‘Cancel Culture Works’

NYT Op-Ed Claims That ‘Cancel Culture Works’

By  Paul Bois
The New York Times Building is seen in New York City on February 4, 2021.

Rather than arguing that it doesn’t exist or that fears of it have been overblown, a recent New York Times op-ed from Sasha Issenberg said that “cancel culture works,” citing the LGBTQ community’s victory with same-sex marriage.

According to Issenberg, same-sex marriage coasted to mainstream success because LGBTQ activists like Fred Karger stopped mobilizing people to vote for a specific cause and instead mobilized them to protest individuals that gave money to measures like Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage in the state of California. One of the first targets of this was businessman Doug Manchester.

“Doug Manchester’s $125,000 donation was not the biggest to the pro-Proposition 8 cause, but he was the most substantial public-facing target Mr. Karger could find,” noted Issenberg. “He began picketing Mr. Manchester’s pre-eminent holdings, including the namesake downtown convention hotel, with a boycott that would endure for years. It was the first time gay-marriage activists adopted a strategy of scaring their most well-heeled opponents away from the fight.”

“Long before the phrase ‘cancel culture’ entered the lexicon or Republican senators complained about the power of ‘woke capital,’ Mr. Karger refined a digital-era playbook for successfully redirecting scrutiny to the opposition’s financial backers,” continued Issenberg. “The movement to legalize same-sex marriage is often understood as one of civil rights test cases. And indeed, savvy legislative lobbying, fortuitous demographic change, and pop-culture influence all played their part, too. But a largely forgotten story is the way a group of political entrepreneurs changed the economic terrain on which cultural conflict was waged. They demonstrated that shaming and shunning could amount to more than an online pile-on and serve as a potent tactic for political change.”

This strategy of effectively shaming opponents into silence became so effective that many of the biggest opponents of same-sex marriage simply stayed away from the topic in 2012.

Fred Karger’s strategy went beyond simple protests when he created what was known as the “dishonor roll” — a database of every significant donor to the Proposition 8 effort.

“His group, Californians Against Hate, mined disclosure reports and listed everyone who contributed $5,000 or more to pro-Prop 8 committees on a ‘dishonor roll’ website, with phone numbers and business addresses,” noted Issenberg. “Other activists made the data searchable via Google Maps, and he pitched out-of-state newspapers to cover local megadonors to the pro-Prop 8 group Protect Marriage.”

“He picketed upscale supermarkets in New York City and Washington, D.C., to discourage shoppers from buying smoothies and dressings from Bolthouse Farms, whose eponymous founder put $100,000 behind the referendum,” continued Issenberg. “After Proposition 8 passed, Mr. Karger led a two-week boycott of the Utah-based Ken Garff Automotive Group, which had 53 dealerships across three states, because one of Mr. Garff’s relatives had given $100,000 to pass Proposition 8. ‘Individuals and businesses gave a vast amount of money to take away our equality, and we want you to know who they are,’ Mr. Karger wrote.”

The article failed to note that same-sex marriage did not become legal in the United States via the kind of grassroots efforts espoused by Fred Karger but was instituted from the top-down by the Supreme Court.

Issenberg concludes the article by noting that threats of boycotts and public shaming have now become commonplace in American culture and will likely be a force used to bring about social change in the future.

The Daily Wire is one of America’s fastest-growing conservative media companies and counter-cultural outlets for news, opinion, and entertainment. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a member.

How to Hit Woke America Where It Hurts: Their Wallet

Author J.D. Vance joins War Room and explains how to hit the corporate anti-American elites where it hurts: their wallet.

“The elites in this country are fundamentally global, they’re not national,” he said. “In some cases they’re actively at war with American history.”

“What we often miss is their most powerful weapon is the fact that they’re getting rich off of America even when as they try to destroy its institutions and frankly destroy the nation and the people that live in it,” the author of Hillbilly Elegy said.

The answer is to use our Constitutional powers to strip these woke corporations of their special tax privileges.

“If they’re shipping our jobs overseas, if they’re trying to destroy our cultural institutions we should make them feel it,” he said. “We should really go after them where it hurts, which is their wallet.”

Stephen K. Bannon called Vance’s recent speech against woke capital at the Claremont Institute “one of the most populist nationalist speeches” and one of great historical significance.

Vance gave practical steps for how we can punish woke globalist corporations that hate America, and incentivize more jobs at home.

“It just means we need to stop treating these corporations who hate America as if they’re on our side,” he said. “They’re just not anymore.”

“First thing we have to focus on is energy,” Vance said. “The biggest driver of manufacturing is cheap energy. If you have Green New Deal policies…and you make energy more expensive, you put us at a huge disadvantage with China.”

