Selling with the devil

CDAN isn’t letting a certain corporation bury its unholy marketing:

This massive corporation that all of you know and the entire world knows was trying to promote its new mixed reality device. How they chose to do this was to hook up with the “most legendary performance artist working now.” In reality, she makes her money putting herself into as many Satanic images as she can and even had 666 in her social media profile for a long time.

The ad that emerged was people wearing the device to witness a ghostly version of the artist appearing out of nowhere while walking around while wearing a symbolic red dress. This was released on Good Friday, which was certainly unusual.

The video was not well received at all. After a flood of negative comments and about 90{de336c7190f620554615b98f51c6a13b1cc922a472176e2638084251692035b3} thumbs down, the company set the video to private and also removed all traces of the campaign from its official website – although it still appears in Google search results.

In case you still had any doubts about the evil intentions of Bill Gates, that should pretty much do it.


The Devil Mouse is dying

Corona-chan has hit the Devil Mouse hard:

Media industry analyst Hal Vogel estimated that Disney is losing roughly $30 million a day amid the coronavirus pandemic, The New York Times reported. Disney has closed its theme parks and cruise lines, and has postponed the releases of several films, including Black Widow and Mulan, leading to massive drops in revenue as the coronavirus pandemic continues to spread.

Disney’s focus on “experiences” over “on-screen entertainment” was once both coveted and imitated, but is now completely impossible to execute amid a pandemic that forces everyone to socially distance.

Even Disney’s new streaming service, Disney+, which is ideal for those staying inside, and reportedly racked up 50 million subscribers in 5 months is financially struggling due to the lack of new content, as all entertainment productions have come to a standstill.

The combination of these losses led Disney to borrow $6 billion last month, and they continue to lose “$30 million or more a day,” according to Vogel.

I really don’t see how Marvel stays alive in this scenario. They’re getting hit from both ends, by Disney and by Diamond, as the struggles of the former make it difficult to bail them out from the situation created by the non-payments of the latter. The challenges facing the establishment comics is why we are now redoubling our efforts to produce new content and why we are supporting The Legend in his latest endeavor.


Snicker-snack!

The already-teetering comics industry is about to come crashing down… hard.

Dear Diamond Vendor:

As the world responds to the outbreak of COVID-19, our focus is on protecting employees, understanding the risks to our business, evaluating the risks to our industry and examining the Federal Government resources available. While the full impact of this epidemic is still unknown, one thing is certain: supply chain disruptions have cash flow implications across the extended industry that can’t be underestimated.

While we work to understand the current industry landscape, the unfortunate truth is that we are no longer receiving consistent payments from our customers. This requires that at this time, we hold payments to vendors previously scheduled to release this week. This is a difficult decision and not one we make lightly. As this situation continues to evolve, we are committed to building out a plan for payment and will have more information to share later this week.

Thank you for your patience and understanding during these difficult times.

Translation: Marvel, DC, and all the various other publishers who sell through Diamond are not getting paid.

But never fear, both the Arkhaven Comics digital store and the Castalia Direct print edition store are running at full steam. In fact, we even expect to have the gold-logo limited edition of Chuck Dixon’s Avalon #6 available in the latter tomorrow.


The CEOs vanish

It’s fascinating to see how many top corporate executives are suddenly deciding to retire for absolutely no reason at all:

Multiple CEOs stepped town today and this week: Disney, MasterCard, L Brands, Salesforce, Uber Eats, HULU, MGM, IBM, LinkedIn, Match.com.

And Jeff Bezos’s private jet landed in New Zealand one week ago.

A $102m private jet owned by billionaire Amazon founder Jeff Bezos has landed in Wellington tonight. The Gulfstream G650ER jet touched down in the capital tonight, but it remains unclear if the richest man in the world was aboard. 

Curiouser and curiouser….


Another reason to ignore PragerU

Neither Dennis Prager nor his “U” understand U.S. law:

YouTube may have more than a billion users, but it’s not a public forum run by the government and therefore its decision to moderate content isn’t a violation of the First Amendment, an appellate court has ruled.

Radio talk show host Dennis Prager sued Google in 2017, claiming that his conservative PragerU videos weren’t getting the same treatment as liberal ones, like Real Time with Bill Maher clips, in violation of the First Amendment. A California federal judge dismissed the complaint in March 2018 on the grounds that YouTube isn’t a public forum run by a state actor and can regulate videos uploaded to the site as it sees fit.

On Wednesday, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that decision and rejected PragerU’s contention that the site has become a digital-era public forum and its power to moderate content is a threat to fair dissemination of conservative viewpoints on public issues.

“Using private property as a forum for public discourse is nothing new,” writes Circuit Judge M. Margaret McKeown. “Long before the internet, people posted announcements on neighborhood bulletin boards, debated weighty issues in coffee houses, and shouted each other down in community theaters.”

