The Anti-American Dream


My favorite internet atheist Pat Condell describes how the Tech Lords are paving the way for a softer, gentler police state, less 1984 and more Brave New World.  Deplatforming is only one of the ways in which the Tech Lords seek to control the flow of information not congenial to their cherished goal of a future in which any ideas they oppose will be driven from the electronic public square.


In the old Soviet Union the government controlled the media, leading to the bitter common saying that there was no truth in truth (Pravda) and there was no news in news (Izvestia).  I rather think the ultimate goal of the Tech Lords is to reverse the control equation in the future Anti-America of their dreams and our nightmare.

More to explorer


  1. Seen elsewhere. “Diversity = Christians Should Be Locked Up. It’s different when Muslims do it. Some people don’t deserve opinions.”

    What a country: affirming the prejudices and superstitions of the elites. The now-rich nerds (who wore pocket protectors in high school) came up with ways to trash ordinary Americans (that slapped them around in high school) like deplatforming some and declaring male whiteness a pathology, while black gangsters get rich rapping about criminal lifestyles. The woke yammerers are a small minority who should be ignored and mocked.

  2. The only thing that’s going to protect our First Amendment rights is the Second Amendment. These social media tycoons know that. Thus they champion anti-gun legislation with as much fervor as they stifle free speech on their platforms. That said, I hope this time we can avoid a Fort Sumter event. But these criminals are making that more and more unlikely. 🙁

  3. The gratuituosness is what gets you. The invest copious amounts of manpower in the course of abandoning the common carrier model. From the time web technology came to be broadly available (ca. 1995) until about three years ago, policing content wasn’t done. They made a discretionary decision to harass people (effectively encouraging their employees to have emotional meltdowns as well). They’ve also almost certainly engaged in collusion against particular actors. I doubt you could find a time in history where Western Union or AT & T behaved in this manner.

    The character development of much of the population is such that subcultures are increasingly unable to process dispute and argumentation. Also, we have a portfolio of attitudes that increasingly define in-groups and out-groups in certain social strata. Why this has happened no one has limned. Something I discovered working around the professoriate was that they only ponder something in their discipline. They don’t have satisfactory arguments for institutional policy beyond, “All my friends like it this way”.

    Dealing with lay members of the public and with professionals outside their discipline, one is struck with how coarse most of their thinking is. They’re not irritated with the right because they’re assailed with intellectual chaff. They’re irritated with the right because they don’t think they should have to argue with people they despise.

  4. Art is correct, as usual.

    They think some people don’t deserve opinions. Buckley (RIP) said it. They say they want open debate but are shocked and outraged to be confronted with a contrary opinion.

    Facts, principles, the laws of nature don’t exist when they refute the fatuous, counter-productive narratives.

    Hey! I just saw from veteran’s post on Facebook:

    Today, May 18, 2019, is Armed Forces Day. Who-d athunk!

  5. These Tech giants are crooks who know how to work the system and they are not held accountible. I don’t know how they conduct themselves in the US but Australians paid Google $4 billion and Facebook $598 million for services in 2018- yet both paid corporate tax of only $49 million and $14 million respectively.
    They filter search results which doesn’t conform to their left agenda. Facebooks time will be up one day. Hopefully. I don’t care for it personally. But unfortunately, Google owns the market and the majority of internet users utilise their search engine because it’s very good. The only way to hit them is to hit them financially. That will weaken their cockiness as a vehicle for the left.

  6. In the US, how much they took in wouldn’t tell us anything without knowing what the expenses involved are– for example, agriculture will pull in millions– but they are paying millions in costs.

  7. I hear you foxfire, but if the average person is paying around 30% plus tax on their income and small business close to, but these large corporations only pay less than 2% tax because they skirt around the system – it doesn’t go down well with the general public. And the ATO has identified this and ar tightening the loopholes. PayPal do the same thing. Their invoice comes out of Ireland. Their largest overheads I would guess (only a guess) would be staff, premises and equipment. I would imagine an industry like agriculture would have more overheads and more expensive machinery and high competition. Plus google and Facebook have the market cornered.

  8. From the second article, it appears that Google makes local companies to serve individual countries, which is sensible for tax purposes– it also notes they invested a billion, just that year, to build the local company.

    Google definitely doesn’t have the market cornered, as evidenced by my household using the Microsoft version of most of what they offer*, and Facebook…depends on what market.
    They’re just successful.

    From the evidence offered in the article, it appears to be straight up envy mongering, until any evidence of actual illegality–not playing by the rules as written– is found.

    • Not Edge, because it’s just painful.
  9. “From the evidence offered in the article, it appears to be straight up envy mongering, until any evidence of actual illegality–not playing by the rules as written– is found.”

    They play by “the rules” per say, but I wouldn’t consider the diversion of profits offshore through contrived arrangements ethical business. The Turnbull government passed the “Google tax” in 2017, which is a Diverted Profit Tax which has given the ATO power to re-coup tax profits. Britain has a similar law aimed at multinationals which resulted in Google agreeing to a deal with that country’s tax authorities to pay £130 million ($214 million) in back taxes.

