Archives For The Australian

‘Entrepreneur, digital marketing guru, and best-selling author’, Scott Galloway, told The Australian this week that an unholy alliance existed between Donald Trump, Facebook, Google, YouTube, and Twitter.

Galloway ‘wants the US government to radically overfund regulatory bodies like the Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission in America, to rewrite the rule book on anti-trust: moving away from a test around consumer harm and prices back to a test around market power.’

Quoting Galloway, Ticky Fullerton stated, ‘the odds of a possible break-up are three to five times more likely with a well-funded and more thoughtful administration around tech, the Biden/Harris administration.’

This is because ‘Trump has shown just a mix of inconsistency, incompetence and underfunding that transfers advantage to big tech.’ Noting that Big Tech were coming through COVID-19 as big winners.

Galloway’s advice to investors was to move in front of ‘three tsunamis’ which are set to make significant financial gains, as people, and businesses ‘move from commercial to residential, traditional education to online learning, hospitals, and doctors’ offices to home and remote health.’

Galloway makes sense when talking about COVID triggering seismic economic shifts. His absurd claim of an unholy alliance between Trump, and big tech, is way off. 

As ‘Professor of marketing strategy at NYU’, and one-time board member of the New York Times, Galloway’s predictions are probably par for the course.

Support Biden now, be rewarded later. Don’t support Biden now, be punished later.

Meaning that Galloway is assured a place at the power table, where he’ll join the majority of journalists currently playing partisan defense for the opposition in the United States.

The latter having chosen to remain silent on verified facts relating to substantial corruption within the Biden family. Choosing to aid the Biden/Harris camp by not pressuring them to deny categorically, or provide an evidence-based answer.

Here is why Galloway is right that a Biden/Harris administration would be more likely to back the ‘radical overfunding of regulatory bodies.’ It’s also why he’s dead wrong about Trump.

Radicalism is the basis of the Biden/Harris policy platform. Overfunding would require increased taxation, and bigger government. These are areas where the Democrats excel. Taxation and government-will-save-the-day is their default position when offering solutions to problems, whether real, exaggerated, or manufactured.

In addition, big tech hates Trump. They’re private bias against the conservative voice, comes out in their public aid of their preferred candidate. In this case Biden (maybe more so, Harris), in their bid for the White House.

Examples of this include Silicon Valley’s very cosy relationship with Communist China, and their stonewalling of the New York Post over verified claims about the Biden family’s business dealings. The continual suppression and control of speech, and information, through agenda driven “fact-checkers.”

From “believe the science about apocalyptic climate change”, to deny the science “there are more than two genders”, “not all women have periods”, “abortion is healthcare”, down to arbitrary laws which represses freedom of speech and individual responsibility, you can be sure that Big Tech supports the Democrat platform.

If an unholy alliance does exist between government and Silicon Valley, its members don’t include Donald Trump or his supporters.

For Big Tech, it’s not a matter of if Biden wins, it’s a matter of when Trump loses. They want to be on the “right side of history”* when Biden secures (with their help) an “unprecedented” and “historic” 2020 election victory. (*newspeak for: in good with wannabe Leftist overlords).

Big Tech needs accountability. There’s bipartisan agreement on this. We don’t want a centralized conglomerate with a monopoly on information; governed by pompous, dishonest gatekeepers who adjust algorithms, to favour news and information that best serves their bottom line, favourite politician, or activist lobby group, and not the masses.

Galloway overlooks the overall mistreatment of the Trump administration, and Donald Trump since his election. Much of it encouraged by Big Tech, who fail to censor speech which breaches their own rules, from the likes of Cathy Griffin, Carl Reiner, Bette Midler et.al. Then shadow bans entities and individuals who aren’t ideologically aligned with the prevailing worldview in Silicon Valley.


References:

Fullerton, T. 2020. Tech Giants ‘lapping up a tsunami of capital’ The Australian, Wednesday 29th October 2020

First published on Caldron Pool, 29th October 2020.

©Rod Lampard, 2020.

I purchase the Wednesday edition of The Australian, not only for the mid-week news coverage, but also for the commentary. Given the hostile nature of the debate and the level of excellence I admire Janet Albrechtsen for, issuing this response is either really smart, or really dumb.

Last week I laid out some of my reasons for voting “no” to SSM in a blog post called, “Nein: Why I will be voting “no” to SSM?

That remains relevant, of course, only if a high court challenge to the planned Government survey (plebiscite) on SSM, doesn’t overrule giving Australians the right to voice their opinion, on this issue, in a democratic way.

What hasn’t been blocked, although major attempts from SSM advocates have tried to do so, is the debate.

Today, in The Australian (p.14), Janet Albrechtsen, a libertarian conservative, laid out her reasoning for having changed her position on same-sex marriage. Janet argues that protecting/preserving freedom – liberty – is the reason conservatives should vote “yes” to SSM.

The problem with this position is that for freedom to exist, it must be governed. If not, why have road rules and enforce them? Why have flags on a beach to protect swimmers from unknown dangers? Why have workplace safety laws?

If I understand correctly where Janet is coming from, it is a secular humanist view of humanity. This view sees humanity as inherently good; therefore it has no problem with advocating absolute personal freedom, but that position has a distinct lack of accountability and individual responsibility. It turns a blind eye to the blood soaked ground of the 20th Century and blurs the crimes committed in the name of liberty, during the Reign of Terror in the late 18th Century. This position rejects the Judeo-Christian pillars which form the foundations for the very liberty, Janet says she wishes to protect. To argue that by voting for SSM, a person is preserving freedom, is myopic. It is short-sighted.

Freedom exists in limitation. Edmund Burke wrote, “liberty must be limited in order to be possessed”. Karl Barth, who stood up against Hitler, carefully stated: ‘Where there is no genuine authority, so there is no genuine freedom. There is only action and reaction between a despotic arrogance and an equally despotic despair. (C.D.1938, p.646)’.

Likewise, C.S Lewis, states in the Abolition of Man that, ‘the heart never takes the place of the head: but it can, and should, obey it.’ To vote for SSM based on an idea of absolute personal freedom, no matter how sedated that might be, is as senseless and dangerous, as the words “love is love”.

I’m not yet a card-carrying conservative, but I do consider myself an ally in some of their current causes. Janet’s newfound position on SSM and her arguments for why conservatives should vote “yes” to SSM, isn’t a convincing one.

To her credit, the abuse of SSM advocates towards their opponents is acknowledged, but that Janet didn’t address the broader concerns, such as the long-term effects and the consequences of SSM on society as a whole, is the equivalent of dismissing the elephant in the room.

After holding out against the gathering storm, Janet, now seems, sadly, to be saying, “I’ve had enough of all the whining and tantrums. Just give the children what they want, or we’ll never hear the end of it.”


References:

Albrecthsen, J. 2017 Same-sex marriage: A libertarian conservative case for voting ‘yes’  Sourced from The Australian, 6th September 2017

Barth, K. 1938 Church Dogmatics 1.2: The Doctrine of the Word of God, Scripture as the Word of God Hendrickson Publishers, p.646

Burke, E. Letter To The Sheriffs of Bristol, (Sourced 6th September 2017 from https://archive.org/stream/sheriffsbristol00burkrich#page/42/mode/2up/search/liberty

Lewis, C.S, 1944. The Abolition of Man, HarperCollins Publishers