Sunday, October 14, 2012

Sink the Pink

This is the only appropriate place for pink to appear on an NFL field!

It's that time of the year again.

Yes, folks, we must all do our part to RAISE AWARENESS.

I've certainly done my part a few times now in the past several years.

After all, as an avid NFL fan, the spectacle of all the pink all over the place every October certainly serves as an all important reminder!

Millions upon millions (if not billions) of dollars are riding on all this AWARENESS!

Many bloggers and commenters in our fringe sector of teh interwebz oft raise many different points on how all this Pink in the NFL is a concerted effort of feminists to impinge on one of the last true male institutions that celebrates true meritocracy and unabashed expression of masculine aggression. No doubt, the feminists who support such things really do support all this pink invading male spectator sporting events. Awareness is a good thing, right!?

Seems like even the feminists are getting in on the writer, Erin Ryan (not linking to Jezebel, google it yourself if you like), writes in her recent article, The NFL's Campaign Against Breast Cancer Is a Total Scam:

The NFL claims that its pink philanthropy efforts "support the fight against breast cancer" by "promoting awareness" and providing funds to the American Cancer Society. But what they're mostly promoting is, uh, buying NFL gear, the profits from which are overwhelmingly pocketed by the NFL.

Of course, the Jezebeller's feminist-focused point is that not enough money being raised by all these sales is designated for the actual research for the cure...and like most feminists, she's making the marxist class warfare angle - don't buy the pink, it enriches the already rich Billionaire NFL owners, instead of most of it  going for the womynz!

Since the program's inception four years ago, the NFL has raised $3 million for breast cancer. In 2009, the League made $8.5 billion. Last year, they made $9.5 billion. Commissioner Roger Goodell has set a revenue goal of $25 billion per year by the year 2027. A million per year out of between $8.5 and $9.5 billion in revenues? Pardon me while I don't slobber all over the NFL's pink-drenched marketing campaign.

Like most feminists, she misses the forest for the trees. Besides, most of the manosphere folks that believe the pink-ification of the NFL is primarily a feminist agenda are mistaken.

Here's the lady responsible for this eyesore in the football stadiums across the nation:

Center: Tanya Snyder, wife of Redskins owner Daniel Snyder, NFL Breast Cancer Awareness Spokesperson
 She's the wife of a corporate mass media marketing industry mogul who survived breast cancer herself. The pink campaign is just another highly successful marketing campaign to create more demand for the services provided by the Mammogram industry, of which the American Cancer Society is a most lucrative partner in getting the masses to demand their services.

AWARENESS merchandise is just the way in which the NFL is paid off by the American Cancer Society to promote the real agenda:


 Why would the American Cancer society advocate that women radiate their breasts once a year after the age of 40? Surely they just want to save lives!

Cancer prevention expert, Professor emeritus at Univeristy of Illinois School of Public Health, Chicago, Samuel S. Epstein, disagrees:

However, the FDA remains strangely unaware that radiation from routine premenopausal mammography poses significant and cumulative risks of breast cancer. This is also contrary to conventional assurances that radiation exposure from mammography is trivial, about 1/ 1,000 of a rad, and similar to just that from a chest X-ray. However, the routine practice of taking two films of each breast results in exposure of about 0.4 rads, focused on the breast rather than on the entire chest. Thus, premenopausal women undergoing annual screening over a ten-year period are exposed to a total of at least four rads for each breast, at least eight times greater radiation than FDA's "cancer risk" level. Such high radiation exposure approximates to that of Japanese women living approximately one mile away from the site of the Hiroshima atom bomb explosion.

Good thing we have all the pink to remind all the women at age 40 to begin their annual dosage of radiation to their breasts...and we're not even mentioning all that radiation she's exposed to if she flies frequently and forgoes the gate rape option and favors TSA radiation "security."

Why, after 10 or so years, when she's 50...why her life will have been saved when the Mammogram detects a lump! A decade plus of regularly radiating her breasts would have nothing to do with it...right?! At least she followed the conventional wisdom!


The best prevention for loss of profits from a most lucrative industry, that is.

From  American Cancer Society: The World's Wealthiest "Nonprofit" Institution

The ACS has close connections to the mammography industry. Five radiologists have served as ACS presidents, and in its every move, the ACS reflects the interests of the major manufacturers of mammogram machines and film, including Siemens, DuPont, General Electric, Eastman Kodak, and Piker. In fact, if every woman were to follow ACS and NCI mammography guidelines, the annual revenue to health care facilities would be a staggering $5 billion, including at least $2.5 billion for premenopausal women.
Promotions of the ACS continue to lure women of all ages into mammography centers, leading them to believe that mammography is their best hope against breast cancer.

But it's not just he expensive mammogram machines, jobs for licensing and certifying mammogram technicians, or inflated billings by healthcare insurance companies that are counting on all this raising of AWARENESS!

As Professor Epstein reiterates:

Five radiologists have served as presidents of the ACS. In its every move, the ACS promotes the interests of the major manufacturers of mammography machines, particularly the latest digital machines. These are four times more expensive, but no more effective than the film machines.

The mammography industry conducts "research" for the ACS and its grantees, serves on its advisory boards, and donates considerable funds. In virtually all its actions, the ACS has been and remains strongly linked with the industry. An ACS communications director admitted the obvious in a 1999 article published by the Massachusetts Women's Community's journal Cancer. "Mammography today is a lucrative [and] highly competitive business."

Ah, but all this Pink inspired awareness is not just for the benefit of the Mammogram industry...let's not forget Big Pharma as well:

The ACS conflicts of interest extend well beyond the mammography industry. The ACS has received contributions in excess of $100,000 from a wide range of "Excalibur (industry) Donors," who manufacture carcinogenic products. These include petrochemical companies (DuPont, BP and Pennzoil), Big Pharma (AstraZenceca, Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck & Company and Novartis), and cosmetic companies (Christian Dior, Avon, Revlon and Elizabeth Arden).

October AWARENESS merchandise is just the way in which the NFL is allowed to garner their share of the loot from unsuspecting folks thinking they're contributing to "the war against cancer," when what they're really contributing to is the profits of a multitude of industries and "non-profits."

There's all the motive$ you need to understand why the NFL goes all pink every October.

 Since I do not now, nor have I ever worn a single article of pink in my entire life, I guess I'm not a REAL MAN. Somehow, I think I'll manage to carry on.


Brian said...

It all makes sense when you notice that the NFL, with 100% male participants and a 75% male audience, is mum during Movember. Not that Movember means much either, there's just no money in it. Men don't buy much or give as much as women, after all. Just wait until you see it in college and high school ball too, it's coming.

Off the Coast of Utopia said...

If anything there should be a "Red" campaign - that is for prostrate cancer. Rates are equal to or higher than breast cancer and yet funding is not proportional.

Amy Haines said...

The Jezzie is also, typically for that lot, blisfully unaware of the profits raked in by pharmaceutical companies, food and beverage manufacturers (usually a subsidiary or partner of a pharma), medical device manufacturers, Reebok, Nike, a host of other companies and industries, oh, and


In the 2009-2010 fiscal year, ending March 31, 2010, Komen reported approximately US $400 million in earnings. Of this, $365 million (91.3 percent) came from contributions from the public, including donations, sponsorships, race entry fees, and contributed goods and services. Approximately $35 million (8.8 percent) came from interest and dividends and gains on investments.[28]

That same fiscal year, Komen reported approximately US $360 million in expenses. $283.2 million of this went towards program services: $75.4 million (20.9 percent of total expenditure) went to research, $140.8 million (39.1 percent) went to public health education, $46.9 million (13 percent) went to health screening services, and $20.1 million (5.6 percent) went to treatment services. The other $76.8 million went to supporting services, including $36.1 million (10 percent of total expenditure) toward fund-raising costs and $40.6 million (11.3 percent) toward general and administrative costs.[28]

The Komen CEO salary in 2010 was $459,406 a year.[29] Komen paid founder and CEO Nancy Brinker $417,712 in 2011.

40% to public awareness (i.e., marketing for more fundraising). 20% to research, 5% to treatment. It exists mostly to feed itself. The CEO makes over $400K per year. 92% of funds come from public and corporate donations.

Yet it's the NFL that is the problem.

Amy Haines said...

Over at FTA a commentator made a point that we should be racing for the cause, not the cure, for surely striking at the root of the problem will yield the best solution. She is correct, but no one wants to plumb that particular rabbit hole. They would have to admit that birth control correlates incidences of breast cancer, as does abortion, high partner count, not breastfeeding your children or delaying child birth too long. But those are not the messages the Masters want to send to the masses.

And I know about the correlation/causation fallacy, but correlation suggests areas for further research and proof. Everyone "knows" lifestyle contributes to cancer risk, but which aspects of lifestyle are the real culprits? Tell women they should stop sleeping around, stop using birth control, and settle down and have babies and you will be accused not of trying to prevent cancer but of shackling women, etc.

