In early January 2024, the news broke that the Woolworths Group had got rid of their Australia Day merchandise (flags, caps, towels, and so on). They would no longer sell anything to do with Australia Day. The decision was clearly ideological. Woolworths management had joined the woke elites who supported the Aboriginal activists. This was in the face of the crushing defeat the activists suffered in the referendum to authorize what in reality was a separate Aboriginal state. Outrage thundered across Australia. Woolworths remained unrepentant. In this video, I show on the basis of the information on Woolworths’ corporate website, that the Woolworths’ Group is fully committed to the wokish agenda. The outrage of the ordinary Australian was justified.
TRANSCRIPT
Woolworth’s decision to remove Australia Day merchandise from its shelves hit like a bombshell across Australia.
What could they have been thinking, people were asking? Loud contempt and savage criticism have been poured on the corporate sector for cowardly turning their backs on ordinary people and falling in behind the wokist and Marxist elites who are never finished reading us their lessons and never finished scheming and manipulating the political process.
One would think that prudence would have dictated more subtle political action. But, no, in a sickening act of betrayal, they resorted to a business nulla nulla to bash us into submitting to their wokist political agenda. Indeed, Woolworths’ competitor, Coles, seems to have decided to keep Australia Day stock and escaped the lashing. Woolworths’ cussedness is an indication of their ideological rigidity. The people must obey, and if they resist, they must be made to obey.
Woolworths CEO Brad Banducci fronted the media on behalf of what’s called the Woolworths Group Executive Committee to defend the corporation’s action.
He squirmed and wriggled as he struggled to parry the criticism with the excuse that it was an economic decision. Australia Day merchandise did not sell. No sense in having stock that doesn’t sell. That’s pitiable nonsense, of course. It’s a fact that Australians buy Australia Day merchandise throughout the year, and not only around Australia Day. On simple business principles, a business would stock merchandise for which there was a demand. Brad’s explanation did not wash. And people could smell the wokist politics a mile off.
When critics alerted Brad to Woolworth’s advertised support for all manner of multicultural festivals while debunking Australia’s celebrations, he embarrassed himself by saying that Woolworths was all about food and these festivals were essentially about food. Again, palpable nonsense. Bbqs, snags, lamb chops, fresh salad, and crisp rolls are central to Australia Day celebrations.
In most multicultural celebrations, food goes with the cultural aspect. But food is not the essential part. The culture is. It is the same with Australia Day celebrations. Our BBQs, snags, lamb chops, fresh salad, and crisp rolls accompany our celebration of the founding of the Australian nation on the 26th of January, 1788. That is the day when the settlement of 1400 people began to grow into the nation it is today.
The foundation of the Australian nation is the object and essence of the Australia Day celebrations. There was no Australian nation before the 26th of January 1788. If Brad and his fellow executives find it challenging to get their head around that notion, I refer them to my two videos, AUSTRALIA DID NOT EXIST BEFORE THE 26th OF JANUARY 1788, PARTS I & II, in which I provide an explanation. The essential notion is that a nation is far more than a mass of land.
If Woolworths is all about food, I suggest Brad could have profited from a sales and marketing campaign highlighting what he says Woolworths does best – sell food. Imagine it: Australian flags festooning the meat, fruit, and vegetable section with the slogan: WOOLWORTHS HAS ALL YOU NEED FOR CELEBRATING AUSTRALIA DAY. I’m sure Brad’s brilliant marketing team could devise a bonzer campaign that would have had the self-serve section clogged with people furiously ringing up loads of snags, chops, tomatoes, lettuce, and so on.
No, Brad should come clean. Woolworths’ decision to toss Australia Day merchandise in the garbage skip was political and ideological. It’s all there on Woolworths’ corporate website. In October last year, the referendum to establish an indigenous voice to parliament was smashed by 61% against to 39% for. Few political campaigns in Australia have received such a convincing rejection by the people. Australians don’t want a system of apartheid in reverse. They don’t want to be told they don’t belong.
The Woolworths website shows Woolworths is on the side of the defeated activists who think the presence of the descendants of the original settlers who laid the foundations of the Australian nation is illegitimate. The referendum was not just about the ill-conceived race-based power in the constitution. It is a whole ideological scenario that amounts to an attempted political, land and cultural coup.
