Recently, Scandinavian Airlines (SAS) produced one of those advertisements typical of woke capital lately. This sort of thing is political propaganda piggybacked onto what should just be commercial propaganda. This one was particularly noxious, a cringe-fest full of cultural Marxism. One jarring aspect was the frequent juxtaposition of real Swedes with incompatible residents who are only there because their government is full of globalist sellouts. That was meant to be in-your-face; they knew exactly what they were doing.
That certainly wasn’t the only problem with the advertisement. It makes the claim that there is nothing uniquely Scandinavian. The way it does so is by cherry-picking facets of their culture that had antecedents originating from abroad and later were adapted to local use, sometimes developed considerably further. It’s rather like saying that the Greek alphabet isn’t Greek because it evolved from the Phoenician writing system.
With that tactic, essentially the commercial makes a fallacy of composition. I could go further into memetic theory and how ideas get around, often internationally. I might add that Western technology has benefited the developing world tremendously. We don’t scream about cultural appropriation when (for example) non-Whites use electrical appliances made possible because of folks like Messieurs Tesla, Westinghouse, Edison, etc. That doesn’t bother us – why would it?
That said, Scandinavia does have a culture of its own. It’s part of my heritage. I’m serious enough about it that I learned Old Norse and some Gothic. Therefore, SAS can kiss my grits. I’d rather row across the Atlantic in a longboat than buy a plane ticket from them.
What is the point of that commercial? This was pretty obvious; it’s demoralization propaganda wrapped up in sugar-coated universalism. It’s for the SAS ad execs to tell their own countrymen that they don’t have a culture. Why, they’re nobody! Moreover, since the Scandinavian people are such a nonentity – according to enlightened leftist opinion – then their homelands are fair game for colonization. Way Of The World explains it below, but don’t miss his original version.
How does this help SAS sell plane tickets? It doesn’t! Remember, that wasn’t the object in the first place. The munchkins at the ad department used this company’s resources to make a political message to promote their views and rub their own countrymen’s noses in it. As it happens, this turned out to be tremendously unpopular. Counter-Currentsdescribed reactions to this turkey and how the company then went into damage control:
When simply ignoring the problem failed to work, SAS and Swedish media then moved on to the next weapon in their arsenal: Deflection. Not just any kind of deflection, mind you, but the most cliched kind possible: SAS and the media claimed that the backlash against their video was made possible by clandestine Russian influence and a coordinated network of Internet Nazis.
They screwed up to begin with by making this cringe-worthy demoralization propaganda. After it proved to be unpopular, they followed up on their error by claiming that the bad reaction was astroturfed via a politically incorrect conspiracy. Way to go! Why can’t these snotty leftists in the ad department simply admit that they made a mistake? A little contrition would do wonders, but they don’t think they did anything wrong by insulting their own people. Did I mention that SAS can kiss my grits?
Will wonders never cease? The following is a bit hard to read, but it’s a stand with a sign, “Target is proud to support GLSEN with a $100,000 donation to help their mission of creating safe and affirming schools for all.” On sale is a rack full of shampoo and conditioner by OGX, and mouthwash by Listerine. The bottles are all in rainbow colors, to make sure everyone gets the point that they’re in solidarity with the 175ers. So those corporations too are in on the publicity stunt.
Okay, do gays have bad breath? It happens, especially if the hors d’oeuvres at those Oscars parties include salmon and bitty onions on top of a baguette slice with garlic butter. Do straights have bad breath? It happens too.
Do gays have hair that needs grooming? Yes, and actually they do a pretty good job of it already. Some lesbians have so little hair that a common bar of soap will work, though not all pearl divers get coiffed by gardening tools. Do straights have hair that needs grooming? Likewise, that happens too.
More seriously now
What the heck is GLSEN? Well, I guess I could look it up, but Target already provided a description. According to that, it has something to do with “creating safe and affirming schools for all”. There’s no need to read too deeply between the lines; I’ve heard all that stuff before.
Look, I know how capitalist economics works. Target’s CEO probably didn’t cut them a $100K check out of his personal bank account. Much more likely, that comes out of corporate profits. Also, they’re not dumb enough to take a hit to the balance sheet over some donation, so how do they get the dough? They do so by nudging up the prices a bit.