The Media Hates You

The Media Hates You And Is Shocked That You Hate It Back

The Media Hates You And Is Shocked That You Hate It Back

And we’re not going to apologize for it. Half of America, at least, now cares about the media precisely as much as the media cares about us – that is, not at all. In fact, we actively wish it ill. We cheer when some trash website or paper folds. The frequent layoff announcements make us giddy. Sad journalists whining about how people on Twitter dare criticize them cause us to howl in delight.

Our contempt for them is a result of their contempt for us. And as individuals and collectively, we should do whatever we lawfully can to hasten the collapse of the mainstream media as an institution.

Harsh? Nah.

See, the media hates us and actively sides with our enemies. It’s always amusing how these hacks do not even bother to hide their full-throated collaboration with the people who want us silenced, disenfranchised, and/or dead, yet get all huffy when we refuse to treat them as the neutral truthtellers they aren’t. The most active supporters of censorship in our culture are members of the news media itself, bar none. They cover up Democrat perfidy and invent Republican scandals. They try to police our language. They condescend to us. They dox innocent citizens. They lie all the time. They carry water for liberal leakers. They try to get our own (real) reporters, like Townhall’s Julio Rosas, killed for refusing to follow the narrative.

Take Don Lemon, preferably far away. Apparently, the business model of catering to Blue-Anon shut-ins who wear their masks in the shower isn’t working out so well. He’s off the air as of last week – maybe he’ll come back in some form to torment people running to catch a Delta flight, but perhaps CNN is tired of getting ratings on par with the Macramé Channel and the Enlarged Prostate Network. I have some history with this human punchline – in my last appearance on CNN in December 2015, he cut my mic when I refused his command not to point out his ridiculous hypocrisy regarding Felonia Milhous von Pantsuit. He will not be missed except by his fans, both of them.

Also, Don’s fellow licensed and registered regime advocate Brian Stelter is a potato. The tube’s #1 tuber is still on the air, for now, flacking for his masters and dodging hungry Dubliners.

Over the weekend, America cheered as the Israelis flattened the building housing the Associated Press in Gaza. This led to widespread laughter and high-fives among American patriots. And we were even happier when we later found out that the same high-rise had also housed some Hamas military HQs.

Now, some might argue that a free society needs a crusading media to function. That’s a nice cliché, but it assumes both that we still have a free society and a crusading media. If you think we have a free society, think again. There is a war on dissent and the media is leading the charge in coordination with its tech buddies. Try posting some COVID stuff that doesn’t slavishly follow the (ever-changing) narrative. You could in a free society. Understand that the media supports the suppression of unapproved speech – they want everyone else gagged and dissenting information suppressed. They call stuff that rejects their narrative “disinformation,” as if the clowns taking dictation from Raggedy Ann McCircleback are the arbiters of objective reality.

And a crusading media? These are the same people who had a presidential nominee’s son cold taking megabucks from foreigners – including the Chi Coms – and who was blasting rails off the behinds of strippers, and they actively suppressed the story because it would hurt their preferred candidate. If it was Don Jr. instead of President Asterisk’s Snortunate Son, it would have been wall-to-wall coverage. The best part was that the same people who bought the bogus Russian pee-pee tape story whole-hog were suddenly squeamish about “Russian disinformation” that everyone knew was nothing of the sort. The media made a conscious decision to suppress perhaps the juiciest scandal in American history to help the Democrats, so please – ask us to care when bad things happen to it. Please. Ask us.

Now, you can’t personally fire Don Lemon or drop a missile from your F-15 on some building where the media is actively collaborating with America’s murderous enemies, but what can you do to hasten the destruction of the garbage media?

Number two, never help them. When mainstream media outlets call you to get some info, refuse to help. And tell them why – because they suck. And GOP hacks, you need to rethink going on the media that hates us – I get the idea of speaking to the other side to expose them to the truth, but it won’t work. If you are effective, you’ll get diverted, distracted, or your mic will be cut off like Lemon did with me.

Number three, support GOP candidates who will cut off the special privileges the garbage media enjoys. The media now wants additional antitrust exemptions and intellectual property protections from Congress to save it from collapse. How about…no?

Number four, mock the media. There is no institution with a more inflated sense of itself than the press – that smug self-satisfaction is one of the things that helps make up for the crummy pay (though most young journalists today are rich kids whose birthing parent and daddy subsidize them). Your refusal to pretend that these oafs deserve respect causes them no end of fussy fury. So, refuse.

The media hates you. You owe it nothing. Give it nothing, except your contempt.

The Border Is Out of Control

The Border Is Spiraling Out of Control

Julio Rosas
Posted: May 06, 2021

All of this to say that the crisis at the southern border is still ongoing. Of course, Joe Biden and Democrats say the crisis is essentially “over.”

It is not. But we need your support to fund our real journalism on it.