The activists not only want overwhelming political power and land that was ‘always was and always will be’. They want Australia’s history rewritten and its Anglo-based culture replaced with a reinvented Aboriginal culture. Brad, a photo on the Woolworths’ website shows you participating in a smoking ceremony. Do you realize that this is a religious ceremony reflecting the animist religion of the pre-settlement Aboriginals?
It’s about invoking their animist spirits. People of other religions would find this demonic – Christians in particular. The woke class has banished the traditional religion inherent in Australian culture only to replace it with a form of primitive religion. Are you happy forcing Australians to accept their primitive animist religion, which, to a great extent, is being reinvented?
Let me go to your website to show your explicit support for the indigenous activist campaign and that it is part of a wider political agenda you are steadfastly following.
First, the following official, high-minded statement fully commits Woolworths to the activists’ cause against what they call an illegitimate colony:
‘Woolworths Group acknowledges the many Traditional Owners of the lands on which we operate, and pay our respects to their Elders past and present. We recognise their strengths and enduring connection to lands, waters, and skies as the Custodians of the oldest continuing cultures on the planet. We remain committed to actively contributing to Australia’s reconciliation journey through listening and learning, empowering more diverse voices and working together for a better tomorrow. Woolworths Group reaffirms our support for the Uluru Statement from the Heart, and its call for a First Nations Voice to Parliament enshrined in the constitution.’
Woolworths hereby acknowledges that Aboriginals and their culture are the legitimate owners of all that constitutes what we call Australia, even down to the air above and surrounding waters. With one sentence, Woolworths renders illegitimate Australia’s political and legal framework. Brad and his colleagues seem to think the allegedly unchanged Aboriginal culture as the oldest on the planet is proof of this claim.
But have Brad and his colleagues ever truly reflected on this extraordinary claim – that Aboriginal culture, allegedly 65,000 years old, is the world’s oldest continuing culture? ‘Continuing’ in this sense means unchanged because the first settlers found Aboriginal society the most primitive that European explorers had found anywhere. They had not even invented the wheel. And like all native cultures, Aboriginal culture was extremely violent.
But getting back to the 65,000 years, how do they know it was the same culture and the same people over 65,0000 years? The earliest written records (Sumerian and Egyptian) go back no more than 3,400 years, and the first coherent records (Sumerian and Egyptian) are no more than 2,600 years old.
Of course, fossil traces of human existence go back thousands of years, but nothing specifically cultural. One can accept fossil traces of human existence have been found on the Australian continent, but that does not mean it was the same people or exactly the same culture. It does not assault reason to say Aboriginal culture, as found by the settlers in January 1788, may not have been more than a few thousand years old.
Let’s face it. The constantly regurgitated claim about Aboriginal culture is a political weapon. It is meant to demonstrate the alleged illegitimacy of European settlement and the superiority of the present indigenous community, a great deal of which is mixed blood.
It is ridiculous, by the way, to behold flabby, painted, pale men trying to execute Aboriginal dances in the southern states. These reinvented ceremonies accompany just about every official occasion. We know they’re not genuine because we often see on television the same dances executed by full-blood Aboriginals in the Northern Territory and northern Queensland who are from traditional Aboriginal communities. The cultural reinvention of the southern states is not convincing.
There is, however, a hint of a contradiction in Woolworths’ official statement. After a groveling commitment to follow the activists’ political prescriptions, Woolworths says it’s ‘committed to … empowering more diverse voices and working together for a better tomorrow.’ Talk of ‘diverse voices’ is surely an allusion to the triumvirate of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion – known by the acronym DEI. That hardly seems to go with the commitment to help the indigenous mob achieve ownership and hegemony over the land that ‘was and always will be’ theirs. But stating two inconsistent goals – ignoring the principle of non-contradiction – is no problem for the woke class. They push on with their ideological campaign regardless.
Having been defeated in the referendum, Woolworths produced a ‘New Statement,’ presumably to replace the pre-referendum statement, though keeping it on their website. Their commitment to the activist cause is restated, thereby repeating their treachery and betrayal of the majority of Australians. However, they add a passage that, more importantly, restates their commitment to the DEI project – Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion – which seems to clash with their project to give special status and a separate state to the ‘Aboriginals’.
‘As one of Australia’s largest retailers,’ they declare, ‘we have the honour of serving thousands of communities and millions of people across rural, remote and metro areas … Representing the communities we serve, we see opportunities driving tangible and meaningful changes.’