I happen to have long hair, so I need more shampoo and conditioner than the average guy. Since I’m a lesbian, and I’m the type who doesn’t get my golden tresses chopped by a weed whacker, I should be delighted about Target’s virtue signaling, right? Nah, I don’t think I want politics in my hair product, or my mouthwash for that matter. I’ll shop somewhere else, thank you very much.
Hey, CEOs, do you really think this stuff makes you righteous? Well, take some advice from Jesus then. To paraphrase broadly, He said don’t proclaim your righteousness in the street where everyone notices you. Instead, go pray in a closet. The point is that by doing so privately, then God will understand then that it’s sincere.
Don’t believe in any of that stuff? Okay, that’s cool; let me translate this to secular Current Year terms. Instead of raising prices to pay for a symbolic publicity stunt, I have a better idea. I’ll tell you to sell a Hummer or other luxury car – you have two more in your mansion’s garage, don’t you? Then, give the proceeds to one of these outfits so that they can pay their foundation staffers to push papers and spread social justice propaganda, or anything other than work real jobs and contribute to the economy. The point is that by doing so privately,then cynics like me will understand that you’re silly enough to believe your own nonsense.
There is an Arabic proverb that goes something like this:
Once the camel gets his nose in the tent, his body will follow.
Pointing this out might result in a lecture about the “slippery slope” fallacy. Well, it’s not exactly a fallacy if it’s actually the strategy! The Boy Scouts of America are a case study for this.
The BSA is over a century old, a venerable institution that has since then instructed over a hundred million youths in positive values and practical skills. For generations, it’s been a way to connect with nature, a great social opportunity, and a place to have fun.
Things started to get shaky during the 1970s. Scouting was becoming increasingly at odds with the zeitgeist, but I’ll spare you a rant about all that. They tried to adapt and get hip with the times. Unfortunately, the moves turned out to be ill-considered. They survived by going back to the basics, and membership numbers began climbing again.
Today, they face an even greater crisis, and membership levels are below half of their former peak. It’s a little more than just today’s kids who can’t be convinced to drag themselves away from video games.
The Homintern takes aim on its target
These are some of the things that cultural Marxism does
The Boy Scout oath is the following:
On my honor I will do my best to do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law; to help other people at all times; to keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight.
That’s in pretty clear language, not a lot of wiggle room there. However, some people didn’t care for the last part of it. Morally straight? Well, we can’t have that, now can we?
BSA has been under tremendous pressure for a long time, and sued nine ways from Sunday. This includes by heavy-hitting outfits like the ACLU. Those folks in particular have some other agendas too. James Baldwin, the ACLU’s co-founder, once said:
I, too, take a class position. It is anti-capitalist and pro-revolutionary. I believe in non-violent methods of struggle as most effective in the long run for building up successful working class power. Where they cannot be followed or where they are not even permitted by the ruling class, obviously only violent tactics remain. I champion civil liberty as the best of the non-violent means of building the power on which workers rule must be based. If I aid the reactionaries to get free speech now and then, if I go outside the class struggle to fight against censorship, it is only because those liberties help to create a more hospitable atmosphere for working class liberties. The class struggle is the central conflict of the world; all others are incidental.
Ain’t that special? Anyway, I digress.
Highlights on the timeline of destruction
1980: A young adult from the Bay Area was turned down for an application to the 1981 National Jamboree. His membership had lapsed, but the greater problem was that he was gay. They probably wouldn’t have known about it if he hadn’t come out publically in a newspaper interview. This became the subject of a 1998 lawsuit – a little late to help him get to the jamboree, though.
1990: A scoutmaster got kicked out because he publically came out gay, again via a newspaper article. He sued, of course; it’s the great American tradition! That one went all the way to the Supreme Court. Quite surprisingly, SCOTUS ruled in favor of the Boy Scouts in a 5-4 decision. Did one of the liberal Supreme Court members switch to decaf that day, or take some wicked cold medicine?
2000: BSA adopts a “don’t ask, don’t tell” position. Were they hoping to avoid vexatious litigation?
2013: BSA caves in following all the lawfare and other pressure. They vote to allow openly gay members, though not gay scoutmasters. Will this be enough to take the heat off of BSA?
