Boycotting the Bad
The psycho-social engineering project disguised under the label of ‘a streaming service’, aka Netflix, released propaganda in the form of a movie called ‘Cuties’.
In reaction to the movie a ‘cancel Netflix movement’ quickly gained traction of a sort on social media. #CancelNetflix became a top trending topic and users of Netflix were asked to cancel their subscriptions and thereby presumably – punish the media giant.
Whether this movement was one part of a prearranged promotional campaign for the movie may be dismissed on the grounds that it is a conspiracy theory, if nothing else.
Whether anyone in the organically formed reactionary response network, stopped to consider, or truly cared about the effectiveness of employing a real world re-imagining of the mid-nineteenth century tactic of Boycotting, against a twenty-first century business behemoth with revenue of $6.148 billion for the quarter ending June 30, 2020, is, unclear. Probably not.
Despite its enduring appeal Boycotting, as a tactic, didn’t work when it was first described (roughly late 1800s), and neither today could any rational person believe it would work – and for very similar reasons.
Regardless of the irrationality of the strategy, the hope that “enough people” banding together in the right cause is sufficient to affect change remains preeminent in the minds of modern man especially with respect political activism and remains the basis of trust for all future participation in elections and their consequences, aka protests or civil disobedience.
The description of such a tactic, originated from the Irish Land League and their efforts against occupying British landlords in around 1880.
By way of protest against many things, though specifically to protest against Captain Charles Boycott’s evictions of tenants in west Ireland, the local community by way of utilising peaceful resistance, practised ignoring the offending Boycott and deliberately conducted no business with him.
Soon after the news of Charles Boycott’s eviction of his tenants spread, he found himself isolated within his local community. Forced to rely on the product of his own efforts.
Returning to the current era, as of April 2020, Netflix had over 193 million paid subscribers who were advised to #cancel.
Captain Boycott’s opponents stopped working in his fields, stables and house. Local businessmen stopped trading with him. And there are stories that tell of the local postman refusing to deliver his mail and local blacksmith denying him service.
Netflix as a member of the Motion Picture Association, the leading advocate of the film, television, and streaming industry around the world, includes as partners; Walt Disney Studios, Paramount Pictures Corporation, Sony Pictures Entertainment Inc. and Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc.
Because of the action taken against him, Captain Boycott was forced to respond because nobody would take on the jobs which his estate required. His response was to hire 50 men from a different region (mostly Orangemen from the northern part of Ireland) to come and harvest the crops in his estates. Additionally more than 1,000 men of the Royal Irish Constabulary were deployed, including for the purpose of protecting the out-of-town-harvesters.
The episode was estimated to have cost the British government (and the taxpayer?) at least £10,000 to save a harvest which was worth about £500.
This scenario of elected representatives, awarding private business interests state money in exchange for a lesser return has endured these 150 years.
Consider the #cancelnetflix campaign against the revelations from early 2020 and British and Jewish Labour MP, Dame Margaret Hodge quoting research from the think tank ‘Tax Watch’ (as reported by the BBC -Netflix accused of 'superhighway robbery' in Parliament 4 February 2020 ) addressing the matter that, Netflix had generated £1.1bn (UK sterling) in income, with an estimated profit of £69m – meaning Netflix should have paid £13m in tax.
Netflix said it ‘only’ made profits of £2.35m.
The MP stated that Netflix received £924,000 from the UK government (taxpayer), saying, “Netflix takes out of the public purse more than it contributes in corporation tax. Further “What is particularly galling is that Netflix actually makes a net profit from the UK taxpayer.”
The point of all this economic-babble is that were it the case that the #cancelnetflix boycott dealt a financial blow to the company it would have been easily and certainly recouped. And like Boycott it is “in” with the government. It is a necessary State action.
Netflix’s primary role is not to be a successful entertainment site nor does it fulfil a needed gap and Boycott wasn’t there to be a better farmer. They are both there to control the people and when the natives get predictably restless their presence facilitates government intervention as needed.
Like Boycott its not just the goods being produced that are recognised as critical value to the establishment infrastructure - its the presence, the taking up of space and the symbol of dominance and the means to manipulate populations.
In having to respond to the unplanned publicity Netflix says (from Variety) the movie “makes a statement about pressures young girls face in conforming to societal role models of female sexuality.”
The media had thrown the microphone over to Netflix and the movies’ creators and its apologists were only too ready to respond by unleashing lecturing to the people that yes bad things are bad and its up to them how we are allowed to view them and our world, because they control perspective and don’t give a damn what you think about it.
Specifically they are educating us so that we understand that they are allowing that particular moral pillar to remain - for now - toppling as it is after they gave it such a good hard kick - but whenever they want - it comes own and it will be government funded.