is starting to really make sense. It's got nothing to do with the Dominion lawsuit and everything to do with Tucker's commentary. And they don't care how much money/marketshare they lose.

[Snowball]

When Murdoch sold all the entertainment arm of Fox including film studio and Fox network to Disney
that showed us how much he cares about any sort of traditional values. Zero.

[69360]

I doubt fox news has many , if any employees this would apply to.

[Occam's Banana]

If a biological woman objects to sharing a bathroom with a trans-identifying man, her objection will not be considered a “lawful reason to deny access” to the trans-identifying individual: “In those circumstances, a covered entity may offer alternatives for the individual expressing discomfort, by, for example, providing a single-occupancy restroom to change in.”

The law also specifically states that it is “unlawful” to require a trans-identifying person to use a single-occupancy restroom “because they are transgender, non-binary, or gender non-conforming.” New York also outlines the “Workplace Transition Plan” mentioned in the Fox handbook.

All animals are equal - but some animals are more equal than others.

[Occam's Banana]

The firing of Tucker Carlson is starting to really make sense. It's got nothing to do with the Dominion lawsuit and everything to do with Tucker's commentary. And they don't care how much money/marketshare they lose.

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).

[Occam's Banana]

"Avast, ye 'lubbers! Heave to an' prepare to be boarded sued!"

https://twitter.com/TPostMillennial/...15129989054464

[Anti Federalist]

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).

That just sounds like a gigantic Double Dutch Rudder.

An endless Marxist circle jerk of paying advertising to shows nobody watches, in order to hawk crap nobody wants to buy.

And that's not saying that is exactly what these woke Marxists are doing...very well could be.

But @jmdrake hit the nail on the head. These Marxist ghouls don't want to make money.

The very concept of "making money", as defined by western free market capitalism, is as dead as Julius Caesar.

That is to say: the purpose of a business enterprise is to create a value added good or service that people are willing to pay for, thus making a profit, increasing shareholder value and providing jobs for the general citizenry. A growing business rolls this profit back into the operation, creating more wealth, more jobs and more goods and services at lower prices.

Sounds like a school filmstrip narration from 1952 for $#@!'s sake.

These modern day Communist Robber-Wreckers only care about one thing: controlling vital goods and services, in order to control people.

Look what they have done to the energy sector. Look at what they are doing with food.

[Occam's Banana]

That just sounds like a gigantic Double Dutch Rudder.

An endless Marxist circle jerk of paying advertising to shows nobody watches, in order to hawk crap nobody wants to buy.

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

And that's not saying that is exactly what these woke Marxists are doing...very well could be.

But @jmdrake hit the nail on the head. These Marxist ghouls don't want to make money.

[...]

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 ...). The profit-eschewing ghouls would turn the world into carrion just so they could be the bosses of the zombified corpse, and their profit-seeking allies/enablers would do the same just so they could end up being fatter than all the other maggots.

Of course, each group (the profit-hating ghouls on the one hand, and their profit-seeking [1] 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,



[1] I originally wrote "profit-loving" here, in contrast to my use of "profit-hating" earlier in the sentence - but that's not quite correct. (See: Rand, Ayn, works of.)

[jmdrake]

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

Gin is a luxury. People lived before gin. People live without drinking gin. Cable news is a luxury. People lived before cable news. People live without watching cable news. Once Fox News finishes destroying its conservative brand a few addicts will continue watching it just like some alcoholics would filter liquid shoe polish through bread during prohibition and drink it. Everyone else will just not buy store bought news just like you couldn't buy store bought alcohol during prohibition that wasn't poison. News isn't water. I never on my own just sit back and "turn on the news."

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 ...). The profit-eschewing ghouls would turn the world into carrion just so they could be the bosses of the zombified corpse, and their profit-seeking allies/enablers would do the same just so they could end up being fatter than all the other maggots.

The smart ones are already seeking Tucker Carlson and others like him for sponsorship deals. But again, this gets to why corporate personhood itself is a cancer. You've got countries like China buying up American social media companies and bankrolling their own companies. It's not "free market capitalism" when you're rivals can be bought out and bankrolled by a communist dictatorship. Corporations aren't people and it's time to quit treating them as such. TikTok is recommending teens commit suicide. Some corporate executives should be charged with first degree murder for that! And I don't just mean at TikTok! Why should Apple and Google be allowed to keep TikTok in their stores? They de-platformed the Gab app just because it allowed *gasp* racism, but literally telling troubled teens "Go kill yourself" is okay? Really? And yet, instead of dealing directly with the actual problem, the control freaks in Washington drafted a "ban TikTok" bill that would grant Biden power over all social media. The solutions to these problems aren't hard. The powers that be just make them appear hard.

Of course, each group (the profit-hating ghouls on the one hand, and their profit-seeking [1] 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,

Ending corporate personhood = half of the problem solved. Did you know that if criminals form a corporation before carrying out a conspiracy against them you cannot sue them for civil conspiracy? That's because the corporation is considered a single person and a person cannot be in conspiracy with himself. That...makes...no...sense. Again, corporate personhood didn't exist until after the U.S. Civil War. People say the founders never meant for you and me to have an AR15? Bollocks! The founders never meant for Google, Apple, TikTok, Telsa or any other corporate entity to be considered a person. And they sure as hell would have been against giving "rights" to foreign owned corporations!

