ewv

Google blocking searches for anti-dhimmitude

141 posts in this topic

Google is now blocking conservative websites that condemn Islamic fascism as "hate speech".

Maybe it's time to boycott Google, along with Borders: Stephen could explain to them why, given their standards, they should block searches for the Forum as "hate speech", meaning any uncompromising moral position in defense of civilization, which they don't like. There must be almost unlimited posts here that could be volunteered as evidence.

http://newsbusters.org/node/5440

Google Terminates Relationship With Conservative E-Zines Due to ‘Hate Speech’

Posted by Noel Sheppard on May 19, 2006 - 14:32.

The New Media Journal, formerly The Rant.us, has been removed from Google News and Google Search for what has been deemed “hate speech.” Many readers here might be familiar with this conservative e-zine, and, as a disclaimer, I have been a contributing writer there since September 2004.

(Update: I was just informed by the proprietor of MichNews.com, another conservative e-zine, that he was terminated by Google about a month ago for the same reason. And, the Jawa Report was so terminated on March 29. In all cases, the offending articles appear to have dealt with radical Islam and terrorism.)

This morning, proprietor Frank Salvato realized that none of today’s content had appeared at Google News or was available through Google Search. As such, he sent an e-mail message to the help desk, and received the following response (permission granted to post):

From: Google Help [mailto:source-suggestions@google.com]

Sent: Friday, May 19, 2006 11:56 AM

To: NewMediaJournal.us

Subject: [#58423255] Google News

Hi Frank,

Thanks for writing. We received numerous reports about hate content on your site, and after reviewing these reports, decided to remove your site from Google News. We do not allow articles and sources expressly promoting hate speech viewpoints in Google News (although referencing hate speech for commentary and analysis is acceptable).

For example, a number of the complaints we looked at on your site were found to be hate content:

http://www.newmediajournal.us/staff/peck/05102006.htm

http://www.newmediajournal.us/staff/stock/05082006.htm

http://www.newmediajournal.us/guest/imani/04222006.htm

We hope this helps you understand our position.

Regards,

The Google Team

It turns out that all three articles in question dealt with radical Islam extremists and/or terrorism. In the case of MichNews.com, the three articles that didn't meet Google's "smell test" were of similar content. And, my understanding is that the offending pieces at the Jawa Report also dealt with such radicals. I guess the Google folks are now afraid of being associated with writings about America’s number one enemy.

I invite the reader to look at the three articles in question, and decide whether such views expressed in op-ed form constitute “hate speech.” While doing so, ponder the ramifications of this: the largest search engine in the world can censor content. If it decides to become political, it, in theory, could censor writers and articles on the side of the aisle it opposes, and only feature pieces that are in lock-step with its dogma.

Very scary stuff indeed.

******Update. For those that are interested, here are the three offending pieces from MichNews.com:

http://www.michnews.com/artman/publish/article_11796.shtml

http://www.michnews.com/artman/publish/article_11982.shtml

http://www.michnews.com/artman/publish/article_11542.shtml

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this sort of thing a problem -- or an opportunity for another company?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the title of this topic-thread, what does "anti-dhimmitude" mean?

Cyril Glasse's book, The Concise Encyclopedia of Islam, defines "Dhimmi" as a "person belonging to the category of 'protected people' (ahl ad-dhimmah) in the Islamic state" during Islamic Classical times (roughly 600 to 1100 CE, I suppose). These people included mainly the monotheists who were "people of the Book," that is, the Jews and Christians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Google is now blocking conservative websites that condemn Islamic fascism as "hate speech".

They have every right to choose what to include or exclude, but their choice is outright disgusting. I wonder, though, what level of person at Google gets to make these individual decisions? I suppose, in one sense it does not matter, since the result is the same regardless of who decides. But something like giving in to the Chinese censorship appeared to be decided on at the highest level. I wonder if the same is true here, at least in laying down the guidelines of what they consider "hate speech" to be.

Anyway, this is just pathetic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They have every right to choose what to include or exclude, but their choice is outright disgusting.

It is also dishonest because they pretend to be a general search engine and don't even publicly announce these policies.

The obstruction seems to be limited, at least so far, to news searches. You can still find ezine in the web search, but I haven't experimented with more specific searches for their articles. With that kind of mentality I wonder if they yet pull this kind of crap in the desktop search engine they want you to download to compete with Microsoft, or how long it will be given their premises. A lot of people should be very publicly asking them.

Since Google also seems to like "anti-trust" and other government coercion as tools against their competitors, like Microsoft, it would be poetic justice if someone were to bring an anti-trust action against them for obstructing trade with their pc filters, then watch how they try to fight that. Or maybe a legitimate stockholder suit against them for financial mismanagement.

Meanwhile, we can hope that some other search engine sees an opportunity, as Burgess suggested, and uses it against them, both to fill a needed technical gap and to bring public awareness to what Google is doing. It is certainly a problem on a cultural scale, but any weakness in an assault simultaneously brings with it opportunities to fight back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The obstruction seems to be limited, at least so far, to news searches.

And yet this is the same Google News search that includes Aljazeera. Amazing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In the title of this topic-thread, what does "anti-dhimmitude" mean?