While those methods seem “quaint” compared to the 400 hours of video uploaded to YouTube each day, the underlying issues don’t change.

“Despite YouTube’s ubiquity and its role as a public-facing platform, it remains a private forum, not a public forum subject to judicial scrutiny under the First Amendment,” writes McKeown, adding that both the First Amendment and Supreme Court precedent present “insurmountable barriers” to PragerU’s argument.

“Just last year, the Court held that ‘merely hosting speech by others is not a traditional, exclusive public function and does not alone transform private entities into state actors subject to First Amendment constraints,’” writes McKeown. “The internet does not alter this state action requirement of the First Amendment.”

The fact that there are many sound legal challenges to the tech giants doesn’t mean that it is a good idea to rely upon ridiculous First Amendment-based challenges to them. Indeed, these arguments are so obviously retarded that they almost appear designed to fail in order to demoralize anyone tempted to stand against the corpocracy.

And it’s not a surprise that an inversive like Prager would rely upon attempting to subvert the definition of “public forum” in order to make his failed case.


The lawfare revolution grows

Mike Cernovich explains the legal mire into which Patreon and other thought policing platforms have plunged headlong:

Patreon has lost several high profile creators including Sam Harris, Dave Rubin, and Jordan Peterson due to Patreon’s decision to begin censoring creators for ideological reasons.

The belief is that Patreon can ban anyone they want to. Is this true under California law?

“Private companies can do whatever they want,” is an old canard repeated by people who aren’t lawyers or aren’t very good lawyers. But a new legal remedy is available under California’s arbitration law, especially with the adoption of SB-707.

There’s an economic relationship between Creators and their Backers. Patreon, by banning a Creator, disrupts the economic relationship between Creator and Backer. In legal terms this is called tortious interference with a business relationship.

Backers can demand to have the disruption of this relationship sent to arbitration.

Patreon, under California law, must pay the arbitration fees in advance. These fees can be upward of $10,000 per case. If 500 backers demanded arbitration, Patreon would need to put up five million dollars in advance in filing fees alone. Legal fees will ramp those fees up by a factor of ten.

And judges are enforcing the law strictly.

Read the whole thing. The situation he’s describing doesn’t merely apply to Patreon, it applies to every tech company that has a business that depends upon matching two parties together without taking responsibility for the performance of either party.


Corporate America took the ticket

Not that most of it hadn’t already done so, but it’s useful to understand that much of what is publicly considered to be “success” in the United States has nothing to do with competition in the marketplace, but rather, secret government funding:

By midway through the Obama administration, the CIA and FBI were creating “extensive digital legends with increasing sophistication,” as one former senior official puts it, with cooperation from key government agencies like the Social Security Administration, Health and Human Services and the IRS.

U.S. intelligence agencies also work with “friendly digital companies,” like commercially available ancestry databases, to alter personally identifying information, say former officials, and also backdate work histories. Concerned about digital leakage, and cognizant of the need to strictly quarantine deep-cover intelligence officials from their organizations, U.S. officials have adopted a strategy of “eclipsing” these individuals slowly into their cover identities before they are allowed to undertake their missions.

The CIA and FBI both concluded that every person connected to these organizations’ “black side” undercover programs had to be completely sealed off from the rest of their colleagues, say former officials. This firewall is an immensely complex undertaking in a world where electronic emissions from a single cellphone traveling, say, from CIA headquarters in Virginia to an unmarked office building nearby could blow multiple undercover operations. The FBI has also struggled with this transition. As of a few years ago, “none of this was completed yet, and none of it was even remotely being done easily,” says a former senior official.

The CIA, at least, had its own past practices to draw from, especially in its training of NOCs, say former officials. Years ago, the school for NOCs was entirely quarantined from that for normal future CIA operations officers, who undertake rigorous instruction at “the Farm,” a Williamsburg, Va.-area base, say two former senior officials. NOCs “never came to the East Coast” and were trained at separate secret facilities, says one of these former officials. But because of their often “rebellious” attitudes in the field, and in order to “increase their behavioral consistency,” senior CIA officials decided to move their instruction to the Farm. This move produced better-trained NOCs but also increased the threat of exposure. As of recently, the programs were sealed off from each other again, says a former senior official.

The pressures of the digital age have led the CIA to favor flexibility and deniability. The agency has formed a new reserve officer program to allow spies to work in the private sector, especially the tech industry, says a former intelligence official. The program is designed to allow those operatives to maintain their clearances so they can return seamlessly to the agency after a few years, says this person.

Another measure the CIA has used involves paying companies to gather intelligence for the government without even knowing it. In the last several years, the CIA has ramped up its use of “cutouts” to pay third parties to gather intelligence for them unwittingly, posing as data brokers looking into trends in the oil and gas industries, for example, says the same former official.