2015: Openly gay scoutmasters are allowed too. By now, BSA’s membership has been falling steadily across all age cohorts. When BSA abolished their mean and discriminatory policy, for some reason, membership numbers did not rise again. After gay guys were now free to take youngsters and adolescents out into the woods, the membership numbers kept dropping – what a surprise, huh? The Venturers (ages 14-21, formerly Explorers) have fallen the most over time. During the late 1980s, there were over a million; by 2017, there were under 88,000 remaining. Gosh, I wonder what’s up with that?
2017: Girls are permitted to be Boy Scouts too. I have nothing against girls, but don’t they have a parallel institution of their own? (Hint: they sell awesome cookies. Thin Mints for the win!) The decision is controversial, but really, what’s all the fuss about? They’ll just give them condoms.
2017: Transgender boys (girls who believe they’re boys) can join too, but at this point, nothing matters.
2018: BSA contemplates filing bankruptcy.
2019: As of the end of the year, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints will no longer back BSA, after having been their greatest supporters from the beginning. (Hint: Try to please your friends, not your enemies.) I’m the worst Mormon since Joseph Smith himself, but I don’t cotton to that stuff either. This will be financially devastating, perhaps the last nail in their coffin. Like I keep saying, “Get woke, go broke!”
As “woke” as I am I still had to wrap my head around it when I first heard: the Boy Scouts of America would be admitting girls.
All of my early childhood sexual experiences were with other boy scouts.
So there’s an adolescent sexual fantasy attached to those memories.
Yeah, the end of an era, isn’t it? One might well ask, what will the future hold? If the organization survives somehow, perhaps they’ll have “Rubba Rubba” merit badges and put Michael Jackson’s “Jesus Juice” into their canteens.
Motivations
These guys are into youth education and outreach too
Why did the Boy Scouts have a “no homo” policy? Was that all about being mean and discriminatory? Like, how dare some private organization actually have membership criteria?
Unfortunately, they’ve had a long-standing pedophilia problem. A court case in 2012 forced BSA to release a 20,000 page file documenting sexual abuse cases from 1965-85. There were 1200 incidents, so that averages sixty badtouch cases per year that came to their attention. A major reason they’re on the verge of bankruptcy lately is because they have 140 lawsuits pending, which resulted from scoutmasters who couldn’t keep their hands to themselves.
Granted, in a nationwide organization that once numbered over four million members, it was inevitable that someone would do something wrong, whether it’s misusing funds or far worse things. Still, what did happen was terrible. In fact, “terrible” is quite an understatement.
They did take measures to prevent these serious problems, as best as they could. In that regard, excluding males who admitted to being sexually attracted to other males makes a lot of sense. This goes beyond abstract matters of morality. Simply put, they wanted to keep potential chickenlovers away from the chickens. It’s similar to the “gezeirah” (fence) concept in rabbinical law, where a line is drawn around “gray area” things that could lead to forbidden conduct. Since BSA was an all-male organization, the “no homo” rule would eliminate that problem entirely, so long as everyone followed it. This means that homosexuals should take a hint and find something else to do with their weekends.
Even so, despite best efforts, some kiddy fiddlers got in. BSA’s leaders aren’t mind readers, so they couldn’t determine with 100% certainty who would or wouldn’t be a problem. Their “no homo” policy wasn’t an absolute firewall, of course. Neither were their other measures like background checks, awareness programs, or the “two deep” rule against an adult being alone with a kid. The “no homo” policy does seem rather like asking prospective retail employees, “Do you think you might be even slightly tempted to pilfer our merchandise?” Still, at least it was something, and they could exclude members who outed themselves in newspaper articles and such. They fought to retain their membership rules all the way to the Supreme Court, but surrendered later.
How about the gays themselves? They could’ve set up their own Gay Scouts. It wouldn’t even have been objectionable, so long as age of consent laws were observed. For them, the Gay Scouts could’ve been much more fun than staying at the YMCA or joining the Navy. Everyone would be DTF, with no risk of awkward gaydar failures. However, rather than creating their own institution, they invaded another. Let’s cut the crap – this had nothing to do with a keen interest of theirs about hiking, rafting, and all the rest of it.