It’s because the crisis is not over that I am heading back down to the border to bring you the on-the-ground coverage you deserve. As you can imagine, a lot of resources are needed to be able to travel to the edge of the United States. The costs are significant. But Townhall will continue to do so because the Biden administration and the Democratic Party want to trick the American people into believing the situation at the border is now “under control.”

Since the start of the crisis, Townhall has reported from California, Arizona, and Texas, showing the disastrous results of Biden halting border wall construction and eliminating President Trump’s successful border policies. We’ve reported on the jaw-dropping number of people crossing into the U.S. each night, and the negative ecological effects of human smuggling. This is not over, and it likely will continue for the next three years. That’s why we need your support to continue shining a light on the crisis at our southern border.

Swiss Billionaire

Swiss Billionaire Pumps $208 Million Into Left-Wing Groups That Help Democrats Win Elections: NYT Report

NEW YORK, NY - APRIL 01: (L-R) Hansjorg Wyss, Michael Bloomberg and Sam Waterston attend Oceana's 2015 New York City benefit at Four Seasons Restaurant on April 1, 2015 in New York City.
An explosive report from The New York Times this week outlines how a Swiss billionaire has become a top player in influencing U.S. politics in a manner that helps Democrat politicians win elections even though it is not clear whether the individual is a U.S. citizen.

The report said that Swiss billionaire Hansjörg Wyss has donated massive amounts of money “through a daisy chain of opaque organizations that mask the ultimate recipients of his money.”

“Newly obtained tax filings show that Mr. Wyss’s foundations donated $208 million from 2016 through early last year to three nonprofit funds that doled out money to a wide array of groups that backed progressive causes and helped Democrats in their efforts to win the White House and control of Congress last year,” the report said. “Mr. Wyss’s representatives say his foundations’ money is not being spent on political campaigning. But documents and interviews show that his foundations have come to play a prominent role in financing the political infrastructure that supports Democrats and their issues.”

In addition to donating heavily to the three non-profits, Wyss’s foundations also directly donated tens of millions of dollars throughout the Trump-era to groups that “opposed former President Donald J. Trump and promoted Democrats and their causes.”

Wyss donated to far-left groups that organized grassroot campaigns to increase the turnout of Democrat voters, created media organizations that publish pro-Democrat news, pushed for Trump’s impeachment, and sought to cause other problems for the Trump administration. Officials from his organizations have also worked on the Biden transition or have joined the administration.

Wyss’s political profile gained noticeable attention recently after he was one of the top bidders for the Tribune Publishing newspaper chain before dropping out.

“Born in Switzerland and living in Wyoming, he has not disclosed publicly whether he holds citizenship or permanent residency in the United States,” the report noted. “Foreign nationals without permanent residency are barred from donating directly to federal political candidates or political action committees, but not from giving to groups that seek to influence public policy — a legal distinction often lost on voters targeted by such groups.”

The report comes as Democrats have pushed to rein in dark money in politics, despite the fact that they spent more than double the amount of dark money that Republicans did — $514 million vs. roughly $200 million — during the 2020 election cycle.

Wyss’s foundations have increased their donations to organizations that champion other Democrat causes, including abortion, and have become more involved in “partisan political debates” after Trump won in 2016.

A spokesperson for Wyss claimed that Wyss’ donations were not meant to help Democrats and that he was only focused on issues important to him. Wyss refused to be interviewed for the report.

Another Wyss foundation — the Berger Action Fund — shares office spaces with The Wyss Foundation and is registered under a section of the U.S. tax code that allows it to “spend money supporting and opposing candidates, or to donate to groups that do.”

The Berger Action Fund donated more than $135 to the Sixteen Thirty Fund, which the Times notes is “among the leading dark money spenders on the left.” The Sixteen Thirty Fund donated more than $63 million to PACs promoting Democrats or opposing Republicans in 2020, including pro-Biden groups and “the scandal-plagued anti-Trump group Lincoln Project.” Tax filings for the Sixteen Thirty Fund do not specify how it spent the money it received from Wyss’s foundations.

A California-based group — Fund for a Better Future, which works to shape political processes in a way that helps Democrats — “has received the majority of its funding, nearly $45.2 million between the spring of 2016 and the spring of 2020, from the Berger Action Fund.”

The spokesperson for Wyss said that Berger Action Fund had its own internal policy banning it from funding “political candidates or electoral activities.” The report noted that the “voluntary restriction” was especially newsworthy given the questions that surround Wyss’s citizenship. Wyss also gave $70,000 to Democrat candidates and leftist PACS from 1990 to 2003 before appearing to halt the spending.

‘Woke’ Coke Pauses Diversity Plan

‘Woke’ Coke Pauses Diversity Plan After ‘Intense Backlash,’ Plan Author Suddenly Resigns

'YOUR voice makes a difference': Coca-Cola takes a 'pause' on woke initiatives after after pressure from the Right

Coca-Cola has pressed pause on a controversial “diversity plan” after what Fox News described as an “intense backlash,” and the company’s general counsel, Bradley Gayton, who authored the plan, has now abruptly resigned.