Funny how it seems that Every. Single. One. of our current social ills, diseases, and economic collapse comes back down to how feminism and cultural marxism have eroded any conservative moral structure which, oddly, worked to conserve our natural, educational, social, and family environments.

guest006 said...


If a woman lives long enough, she will get breast cancer just like if a man lives long enough, he will get prostate cancer.

The idea that all breast cancer is due to environmental or lifestyle choices is laughable.

Also, most care givers actually lose money on mammograms since the reimbursement rates are set very low.

Amy Haines said...


if we all live long enough, we will all die of something. And the cause will be environmental or lifestyle based, no matter what kills you.

Ingemar said...

Mr. Keoni Galt, do you have an e-mail we can contact you @? I want to discuss things not related to this post.

Keoni Galt said...

Ingemar, sorry, but due to past experiences with trolls and internet stalkers, I removed my email address from this blog and have made it a policy to not correspond with people I do not know in real life.

Ingemar said...

OK, what I was going to mention didn't need to be emailed anyway (I just didn't want to necropost).

I'm givng intermittent fasting a shot. The Hodge Twins on youtube are big supporters of that diet. So far I've noticed fat loss around my extremities and reduced cravings for bad food. I'll tell you more a month from now.

(I am not a paleo dieter, but I'm avoiding all the most "obvious" sources of refined sugar i.e. soda, bread and most restaurant foods).

That's it from me folks. Time to re rail the thread!

Keoni Galt said...

Ingemar, no blog has never been a huge discussion forum anyhow, I don't mind derails that are honest dialogs! lol

I've actually got a post in the works on my experiences with Intermittent fasting in the near future.

In short, I no longer "consciously" fast. I just don't get hungry as often, especially since I just started juicing for the past two weeks.

A nutrient dense diet doesn't require one to constantly eat to have energy.

In short, IF is an integral part of J. Stanton's maxim - Eat Like A Predator, Not Like Prey.

Keoni Galt said...

If a woman lives long enough, she will get breast cancer just like if a man lives long enough, he will get prostate cancer.

The idea that all breast cancer is due to environmental or lifestyle choices is laughable.

No, the idea that it is inevitable is laughable. This is the precise mindset this post was about.


Anonymous said...

I just call it "Breast History Month" and enjoy the cheerleaders.

Eric said...

Big Pharma pulls the same scams on men. They promote all the sexual repression of feminism and then sell psychriatic drugs and relationship counseling to INCEL guys. Then, when male sexual drive finally atrophies; they sell him viagra and then, in turn, shame him as a 'dirty old man' (i.e. any male over 35) and sell him more 'sexual counselling'.

Ultimately, then they sell him more viagra because he's ended up with some fat, ugly, nagging, middle-aged female who doesn't arouse him sexually.

Most prostate cancer develops in men from being sexually excited without any release on a regular basis. But the femihags running Big Pharma won't admit that either.

Feminism and the female frigidity it engenders damages mens' health in much the same way.

ElectricAngel said...


OK, yet another thing you bring up that I had never thought about. You and Mangan (where is he?) are about the two best people for me at doing this. Thanks.

ElectricAngel said...


Also, the earlier a woman has a child, the lower her risk of breast cancer. It seems that the monthly cycle causes changes in the breast tissue, and the more hormones that the duct cells get exposed to, the more likely they are to eventually go cancerous. Of course, I doubt Jezebel is going to counsel young women to marry at 20 and pop out their first child at 21.

By the way, your Captchas are impossible. It takes me like 10 hits to get two I can read.

Keoni Galt said...


It's not like I have a choice on the Captchas...I have the same problem posting comments too.

Keoni Galt said...

@ Eric - "Big Pharma pulls the same scams on men."

Most assuredly.

@ Amy - Excellent comment.

"Funny how it seems that Every. Single. One. of our current social ills, diseases, and economic collapse comes back down to how feminism and cultural marxism have eroded any conservative moral structure which, oddly, worked to conserve our natural, educational, social, and family environments."

It was a deliberate, long, slow march through all of the West's cultural institutions. The social engineers who've foisted this dystopia on us all, knew exactly what they were doing and precisely how to change the culture to suit their agenda.

Anonymous said...

Chesterton explains how Christianity, not Churchianity, hates pink:

" Thus, the double charges of the secularists, though throwing nothing but darkness and confusion on themselves, throw a real light on the faith. It is true that the historic Church has at once emphasised celibacy and emphasised the family; has at once (if one may put it so) been fiercely for having children and fiercely for not having children. It has kept them side by side like two strong colours, red and white, like the red and white upon the shield of St. George. It has always had a healthy hatred of pink. It hates that combination of two colours which is the feeble expedient of the philosophers. It hates that evolution of black into white which is tantamount to a dirty gray. In fact, the whole theory of the Church on virginity might be symbolized in the statement that white is a colour: not merely the absence of a colour. All that I am urging here can be expressed by saying that Christianity sought in most of these cases to keep two colours coexistent but pure. It is not a mixture like russet or purple; it is rather like a shot silk, for a shot silk is always at right angles, and is in the pattern of the cross."