    Google now pays more in European fines than it does in taxes, the firm’s fourth-quarter earnings based on privacy breaches also. The company has a separate column which indicates “European Commission fines” in company’s accounts statement. These increased from $2.7bn in 2017 to $5.1bn in 2018, with a further €50m already set to be added to the bill for its first quarter and 2019 accounts, thanks to French data protection authority- but this was for breach of data (storing users personal data for targeted advertising unless they opt out. Sneaky buggers don’t disclose to the users s they have to “opt-out”). I think they have done the same in the US. Sneaky activity and claiming compliance without being compliant.

    By adhering to these contrived offshore arrangements it seems they would rather pay the fines than pay 30%-40% corporate tax. They wouldn’t be fined if they were acting “legally”. My original point about google and Facebook was hit them financially if you want to weaken them as a vehicle for the left. Thats the only way these sneaky corporates with an unethical business model understand.

  10. Retroactively changing the rules? That’s one way to make sure that someone gets fined– change the rules and punish them for not following the rules that didn’t yet exist.

    And they are accused of stuff a lot. Most of the time, when I do the research, they are either not guilty of it– or the outrage is extremely specific.

    I don’t agree that not wanting to hand various countries a third of all the money you bring in– not actually profit, but gross– is in any way immoral.

    I also remember that these ‘contrived arrangements’ came about because one of the prior ways to punish a big American company for being successful was to try to tax them on income obtained anywhere else on earth.

    I am much more worried about strengthening the government as a vehicle for the left than I am about companies that you can freely use or avoid going to the left. Google doesn’t have the power to force me to pay for the slaughter of children.

  11. not playing by the rules as written

    Google will always play by the rules as written – it writes them.

  12. “I also remember that these ‘contrived arrangements’ came about because one of the prior ways to punish a big American company for being successful was to try to tax them on income obtained anywhere else on earth.”

    Not punished for being successful. No Punished for poor sneaky business practices. I suspect you wouldn’t feel the same way if they were doing the same in the US and pouring their profits offshore through some loophole. You would expect them to pay their fair share of the profits generated from US citizens. This is not about the redistribution of wealth, it’s about transparency. I totally agree, there is no nation on earth which has been more successful than America in regards to big business. None. In fact my husband has worked for a few and currently distributes for a Minnesota based company. Excellent companies. Excellent business models. But in the case of Google, you can’t generate huge amounts of profit from the citizens of another country, through non-authorised utilisation of personal data of the citizens of that country and on top of this pay disproportionate taxes from those profits because you deliberately move those profits offshore. If it sits well with you, ok. But it doesn’t sit well with the majority. I’m glad governments have caught on, are making them pay and tightening the loopholes. If Google don’t like it, they shouldn’t operate in countries outside in the US. It’s actually that simple. But obviously that won’t happen cause they’d sell their mother if it made them $$$

  13. Your suspicions are incorrect, because I see no evidence even offered that they are not paying their fair share, beyond their gross income.

    Heck, I don’t even like Google, I just think movie-Moore’s talk about not cutting down the law to get at the devil is plain good sense.

    If they are shown to actually have generated PROFIT and illicitly dodged taxes, that’s one thing; but what is actually being said is they generated XYZ in GROSS REVENUE and by investing in the country, treating the local outlet as a different company with respect to selling it items, and having a prior tax waiver their taxes weren’t thirty percent of their gross, which is something else entirely.

  14. Retired to reply but comment didn’t show up..?

    I don’t know what movie-Moore talk is. You can’t generate money in say Australia and pay little money to Australia, because you bill out of Singapore. Who is Singapore to Australia? I don’t understand how you think this is ok? Anyhow, they have closed that loophole and it is now illegal. You are more than welcome to check out the ATO website.

  15. Roper: So now you’d give the Devil benefit of law!
    More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
    Roper: I’d cut down every law in England to do that!
    More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you — where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country’s planted thick with laws from coast to coast — man’s laws, not God’s — and if you cut them down — and you’re just the man to do it — d’you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake.

    You can generate a great deal of money in Australia and not pay a lot of it because you have to buy what you generated it with elsewhere. Especially when you built it elsewhere exactly because building anything in country would cost too much.

    Singapore, and at one point Ireland, and historically America, are all places where they make it EASY to take a risk and build up a business to the point that it’s financially possible to offer their services elsewhere.

    Now Australians will either be paying more, to cover the gouging, or they will not be able to get services. Probably both.

    This is an age old complaint against merchants– so old it was put into a children’s story of the Little Red Hen. How dare she not share her bread, just because she grew the grain, harvested, ground and baked it? She has it now, so it’s only ‘fair’ that they ‘share’. It is the very reason that entrepreneurship is strangled in the crib in most countries. People put a claim on what others have built, eat the seed corn, and then can’t understand why there is no more corn.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: