Education

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.

Greta Thunberg’s Brilliant Minds speech

What troubles CM is that the soon to be Dr Thunberg (she will be given an honorary doctorate from the University of Mons in Belgium) will be abused even more by those pushing the climate change narrative. She is the perfect human shield to the divisive machine that lurks begins her. It is hard to criticize a movement when the face is a child.

She faces either nothing happening with the climate and being exposed as brainwashed. Or the policies she espouses will lead to such a miserable existence that life will be even more terrible than it is now.

This is not to criticize Thunberg per se. She is undoubtedly a very brave girl to face world leaders and celebrities with such scripted messages.

Here is the transcript of Greta Thunberg’s Brilliant Minds speech. The socialist imprints are all over the language. Especially when the 16-yo tells the audience they are simply “uninformed.” Watch out for the coming “carbon budget” which will mean you have to turn vegan, stop flying and take on your moral duty to stop spending other’s carbon credits!!

——

Around the year 2030, we will be in a position where we probably set off an irreversible chain reaction beyond human control, that will most likely lead to the end of our civilization as we know it.


That is unless, in that time, permanent and unprecedented changes in all aspects of industrialized society have taken place. Including a reduction of our CO2 emissions by at least 50%.

And please note that these calculations are depending on inventions that have not yet been invented at scale.

Furthermore, these scientific calculations do not include most unforeseen tipping points and feedback loops.

Nor do these calculations include already locked in warming hidden by toxic air pollution. Nor the aspect of equity, which is absolutely necessary to make the Paris Agreement work on a global scale.

And these calculations are not opinions or wild guesses.
These projections are backed up by scientific facts, concluded by all nations through the IPCC.

So if we are to stay below the 1,5 degrees of warming limit, which is still possible within the laws of physics, we need to change almost everything. We need to start living within the planetary boundaries. This will be a drastic change for many, but not for most.

Because most of the world’s population is already living within the planetary boundaries. It is a minority who are not. 

The richest 10% of the world’s population emits about half of our emissions of greenhouse gases. The richest 1% emits more than the poorest 50%.

And this is not about glorifying poverty, this is about the laws of physics and the remaining amount of greenhouse gases that we can still emit into the atmosphere to be in line with the Paris agreement.

It is not people in countries like Mozambique, Bangladesh or Colombia who are most responsible for this crisis. It is mostly down to people like you here in the audience.

Entrepreneurs, celebrities, politicians, business leaders. People who have a lot of power.
People who consume enormous amounts of stuff. Who often fly around the world, sometimes in private jets.

Your individual carbon footprints are in some cases the equivalent of whole villages.

But the worst part I think is that you are normalizing this extreme lifestyle. Because people look up to you. You are the role models, you are setting the standards. People aspire to be like you.

About 100 companies emit approximately 71% of our total emissions of CO2. And yes I know, we need a system change rather than individual change. But you can not have one without the other.

If you look through history all the big changes in society have been started by people at the grassroots level. No system change can come without pressure from large groups of individuals.

And no, I don’t blame you. I know you are not acting like this because you are stupid. You are not ruining the biosphere and future living conditions for all species because you are evil. At least I hope not. I know that almost everyone of you are simply uninformed. Just like the rest of the world’s population.

I know that you here in the audience didn’t travel here to see a sixteen-year-old girl who says strange and uncomfortable things.

But you know what? We need to dare to be uncomfortable. We need to be brave enough to say and do things that may not increase our profit or our popularity. Because otherwise, we won’t stand a chance.

We need to start thinking outside the box. To acknowledge that we don’t have all the solutions to the climate and ecological crises yet unless those solutions mean that we simply stop doing certain things.

We need to accept that the market and new technologies will not solve everything for us. We need to admit our common failure. And then we need to act, while there’s still time

At meetings like these, you love to listen to entrepreneurs, new ideas and new inventions. But when it comes to the climate crisis the time for those magic new inventions has just about come and gone.

And even though we most certainly need to embrace every bit of new clean technology – we can no longer look away from the obvious fact that we also need to change our behaviour. Some more than others.

The theme of this year’s Brilliant Minds conference is “Fluxability Quotient”. It’s what the organizers call “a symphony of big-picture thinking”.
Well, here is some big-picture thinking for you.

If you regularly fly around the world, eat meat and dairy and are living a high carbon lifestyle then that means you have used up countless of people’s remaining carbon budgets. Carbon budgets that they will need in their everyday life, for generations to come.

And if that wasn’t enough, those whose carbon budgets we are stealing are the ones least responsible and the ones who are going to be affected the most by this crisis.

According to climate scientist Kevin Anderson, if the richest 10% of the world’s population would lower their emissions to that of the average citizen of the European Union, then the world’s emissions of CO2 would be cut by about one third.

I think we can safely say that everyone in this room belongs to that 10%. Including me.

