OREO Cookie represents the broader trans community now?

Trans people do exist.

Yet, who on earth was craving Oreo’s opinion on the matter? Why did Oreo’s PR department think the public was waiting on tenterhooks for its guidance on how to embrace the trans community, a group the cookie maker has probably never broadly consulted? On what authority does Oreo speak on their behalf?

If Oreo wanted to be properly woke, why didn’t the PR department issue a public statement about the derogatory use of the phrase, “Oreo cookie”, to slander a black person for being white on the inside.

How ironic that the company’s parent, Mondelez International, is currently accused in a lawsuit – among other food making giants – of engaging in aiding and abetting child slave labour on cocoa plantations in Mali and Cote D’Ivoire.

We keep asking time and time again, what do Oreo, Gillette, Nike, Coca-Cola, Goodyear etc seek to gain by constantly virtue signaling about things they’ve absolutely no idea about? Why are corporate boards approving such radical PR nonsense which has little to do with their core businesses?

We imagine that when injustice occurs in the trans community, Oreo cookies are the last thing on most people’s minds, even after this virtue signaling post on Twitter.

It makes as much sense as the Yarra Council spending ratepayers’ money on woke gestures unrelated to garbage collection and maintaining public toilets. Even the mayor claims she lives on stolen land yet happily takes taxes from the other squatters (aka residents) who must, by definition, also be illegally occupying land in the council zone.

Brittany unloads on NY Gov Cuomo

https://fb.watch/3UscT1KTaN/

MRCTV’s Britt Hughes unloads on NY Gov Andrew Cuomo for the list of scandals that have been known about by insiders for some time…apparently. Naturally, the media chose to stay silent.

Find our Cuomo hypocrisy series here.

Perspective

Someone asked the Emir of Dubai, Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, about the future of his country and he said:

“My grandfather was on a camel, my father was on a camel, I’m in a Mercedes, my son is in a Land Rover. And my grandson is going to be in a Land Rover, but my great grandson will be back on a camel...

…Tough times create strong men, strong men create easy times. Easy times create weak men, weak men create tough times…Many won’t understand but you have to raise warriors, not parasites…“

BBC thinks skiing is an avalanche of white privilege

There is a touch of irony that the BBC sent two white reporters to disparage the predominant number of whites populating the chairlifts at ski fields across Europe. Talk about a lack of self awareness.

Surely the very diversity they preached in that video would have been better served by the supposed marginalized minorities who populate the ranks of BBC’s journalists?

We always wonder why these media outlets/activists never seem to provide the ‘appropriate ratio’ by which ski fields should accept bookings to avoid systemic racism on the slopes. What is the outcome? Who benefits? Is personal choice a factor? Or is everything racist, sexist or bigoted these days?

In 2018, the biggest issue facing cyclists in London wasn’t safety but a lack of diversity because, to the powers that be, there were too few women or people from BAME backgrounds taking to pedal power. Therefore a campaign to encourage them to cycle was announced to overcome the ‘gap’.

Again, what is the correct ratio and what will be the outcome should diversity targets be hit? This data never seems to be presented. The supposedly affected groups never consulted.

Could it be some women and many in the BAME community simply don’t like cycling as a mode of transport to and from work?

Maybe some love cycling but would prefer not to leave a $10,000 carbon fibre bike strapped to a pole in the city and risk damage to it because of the high level of street crime?

Could it be that apart from dodging double deckers in peak hour and fighting the inclement weather, some prefer to catch the bus or train during the work week and listen to their iPods or surf the net.

No, just easier for the virtue signal brigade to clump the lack of interest by suggesting racism or sexism might be behind it. Would the cycling chiefs have preferred fewer middle aged whites cycled to work if there were no net increases in female and BAME cyclists because statistically that might solve the problem?

Same for ski fields. Assuming the right balance of racial identities was struck on the slopes, we can be sure that someone would raise the issue that there weren’t enough people from certain religious/sexual orientations/genders and disabilities represented on the black diamond runs.

We are totally happy to find sensible ways to remove barriers to inequalities where they actually exist. It is just that we would rather not listen to sanctimonious lectures made by virtue signaling activists claiming to represent groups they haven’t bothered to consult without ever providing a solution or relevant facts to support the claims.

Woca-Cola gives a lesson on why virtue signaling has downsides

In the midst of the embarrassing backlash, can Coca-Cola honestly say that this internal (racist) training has given the company an edge in achieving diversity and inclusion?

As we wrote last week, the fact that the company saw a need to go down this woke route speaks volumes about ignoring the decades of policies it has already put into action to achieve workplace harmony.

Coca-Cola management should take a long hard look in the mirror and admit that hiring activists to conduct such training actually harms the very thing it is trying to achieve – through exclusion.

Why do corporates fear activist minorities? Companies should evaluate their own successes based on low staff turnover – a function of workplace conditions, profitability – a sign of a productive workforce and relative competitiveness to peers – a product of a driven team.

In no uncertain terms, forcing indoctrination on particular staff can only cause a drop in their morale and encourage the best performers to leave.

It is in the best interests of any company to promote the best people, regardless of age, race, gender or what they choose to do behind closed doors. If ALL of the best performers happen to black LGBT women then promote them on their achievements rather than identities.

Coca-Cola has done the opposite. Why risk having internal training leak to the outside and polarize customers? Gillette cost shareholders $8bn in write offs due to inferring men, the majority of its clientele, were toxic.

Let customers decide their own politics. Reward staff based on performance and contribution rather than skin hue and genitalia. It’s simple.

And Coca-Cola, or any other corporate for that matter, customers never have you in mind when you publicly state that racism, sexual abuse or violence doesn’t align with your values. Who in your HR and PR departments ever thought it did??

Life goals?

Presented without comment.

Appendix – for the avoidance of doubt, the stats on abortion:

c.700,000 fetuses are terminated in America each year. Down from 1.4 million in 1990.

Eurostat statistics on abortion reveal that Germany, France, UK, Spain and Italy alone terminate a combined 760,000 fetuses per annum. Across the EU-28 there are 1.25mn terminations. Without getting into a debate on abortion rights, the pure statistical number points to 20.4% of fetuses never make it out of the womb alive in the EU.

According to the Guttmacher Institute some 56 million abortions occur annually. Every. Single. Year. Think that WWII saw 50 million deaths in 6 years of conflict with wide spread use of lethal weapons. So abortions kill at a far higher rate than global conflict.

What would we do without cultural norms?

What would we do without “cultural norms”, the very words used by Biden to excuse Beijing’s inexcusable tactics surrounding the Uighurs?

Claims of concentration camps, gang rape, pimping out women to the wider public for cash, forced sterilization and torture by inserting cattle prods inside vaginas and anuses are just some of the forms of abhorrent systematic subjugation enforced.

The disgraceful treatment of this minority has to be bad if the heavily left leaning BBC suffered termination from Chinese circulation for reporting on it.

What a joke that the Biden administration can dismiss such violations of human rights under a banner of cultural norms. Maybe he needs to consult his conscience instead of his ideologically challenged advisors.

One may hate Trump for his vulgarity but at the very least he stood up to China as opposed to a wait and see strategy which depends on President Xi finding a good place in his own heart.

In closing, we wonder whether China issues a video along the lines of what the Nazis did at Theresienstadt to show how wonderfully the Uighurs are supposedly being treated.

This didn’t age well

This article didn’t age well in Texas. The Lone Star state had both and got neither.

Yet another reason we won’t be bothering to sign up to The Economist. Why pay good money to get a glossy version of The Guardian?

A once great magazine which has succumbed to unbridled climate activism.

Black community trolls Biden over racist remarks re internet access

This individual decided to poke fun at President Biden’s ridiculous comments about minorities and their apparent lack of ability to access the internet. Not only did he clearly have access to the internet and a recording device, he knew exactly how to make a viral post as well.

Black conservatives, Shemeka Michelle and Rob Smith,also took a potshots.

Ami Horowitz made a video four years ago where he asked black people about whether they had access to the internet. Unsurprisingly, they all did.

Biden has a long history of making racist remarks.

At election time he said to members of the black community, “you ain’t black” if they were considering voting anything other than Democrat.

Or acknowledging a key reason he could sequester at home was because “some black woman was able to stock the grocery shelf.”

Of course, the media keeps giving him a free pass.

Woca Cola

Coca-Cola is apparently demanding white employees complete online training to enable them to become “less white.”

Why not give the majority of all employees the benefit of the doubt that they are fair minded individuals who respect their colleagues in the workplace regardless of identity. Aren’t 360 degree reviews supposed to nut out trouble makers or underperformers, whatever background they may come from? Isn’t that the best outcome for all?

Good companies should always be seeking to work toxic employees off their platform should the pernicious behaviours create negative outcomes for other staff members, suppliers or clients.

Good managers pay close attention to staff behaviour in the workplace. In our own careers we all know of people in our companies that positively create energy and those who drain it. Bad employees are just that, regardless of identity.

The more important question is whether decent, hard working minorities who back their ability, demanded Coca-Cola conduct the training? Have they gone out of their way to make claims of racism to HR about their white colleagues acting too white? Most likely not. This is another one-size-fits-all program which makes out that groups are monoliths.

Interestingly, Coca-Cola has made much fanfare of its long history of diversity and inclusion, going back to 1934 with the appointment of the first female board member, Lettie Pate Evans.

In its Human Rights Policy, Coca-Cola acknowledges,

“We work to maintain workplaces that are free from discrimination or harassment on the basis of race, sex, color, national or social origin, ethnicity, religion, age, disability, sexual orientation, gender identification or expression, political opinion or any other status protected by applicable law. The basis for recruitment, hiring, placement, development, training, compensation and advancement at the Company is qualifications, performance, skills and experience…”

So if the very policy is to respect ‘all’, why single out one group to be less white? What is next? Men required to be less toxic? Tall people to walk on their knees?

Coca-Cola has a plan to make women 50% of the managerial class in the company. Shareholders would gladly welcome 100% female managers should they be best suited to the roles were it based on “qualifications, performance, skills and experience…”

As it should be.

What a slap in the face to all those deserving employees – who can make it on meritocracy alone – effectively be told by the company that unless whites are forced to behave less white that path for success will be harder. Basically, the suggestion is that they need a leg up.

Surely if Coca-Cola had executed 130 years of self-proclaimed continuous diversity and inclusion in the workplace ethos it wouldn’t need to introduce such training. Period. The company should evaluate the systemic failures within HR, not the employees.