Crowd Funding

How dare you stand by your man

If CM had a dime every time another person or corporate talked about “diversity and inclusion” he’d be a millionaire. That one has to claim the bleeding obvious is nothing more than sanctimonious virtue signaling. It is nauseating. It’s like asserting one stands against Nazis. Really? How woke!

To have people question Israel Folau’s wife supporting her husband beggars belief. What does one expect? That she might publicly shame him on her Twitter account? Is anyone surprised she retweeted his GoFundMe appeal? Perhaps former Aussie netballer Liz Ellis can advise Maria Folau in the art of throwing her beloved under the bus.

She tweeted, “How about this: There is no room for homophobia in our game. Anyone who is seen to support or endorse homophobia is not welcome. As much as I love watching @MariaFolau play netball I do not want my sport endorsing the views of her husband.”

Liz, should Netball NZ launch a witch-hunt on Maria? Shall we make an example of her? Perhaps ask Jacinda Ardern’s judiciary to sink its newly sharpened fangs into Maria for retweeting Izzy’s ‘hatred’ and incarcerate her? Perhaps ask Twitter to terminate his account?

ANZ, sponsor of the domestic netball premiership, unsurprisingly came out with a politically correct response. Does ANZ have to prove to the 0.1% of activists who claim faux outrage that it isn’t homophobic? Why not appeal to the 0.000001% of fornicators, adulterers and drunks who might have been upset by Folau? It is amazing to think these institutions hire so many staff to floss the chrome fixtures in the executive bathroom.

Corporations really need to grow a pair. “Diversity and inclusion” are overused more in corporate virtue signaling than Casanova serenading “I love only you” on Valentine’s Day.

If ANZ had a look at the bank account balances of the activists that they fear so much they would soon learn they could easily afford to lose their business.

Quit the moral preening. You aren’t fooling anyone.

ACL raised $660,000 for Izzy

As it stands, the Australian Christian Lobby (ACL) has helped raise $660,000 for Israel Folau in only a day since GoFundMe (GFM) pulled his $715,000 crowd funding site down.

What did people honestly expect? That they would stop Folau dead in his tracks by ganging up on GFM to back down? All These activists managed to do was to ram a hot poker into a previously sleeping giant.

It is highly doubtful that the majority of those that stumped up cash are homophobes in any way. It is way beyond that. It is much more about a protest against the constant political correctness that is thrust in our faces on a daily basis. There is a pecking order in identity politics and the majority are usually the least considered.

The people that donated want to protect freedoms – speech, religious or otherwise – and they’re sick and tired of being lectured by hypocrites. The double standards of these corporations are sickening. CSR is a buzzword but it has two distinct features – to bash companies who don’t conform to activist ideals or the creation of crony capitalism. We’ve already seen the backlash against corporates who get “woke” e.g. Gillette.

It doesn’t matter whether Folau’s crowd funding is viewed as a stunt or how inane his religious beliefs might seem to mainstream Aussies. What matters to them is they can voice dissenting opinions without recrimination. Folau’s dismissal is now but a minor issue in the crowd funding saga. The natives are restless as they’ve grown tired of apologists finding new ways to “shame” their difference in opinions.

CM is hopeful that Folau sends Rugby Australia (RA) into receivership to remove the cabal that runs it. Australian rugby is in tatters because it is not run for the fans but for identity and gender based politics, a role no one has asked it to enforce. The woeful attendance and dismal record of the Wallabies attests to this gross mismanagement. Like Cricket Australia at the time of the ball tampering scandal, RA needs a clean out. Folau will be the catalyst.

The woke never get it. Another self inflicted wound.

Go Fund Me’s double standards

RAICES.png

Well, well, well. How come it took so many days for GoFundMe to come to this conclusion? What ridiculous double standards the site has. It was bullied pure and simple and folded to activist pressure to appear as if it was a clerical oversight. Why not sack the gatekeepers at GoFundMe who should have flagged this up the chain but didn’t until they felt backed into a corner by apparatchiks?

So easy to fob it off using “GoFundMe’s terms of service say it can take down funds that are “for the legal defence of alleged crimes associated with hate, violence, harassment, bullying, discrimination, terrorism or intolerance of any kind relating to race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, sex, gender or gender identity or serious disabilities or diseases. It was something it should have immediately caught but didn’t.

GoFundMe’s Country Manager Nicola Britton said the site doesn’t support Folau’s anti-gay views but presumably she supports funds that say hell awaits adulterers, fornicators, liars, drunks, thieves, atheists and idolators.

Regardless of whether one agrees with Folau’s religious beliefs or not, thousands of people still volunteered $750,000 to defend his rights to free speech. Will GoFundMe doxx all of those people who felt his cause was worthy enough to donate to? If he provides his bank account details for deposits, will his bank suspend his personal account?

Many people think it is outrageous that Folau doesn’t sell his properties and self-fund. Yet who are they to determine the voluntary nature of people who helped him raise $750k? They were not forced to. Do those who donated tell the faux outrage mob how to spend their money? No.