As The Daily Wire reported back in February, “Coca-Cola debuted a new policy this year implementing a diversity quota for the outside counsel it retains, saying it will only hire law firms that commit to providing 15 percent of billed time from black attorneys, higher than the percentage of African Americans in the U.S. population.” Law firms working with the soft drink giant, were also required, under the new policy, to “commit that at least 30% of each of billed associate and partner time will be from diverse attorneys, and of such amounts at least half will be from Black attorneys.”

The soft drink titan also passed the “diversity” on to its employees. In a series of slides leaked to media, a company working with Coca-Cola to provide corporate training encouraged Coke employees to “be less white” in an effort to create a more welcoming and racially diverse workplace.

Gayton reportedly authored the law firm diversity plan after viewing websites for firms providing Coca-Cola’s outside counsel and seeing mostly white headshots.

“I write you with a heavy heart,” Gayton said in a letter to outside counsel firms, according to The Daily Wire. “Gayton declared that Coca-Cola’s previous efforts to promote diversity ‘are not working’ as apparent from the ‘alarming number of new partner headshots’ with an ‘obvious lack of diversity.’”

‘The hard truth is that our profession is not treating the issue of diversity and inclusion as a business imperative,” Gayton wrote in his letter. “We have a crisis on our hands and we need to commit ourselves to specific actions that will accelerate the diversity of the legal profession.”

Legal experts, Fox Business noted, questioned “whether Gayton’s policies violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which says employers can’t treat people differently based on their race.”

“Legal defense foundation Project on Fair Representation published an open letter to Coca-Cola last week warning that Coke’s outside counsel ‘racial quota requirements’ are ‘unlawful,’” the outlet added.

In late April, Coca-Cola quietly announced that Gayton had departed his role as general counsel with a “golden parachute” — an unusual event given that Gayton had worked for the company for less than a year.

“As part of the [separation] agreement, [Gayton] will receive a $4 million sign-on payment and a monthly consulting fee of $666,666, beginning this month and ending April 2022,” the company reported, according to BusinessWire, which listed Gayton’s new role as helping to “drive certain key objectives,” without further explanation.

‘Douglas reportedly offered a few hints about the fate of Gayton’s diversity plan, though concrete details remain elusive,” Law.com said on the hire.

“When asked about Gayton’s diversity initiative, Douglas indicated that Coca-Cola was ‘taking a pause for now’ but would likely salvage some parts of the plan,” the outlet noted, citing a source.  Douglas didn’t provide any additional details about what would remain and what would be scrapped.

“She said she … plans to use some of it, but everything is being evaluated. They plan to adopt some of [Gayton’s] strategies and passions. Everything was, ‘More to come,’” Law.com’s source noted.

Essential Method Of Peaceful Protest

“Consumer Boycotts: An Essential Method of Peaceful Protest” – Philip Kotler

“Consumer Boycotts: An Essential Method of Peaceful Protest” – Philip Kotler

Consumers normally show their attitude toward a company by patronizing or ignoring the company.  Or they might actively dislike the company.

What can a disappointed consumer do about a “bad” company or brand?  Not use anymore?  Send a complaint to that company asking for an answer?  Tell Facebook friends to avoid the company?  Take out an Internet ad complaining about the company?

Some angry consumers go further.  Consider the members of PETA, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.  PETA is an animal rights organization with more than 6.5 million members and supporters.  PETA members focus their animal rights activities in four areas: in laboratories, the food industry, the clothing trade, and the entertainment industry. PETA’s aim to discourage consumers from buying products which have come from companies that violated animal rights.  Against “bad” companies, PETA uses public education, cruelty investigations, research, animal rescue, legislation, special events, celebrity involvement, and boycott campaigns.


Business historians, company leaders and marketers need to consider the role and power of boycotts in the protection of consumer rights. Boycotts have occurred throughout history.

In the evening of December 16, 1773 in Boston Harbor, a group of Massachusetts colonists disguised as Mohawk Indians boarded three British tea ships and dumped 342 chests of tea into the harbor.  They complained “no taxations without representation.” Not long after, American colonial merchants called for boycotting all British products.  The Boston Tea Party and the Revolutionary War ended up creating a new country, the USA.

The term “boycott” didn’t come into use until 1880.  An English land agent, Captain Charles Cunningham Boycott, chose to raise rents and evict a lot of his tenants in Ireland.  The local community rebelled and joined together and refused to pay or work with Captain Boycott. He was forced to leave. Boycott left his name to history.

We define a boycott as “a concerted refusal to do business with a particular person or business…in order to obtain concessions or express displeasure.”