In other words, Woolworths is committed to using its massive corporate power to bring about the success of the full range of woke policies against the unwillingness of most Australians who see the attempt to recast Australian society as treachery and betrayal.
Let me now have a look at the group of traitors who ‘are responsible for overseeing the management decisions, operations and day-to-day running of [Woolworths] brands.’ They call themselves The Group Executive Committee. They have obligingly provided a rogue’s gallery with mug shots and all. There are nineteen members – eight women and eleven men.
I will demonstrate that the difference in the numbers of men and women does not reflect where the woke power lies.
It is unclear if the members are listed in the importance of position, though it does not look like it – except perhaps for CEO Brad Banducci. Poor Brad. One commentator on Sky News called for his resignation as the one responsible for the decision to ban Australia Day merchandise. But I’m inclined to think that he is not the one leading the Woolworths woke agenda, although he must accept ultimate responsibility. In any case, I will introduce them according to the website’s order.
CEO Brad Banducci is traitor no. 1. His resume lists a series of high-powered management positions leading to his appointment as Woolworths CEO in 2016. Nothing suggests any particular ideological commitment, which he seems to leave to others to formulate.
Traitor no. 2 is Amanda Bardwell, Managing Director of WooliesX. What WooliesX does is not entirely apparent from the job description, but it is obviously a very important part of the Woolworths corporate structure and has a lot to do with sales and marketing, where much of Amanda’s experience lies. In other words, Amanda has a fat finger in Woolworths’ ideological dissemination and manipulation. Amanda’s membership in Chief Executive Women confirms that impression. I must linger on this feminist organization because it sheds a blazing light on Woolworths’ political and ideological program.
The Chief Executive Women’s website boasts that CEW is not just a but ‘the pre-eminent organization representing prominent and influential women leaders from the corporate, public service, academic, and not-for-profit sectors.’ The Bing search engine summarizes its goals and activities thus:
‘Chief Executive Women (CEW) is a prominent organization representing influential women leaders in Australia. These accomplished women come from various sectors, including corporate, public service, academic, and not-for-profit domains … CEW’s mission is to advocate for gender balance and equal opportunity. Through research, targeted programs, and scholarships, CEW strives to remove barriers to women’s progression and foster prosperity for all … CEW’s commitment extends beyond individual development. They advocate for change, aiming to achieve gender balance in CEO roles and create a more equitable workplace … Additionally, CEW actively promotes respect and prevention of sexual harassment in the workplace.’
As a preliminary comment, I observe, based on that description, that lack of experience, qualifications, and suitability would never be a barrier to a woman’s progression.
Woolworths’ political and ideological aims, as I have drawn them from their website, perfectly reflect CEW’s political and ideological profile. It is to be expected that a group of Woolworths’ female executives are members of CEW.
There is much to criticize in CEW’s aims, and professional women like Bettina Arndt in Australia and Janice Fiamengo in Canada are increasingly making the criticism. For my purposes, I can be brief. First, the aim of ‘gender balance and equal opportunity’ is contradictory. You either have equal opportunity and let the balance be what it is after the appointments of the best qualified and experienced are made. Or you have gender balance – quotas – with no regard for the best qualified and experienced. It is irrational to aim at both.
Second, quotas are irrational in themselves. There is no reason or evidence to support their implementation in any group activity with a goal. A group achieves the best outcomes in pursuing that goal by calling on the skills of the best qualified and experienced. A business achieves its goals most effectively by employing the best people and the best tools for the purpose. To do otherwise is irrational. A person who values the use of his reason should not even think of it.
Third, the prevention of sexual harassment is aimed at men. Not women. Real, offensive sexual harassment is not to be tolerated. A caress or a pat on the arm by a woman is approved. The same action by a man can be and often is construed as sexual harassment. I have seen it. The workplace has become so fraught for men that the only way of avoiding offending women is to say nothing and keep your head down, not glancing to the left or right. Even that is risky. I remember that silly Nicola Roxon, a member of Prime Minister Gillard’s cabinet, was offended by Tony Abbott because he once did not have the time to pay attention to her.
There are dozens of women’s organizations – many government-funded – like CEW, all working feverishly to smash the patriarchy. This is the key. I’m not being facetious. This is the change spoken about in Woolworth’s and CEW’s documents. Patriarchy is the organizational framework of existing society. It seriously disadvantages women. It must be torn down for women to have any chance in all executive positions in society. Here, we have drilled down to what underlies feminism—a Marxist mentality.
Marxism is a complex sociological theory. There are, however, a few key thoughts, the acceptance of which constitutes a Marxist mentality. First among those, is society’s division into the oppressor and the oppressed and the dialectical tension between the two. Feminists see women as the oppressed and men as the oppressor. A second key point is that the oppressor constructs a body or superstructure of laws, rules, ideas, attitudes, manners and so on to justify his position as the oppressor.
In the dialectical clash that necessarily arises, the aim of the oppressed is to destroy the superstructure and, thereby, the position of the oppressor. There are other well-known oppressed groups recognized by the woke elites, native peoples like Australia’s Aboriginals, for example. In the clash of race, the white race is the oppressor.
Ultimately, the top oppressor is white, male, capitalist society – which has constructed all those parts of the superstructure that justify his oppression. The superstructure’s laws, manners, attitudes and so on make up traditional Western society. Feminists and the woke class have made great strides in destroying our traditional society. It’s made all the easier by occupying a corporation like Woolworths.
And so it goes on. However, I have said enough to lay bare Woolworths’ political and ideological goals and framework.
Traitor No. 3 is Annette Karantoni – Chief Supply Office of Woolworths Group and Managing Director of Primary Connect. Significantly, Annette worked within WooliesX and has wide experience across the Woolworths Group. She has a ‘track record of delivering customer-led strategies, delivering change, innovation and scalable ways of working,’ the emphasis being on change and innovation. She is not a member of CEW, but one expects she is entirely consonant with Woolworths’ woke agenda. (see website for full job description)
Traitor No. 4 is Guy Brent – Managing Director, Woolworth’s Food Company. Guy is a qualified accountant. His experience is in financial management. He would follow the political and ideological goals of the Group as formulated by its CEW members. (see website for full job description)
Traitor No. 5 is Natalie Davis – Managing Director, Woolworths Supermarkets. Prior to her present role, Natalie was Managing Director Woolworths New Zealand, and before that, Chief Customer Transformation Officer, Woolworths Group, leading the development of the Group’s Customer 1st strategies, transformation, and culture.’ At this point, it is necessary to briefly explain what is understood under ‘transformation officer, ’ a position which, I suggest, is unknown to most people but is critical to pursuing a company’s woke agenda.
‘A chief transformation officer (CTO) is an executive who focuses on a company’s innovation, its future and its ability to gain forward momentum through executive, personnel or technological changes.’ To an avid transformation officer, too much change and innovation is not enough.
Natalie is also a member of Chief Executive Women and obviously on the frontline of implementing the Group’s woke agenda. (see website for full job description)
Traitor No. 6 is Stephen Harrison – Chief Financial Officer. Stephen is a chartered accountant, having filled a series of high-powered financial positions. He would follow the CEW political and ideological programs without a murmur. (see website for full job description)
Traitor No. 7 is Andrew Hicks – Chief Marketing Officer. Andrew is a marketing executive. He has filled a series of marketing management positions. There is no indication in his job description that he has any input in ideological change and innovation. He would follow the direction of the CEW ladies without a murmur. (see website for full job description)
Traitor No. 8 is Alex Holt – Chief Sustainability Officer. Alex’s experience has been mostly in Sustainability, Health and Quality. She is also a Non-Executive Director of Foodbank Australia, one of Woolworths’ key hunger-relief partners. This is a chief ideological position for the Group. Alex would partner well with her CEW colleagues. (see website for full job description)
Traitor No. 9 is John Hunt – Chief Information and Replenishment Officer. John is a tech entity. He joined Woolworths Group in 2017 as Chief Information Officer, spending over 25 years at Woolworths Holdings, South Africa, where he held a range of senior IT and core retail leadership roles, including CIO and Senior Executive for Food Planning and Value chain. He would be responsible for broadcasting the ideological content the CEW ladies have formulated. (see website for full job description)