The irony is that GoFundMe is more than happy to run campaigns of $3m (GBP1.6m) to attack Folau for his supposed intolerance. Is that the sort of double standard the company operates under? CM is sure that GoFundMe will say it was an accident.

It wasn’t that long ago that GoFundMe happily allowed people to raise funds to pay for ladders assisting illegal immigrants to thwart national border protection laws. So when it comes to breaking federal US laws, then raising funds is OK under GoFundMe guidelines? One presumes that GoFundMe enforces its own arbitrary set of rules against its own pet causes.

Don’t forget that GoFundMe happily allowed $80,000 to be raised for Egg Boi who attacked Fraser Anning. Once again, regardless of Anning’s views, funds were raised for the legal defence of a teenager who committed violence, harassed, expressed hate and showed intolerance of another’s view, no matter how abhorrent the former Senator’s words might have been. Doesn’t that violate the same terms and conditions? Or is that OK because GoFundMe dislikes our politicians?

One hopes Folau moves to another fundraising site and doubles his target. GoFundMe has only shown exactly why free speech is at stake. CM doesn’t think much of his tweet but the reality is that 99.8% of people rolled their eyes and moved on. Rugby Australia (RA) also flicked the chicken switch and appears to have acted in haste and ran the risk of constructive dismissal. RA practices the very discrimination it claims it does not.

In any event, GoFundMe’s hypocrisy is there for all to see. If we want to express outrage that people didn’t fund better causes, look no further than the Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services (RAICES). The viral photo-shopped Time magazine picture of a little girl crying at a defiant Trump was used with great effect by RAICES to raise $20mn via Facebook crowdfunding!

Even after it was revealed that the child – stolen from her father – was never separated from the mother (who left her other 3 kids behind) and paid a smuggler to get to the border, RAICES still shamelessly uses the picture to boost its funding target to $25mn. Sanctimony at its finest.

Credit card with a carbon limit

Here is a credit card business model bound to fail. Johan Pihl, one of the founders of Doconomy, is launching a new credit card in collaboration with the UN Climate Change Secretariat and Mastercard. It cuts your ability to spend when you’ve hit your “carbon” limit, not your financial one.

To CM, the pricing is wrong. It should allow one to spend beyond their carbon limit and pay penalties on exceeding it straight into the UNIPCC’s coffers. Or perhaps we should ask all UN staffers to use it as a corporate credit card. If it lived up to its promises, most would have their carbon limit triggered when paying for flights to the next COP summit halfway around the globe. That would be a plus!

Pihl said, “we realized that putting a limit that blocks your ability to complete the transaction is radical…but it’s the clearest way to illustrate the severity of the situation we’re in

It is such a dopey idea. Presumably, if you wish to purchase something that you want and your Doconomy cuts you off, you’ll use another card to complete the transaction. The carbon footprint limit will initially be based off a random calculation tied to the industry aggregate. So it is wildly inaccurate from the get go.

Imagine if the consumer would pick up our app and actually look at their footprint and that’s the basis for whether they buy something or not,”

If history is a guide we can look to carbon offset schemes have failed. Aircraft carbon offsets may provide some idea as to how hard this card might be to sell.

In its 2017 Annual Report, Qantas boasts,

We have the world’s largest airline offset program and have now been carbon offsetting for over 10 years. In 2016/17, we reached three million tonnes offset.”

Carbon calculators tend to work on the assumption of 0.158kg CO2/passenger kilometre.

In the last 10 years Qantas has flown around 1 trillion revenue passenger kilometres. While the literature in the annual report denotes one passenger offsets every 53 seconds, the mathematical reality is simple – 2% of miles are carbon offset. So that means that 98% of people couldn’t care less.

LivingOffset.jpeg

Another example was a cryptocurrency named LivingOffset, which tried to conduct an initial coin offering (ICO) 12 months ago.

LivingOffset notes on its web page,

Let’s say you buy a cup of coffee. You know that producing the coffee has created carbon emissions.  Now, you can offset that damage with a contribution that matches the value of the carbon cost, 5c for a cup of coffee…Your 5c contribution is matched with an equal corporate contribution.  Turning your 5c offset into 10c. Just think, if everyone having coffee did the same… how quickly we could start to make a real difference…All the contributions go to projects that have proven to have a positive impact on the environment by reducing carbon emissions. And, you can track and verify that your money is going exactly where it is meant to go.

To the best of CM’s knowledge, the ICO didn’t succeed and is currently priced at $0. That despite its lofty goals of 128% returns. Perhaps using Wikipedia as a source in the prospectus did not help matters.

CM is not sure about his readers, but to have the card reject a payment based on spurious mathematics would undoubtedly frustrate after a while.

Probably says much about MasterCard to sign up for this virtue signalling rubbish given it is lagging behind Visa. If they looked at Gillette, Colgate-Palmolive and other “woke” corporations, they would learn the value of sticking to their lane and allowing consumers to have the freedom to spend how they choose.