To examine the role and power of boycotts, we ask:

  1. What are the main types and examples of boycotts?
  2. Why do people organize boycotts?
  3. How to organize a successful boycott?
  4. How can the boycotting entity respond to the boycott?

Types and Examples of Boycotts

A group can decide to boycott a large number of entities:  an industry, product, brand, company, person, country, practice or idea.  The motive might be economic, political or social.  Here are some of the best known boycotts in American history.

Boycott against an Industry: Alcohol and the WCTU

As a product, alcohol is a stimulus as well as a curse.  Women started temperance leagues in the early 1800s aiming to limit drinking and “demon rum.”  By 1830, the average American over 15 consumed at least 7 gallons of alcohol a year.  Male drunkenness led to family abuse of wives and children and health problems of all kinds.  The World Christian Temperance Union (WCTU) was organized in 1873. Its second president, Francis Willard, helped to grow the WCTU into the largest women’s religious organization in the 19th century and helped the drive toward establishing women’s voting rights.  Alcoholics Anonymous later was formed with the aim of teaching “teetotalism” or total abstinence to victims of alcoholism.  .

Boycott against a good product – Grapes and Chavez

In 1965 on Mexican Independence Day, Cesar Chavez organized Filipino American grape workers to protest for better wages and working conditions in Delano, California.  The workers were paid a pittance.  Consumers decided to boycott grapes. This decision led to an international boycott of grapes. Grape growers were left with the choice of paying more or letting their grapes rot. The boycott led to the organization of the U.S.’s first farm workers union, The United Farm Worker of America. The strike lasted for five years before reaching a settlement.

Boycott against a bad product – Nestle and Instant Formula

Nestle advertised its infant formula to be “better than breast milk” and more convenient to use. Infant formula was a powder to which water is added. In 1977, many consumers worldwide complained and boycotted the infant formula saying that Nestle mislead customers with inaccurate nutritional claims. In poor countries sadled with infected water, babies often got sick. Nestle refused to compromise for seven years.  The boycott ended when Nestle agreed to comply with the World Health Organizations (WHO) standards concerning the marketing of infant formula.

Boycott against a dangerous product – Dow Chemical napalm

The U.S. dropped napalm incendiary bombs in Vietnam in 1979. This led to international outrage against the U.S. and Dow Chemical. Though napalm accounted for only about one-half of 1% of Dow’s $1.6 billion annual sales, the company had become a target for acrimony. Clergymen led picket lines at Dow’s annual meetings.

Boycott against a company – British Petroleum (BP) the Gulf Coast Oil Spill

An explosion on British Petroleum’s Deepwater Horizon oil drilling rig in the Gulf of Mexico on April 20, 2010 resulted in the largest U.S. oil spill. The explosion caused 11 deaths and the spilling of 30 million gallons of crude oil into the Gulf. The spill lasted 87 days when the well was finally capped on July 15, 2010.

Boycott against a company – Coors Brewing Company and LGBT Rights 

In hiring people, Coors Brewing Company discriminated against persons from the LGBT community. In 1973, labor unions organized a boycott to protest Coors antagonistic practices. The boycott was joined by African Americans, Latinos, and the LGBT community.  Finally, 14 years later the AFL-CIO and Coors  came to an agreement in 1987, ending the official union boycott. But Coors continued to carry a bad name in certain communities.

Boycott against a company – Chick-fil-A

In 2012 the CEO of the restaurant Chick-fil-A publically blamed the country’s woes on accepting gay marriage and continued donating money to anti-LGBT groups.  Many Christians kept dining at this restaurant chain and others boycotted Chick-fil-A.  The company finally gave into pressure in 2019 to stop donating to companies that supported anti-LGBT talk and turn over more of their donations to promoting youth education, combating youth homelessness, and fighting hunger.

Boycott against a State law – Religious Discrimination against Same-Sex Couples

The state legislature of Indiana passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) in 2015 allowing state businesses to refuse service to same-sex couples based on religious grounds. The business community strongly and swiftly reacted against this law. The state legislature reversed course and modified the law a week later. The RFRA cost Indianapolis more than $60 million.

Boycott against Segregation: Montgomery Bus Boycott, Rosa Parks and Racial Discrimination

In 1955, Rosa Parks was arrested when she refused to give up her seat to a white passenger. Her act of civil disobedience launched the Montgomery Bus Boycott, a 13-month protest during which black residents refused to ride city buses. Martin Luther King Jr and the Montgomery Improvement Association organized the boycott, which launched civil rights into the national spotlight. The Supreme Court ultimately outlawed segregation on public buses.