[Occam's Banana]

h/t @RJB for the videos: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post7173532

[...] the increasing use of ESG-type "social credit scores" for corporate entities as a gatekeeping metric for institutional investing & finance, marketing services, etc. [...]

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

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 ...).

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

[Anti Federalist]

@Occam's Banana @jmdrake

Here's yet another example: Hollyweird. "Woke" leadership killed one of the most epic film trilogies ever, and now it's killed Indiana Jones.

Billions of dollars have been sunk into "woke" flop and flop after flop at this studio and others.

Nobody gets fired, nobody gets replaced, no new direction gets charted.

They just continue to double down on the propaganda.

Marxist Robber-Wreckers do not care about making money...in fact they prefer to squander it.

[acptulsa]

Marxist Robber-Wreckers do not care about making money...in fact they prefer to squander it.

The big bankers print it and the National Endowment for the Arts buys propaganda with it. And your FRNs and mine shrink and shrivel.

The currency is their weapon.

[Anti Federalist]

The big bankers print it and the National Endowment for the Arts buys propaganda with it. And your FRNs and mine shrink and shrivel.

The currency is their weapon.

Yup...and as I mentioned a couple of posts ago:

The very concept of "making money", as defined by western free market capitalism, is as dead as Julius Caesar.

That is to say: the purpose of a business enterprise is to create a value added good or service that people are willing to pay for, thus making a profit, increasing shareholder value and providing jobs for the general citizenry. A growing business rolls this profit back into the operation, creating more wealth, more jobs and more goods and services at lower prices.

Sounds like a school filmstrip narration from 1952 for $#@!'s sake.

[Anti Federalist]

https://twitter.com/i/status/1661099686063644689

[Occam's Banana]

@Occam's Banana @jmdrake

Here's yet another example: Hollyweird. "Woke" leadership killed one of the most epic film trilogies ever, and now it's killed Indiana Jones.

Billions of dollars have been sunk into "woke" flop and flop after flop at this studio and others.

Nobody gets fired, nobody gets replaced, no new direction gets charted.

They just continue to double down on the propaganda.

Marxist Robber-Wreckers do not care about making money...in fact they prefer to squander it.

I don't really disagree with any of that.

My point is that the "Marxist Robber-Wreckers" are not the only ones in the mix (though they certainly seem to predominate in the entertainment sector of the market in particular).

The Marxist ghouls themselves may not want to make money, but many of their enablers and ad hoc allies do. [...]

Of course, each group (the profit-hating ghouls 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,

For example, with respect to the new "Indiana Jones move" [1], Bob Iger (CEO of Disney) has apparently warned Kathleen Kennedy (head of Disney's Lucasfilm division, and chief architect wrecker of the Star Wars franchise under Disney) that IJ5 had better do more than merely make its money back, or even "just do okay" at the box office. From 28 March 2023 (see @ 11:35, for example):

Iger's Showdown with Kennedy Was UGLY | New Shocking Details Emerge | Did KK Just Sabotage HERSELF?
The tumult at Disney continues! Yesterday my Hollywood spies reported a rumor that Kathleen Kennedy had been summoned to Bob Iger's office and confronted in very blunt terms about what a disaster Indiana Jones 5 has been, and how she better fix it or else. Shortly after I released my video, my friend Kamran Pasha released a post on his Patreon page that not only confirmed what I had said about the alleged confrontation, but also had some new rather shocking details to offer from his source Sparrow...although in THIS case, it seems the source of all of these alleged events turned out to be...Kathleen Kennedy HERSELF!? Here is my conversation with Kamran Pasha going over these new frankly shocking rumors, and trust me...you're going to enjoy THIS one!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-sy1fQ-poM

Of course, given his previous actions and remarks, Iger is not at all bothered by the "woke" stuff his company is pushing - in fact, he's more than happy to exploit the 800-pound ESG gorilla in order to limit and quash investment in and financing for competing non-"woke" projects. (Again, it doesn't matter if nobody really wants Victory Gin, if it's the only gin on offer.)



[1] I put quotes around "Indiana Jones movie", because there are actually only three of those, and this ain't one of them.

[TheTexan]

I am shocked, truly shocked, that Fox News is actually a left wing organization at its core.

No-one could have expected such a dramatic revelation.

[Occam's Banana]

https://twitter.com/bryrobinson/stat...71651923021824

[Occam's Banana]

https://twitter.com/ChrissieMayr/sta...28705513914368

[Anti Federalist]

https://twitter.com/bryrobinson/stat...71651923021824

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/showthr...=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/...20293237043200


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[s] 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 [URL="https://amzn.to/3HekQ9w"]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: “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/...d-the-end-of:c

[1]	https://twitter.com/PressBritish/sta...62270184935428

[Occam's Banana]

https://twitter.com/LibertyLockPod/s...78867880812545


[additional matter hidden to save space]

 

https://twitter.com/LibertyLockPod/s...78869000781825
to: https://twitter.com/LibertyLockPod/s...78892862091264

[jmdrake]

[Occam's Banana]

THREAD: The Corporate Equality Index and the ESG Racket