Traitor No. 10 is Von Ingram – Managing Director of W Living. Von Ingram joined Woolworths as Chief Transformation Officer in July 2018, leading the Group’s transformation and customer first strategy. Von is not listed as a member of CEW, but her role would fit in with her CEW colleagues. (see website for full job description)
Traitor No. 11 is Caryn Katsikogianis – Chief People Officer. ‘People officer’ is what used to be known under the anodyne title of Personnel Officer, became in time HR (Human Resources) Manager with a vastly expanded purview, but has now the ideologically appropriate title of People Officer. It is an absolutely crucial position for feminists to hold. Indeed, feminists have seized this role for themselves across all organizations. Caryn leads ‘Woolworths’ Team First Strategy for Woolworths Group including their focus on Team Experience, Holistic Wellbeing, Safety, Talent and Inclusion.’ Not unexpectedly, Caryn is a member of Chief Executive Women. She would work intimately with her CEW colleagues to limit the number of males and their influence in the Group. (see website for full job description)
Traitor No. 12 is Amitabh Mall – Chief Analytics Officer. Amitabh Mall was appointed Chief Analytics Officer in July 2021 and leads the advanced analytics agenda for Woolworths Group. He is a tech entity and would simply fall in with the political and ideological directions of his feminist colleagues without a murmur. (see website for full job description)
Traitor No. 13 is Rob McCartney – Managing Director of Woolworths 360. Rob’s job description does not make it clear what Woolworths 360 is. However, elsewhere on the Woolworths website, we find this: ‘Woolworths 360 is a sustainability innovation engine of Woolworths Group, an Australian retail company. It is responsible for driving positive change towards the company’s Sustainability Plan 2025 through strategic partnerships and innovations that deliver mutually beneficial outcomes. Sustainability plans would be part of the Group’s political and ideological goals. He would partner with his CEW colleagues. (see website for full job description)
Spencer Sonn – Managing Director of Woolworths New Zealand. Spencer was appointed Managing Director of Woolworths New Zealand in March 2021. He would have no influence or say in the Group’s political and ideological plans in Australia. It would be unfair to call him a traitor in relation to the Australian scene. (see website for full job description)
Traitor No. 14 is Bill Reid – Chief Legal Officer. Bill has long experience in responding to regulatory issues, litigation, and corporate transactions. He would be necessary to curb the enthusiasms of his CEW colleagues. (see website for full job description)
Traitor No. 15 is Carly Richards – Chief Risk Officer. Like the Chief Legal officer, Carly would have to keep an eye on the enthusiasms of his CEW colleagues. (see website for full job description)
Traitor No. 16 is Dan Hake – Managing Director of BIG W. Dan was appointed Managing Director of BIG W in November 2022. Prior to his appointment, Dan held the role of Commercial Director, Merchandising and Customer Value, building out the Group’s customer-led range, price and merchandising capabilities. Before that, he was GM, Customer Transformation and Digital Strategy at WooliesX, responsible for shaping the Group’s digital strategy and transformation. He would consult closely with his CEW colleagues. (see website for full job description)
Traitor No. 17 is Jane Danziger – Chief Transformation Officer. Jane was appointed Chief Transformation Officer of Woolworths Group in December 2022. The Transformation function includes Group-wide Customer, Strategy, Transformation, Sustainability, Metro, Milkrun, W23 and other selective Growth businesses. It’s a key political and ideological position. As expected, Jane is a member of Chief Executive Women. (see website for full job description)
Traitor No. 18 is Jaimie Lovell – Director of Government Relations and Industry Affairs. Jaimie Lovell was appointed Director of Government Relations and Industry Affairs in March 2023. This is an absolutely key political and ideological position for a feminist to have – for obvious reasons. She is not a member of CEW. Perhaps, with her enormous experience, it is a little beneath her. (see website for full job description)
It’s clear from this brief survey of the people making up Woolworths’ Group Executive Committee that the woke agenda of a core group of feminists decides the direction and character of the company:
Amanda Bardwell CEW Chief Executive Women
Annette Karontoni
Natalie Davis CEW Chief Executive Women
Alex Holt
Von Ingram
Caryn Katsingianis, CEW Chief Executive Women
Jane Danziger, CEW Chief Executive Women
Jamie Lovell
A Woolworths supermarket is within walking distance of where I live. Because of its convenience, I cannot altogether avoid it. But from now on, whenever I walk through its entrance, I will be aware I am shopping at a business that has contempt for me, that it is treacherously using its business power to destroy the country I grew up in.