Boycott against a country – India, the Salt March and Mahatma Gandhi

In 1930, Mahatma Gandhi led a 240-mile march in India to the Arabian Sea to protest Britain’s colonial salt laws. Britain didn’t allow Indians to process or sell their own salt. Gandhi and his followers, in front of thousands, broke the law by evaporating seawater to make salt. He encouraged others to do the same.  Gandhi reached an agreement with India’s British viceroy in 1931 in exchange for an end to the salt tax and the release of political prisoners. Colonial rule remained, but the act of civil disobedience stoked the fires of independence. In 1947, the British rule ended and the country was divided into India and Pakistan.

Boycott against a Country – Russia and the Summer Olympics

In 1980, President Jimmy Carter refused to send American athletes to the Summer Olympic Games in Moscow as a protest of the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. More than 60 nations joined the U.S. The Soviet-Afghan War continued until 1989.  The Soviets subsequently led their own boycott of the 1984 Summer Olympic Games in Los Angeles.

Boycott against a Country – Israel and the Arab League Boycott

In 1945, the Arab League (Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates) launched an economic boycott of Israel. In the 1970s, the U.S. adopted two laws that prohibited U.S. companies from furthering or supporting the boycott of Israel. Today a new boycott comes in the B.D.S. (boycott, divest, and sanction) movement that seeks to pressure Israel into ending its occupation of the West Bank.

Boycott against a Political Practice – South Africa and the Anti-Apartheid Movement 

An international campaign against the oil company Royal Dutch Shell was launched in 1986 to protest apartheid in South Africa.  There were nationwide calls in America from labor and civil rights groups asking the public not to buy gas from Shell stations.  Congress passed the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act of 1986 that banned South African imports, airlines, and foreign aid from the U.S. The end of apartheid began in the early 1990s, when Nelson Mandela and other political prisoners were freed. Apartheid officially ended in 1994, when Mandela became the country’s first black leader.

Boycott for Animal Rights – Protecting whales at SeaWorld

In 2013, a documentary was released which criticized marine parks for its practice of keeping orcas in captivity. The People for Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) called for boycotts of the park SeaWorld, and SeaWorld’s public attendance declined. In 2016, SeaWorld announced that it would no longer breed or feature shows with orcas.

Boycott against Men – Women Withhold Sex to End Violence

In 2003, Liberian women went on a successful sex strike to end the country’s civil war. Leymah Gbowee won a Nobel Peace Prize for her efforts. In 2006, female partners of gang members in Pereira, Colombia, withheld sex as they demanded fewer guns and less violence in their city. By 2010, Pereira’s murder rate had fallen by 26.5%.

Boycott against Consumerism – International Buy Nothing Day

Black Friday, the day after Thanksgiving, is one of the busiest shopping days of the year. With big crowds, sometimes violence ensues.  An anti-consumerist group in Canada launched an anti-shopping movie, “Buy Nothing Day,” in 1992. Some retailers, but very few,  decided to stay closed on Black Friday,

Boycott – President Donald Trump as an Active Boycotter of Companies

President Donald Trump has launched personal political attacks of several U.S. companies and people hoping to persuade U.S. citizens to avoid these companies.  He attacked Nike for running a successful ad in September 2018 favoring the quarterback Colin Kaepernick who took to his knee during the national anthem in protest to racial injustice.  Trump in 2018 lashed out at Google and CNN saying that these media are rigged and report only bad stories or no stories about Republican/Conservatives.  He recommended boycotting Apple products for refusing to give cellphone information about a radical group and making most of their products abroad.  He attacked Goodyear for banning MAGA hats in the company and tweeted “Get better tires for far less,” and recommended replacing the Goodyear tires on his Presidential car.  He  issued an executive order to ban the Chinese-owned TikTok unless it found an American buyer for its U.S. operations.

Why Do People Organize Boycotts?

Boycotts are often the result a clash of values between a company and some members of the consuming public.  Consumers, in choosing a product, consider two things:

  1. Value of the product. Does the product and its price and accessibility deliver high value to the potential consumer?
  2. Values of the company. Are the values of the company acceptable to the values of the consumer?

Most consumers put the most weight on the value of the product.  However, some consumers also consider the company’s values. Many grape lovers stopped buying grapes to protest the low wages that grapefield owners paid to grape workers.

We are living in an era of increasing political polarization. If a company isn’t careful, it could offend the values of the blues (Democrats) or the reds (Republicans).  If a company shows that it favors stricter gun control, it will offend gun owners.  The best thing is for the company not to take any position about guns. If most companies remain quiet, their sales and profits are safer.

Yet many other companies are proud and open about their values.  Coors Brewery’s leadership had very conservative values and did not want to hire persons from the LGBT community.  A boycott started and lasted until Coors finally agreed in 1987 to not discriminate in their hiring practices.

Boycotts are often organized to further social change of the value of some group.  The Montgomery Bus boycott aimed to advance the rights of black Americans.  The more the boycott can widen and sustain a Common Good message, the more the chance of changing social values.

The lesson is clear.  A company has to think about what values it will represent and how these values would impact different consumer groups and how the company should express its values.

How to Organize a Successful Boycott

A boycott organizing group must make sure that the boycott is not breaking any laws. The boycott is an attack that will hurt the value of a particular entity. It may involve picketing in front of a certain entity.  If the entity is a hotel, the boycotters cannot block people from entering or exiting the hotel.   Some states might require approval of any planned boycott before the boycotters go into action.

The organizing group must raise enough money to buy ads, picket the company, and sustain the campaign until the entity concedes. It doesn’t pay to start a boycott without the means to keep it going.  The company’s response to the boycott will partially be influenced by the company’s estimate of the boycotter’s resources.  If quite limited, the company may prefer to take a hit for a short time and not give in to the boycotters.

A nonprofit group, called the Ethical Consumer, is organized to watch for and spot unethical companies. Ethical Consumer was formed in Hulme, Manchester, UK in 1989. In 2009 Ethical Consumer became a full nonprofit multi-stakeholder co-operative consisting of worker members and investor/subscriber members. The group’s aim is to apply pressure on an unethical company to change its way or otherwise face a boycott.  Ethical Consumer lists a number of companies that they might target for a boycott unless the company changes its ways. Their targets include a number of well-known companies such as Wendy’s and Amazon.

How Can the Boycotted Entity Respond to the Boycott

If a company gets forewarned of an imminent boycott, the first step is to contact the party and try to settle the issue.  If the boycotting group is just trying to extract money from the company to avoid a boycott, the company should report this to the police.  If the boycotting group is serious, the company should sitdown and try to work out an agreement.  If the offense is not very serious, the company might agree to make a change that would be acceptable by the boycotting group.

If no agreement can be reached and the boycott gets started, the company needs to explain its position to the press and seek the understanding of its customers, employees and other stakeholders.  The company needs to estimate how long the boycott might last and how much harm it would do to the company.  If it will last a long time and badly damage the company’s reputation, sales and profits, the company should give in on the issue and negotiate an agreement.

The company knows that the boycotting group needs to attract a lot of supporters and keep them interested.  The earliest supporters are highly engaged in the cause.  It gets harder for the boycott to get additional supporters who have a lower level of interest and may even believe that the boycott doesn’t need more supporters.

The company is in a better position to resist the boycott if it has built up a reputation as a caring company, caring for its customers, employees, and other stakeholders.  If it has given a lot to charity and fought for high consensus issues such as a healthy environment, it might less often be the target for a boycott.  Companies such Coca Cola and McDonald’s have curried a halo image of good prosocial behavior partly because some groups regularly complain that  these companies products, if used in excess, are injurious to health.


Consumers have the right to expect companies to be ethical in their behavior.  Fortunately, consumers who get angry enough at a company can send complaints to the company or take out negative ads or organize a boycott.   Boycotts have a long history not only against companies but against industries, products, brands, countries, or ideas.  Many past boycotts, especially those pressing for prosocial change, have had success. Success depends largely on the resources of the boycotting group and the resources of the targeted entity.  The boycott organizing group needs a well-thought out attack strategy and the targeted entity needs a well-thought out defense strategy.

All said, consumers generally benefit from the fact that boycotts are possible and legal.  Boycotts call upon the boycotting group to present strong reasons for the boycott and the targeted entity presenting strong reasons for either resisting or reaching an agreement.

Sources:  There are many lists of boycotts.  One excellent list is Chare Carlile, “History of Successful Boycotts,” May 5, 2019.  An excellent discussion on why boycotts occur and how companies can deal with them is found in Jim Salas, Doreen E. Shanahan, and Gabriel Conzalez, “Are Boycotts Prone to Factors That May Make Them Ineffective?”  in Strategies for Managing in the Age of Boycotts, 2019 Volume 22, Issue 3.

Woke Corporations

Ford, GM Jump on Woke Bandwagon of Companies Opposing Election Integrity Bills


The leaders of three-dozen major Michigan-based companies, including General Motors and Ford, on Tuesday issued a joint statement objecting to Republican-sponsored election security bills in Michigan and other states.

The GOP-led state Senate is expected to soon begin hearings on wide-ranging legislation that would require a photo ID to vote in person, prohibit the unsolicited statewide mass mailing of absentee ballot applications and restrict the hours in which people could drop off ballots in curbside boxes.

Voters applying for an absentee ballot would have to attach a copy of their ID. Governments would be banned from providing prepaid postage on ballot envelopes.

“Government must support equitable access to the ballot to ensure that all eligible voters can exercise their rights,” the statement said.

“Government must avoid actions that reduce participation in elections — particularly among historically disenfranchised communities, persons with disabilities, older adults, racial minorities and low-income voters.”

