Nike And Levi Join The Crazy Train!

I previously published an article that was critical of businesses crossing the questionable threshold by introducing political stances into their business dealings. Since that article two additional companies have made it apparent that, in today’s corporate culture, lessons are seldom learned.

Over the past decade we have repeatedly observed the destruction derby that is corporate political stancing. From Starbucks to Dick’s Sporting Goods, one after the other companies have systematically alienated and blatantly disrespected their consumer base by siding with political ideas that are abrasive to the very consumers their brand seeks to attract. In each instance the companies have received backlash in the form of lost stock value – A trend that undoubtedly has long-term residual effects to the companys’ consumers.

Of late, two big names in apparel have boarded the crazy train in this absurd and counterintuitive practice of political gesturing and virtue signaling: Nike and Levi.
Nary a reader needs the Colin Kaepernick NFL charade recapitulated, as it was pretty well covered by the mainstream media. In a nutshell, the controversial NFL figure rose to fame for kneeling at games during the national anthem. A stunt many perceived as affronting members of the United States Military, and for good reason. The Pledge of Allegiance is meant to honor America and all it stands for.

The sheer insolence and entitlement that this gesticulation emanates is offensive. Here you have a succcessful product of American society, whom has never served his country in any capacity, sending a big ‘Fuck you’ to the people that have risked everything in order that he may have these opportunities and live a life of affluence; Wheras, in comparison, American soldiers make a pitiful salary for risking their lives in war, so that we remain free. Rather than pay his respects by honoring a symbolic tradition and the heroic men and women of the Armed Forces, he chooses to ‘protest’ it as a symbol of ‘oppression’.

Nike chose this anti-American brat, whom many have come to despise, as their new poster boy, and investors and consumers responded. Nike’s stock tumbled 3% Tuesday in response to their ad campaign featuring Colin Kaepernick, and rivals all saw significant increases in stock with Adidas shares up 20% and Under Armour up more than 40%.
In addition, social media saw a torrent of #BoycottNike and memes generated in response to Nike’s announcement. Investors have pulled money and expressed disappointment and outrage at Nike’s poor choice in their new spokesperson.

Nike wasn’t the only company to join the lunacy in recent weeks. Levi’s, the “all-American” denim brand, has taken a rather controversial stance on guns. CEO Chip Bergh wrote a letter to Fortune this week detailing his decision. The brand’s move is threefold: establishing the Safer Tomorrow Fund, which will direct grants from Levi’s to anti-gun related nonprofits and activists; partnering with Everytown for Gun Safety, and doubling the brand’s employee donation match to anti-gun organizations. CEO (((Chip Bergh))) wrote a letter in Fortune explaining:

“As president and of a values-driven company that’s known the world over as a pioneer of the American West and one of the great symbols of American freedom, I take the responsibility of speaking up on the important issues of our day very seriously…You may wonder why a company that doesn’t manufacture or sell guns is wading into this issue, but for us, it’s simple. Americans shouldn’t have to live in fear of gun violence. It’s an issue that affects all of us—all generations and all walks of life.”

Apparently Mr. (((Bergh))) is tone deaf to the frustration of the American people with Corporations attacking American values and Constitutionally protected freedoms, as are many more CEO’s.

The Second Amendment is an inalienable right of the American people. It was designed with freedom in mind. Owning guns is quintessential to securing your home, protecting yourself and your family, and keeping a check-and-balance against tyranny. To Mr. Bergh, who has a annual compensation of $11,083,338.00, owning guns may not be seen as a necessity, as I’m sure he lives in secure exclusivity; but to the mother living in Chicago making a meager hourly wage and purchasing his product, there exists no equivalency.

In the final analysis, it is my opinion that Nike has chosen sides with an ungrateful anti-American agitator whose only sacrifice was kneeling, and Levi has taken aim at the Second Amendment through the scope of leftist idealism. Both have proven a willingness to fund the destruction of the righteous moral fabric of Westernity. No doubt remains in my mind that this trend will continue into the future, as more and more companies seek to join in the attack on the nation that lent them their respective opportunities.

On a positive note, we can gather from all of this an awakening and willingness to act stirring in the American people. People are exasperated with companies choosing sides and funding anti-American efforts aimed at diminishing our freedoms and undermining our republic. People are saying, “Enough is enough.” It is important that we continue to respond with consistency.

Boycotting has a historical track record of effectiveness. We need to send an uncompromising message to these corporate ideologues, and spend our money with companies that promote American values, support out troops, and reinforce our freedoms. When I say uncompromising, I mean we must not deviate from our crusade. When we commit to boycott, we must do so indefinitely and without exception (lest we finance our own demise). We the people, we the consumers, hold a lot of power in our pockets. All we need to do is spend our money with prudence, and say to hell with companies that seek to force their leftist agendas down our throats.
#BoycottNike #BoycottLevi #BoycottThemAll

Advertisements