It’s hard to escape the conclusion that some characters were pretty enthusiastic about getting gays out into the wilderness with adolescents and youngsters. Were they all about the “hotdogs” and “pasta”? Comrade Harry Hay, the gay activist pioneer, would’ve considered it quite a buffet. Allen Ginsberg would’ve loved a campout with so many young, “dewy-limbed” guys. Even so, I believe most gays know better than to do stuff like that.
There’s something more to it than just that. Why else did the activists make such an effort to force themselves on a group which had traditional morality as one of its precepts? Simply put, they were offended by the “no homo” policy. They wanted to rub BSA’s noses in it and ultimately destroy them. They knew very well that forcing their way in would do exactly that. So the pillow-biting activists are getting their revenge.
Cultural Marxism corrupts everything it touches. This, my friends, is why you should never let the camel get his nose under the tent.
How many of you folks are going to watch the Super Bowl? Besides a halftime show which is a spectacle of its own, it’s much like any other sportsball game. The ritual generally involves yelling at the t00b for two and a half hours, as if it really matters. The viewer observes the top-level athletes closely, while a six pack and a bag of junk food are close by. In a football game, the real action lasts about ten and a half minutes. It’s interspersed with huddles, timeouts, commentators discussing the game like a strategy dialogue between Sun Tzu and Carl von Clausewitz, and lots and lots of commercials. All that’s a little silly, but it’s beside the point for now.
Speaking of commercials, Gillette has a little surprise for you coming up. Vide infra:
The video’s description begins “Bullying. Harassment. Is this the best a man can get? It’s only by challenging ourselves to do more, that we can get closer to our best. To say the right thing, to act the right way.” Then it lists a website where we can be instructed on correct thought or something. I think I’ll give that one a miss.
As for the advertisement, it’s all pretty rapid-fire, almost (?) subliminal. They crammed a lot into this minute and three quarters. It’s hard for the mind to break down analytically in one go, and this seems to be exactly how they meant it to be. Ever since the 1950s, much psychology has gone into advertisements. Edward Bernays, Sigmund Freud’s nephew, was a pioneer into this branch of applied psychology. Anyway, Gillette’s ad munchkins really pulled out all the stops on this one.
It opens with many guys who look rather shell-shocked, as if they’re contemplating their sins… This sets an emotional tone, of course. More importantly, they stand accused. Yes, guys like YOU, mister sportsball fan!
During that is a fast voiceover with the phrases: “Bullying” – “The #MeToo movement against sexual harrassment” – “toxic masculinity”. The latter is, of course, a famous buzzword in academia. However, the “toxic” part is barely audible. Nice! This implies that this normal characteristic which is part of being male is something bad. Then the question is posed – is this the best a man can get?
Then it goes into snippets showing bad behavior:
A boy is crying on Mommy’s lap because someone called him names. Back in my day, we were told not to let that stuff get to us, which is practical advice.
Some weirdly discombobulating TV clips. One is some party. Another appears to be some sitcom where a White guy is getting grabby on a Black lady. This looks like a new production, rather than existing sitcom footage, probably because this hasn’t been done on TV before.
This TV studio showing one of those “hand picked audiences”, Norman Lear style, performs a laugh track. The voiceover says, “You can’t laugh it off.” Serious business here, right?
At a meeting, a guy taps a female colleague on her shoulder, and she looks stunned. He says, “What I actually think she’s trying to say…” Of course, this symbolizes “mansplaining“, another new buzzword. For some reason, my spellchecker thinks that’s a real word.
Two boys horsing around.
Responding to that spectacle, the guy barbecuing breaks into a long line. It’s as if he’s between a mirror facing another mirror, though it’s actually different chubby guys with crotch-level fire pits. A chant in unison follows, “Boys will be boys.”
A TV clip with the words “allegations of sexual assault and sexual harassment” appears. Quite oddly, the announcer is a feminist with an Armenian last name who is associated with a group calling themselves the Young Turks. For those of you who were asleep during their history classes, the situation would be similar to someone named Goldberg being affiliated with a group called the Hitler Youth.
This merges into several other newscasts. The babble is impossible to follow, but presumably it’s about more misbehavior. However, no famous leftist figures like Harvey Weinstein, Al Franken, etc. actually appear on screen – funny that.
After almost a minute of this wave of pure misery, it shows examples of correct thought.