Everyone and everything needs to change. But the bigger your platform, the bigger your responsibility. The bigger your carbon footprint, the bigger your moral duty.

To make the changes required we need role models and leaders. People like you. I am certain that most of you sitting here will have the wisdom, the courage and the common sense to take a few steps back. To see the full picture. To make the sacrifices that are necessary. And to become the leaders we need you to be.

The question is, will you do it in time?

Future generations are counting on you. Don’t let us down.

Gender and climate change

Are we really supposed to take the UNFCCC seriously when it hosts a 3 day seminar on gender and the impacts of climate change?

In one presentation the main areas of focus were:

Trainings and workshops on design and implementation of gender‐responsive climate change policies. Tools and guidelines on gender‐responsive energy policy

Impact/Beneficiaries: Bangladesh, Cambodia and Vietnam

Why just three three countries?

The Serbians have been invited to a,

Study visit to Finland: mainstreaming gender into climate change policies and programmes;

Study visit to Austria: Gender‐Responsive Budgeting

Presumably fossil fuels will get them there. Based on the Finns own climate delegations gender imbalance is the order of the day.

It begs the question as to what on earth could gender possibly have to do with climate change? If the planet is warming will women’s calming influence cause us to adopt these resolutions.

CM wrote about studies that suggested toxic masculinity was a factor in climate change. The idea that men felt threatened if they had to become

Dr. Aaron Brough of Utah State University conducted the study to see if there is correlation between toxic masculinity and climate change. His assumptions run the line that men see environmentalism as more feminine and get triggered to make ecological choices if threatened.

If we needed anymore evidence of what a joke the climate change debate has become, the UNFCCC only confirms the stance with seminars dedicated to creating hot air. Scarier is that these cultural Marxists actually believe what they are espousing is rational!

One presumes the peak insanity will occur when the UN runs out of climate change impacts by virtue of one’s identity workshops.

The UNFCCC doesn’t wish to solve global warming because it would end the countless junkets around the globe. The more hysteria, the longer it stays in business. It is the gravy train that never stops.

Identity Politics rejected by those who would seemingly benefit

Quillette columnist Coleman Hughes testified in front of a House Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties on the subject of a bill proposing to conduct a commission into slavery reparations. Hughes’ testimony was not what activists wanted to hear so he was heckled by them.

He argued that such a path would further divide the nation. Such is the scourge of identity politics and the victim mentality.

He was booed when he said, “Black people don’t need another apology. We need safer neighborhoods and better schools. We need a less punitive criminal justice system. We need affordable health care. And none of these things can be achieved through reparations for slavery.”

He went on to describe that reparations were not only divisive, but an “insult to many black Americans by putting a price on the suffering of their ancestors, and we would turn the relationship between black Americans and white Americans from a coalition into a transaction

Reparations by definition are only given to victims, so the moment you give me reparations, you’ve made me into a victim without my consent. Not just that, you’ve made 1/3 of black Americans who poll against reparations into victims without their consent, and black Americans have fought too long for the right to define themselves to be spoken for in such a condescending manner...

The question is not what America owes me by virtue of my ancestry, the question is what all Americans owe each other by virtue of being citizens of the same nation…And the obligation of citizenship is not transactional. It’s not contingent on ancestry. It never expires, and it can’t be paid off. For all these reasons, bill HR 40 is a moral and political mistake.”

Isn’t it ironic how out of touch the political class is when the very people they hope will give them the answer they want to hear do the exact opposite.

Woodie Guthrie, that evil white supremacist

It is unlikely that Woodie Guthrie ever channeled his inner racist when he penned ‘This land is your land‘. Yet native rights activist Mali Obomsawin said his lyrics,

…as they are embraced today evoke Manifest Destiny and expansionism (‘this land was made for you and me’). When sung as a political act, the gathering or demonstration is infused with anti-Nativism and reinforces the blind spot.

Just to clear the air, the lyrics (also sung by African-American Sharon Jones and the Dap Kings)

This land is your land, this land is my land
From the California to the New York island
From the Redwood Forest, to the gulf stream waters
This land was made for you and me
As I went walking that ribbon of highway
I saw above me that endless skyway
And saw below me that golden valley
This land was made for you and me
I roamed and rambled and I followed my footsteps
To the sparkling sands of her diamond deserts
And all around me , a voice was sounding
This land was made for you and me
When the sun comes shining, then I was strolling
In the wheat fields waving and dust clouds rolling
The voice was chanting as the fog was lifting
This land was made for you and me
This land…”
So it is hardly anything more than Aussies celebrating in our own national anthem the words, “our land abounds in nature’s gifts of beauty, rich and rare”
Although Obomsawin contends,

This land ‘was’ our land, through genocide, broken treaties, and a legal system created by and for the colonial interest, this land ‘became’ American land. But to question the legitimacy of American land control today instantly makes one the most radical person in the room–even in leftist circles. And because Indigenous critiques of this country are so fundamental, our voices are often marginalized to the point of invisibility.By critiquing ‘This Land Is Your Land,’…I don’t mean to imply that Guthrie himself promoted conquest, but the song is indicative of American leftists’ role in Native invisibility

As Alyssa Duvall points out, “How do these people not walk into more telephone poles when they’re so busy watching out for racism, overt or covert, everywhere?”