The statement was signed by GM’s Mary Barra, Ford’s Jim Farley and Mike Manley of Stellantis, formerly Fiat Chrysler.

They stopped short of weighing in on specific legislation but said election laws must be developed in bipartisan fashion.

Completing this poll entitles you to The Western Journal news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

They added that election administration should continuously be improved and strengthened “because public faith in the security and integrity of our elections is fundamental.”

In a separate statement, GM urged state lawmakers across the U.S. to protect “the right for all eligible voters to have their voices included in a fair, free and equitable manner.”

Republicans have said changes are needed to ensure election integrity following a surge in absentee voting and claims of widespread voter fraud in the 2020 presidential election.

“This package’s move through the legislative process has only just begun and I look forward to seeking the input of my colleagues across the aisle and all who have engaged in this process,” Senate Majority Leader Mike Shirkey of Clarklake said in a statement.

“At all times we must use logic, not political sentiment or ‘wokeness,’ to build good public policy that will serve all Michiganders and safeguard our democracy. If having an ID is viewed as an obstacle to voting because there is a problem getting an ID, let’s solve that problem.”

Several bills would be vetoed by Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer if they reached her desk. But the state Republican Party has said it plans a maneuver that would enable the Legislature to pass them into law anyway if enough voter signatures were gathered for a ballot initiative.

Ben & Jerry’s

Ben & Jerry’s tweeted that the “murder” of Daunte Wright at the hands of police in Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, over the weekend “is rooted in white supremacy and results from the intentional criminalization of Black and Brown communities.”

The ice cream giant — long known for using its platform to push left-wing sociopolitical agendas — added a “DefundThePolice” hashtag in its Monday tweet and also declared that “this system can’t be reformed. It must be dismantled and a real system of public safety rebuilt from the ground up.”

What’s the background?

Wright was pulled over by police Sunday, after which he resisted arrest and was fatally shot by Officer Kim Potter, who said she intended to use her Taser but mistakenly grabbed her service weapon instead.

Authorities said Wright had expired vehicle tags — and it was reported that at the time of the traffic stop he had an outstanding warrant on an attempted robbery charge over an incident during which he allegedly choked a woman and held her at gunpoint.

Potter resigned Tuesday, along with Police Chief Tim Gannon, who was ordered by news conference attendees the previous day to refrain from referring to the post-shooting riot as a “riot.” Just after the fatal shooting, a protester on a bullhorn urged a growing crowd to dox police, post photos of their families on social media, and “start doin’ pull ups to their house.”

In response to the fatal shooting, U.S. Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) called for the end of policing and incarceration, claiming law enforcement systems are so broken they “can’t be reformed.” President Joe Biden backed away from Tlaib’s declaration.

How did folks react to Ben & Jerry’s tweet?

As you might expect, a bevy of leftists adored Ben & Jerry’s stance against police, but others took the ice cream brand to task — among them author and professor Gad Saad. He replied, “Your brains are made of soft ice cream. You are a disgrace for ‘racializing’ everything. Stick to making ice cream and leave the faux-hysterics to @donlemon.”

Others voiced similar sentiments:

  • “Ben & Jerry’s is inciting violence,” another user stated. “They should be held accountable for their actions.”
  • “I’m sure you will be passing on all policing for your factories and the homes of your CEO, founder, and all major executives correct?” another commenter quipped. “And if robbed/assaulted/threatened you won’t be calling the police, either, right?”
  • “Never again will I purchase @benandjerrys Ice Cream!” another user declared.
  • “You’ve just lost a customer and I’m willing to bet millions more because of your uneducated, ignorant race baiting,” another commenter said. “SHAME ON YOU!!”
  • “People should just be allowed to go into a shop and take every Ben & Jerry’s ice-cream,” another user opined. “You should be allowed no protection from those taking. It should be considered ‘reparations.'”
  • “I’m waiting for the Antifa flavored ice cream next,” another commenter wrote.

Ohio bar owner refuses to play NBA games

An Ohio bar owner said he will no longer play NBA games for customers at his establishment until LeBron James is “expelled” from the league.
Ohio bar owner refuses to play NBA games until LeBron James is ‘expelled’ from league
Ohio bar owner refuses to play NBA games until LeBron James is ‘expelled’ from league

CLEVELAND, Ohio (WOIO) – An Ohio bar owner said he will no longer play NBA games for customers at his establishment until LeBron James is “expelled” from the league.

The decision from JP Linneman, owner of the Cincinnati-area bar Linne’s Pub, came as a response to James’ comments regarding the fatal police-involved shooting of a Columbus teenaged-girl.

James previously shared a post on social media, which he has since deleted, on the day the verdict for Derek Chauvin was delivered showing an image of the Columbus police officer allegedly involved in the deadly shooting with the caption, “YOU’RE NEXT #ACCOUNTABILITY.”