Goofy: putting agenda ahead of revenue

About a week ago, I noted how Disney was using its new live-action version of “Beauty and the Beast” to add a “gay moment,” in the words of the director.  At the time, I pointed out that Disney has become so committed to this agenda that they will accept a ratings plunge just to add it to children’s shows.

And now it appears Disney would rather lose part of the lucrative overseas box office than remove the objectionable scene:

Walt Disney has shelved the release of its new movie “Beauty and the Beast” in mainly Muslim Malaysia, even though film censors said Tuesday it had been approved with a minor cut involving a “gay moment.”

The country’s two main cinema chains said the movie, due to begin screening Thursday, has been postponed indefinitely. No reason was given…

“We have approved it but there is a minor cut involving a gay moment. It is only one short scene but it is inappropriate because many children will be watching this movie,” Abdul Halim told The Associated Press.

He said there was no appeal from Disney about the decision to cut the gay scene.

There can be no doubt that the gay agenda has become more important to Disney than its own revenue.  All I can ask is, “where are the stockholders?”  It would seem time to shake up the leadership of the company, if one is going to invest there to try to make a profit.

One other note: many Hollywood productions travel the globe, where they essentially represent America to foreign audiences.  Shortly after 9/11, one pundit pointed out how Americans might be able to discern reality vs. fantasy in films like “Natural Born Killers,” but foreign audiences could conclude this represents actual American society. Given decisions like Disney’s latest, is there any question as to whether that is helping or harming our image around the world, in a war of ideas where image is critical?

Meanwhile, I hope anyone reading this will make the commitment my family has to avoid Disney or any of its properties.  No trips to Disneyworld (which is vastly overpriced anyway).   No movies in the theater, including Star Wars and Pixar, both of which are sure to be subverted to this agenda at some point.  If we think they’ve produced something worth watching, we’ll catch it on Netflix so they don’t get ticket receipts.  Our days of buying any Disney merchandise are over, too.

Companies like Disney and the tech industry can afford to be “social justice warriors” because they have good cash reserves to make up for temporary hits to the bottom line.

That can’t last forever.   (H/T: Vox Day)

 

Can you hear us now?

The elites of the Republican Party have been startled enough by Trump that they’re finally asking the right questions:

Something has gone terribly wrong with the Republican party, and it has nothing to do with the flaws of Donald Trump. Something like his tone and message would have to be invented if he did not exist. None of the other 16 primary candidates — the great majority of whom had far greater political expertise, more even temperaments, and more knowledge of issues than did Trump — shared Trump’s sense of outrage — or his ability to convey it — over what was wrong: The lives and concerns of the Republican establishment in the media and government no longer resembled those of half their supporters…

How, under a supposedly obstructive, conservative-controlled House and Senate, did we reach $20 trillion in debt, institutionalize sanctuary cities, and put ourselves on track to a Navy of World War I size? Compared with all that, “making Mexico pay” for the wall does not seem all that radical.

The most important question, however, is what is likely to happen as millions of Americans decide the Constitution is long dead and what we have in government is simply organized crime wearing the dead carcass of the America we grew up loving.  Hint: it isn’t going to be pretty.  Everyone is focused on Trump (the symptom) rather than the underlying causes (the near-complete corruption of our government to benefit insiders at the expense of everyone else.

Trump may be an outlet for the anger of many Americans, but his defeat will not end their disaffection. . . . Republics are first and foremost tests of faith. Hundreds of millions of people must believe in the system of government our forebears collectively agreed to; and they must believe the elections are free and fair and that the rule of law applies to all — the lowliest of the low and highest and mightiest. Otherwise, the Constitution is just so many very eloquent words written on really old pieces of paper.

Parsing the pontifications

Some thoughts and interpretations (in italics and parentheses) as I read through the transcript of Hillary’s acceptance speech:

“Now America is once again at a moment of reckoning. Powerful forces are threatening to pull us apart. Bonds of trust and respect are fraying.” (Pay no attention to how I’ve contributed to the fraying of trust by hiding my activities on a private server and deleting 30,000 emails after my highly questionable electronic practices came to light.)