MasterCard 1Q 2019 report showed

Transaction Volume: 19.2 billion

Gross Dollar Value: $1.484 trillion

Cards in Circulation: 2.537 billion

Quarterly Revenue: $3.889 billion

Market Cap: $251 billion

Visa 2Q 2019 report revealed

Transaction Volume: 47.4 billion

Gross Dollar Value: $2.197 trillion

Cards in Circulation: 3.358 billion

Quarterly Revenue: $6.972 billion

Market Cap: $355 billion

2020 presidential election campaign funding not even close

So the fundraising for the 2020 residential election moves on in earnest in America. It seems Trump has received $30m in Q1 2019 alone. Bernie Sanders has collected $18m and Kamala Harris $12m since her bid to run in January 2019. Elizabeth Warren has $4m in the campaign kitty and Beto O’Rourke $9.4m.

For a man so hated, many seem willing to throw their cash in the ring to support his re-election bid. The Republican National Committee has raised another $46m. The large number of donations it received seem to be driven off the back of the outcome of the Mueller report which announced no crimes committed.

Could it be the deplorables, who apparently have no money, want to put Mr Trump back in charge in 2020? Or maybe a broader section of Americans are tired of the non-stop drone in the media and tuned out to Democrats who seem more interested in opposing Trump on everything rather than put forward a proper campaign based on alternative policies.

Facebook face plant?

FB.jpg

Facebook is the dark blue line. Its popularity has been waning. Some people are complaining (and others cheering) that Tommy Robinson has been banned from Facebook & Instagram (he had already been banned from Twitter in March 2018) after he exposed the BBC in his ‘Panodrama‘ documentary with his own undercover video  claiming allegations of threats, blackmail and intimidation to smear him. BBC News was clearly happy to report on the outcome today. Regardless of one’s view on the legitimacy of the life ban on Robinson, FB is a corporation that has the power to exercise its own guidelines, no matter how farcical some might judge them. There are countless examples of censor bias across multiple social media platforms. The managements admit as much.

The flip side for Facebook to ban him only makes him more desirable to his followers and increase their willingness to leave the platform.

If conservatives are becoming frustrated at the bias shown by Facebook, Twitter or any other social media forum why not set up a rival? If conservatives feel their voices are being suffocated by political correctness and the actions of arbitrary thought police why haven’t they set up a platform that will not silence what they covet?

Even if they have a very good case to argue against being silenced they have two options; stop using these social media players who they feel obstruct or build a fresh site which would surely see conservatives flock to it.

Fighting Facebook or Twitter to play fair has been proved worthless countless times (e.g. black conservative Candace Owens being suspended for replacing the word “whites” from Sarah Jeong’s tweets with other races). So it is a war that won’t be won.

The publishing of Google’s internal post-election debrief video shouldn’t have surprised anyone in the slightest either. All the outward appeals to the group’s impartiality were smashed by this leak. In a sense Google was the victim of the half-life nature of the very digital media feeds it seeks to control. Even worse it was all the senior management talking about what really goes on. Sunlight is truly the best disinfectant.

There is an opportunity to plug the gaping hole in social media – one that is willing to support all free speech and not shut out those that ideologically disagree with the apparatchiks in the censorship department. The question is why conservatives haven’t stopped complaining and moved to finance a rival? Or is there an inner fear that the authorities will become the judge and jury on what is considered free speech and shut the platform, not the individual…

COP24 – checking cash, corruption and cars

It should come as no surprise that the COP24 summit is a time to put the money where the mouth is. Look at the numbers of the delegates from Africa to stake their claim of the wealth redistribution. Guinea has sent the biggest delegation of 406 people. In 2016 the country received over $10.7mn in climate grants. DR Congo’s 237 delegates garnered $45 mn in aid for climate mitigation projects according to the OECD. The Ivory Coast received $114 million in 2016 for environmental aid. Indonesia got $250 million in climate related aid in the same year.  Poland can be forgiven being the host nation to be 3rd place. It receives zip, much like the US and Australia. The COP summits are nothing more than networking events to collect cash from virtue signaling Western governments.

COP24delegates2.png

Putting that in context of the representation amongst all delegates to their representative population, Guinea is at 15.5x. America at 0.1x. Guinea is 86 people lighter than in 2017. The Ivory Coast had halved its delegates on the previous summit.

COP24delegates

One has to question how efficiently these millions given away get to be spent on the intent. Take a look at Transparency International’s global 2017 corruption index. 180 is the worst. 1 is the best. Note the correlation of delegates attending COP24 to those countries with a higher prevalence of corruption?

Corruption.png

There is a touch of irony that the transport recommendations to/from Katowice airport made by the UNFCCC are all diesel vehicles. Not an EV in sight. Surely there was an opportunity to team up with an EV maker to co–sponsor the event? Did the 7,331 observers going to the summit pick up on this? Why didn’t they take advantage of the virtual attendance technology that was available? Better to be there and enjoy the banquets and political graft.

Polandchauffeur

Live free and negotiate