That’s how Facebook, Google, and other companies became so dominant. They possessed an advantage similar to the one that state-owned corporations have in communist companies; they didn’t need to actually sell anything to anyone in order to generate income. As would-be competitors to YouTube have learned, it’s very difficult to compete with companies that can afford to operate hundreds of millions of dollars in the red every year without being forced to shut down.


What’s good for the citizen is good for the corporation

U.S. corporations are sounding the alarm about the fact that China intends to treat them precisely the way they are treating their employees and customers:

The social credit system is a vast database that monitors Chinese citizens for “good behavior” and aggressively punishes those who fall short. Anything from poor spending habits to ideological impurity can produce a low social credit score, with consequences that might include the unfortunate citizen suddenly discovering he is no longer allowed to board airplanes or trains.

The social credit system has a business component as well, monitoring corporate behavior in much the same way it keeps tabs on individual citizens. Companies with poor social credit scores can face heavier regulatory scrutiny, higher taxes, reduced access to business loans, or an outright ban on doing business in China.

Bloomberg News provided the example of China Railway Construction Corporation, a company that covered up some fatalities on a railroad project in Mongolia, got caught, and was banned from doing business for a year as well as being “subject to more inspections, limits on bidding for public projects and restrictions on issuing bonds and shares.” And those were only the immediate consequences – there is no telling how long the demerits fed into the social credit system will haunt the company and its managers across every province of China.

“The system will be widely used in China to oversee domestic and foreign companies, and firms have to assign resources to keep a real eye on making sure their records are clean,” noted Andrew Polk of the Trivium China consulting firm.

Trivium is currently charging corporate clients $2,500 an hour to consult on the social credit system and $50,000 for a complete audit. Bloomberg News suggested other U.S. and European firms are offering similar services.

Other expert observers pointed out that the rules governing the social credit system are notoriously vague and clearly subject to political tweaking from Beijing, making it quite easy for the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to punish or blackball foreign corporations unless the foreigners bend over backwards to maintain good relations with CCP officials.

The Chinese government is not shy about warning that American companies could be blacklisted as part of the trade war, or in retaliation for U.S. criticism of Chinese policies such as the internment of Uyghur Muslims in concentration camps. Publishing the CCP’s thus-far secretive blacklist, as Chinese state media has threatened to do, could cause big problems for American firms in other countries, and would almost certainly produce immediate black marks in the social credit system for every listed entity.

Wait, didn’t the Chinese understand that their people were supposed to be the slaves of the corporations and not their masters? Once again, we see that even communism is better for a nation than globalist corpocracy.


The fake billionaires

Many, if not most, of the “super-rich” don’t actually have all that much money that is actually theirs, as comes out whenever they are forced to actually disclose what they’ve got:

Elon Musk says he doesn’t have a lot of cash.

Musk’s wealth came up in the second day of his testimony before a federal jury in Los Angeles where the Tesla Inc. and SpaceX chief executive is on trial over a tweet in which he referred to a British cave expert as a “pedo guy.”

After an unsuccessful objection from his lawyer, Musk told the jury he has Tesla stock, and SpaceX stock, with debt against those holdings, and his net worth is about $20 billion. But contrary to public opinion, he said, he didn’t have much cash. Musk finished testifying after a total of about six hours on the stand over two days.

As Anonymous Conservative points out, those who are in service to the Prometheans are provided fame and fortune, but they are essentially servitors and don’t actually control the resources that are nominally made available to them. See: Hunter Biden.


A vice too far

Even evil corporations that proudly fly the rainbow flag are unwilling to get behind the P in LGBTP:

Prince Andrew’s supporters are in retreat today as yet another multi-million pound business cut ties with the pet charity project he plugged repeatedly in his BBC car crash interview…. KPMG, one of London’s big four accounting firms, was the first to admit it was protecting its reputation by ending its £100,000 a year sponsorship.

Insurance giant Aon asked for its name be removed from the scheme’s website and drugs maker AstraZeneca said it was reviewing its relationship.

Children’s charities and schools linked to Prince Andrew are also in disarray today as they distanced themselves from the under-fire royal.

A string of major companies and charities are also examining their links with Andrew after his extraordinary TV interview on Saturday.

The Outward Bound Trust, which has the prince’s daughter Beatrice as a trustee, is holding a special meeting this week to discuss the issue.

Children North East and The Children’s Foundation, both charities Andrew lists on his official website, refused to tell MailOnline if he will keep his official role supporting them in light of the Epstein scandal.

Now, I’m certainly willing to give Chick-Fil-A the benefit of the doubt regarding its recent marketing missteps. But I suspect that even its most die-hard supporters will admit that convergence has taken root inside the Christian restaurant chain  if it starts featuring Prince Andrew in its advertising.