The facial expressions on the shell-shocked men begin to change subtly. The “Wojack / Feels Guys” are turning into NPCs as the new programming starts to download into their heads.
A football player says, “Men need to hold other men accountable.”
Two women are at a party, who might or might not be eye-coding (it’s difficult to tell), and a guy says, “Smile, sweetie!” Another guy steps in and rescues these two damsels in distress. The “offender” backs off.
A woman on a crowded street walks by and someone is about to introduce himself. Just as he’s barely taken a step, someone else rescues the damsel. “Not cool, not cool!”
A couple of tough-looking youths in the street shake hands. It sort of implies that this defused a tense situation. That much isn’t objectionable; in an environment like that, shit can get real.
A man tells his young son to repeat “I am strong.” The implication is that conforming to correct thought is strength.
The barbecue guys shrink back down into one, and the dad breaks up the kids who are now wrestling.
Someone somewhere else breaks up a scuffle, then back to the wrestling kids.
Then there’s a reminder that although there are some Gutmenschen, that’s not enough. “The boys watching today will be the men of tomorrow.” Following that is a brief plug for the website instructing in correct thought.
Whew! Like I said, there’s quite a lot going on in about one and three quarters of a minute.
What’s wrong with their narrative
First of all, most of the bad behavior is pretty low-grade stuff. However, the TV commentators speaking (without any context) are talking about much more serious matters, which sort of associates it all together. (Did I mention that these guys are good at psychological tricks?) This reveals the hypersensitivity that’s become common in the feminist agenda.
The kids at the barbecue aren’t throwing punches or really trying to hurt each other. It’s normal for parents to tell kids to knock it off or tone it down. However, the way it’s presented sort of implies that there’s something wrong with horsing around. Kittens act hyper, puppies act hyper, and children act hyper too, unless they’re doped to the gills on ADD meds.
The back-to-back “damsel in distress” snippets are pretty annoying. If the guys actually were being obnoxious, it might be justifiable. Better yet, the strong and independent women could just tell them to knock it off. They were certainly in no danger. Like many of these rapid-fire clips spliced together, there’s not enough context to tell what’s really going on. I don’t recommend bad game, of course, but they’re not actually shown committing a faux pas worthy of any pearl-clutching. So the message is clear. You’re not supposed to start conversations; it’s the Current Year!
Note that in both cases, it was a White guy being the “villain” and a Black guy being the Gutmensch telling him to knock it off. Is that another subtle message there? The reality seems to be a little different. For example, that silly Hollaback video wasn’t filmed in lower Manhattan; the actress had to walk through NYC’s “vibrant” neighborhoods for ten hours to get the footage she wanted. Even then, most of them did nothing more than say “hi'”.
Anyway, if the White guy was getting too friendly with a Black woman, the interference would be understandable. He’d be told to stick to his own kind. However, that wasn’t the case here, so the “rescuer” was just being a busybody. People who take it upon themselves to cockblock for no reason are the ones who are rude.
If Gillette simply wanted to send a message about being righteous, these guys did it better:
It’s a silly movie, but Bill and Ted were onto something. It’s possible to get the point across without singling out half the world’s population.
Anyway, what would happen if one of these corporations made an advertisement discouraging women from bad behavior by some of them? You’ll never see anything like a “PMS is no excuse for acting like a brat” commercial, or something about Borderline Personality Disorder. Still, if some company did air anything like that, it would be treated as the worst atrocity since Darth Vader nuked Alderaan.
Finally, what does all this stuff have to do with disposable razors? NOTHING! Anyway, who needs them, really? I use an electric clipper that will last for years, not something that I’ll have to throw away after a few uses if I don’t want a scratched-up face. I’d go back to the Brigham Young look, except that one of my girlfriends likes me clean-shaven.
Women don’t really need razors either. All that got started in 1915 by – you guessed it – a razor company. I remember the 1970s, so I’m fine with the unshaven look. Some people might think I just stepped off of a UFO for saying so, but since that’s a natural appearance, I don’t have a problem with it. Chinese foot binding used to be considered mandatory, but I don’t get that one either.
The public doesn’t like virtue signaling
So far, the video got 1.2 million downvotes and 751K upvotes. Therefore, of the recorded reactions, about 39% approve, and 61% disapprove. That’s pretty harsh! It’s clear that they’ve alienated great numbers of consumers with their message, far more than those who got the warm fuzzies about it.
Comments on that were pretty scathing. I’m certainly not digging around and cherry-picking here. The following are the first five comments that showed up on the page when I looked at it:
Thanks for the moral advice, multi-national company that was recently caught profiting off forced child labour and price fixing.
I am so happy that we have found the edge finally of phony virtue signaling to where it can no longer benefit a company. And rightfully so hurts. When you are trying to be genuine and connect with people and it couldn’t be more disingenuous and insulting to reality this is what you deserve
Dear Gillette: What the actual. How about a positive-based commercial, not a comparison-based one? Most men are decent. Treat them like it.
Boys will be boys, but real men will no longer use Gillette
Dear Diary: today I got lectured by a shaving commercial
The first one illustrates a pretty good point. Some companies use virtue signaling as a smokescreen to draw attention from questionable practices. To them, and all others who think sociopolitical messages will sell products, I have one thing to say: GET WOKE, GO BROKE.
Today’s society is saturated in propaganda. The political kind is pretty well-known. Advertisements are the commercial variety of propaganda. Sometimes politics bleeds into advertisements. That’s been going on for quite a while, but the trend has had a great upsurge in recent times. Some ad agencies are notorious for this stuff. Sometimes it’s promoted by corporate officers who practice virtue signaling. Many advertisements with political messages shoehorned into them are downright offensive and will alienate any consumers who doesn’t share their views.
The following isn’t so bad, more like a rather silly example:
So Johnnie Walker, a whiskey manufacturer, recently announced that they commissioned some of this stuff. It’s not clear how much they paid for it, but that would be an interesting detail.
The first poster is the best. The color scheme is reminiscent of the famous Obama campaign image that we saw so much of prior to the 2008 election, a detail that isn’t easily missed. However, the production quality is better and has an artistic style with more warmth than the “Obama HOPE” image. The next one is a female silhouette labeled “re-sist-er” and filled with clenched fists. Pretty subtle there, huh? Following that is sort of an onion head with the words “the future is female”. That one looks rather cringe-worthy. The last one is a female version of their corporate logo. This is the only one that’s really applicable to marketing their product.
The comments on the Twitter post were overwhelmingly negative. One after another, these ranged from witty mockery to scathing remarks. Here are just a few:
Which one did Farrakhan design?
LOL. Welcome to “Fuck Your Brand Up Month”! You’re late, but this is a strong entry
for fucks sake 😦
Now I have to switch scotch.
Why can’t the morons in the marketing departments just stop with the insane politicking?????
Lol is 2019 the year of woke campaigns that alienate your main consumers
Get woke, go broke.
Others included negative comments about their product, one likening it to “cat piss”. I’m a beer snob, so I don’t drink much whiskey, and I don’t know what the quality is like. However, there’s no way their hooch can be literally as nasty as animal urine; that’s just impossible. Therefore, that comment must have nothing to do with the flavor, and only can be a reaction to this virtue signaling effort. These posters with feminist and generic leftist themes caused a very negative response. I didn’t see any that said, “Awesome! I love politics in my bug juice!” Irritating customers, and potential ones, is bad business.
What was their marketing department thinking? What exactly does whiskey have to do with feminism? Oh, wait a minute – it doesn’t! In fact, there’s an embarrassing irony here. These guys should research their history a little better. The First Wave feminists (long before we got the deranged, spite-filled radicals in the Second Wave and beyond) strongly backed the temperance movement. They’re the same people who banned alcohol nearly a century ago. Without support from the suffragettes, Prohibition never would’ve happened. Well, how about that?
Prohibition was a failed experiment, sensibly repealed later. Feminism should’ve stopped after the First Wave; after all, they got everything they wanted. Instead, the later feminists kept doubling down with new demands and shrill rhetoric. It became a noxious ideology that’s caused terrible damage to our society. Unlike Prohibition, their failed social engineering efforts aren’t getting rolled back. Now it’s even polluting the whiskey.
This type of virtue signaling will go on until consumers make it clear to these companies that they don’t want politics bundled with their products. If you’d like to explain this to Johnnie Walker, go to their feedback page and send them a message. Please keep comments clean and constructive.
rainbowalbrecht 