Supreme Court rules Peace Cross can stay

It is amazing that activists can be up in arms over a near century old monument that honours 49 dead WWI soldiers in Maryland. It required the US Supreme Court to vote 7-2 to keep it there. No prizes for guessing who the dissenters were.

The Peace Cross was erected just after WW1 to honour those that sacrificed their lives for the country. It was the brainchild of mothers of the fallen. Most likely they were all Christian mothers.

The protest was that it didn’t properly represent the religious beliefs of all those that had fallen in WW1. In that sense activists were offended by the government’s endorsement of religion plus the reality that the cross is maintained with taxpayer funds.

Monica Miller, a lawyer representing the American Humanist Society, argued the memorial should be moved to private property or modified.

Leftist activist Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said, “Just as a Star of David is not suitable to honor Christians who died serving their country, so a cross is not suitable to honor those of other faiths who died defending their nation,”

Her Liberal sidekick Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented with, “Soldiers of all faiths ‘are united by their love of country, but they are not united by the cross.”

Justice Alito said, “destroying or defacing the Cross that has stood undisturbed for nearly a century would not be neutral and would not further the ideals of respect and tolerance embodied in the First Amendment.”

Justices Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan, both of whom are Jewish, ruled in favour of keeping the cross.

Almost 100 years ago it is likely that 98% of those that died in WW1 were of Christian faith. If one visits a memorial with individual gravestones anywhere around the world, the religion is always reflective of the person who sacrificed their life.

How is it that people can become so triggered by a stone structure that honours those that gave up their lives to protect the very freedom they enjoy? Why can’t people respect the values of the time? What is the obsession with rewriting history so some intolerant people can feel assuaged of bereavement they’ve never suffered personally?

More hypocrisy with the Climate Emergency, this time in Canada

What a joke.

Canadians are not for carbon taxes. The landslides against the Trudeau Liberals in the provincial elections of Ontario & Alberta (and the recent by-election in Nova Scotia yesterday) have all used the key platform policies of rescinding carbon taxes. 

Steve Craig and the Progressive Conservatives handed the Nova Scotia New Democrats their first loss in the constituency of Sackville-Cobequid in 34 years at the by-election. Craig won the election with 2,655 votes. Liberal candidate Michel Hindlet was a distant third with 658 votes, just ahead of Green Party candidate Anthony Edmonds who received 488 votes. Why? Because Canadians want sustainable work where they have a competitive advantage. Not to be punished with punitive taxation with policies driven by a completely incompetent government.

Candian PM Justin Trudeau and Environment Minister Catherine ‘Climate Barbie’ McKenna have essentially copied the example set by the Irish government with respect to its announced ‘Climate Emergency.’ It is pure posturing not backed up by action. The pipeline fiasco has been so incompetently handled.

The Canadian Liberal government paid $4.5bn for a 60yr old pipeline that was sold a decade ago to Kinder Morgan for $377m for an asset RBC valued at $2.5bn. Last year, Kinder Morgan threatened to cancel the project altogether. Desperate to keep it alive – and the most transparent example of how much the Canadian govt depends on oil  – Trudeau nationalised it. Another $7.5bn will be spent to “create jobs” with this pipeline.

Apart from Canadian tax dollars going to fund a US company’s ability to expand and compete against Canadian suppliers, the real truth of Trudeau’s intentions probably doesn’t become any clearer when examining the sponsored summer jobs programme (where businesses could only get greenlighted if they shared “his” values). Yes, taxpayer dollars were approved by Trudeau to help activists protest a pipeline he’s just bought. This was an ad posted by Dogwood:

“As an organizing assistant through the Canada Summer Jobs program, you will work directly with a Dogwood Provincial Organizer and the field organizing team to help our organizing network stop the Kinder Morgan pipeline and tanker project, as well as help us strengthen the public call for stronger, more accountable and transparent democracy.”

Now, Trudeau’s party has declared a climate emergency and approved the expansion of the Trans Mountain Expansion (formerly owned by Kinder Morgan) straight after.

McKenna has made so many gaffes on her carbon tax. This video shows just how little idea they have about what they wish to introduce. She also said that not only would she refuse to debate with those that disagree with her on climate change but that Canadians have a $30 trillion (yes you read right) opportunity by 2020 because of the Liberal’s carbon tax and associated environmental policies. Who wouldn’t vote for a party that can 20-bag an economy in 2 years?

More leftist lunacy. Bleat about dedication to the environment, squeal about how we face imminent death if we don’t do something and then don’t back it up with actual deeds.