Ingemar said...

I'm going to leave an on-topic thought now!

A real man doesn't follow a woman's naggings about how a real man acts.

Eric said...

Chesterton was a real fruitcake. All he had to do was look at flowers to see how little colors like pink and purple and grey were apparently valued by God. Hummingbirds and honeybees also seem attracted to them.

In fact, the philosophers he sneered at so much made a better case against moral relativism than some White Knight with a red and white shield. Relativism has no place in science; and it's been the split between science and philosophy that's been the undoing of Western Culture.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Galt, as an outsider to these strange practices,
I must ask a straightforward, yet non-obvious
question ...

Is this part of a Malthusian programme intended to
thin the herd of aging feminists until such time
as deemed successful, after which the programme
will be revealed by apologists as a mistake and
therefore forgiveable?

I must admire the brass stones on the elite for
this kind of manoeuvre, although I question the
efficacy or sensibility of the results: usually
the elite aren't this brazen about their goals
concerning population control.

Hope greatly that they don't institute a Red
Programme as one earlier poster had suggested.
Absence in this case is perhaps more benign.

Would you gladly irradiate your prostate with
"your yearly Hiroshima" just to say you've been
screened for the inevitable?

That's a real boner-killer for me at least.
It'll kill the market for glow-in-the-dark
condoms as well ...

dan said...

As a specialist in radiography with over 35 years experience I must point out some flaws in your rant. First of all....the recomendations are for a baseline mammogram at establish what the breast should look like. Then screening occurs at 2 to 5 year intervals till the age of 50 unless there is a strong family history of breast cancer or genetic markers indicating increased risk. So theory the exam can cause cancer...all xrays "can" cause cancer. Next time you bust a bone just tell the doc..."hey, lets
skip the causes cancer".

Radiology is a risk vs benefit proposition. No exam is risk free but the research indicates the risk is usually very minimal while the reward of knowing the results is usually high. It's a matter of odds....just like Vegas. And the odds are good for the patients but can never be a sure bet.

And finally mammography is not the
"BIG BUSINESS CASH COW" that it's detractors claim. In fact most radiology departments offer it for
two it's a public service. It's expected. And two, it brings in patients who might return in the future for other exams that actually do make the radiology department a profit....
mammography however is not a profit center. If we are lucky we break even. Sometimes the costs of
providing mammography services exceed what is earned and we have to cover the difference with profits from other exams.

And as I advice all the other anti medicine luddites....No body is pointing a gun at you making you go to see a doctor or go to a hospital. You are perfectly free to avoid them and be your own doctor...but only a fool doctors himself.

Keoni Galt said...

dan, I am not an anti-medicine luddite, I'm an anti-BIG Pharma anti-BIG Healthcare Cynic and Skeptic.

As a specialist in radiography with over 35 years experience...

That makes 35 years of a livelihood you've worked in. People like you certainly benefit from all this "AWARENESS." It pays your bills.

the recommendations are for a baseline mammogram at establish what the breast should look like. Then screening occurs at 2 to 5 year intervals till the age of 50 unless there is a strong family history of breast cancer or genetic markers indicating increased risk.

Look at the marketing images I posted straight from the NFL website affiliates.


mammography however is not a profit center.

Of course it is. Maybe you're not making as much $$ as you'd like doing your job radiating breasts... but the Mammography machine manufacturers are certainly realizing some real profits.

No body is pointing a gun at you making you go to see a doctor or go to a hospital. You are perfectly free to avoid them and be your own doctor...but only a fool doctors himself.

Of course.

But only a fool submits themselves to the Big Medicine establishment without advocating for, and educating themselves on EVERYTHING they can in dealing with medicine practice.

If I get a broken bone, of course I'll go get x-rays and get it set correctly.

But hey, I've had a broken bone once in the past decade.

That's a far cry from getting annual, repeated radiation exposure.

I also chose the gate rape option whenever I travel. Better to get molested by a TSA goon than unnecessary radiation exposure.

If that makes me a Luddite, than oh well, I've been called worse.

Peacemaker said...

I wrote something similar regarding our modern-day gladiators wearing pink, but my synopsis didn't include the financial aspect. Good post.