Flutterby™! : Google is More Evil

Next unread comment / Catchup all unread comments User Account Info | Logout | XML/Pilot/etc versions | Long version (with comments) | Weblog archives | Site Map | | Browse Topics

Google is More Evil

2006-05-22 15:31:42.069932+00 by ziffle 7 comments

Increasingly, Google seems to be doing Evil. In fact it seems like they have left all ethics at home, in the 'ends justify the means' approach. Having had some issue with them recently about adsense - they won't keep detail on clicks charged for even though they trumpet that they have room for all the worlds data, I concluded they had lost all moral standing.

Now it seems the company who invented unbiased news summarizing, has now embraced restriction of speech - depending upon the topic - here http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5517 they are now filtering out any site that shows the evil nature of Islam. Can Flutterby be far behind with me writing here?

Islam is evil - no doubt about that - they want to do away with Western Civilization and all the freedoms it provides - it has taken over Europe already, from top to bottom.

I recently read two books by Oriana Fallaci; 'The Rage and The Pride' for which the Islam influenced French Courts put her on Trial for saying 'they breed like rats', and her latest: 'The Force Of Reason' in which she traces the whole history of the takeover of Europe by Islam, how it happened and why. She of course has escaped to New York where Freedom of Speech still exisits.

She shows here that the Left, of which she formerly was a part, now embraces Islam, and finally concludes the common denominator is that they are 'anti individualism' and that the people in Europe now are not as intelligent as they were 300 years ago, and what is needed is a return to 'Reason'. She characterizes herself as an 'Atheist Christian' which those in Chattanooga might find interesting.

And the book describes in detail the limitation of free interchange of ideas under the banner of 'no hate speech'; Hate Speech being anything that hurts their feelings - while they kill playrights and blow up statues of the Buhdda, they are offended by identification of their ways!!

So to see that even Google has fallen to their evilness, I now see that Google has gone beyond the pale, and is fully evil, top to bottom.

Will it be possible to stop them? I hope so but it will take a long time. Google is Evil.

Hiding in Mayberry where free speech is still a Right.

[ related topics: Religion Books Music Privacy Ethics Nature and environment Invention and Design Writing Current Events Television Civil Liberties Chattanooga New York ]

comments in ascending chronological order (reverse):

#Comment Re: made: 2006-05-22 17:12:39.334793+00 by: Dan Lyke

Getting into Google News has always been something of a mystery. I've seen whines from people of all sorts of ideological bents about how they couldn't get in, and Google has admitted that they don't have an objective measure by which sites are included or excluded.

On the Islam front, I think that this is something that needs to be approached as a marketing campaign: "Buy capitalism" or something similar, and (here's the important part) tailored to the needs of the individual audiences. "Breed like rats" is something that works for me as an audience member, but I'm guessing that that's not exactly the way to change the hearts and minds of your average community of immigrants who are already feeling isolated from their neighbors.

#Comment Re: made: 2006-05-22 18:24:12.277481+00 by: ziffle

"Breed Like Rats" - She is writing a polemic drawn from her pain and anger - but surely we can agree while it may not sell (only one million copies so far) she should not go to prison for saying it. (But I liked it as I loathe them.) And the Muslims did put a Salmon Rushdie style death threat upon her so she also lives in fear of being killed for what she wrote.

#Comment Re: made: 2006-05-22 19:22:27.570127+00 by: Dan Lyke

I think the other thing to look at is the pragmatic: winning strategies for a group aren't necessarily the winning strategies for the individuals that compose that group. Warriors willing to die for their cause aren't behaving rationally for the individual, but they're essential for maintaining the group. Similarly, the trade-offs necessary to have children are, in my mind, non-rational, there's a reward for having children that I personally don't experience, so there's little up-side, and yet unless the group breeds it'll die off (the Shakers and many others throughout history).

So what's necessary is approaching the individuals that comprise these populations that we cluster into groups with propositions that emphasize the winning strategy for the individual.

One of the things necessary to do that is to, as part of the message, tell the individual that we can perceive them as independent from the group. I think, for instance (and this may be a new revelation to me), that when lambasting certain aspects of fundamentalist Christianity we make it clear that that's not all Christians. For instance, there are evangelical Christians who believe that a main tenet of the "evangelical" part of that is a personal interpretation of the Bible, drawing dogma from Scripture through personal experience rather than through the hierarchy of their churches.

This is distinctly not evangelical Christianity as you and I have experienced it there in Mayberry, but pointing out that some fairly high profile evangelical Christians have completely different interpretations of their faith than the Southern Baptist Convention, and that adapting the dogma of the latter... well... might just be dragging them away from the roots of what made evangelical Christianity what it was.

But saying "Christians are dolts" rather than speaking to the finer and more specific points just drives them further into the fold.

I think similar things happen with Islam, and rather than driving wedges (which, admittedly, I've been rather good at in the past) we need to be selling individuals on the advantages to them of not buying in to the behavior of the group, rather than pushing those individuals back into the group.

#Comment Re: made: 2006-05-22 20:42:28.351696+00 by: ziffle

Dan: Unless they of course have had very opportunity to 'join the world' and could not be reached using 'reason' and then decide to fly airplanes into big buildings, OR FAIL TO SPEAK OUT PUBLICLY AGAINST SUCH UNDERTAKINGS then I am not required to go any further. I am sure we agree everyone should be given the benefit of the doubt, but if we are talking about Islam its far too late.

As far as having children you may in fact be smarter than all us 'reproducing types'. :)

#Comment Re: made: 2006-05-22 23:14:53.786513+00 by: Diane Reese

And the Muslims did put a Salmon Rushdie style death threat upon her so she also lives in fear of being killed for what she wrote.

I would be interested in seeing a citation for that. I can find no evidence that there is a fatwa on Oriana Fallaci, although the fatwa on Salman Rushdie remains and was "reaffirmed" in Jan. 2005.

While Fallaci was ill treated in France, she does not appear to be under a fatwa.

#Comment Re: made: 2006-05-23 14:36:13.076308+00 by: ziffle

The best and clearest reference of the threat would be her latest book: "The Force Of Reason" but also on the Internet: 'Italys Rushdie' : http://legalminds.lp.findlaw.com/list/ipe/msg04333.html

A very informative article is here: http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/vidino200405040834.asp and it mentions somethng I forgot - she shows how it was the 1973 Oil Crisis which started Eurpope down the path to dissolving.

And my favorite: http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad...ugs/2005/11/i_leave_shreds_.html


Islamofascism - Europe is Eurabia. Also see: http://thereligionofpeace.com/ and for the Feminists who still think Islam means peace not surrender: "Fourteen year Old Girl Shot for rejecting Marriage to Elder" http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,196431,00.html

#Comment Re: made: 2006-05-23 23:37:30.935556+00 by: Dan Lyke

So, via Rebecca Blood, one on either side: "Morocco has just graduated its first team of women preachers to be deployed as a vanguard in its fight against any slide towards Islamic extremism."

And The Caliphate: One nation, under Allah, with 1.5 billion muslims:

"Islam obliges Muslims to possess power so that they can intimidate - I would not say terrorize - the enemies of Islam," says Abu Mohammed, a Hizb ut-Tahrir activist. "In the beginning, the Caliphate would strengthen itself internally and it wouldn't initiate jihad."

"But after that we would carry Islam as an intellectual call to all the world," says Abu Mohammed, a pseudonym. "And we will make people bordering the Caliphate believe in Islam. Or if they refuse then we'll ask them to be ruled by Islam."

And after that? Abu Mohammed pauses and fiddles with his Pepsi before replying.

"And if after all discussions and negotiations they still refuse, then the last resort will be a jihad to spread the spirit of Islam and the rule of Islam," he says, smiling. "This is done in the interests of all people to get them out of darkness and into light."