“[Trump] wants us to fear the future and fear each other. Well, you know, a great Democratic President Franklin Delano Roosevelt came up with the perfect rebuke to Trump more than 80 years ago during a much more perilous time: The only thing we have to fear is fear itself!” (Of course, after saying that, FDR ordered the round up and interment of Japanese in America, due to the fear they could be an internal threat during a time of war. Kind of like the threat your refugee resettlement policy poses.)

“…remember, our Founders fought a Revolution and wrote a Constitution so America would never be a nation where one person had all the power.” (But my former boss, Barack, didn’t let that stop him from using his ‘pen and phone.’ I won’t, either.)

“I get it that some people just don’t know what to make of me.” (Maybe that’s because you often change your tune to match the prevailing winds, and always in support of your own ambitions. Despite all the smoke screens, though, some of us DO know what to make of you…)

“Tonight we’ve reached a milestone in our nation’s march toward a more perfect union. The first time that a major party has nominated a woman for president!” (And I’m counting on the “let’s make history” novelty vote to overcome that lack of trust I talked about earlier. Hey, it worked for Barack!)

“It’s wrong to take tax breaks with one hand and give out pink slips with the other.” (And that’s why I support oppose TPP (at least, some of the time) and will preserve H1-B. Oh, wait…)

“Bernie Sanders and I will work together to make college tuition free for the middle class and debt free for all. We will also liberate millions of people who already have student debt.” (By increasing government spending–and the national debt–even further. Barack only managed to double the national debt during his eight years. Wait until you see what I can do!)

“Donald Trump can’t even handle the rough and tumble of a presidential campaign. He loses his cool at the slightest provocation, when he’s gotten a tough question from a reporter…” (Something that, thankfully, my allies in the mainstream press help keep me from experiencing!)

“A man you can bait with a tweet is not a man we can trust with nuclear weapons!” (And a woman who passes the most sensitive national security information through an unauthorized, insecure personal e-mail server is not one we can trust with the launch codes, either.)

“I’m not here to repeal the Second Amendment. I’m not here to take away your guns.” (Please forget here that I once stated “we’re going to take things away from you for the common good,” or that to my party, “common sense gun control” includes three extra words to throw you off the scent… it’s really just about ‘control.’)

“And we will stand up against mean and divisive rhetoric wherever it comes from.” (Unless, of course, it’s coming from our camp.)

“More than a few times I’ve had to pick myself up and get back in the game.” (Usually because I was doing something questionable, got called on it, and had to play the coy “who, li’l me?” act in order to lull the gullible back to sleep. Like I’m doing now)

Don’t fall for it again, America!

Stay on Target…

You won’t see this on any mainstream news, but Target has lost 19% of its stock value in the 30 days since announcing its “choose your own bathroom” policy.  I’m sure any inadvertent official notice of this development will attempt to explain this away as a function of a weak economy.  That’s hard to do, though, when the official position is that the economy is doing just fine.

TGT quote - 18 May 2016 copy

Keep up the pressure!  “Stay on target” by staying out of Target!  Over a million people have committed to ensuring our self-appointed Federal and corporate social engineers hear that we’re fed up with their anti-scientific gender denial and efforts to force the rest of us to live in their fantasy world.  Have you?

Speak out while you can, or you may find your options increasingly limited.  These groups are playing for keeps.  So must we.

It’s time to ‘Target’ back

Target is the latest company to jump on the “use the bathroom you want to” bandwagon.  (My family has committed not to shop there, and you can, too.)  All of this has come to a head recently (pun for my Navy readers) because North Carolina passed HB-2, which does several principle things:

  • Requires people to use the bathroom of their birth gender – not their imagined one
  • Prohibits towns from using local ordinances to force businesses to open their restrooms to “transgender” choice — though nothing in the bill prevents a business from voluntarily doing so
  • Protects businesses and individuals from being sued for refusing to participate in such things as gay “weddings” (a favorite ‘progressive’ tactic of late)

Opponents of HB-2 would have you believe this is all about people with varying degrees of gender dysphoria (a mental disorder) being allowed to pee in peace.  This alone, of course, ignores the impact on the other 99.7% or so of the population who would now have to put up with people of random genders in every public restroom, thus providing ample cover for sexual predators.  So where is OUR ‘safe space?’

In truth, it goes much deeper than that.  Under the meme of ridiculing the “restroom war,” these radicals are trying to protect their ability to use civil and criminal courts to bully and bludgeon people into playing along with their fantasy world, or paying a high price in legal fees and judgments if they refuse.  They are playing a long-term strategy that, if successful with such precedents, could eventually criminalize the expression of many Christian teachings.  Yes, I believe it is that serious.

Our current president (retirement be upon him) has been fond of telling his supporters to “punch back twice as hard.”  Two can play that game.  It’s time Americans stopped allowing a very, very small group of biology deniers to set the public agenda.  It’s time to stop the spiral of individual silence on our side that makes their voices disproportionately loud.  It’s time to confront them with their own ‘science denial.’ It’s time to remind businesses that their bottom line depends more on the products they provide, not the propaganda they promote on the side.  Poll after poll shows the majority of Americans believe the country is headed in the wrong direction, on this and many other issues.  So stop subsiding the people trying to lead it that way!

These radical advocates say they want compassion – how compassionate is it to be an enabler to someone who has issues they need to face?  How compassionate is it to play along with gender dysphoria to the point the public is more at danger from sexual predation?

And as for all these aging rock stars who refuse to play in North Carolina anymore, it’s time to ask: who cares?  The hypocrisy and smugness of being willing to play in Riyadh but not Raleigh should be apparent to all.

Protect Safe Spaces

The hypocrisy inherent in the system

In which an excellent point in made:

Here’s my conundrum: if it is immoral, even criminal or civilly liable for these mom-and-pop Christian businesses to deny services based on their fundamental beliefs, why is it not also immoral or legally actionable for large corporations to refuse their services to the citizens of those states where those who govern choose to pass legislation to protect the religious freedoms of their citizenry?

If I’m a huge professional football fan living in Atlanta and the NFL people remove my city from contention for a near-future Super Bowl because they feel my state is discriminating against the transgendered, am I not the victim of discriminatory business practices on the part of the NFL? What about those organizations and corporations that cancel annual conferences and business meetings because of the actions of my state legislature? Aren’t these big corporations refusing to do business with my state simply because they consider our practices immoral, just as those bakeries, florists, and photographers see gays as immoral? Other than scale, I see little difference.  (emphasis added)

The difference is that corporations that have succumbed to the ‘social justice’ imperative see nothing wrong with using their economic clout (or the heavy hand of the legal system) to bludgeon entire communities into abandoning their deeply held beliefs (not to mention the now not-so-common sense), while those same social justice warriors recoil in horror at the thought of a traditionalist saying or doing something that might simply be offensive to someone else.  Remember, for these people it’s all about “my widdle feewings,” not good business practice, economic sense or even a firm grasp on reality.  If the shareholders of PayPal and other companies jumping on the anti-North Carolina bandwagon had any sense, they’d demand the resignation of the corporate board for putting showmanship and social engineering above legitimate business interest.

The hypocrisy is even more pronounced when you consider how many of these virtue-signaling companies have no qualms at all doing business with places like Saudi Arabia, where being gay isn’t just occasionally inconvenient because of differences in belief — it’s often fatal.

Here’s hoping the various boycotts produce an environment in which alternatives to these would-be corporate bullies can flourish.  Such alternatives are long overdue.  Boycotts can work both ways, after all, and let’s hand it to Esquire for compiling a list of companies (and largely past-their-prime entertainers) conservatives should be breaking their ties with.

(Hat tip: Instapundit)

Cashing out

The powers that be are doing all they can to constrain the options of the average citizen who refuses to play their game.  The latest angle is to renew the push for a cashless society:

On Monday the European Central Bank President emphatically disclosed that he is strongly considering phasing out the 500 euro note.

Yesterday, former US Treasury Secretary Larry Summers published an op-ed in the Washington Post about getting rid of the $100 bill.

Prominent economists and banks have joined the refrain and called for an end to cash in recent months.

The reasoning is almost always the same: cash is something that only criminals, terrorists, and tax cheats use.

In his op-ed, Summers refers to a new Harvard research paper entitled: “Making it Harder for the Bad Guys: The Case for Eliminating High Denomination Notes”.

That title pretty much sums up the conventional thinking. And the paper goes on to propose abolishing, among others, 500 euro and $100 bills.

The authors claim that “without being able to use high denomination notes, those engaged in illicit activities – the ‘bad guys’ of our title – would face higher costs and greater risks of detection. Eliminating high denomination notes would disrupt their ‘business models’.”

The $100 is a “high denomination note?”  That might have been true 50 years ago, minus several decades of inflation eating away at purchasing power, but it’s hardly the case today.  One can easily spend that much now by taking a family of four to a restaurant.

And while any such proposals are always couched as trying to somehow make life difficult for “the bad guys,” there are some very real effects on law-abiding citizens here.  Governments around the world have exhausted their ability to “goose” the economy through artificially low interest rates (a policy, by the way, that penalizes the thrifty savers in society in favor of profligate borrowers).  Having taken that game all the way to zero — literally — now central banks have the bright idea of negative interest rates… which would potentially charge savers who hold their money in savings accounts rather than spending it.

So what is a thrifty family to do?  The best answer is to hold as much of your assets as possible outside of the increasingly corrupted financial system.  Cash is the most obvious way to do that.  But bankers know full well that if Americans returned to the days of stuffing mattresses with greenbacks, it would quickly become apparent there aren’t enough pieces of paper to go around — not by a long shot.  (For an example of this, watch the “bank run” scene in “It’s A Wonderful Life.”)

In addition to discouraging all the hoi polloi from asking for banknotes they don’t have, this move toward smaller denomination bills is meant to inconvenience cash transactions.  It’s not only criminals who like to use cash, although many in authority like to pretend that’s the main association.  There is still the rare family who literally saves their pennies for anything from a vacation to buying a used car.

Here’s the thing: if you paid $10,000 in cash for a vehicle you bought used from another owner, it would take carrying one hundred $100 bills.  Imagine that bill is eliminated.  The $50 is already a much rarer note in circulation, so the common alternative is the $20.  Now you’d need a stack of FIVE HUNDRED notes–more than a pound of paper –to pay cash.  And few people are willing to do that these days.  Yes, this is part of what the authorities want to do to “inconvenience” large criminal transactions.  But it will also push average consumers further into using what is already a largely digital world of commerce.

And that’s exactly what the powers that be want.  With digital transactions (credit and debit cards), privacy is greatly reduced and control greatly expanded.  I know there are still those full-blooded law and order types who’ll protest “if you’re not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about.”

Baloney.  Plenty of innocent people have already had their bank account (vulnerable digital assets) wrongfully seized, after which they face a daunting process of proving their innocence in order to see any of it again.  But the real problem with the “you have nothing to worry about” premise is that the definition of “doing wrong” is often in the eye of those wielding any kind of power.  Think I’m kidding?  Ask the former head of Mozilla, who was forced to resign after those oh-so-tolerant liberals discovered his heinous crime of donating to a campaign against legalizing same-sex marriage.  Think about how the IRS went after political groups sympathetic to “Tea Party” small-government advocacy.  Now extrapolate that to a future where every book you buy, every movie/documentary you watch, every church contribution you make and even families you choose to support financially in some small way leaves a digital trail for those who disagree with you to follow and exploit.

There’s a term for this: it’s called a targeting system.  And if we’ve learned anything through the recent weaponization of government agencies, it’s that such targeting capabilities WILL be used to harass and silence anyone who dissents from public orthodoxy.  Completely ‘virtual’ banking and finance (a “cashless society”) will result in ‘virtual control’ over our ability to live freely and privately with our own consciences.

I’ve said this before, but am becoming more strident about it: it’s time to “abjure the realm.”  If you disagree with the direction the ‘soft fascists’ in our land are taking us, you need to separate yourself from their system as much as possible, because the net is continuing to tighten.  That means holding stores of wealth beyond their digital control, in forms like cash, precious metals or other tradable commodities that provide a good store of value.  Equally important, it means building networks of like-minded people who are willing to form communities that can exchange privately among themselves without every transaction being officially recorded and perused for potential political heresy.

In short, it means declaring your personal independence and intention NOT to be simply a compliant serf to the ruling order.  Does it take work not to do things the way everyone else does?  Certainly.  But it is the kind of work that makes one free.