«Oh Boy! Cott."

Humanity is in the epoch of protest across many parts of the blue planet — and not for the first time. 
Whenever a segment of the population feels that things have become too unjust, too chaotic in how people and the world are treated, a response emerges. That’s when cardboard signs and indignant people take over the streets. The statement made by vast crowds against injustice and for change is powerful — even to those in power. 
Such protest marches are not a privilege, but a universal human right, one even available in writing. Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights clearly and poetically states:

“Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”

In Iran in 2026, this right is not offered — but Iranians are claiming it anyway. And though met with a thousandfold deadly response, the right still shows its power on the streets of Iran.

Yet something is missing from the equation of human rights: active, firm, and painful reactions from the international community toward autocrats. How so? Through boycotts, for instance. No financial or other support for states that carry injustice as their banner.

The boycott is a recognized and often effective means of supporting protest. It strikes at the financial core — and there, many members of the human species are extremely sensitive.

Professor Scott Galloway recently offered a compelling case for concrete boycotts — as a complement to the protests already underway in Minneapolis and other U.S. states. He proposes targeting the elites of the technocracy — billionaire figures — with a one-month boycott. Starting with canceling memberships in so-called “Ground Zero” companies like Apple, Amazon, Alphabet, Meta, and the “Blast Zone,” such as AT&T and Hilton. 
Canceling subscriptions is a visible and tangible way to build pressure.

Who still remembers Rosa Parks, who in 1955 refused to give up her seat reserved for white passengers on a bus? On its own, that event might have changed little — but with Martin Luther King Jr., combined with the media attention, it sparked the Montgomery Bus Boycott. That lasted 381 days and caused monthly losses of $250,000 — a massive sum at the time. 
Or consider the Disney–Kimmel case, where massive media coverage and subscription cancellations led to Jimmy Kimmel’s return after only a few days.

Scott Galloway calls for “Resist and Unsubscribe.” Because when protests harm the economy, no oligarch can afford to ignore or hide in indifference.

A boycott is an economic strike — and the most fundamental part of many business plans: the consumers. 
When they withdraw, the attentiveness — and often the activism — of corporate elites is stirred.

And who invented it? Not the Swiss.

Wikipedia offers an answer:

“The ‘boycott’ was not invented by a single person but developed in 1880 as a tactic of the Irish Land League under the leadership of Charles Stewart Parnell. The term was coined after Irish tenants collectively isolated Captain Charles Boycott, an English land agent who refused to lower rents, cutting him off from all trade and social contact.”

And look — the new headlines read: “Cumults compel the economy!” 
Indeed, cumults emerge from the fog when the outraged cumulate into active protest through subscription cancellations. 
“Cumult in the U.S.A.!”

Whoever values people and their universal rights will appreciate the boycott. 
Because it works — over time — and together with protest marches, it helps dismantle injustice.

Where to?
Who knows.
But one thing is certain: without pressure, there is no movement.