Cyril Glasse's book, The Concise Encyclopedia of Islam, defines "Dhimmi" as a "person belonging to the category of 'protected people' (ahl ad-dhimmah) in the Islamic state" during Islamic Classical times (roughly 600 to 1100 CE, I suppose). These people included mainly the monotheists who were "people of the Book," that is, the Jews and Christians.

Because they don't acknowledge the existence of atheists in their society, encouraged I suppose by the fact that atheists are afraid to say anything if they want to keep the part of their anatomy above the neck.

But "protected people" is a euphemism for subservience. Non-Muslims are "permitted" to exist provided they demonstrate obsequious submission to Islam in accordance with a legal system that enforces an inferior status both culturally and in law. This is the mentality under which Muslims in western countries expect the rest of us to "respect" their beliefs through submission to customs dictated by them. Not only are you not permitted to criticize Islam, you aren't allowed to even mention aspects of it. Cartoon jihad is an example.

Such subservience to Islamic tribalist mysticism under dhimmitude (pronounced as zimmitude), demanded even in one's own thoughts, let alone action, is the ultimate in anti-individualism and anti-rationality. Think 'speech codes' coupled with self-censorship and being summarily beheaded if you reveal an independent mind. The 7th century was no joke. This is why the insistence by the likes of Google that we acquiesce to subservience in our own culture is so serious. This an attack on the deepest roots of your soul -- the basic idea that your mind is your mind. It doesn't get any deeper than that.

Robert Tracinski has emphasized in TIA this aspect of the Islamic threat, periodically adding to an anti-dhimmitude honor roll of those who publicly resist and a hall of shame for those who morally sanction it and go along with it.

"Jihad watch" and its "Dhimmi watch" is an interesting source on dhimmitude and jihad as it is, and historically has been, practiced under Islamic enforcement and political influence where they have such control. This web site, which I found only recently, is run by Robert Spencer, an outspoken scholar of Islam who has written a lot and remains defiant against the Muzzl'ems (even though he shows an unearned respect towards their religion). He has defended Richard Pipes, Hirsi Ali, and others, identifying the sources and nature of attacks on them.

In addition to documenting what Muslims are doing, Spencer has identified and emphasized some major trends in their "PR" tactics in the west. This is consistent with our observation of the Muzzl'ems playing the role of victims while they ruthlessly go after their enemies, misrepresenting us as "bigots" and "racists" for rationally criticizing Islamic ideas and consequent actions while they themselves systematically refuse to debate facts and the content of ideas, all the while whining about their own "free speech" as they ruthlessly try to shut up others.

I had especially noticed that pattern in their attack on Indrek Wichman, the engineering professor at Michigan State who emailed his objections to cartoon jihad to a Muzzl'em activist group, the NYU cartoon jihad case, etc. (The vicious attack against Whichman is still going on -- this is an ongoing horrible injustice in which Wichman has been muzzled by the university while Muzzl'em activists have continued to smear him for months in a literally international media campaign as they try to crucify him as an "example".) Even though they have latched onto some standard cynically manipulative New Left rhetorical and PR strategy, their mentality is fundamentally a direct consequence of their religion as they try even in this country to implement dhimmitude and demand respect for mystical beliefs that they could not possibly defend rationally (or even understand what that means). Their attacks on free speech don't even quite qualify as hypocrisy because the inherent dishonesty is built into their Islamic psycho-epistemology: they really believe it despite the fact that it's nonsensical and contradictory.

http://jihadwatch.org/articles/

long list of recent articles by Robert Spencer

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadA...le.asp?ID=21127

Cartoon Rage vs. Freedom of Speech

By Robert Spencer

FrontPageMagazine.com | February 2, 2006

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadA...le.asp?ID=20183

CAIR Attempts to Smear Me

By Robert Spencer

FrontPageMagazine.com | November 15, 2005

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadA...le.asp?ID=19078

The Forbidden Truth About Islam

By Robert Spencer

FrontPageMagazine.com | August 10, 2005

http://jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/

Why Dhimmi Watch?

Dhimmitude is the status that Islamic law, the Sharia, mandates for non-Muslims, primarily Jews and Christians. Dhimmis, "protected people," are free to practice their religion in a Sharia regime, but are made subject to a number of humiliating regulations designed to enforce the Qur'an's command that they "feel themselves subdued" (Sura 9:29). This denial of equality of rights and dignity remains part of the Sharia, and, as such, is part of the law that global jihadists are laboring to impose everywhere, ultimately on the entire human race.

The dhimmi attitude of chastened subservience has entered into Western academic study of Islam, and from there into journalism, textbooks, and the popular discourse. One must not point out the depredations of jihad and dhimmitude; to do so would offend the multiculturalist ethos that prevails everywhere today.

But in this era of global terrorism this silence and distortion has become deadly. Therefore Dhimmi Watch seeks to bring public attention to the plight of the dhimmis, and by doing so, to bring them justice.

http://www.dhimmi.com/

The Dhimmi: An Overview

DEFINITION: The status of People of the Book (Jews and Christians) unders Islamic rule.

DHIMMI HOTSPOTS:

Pakistan: anti-Christian legislation

Iran: Systematic oppression of the Bahai community

Sudan: Murder and enslavement of Black Africans

Saudi Arabia: Apartheid for all non-Muslims

Indonesia: Terrorizing of Christian minorities

Egypt: Oppression of Coptic Christians

Bangladesh: Terrorizing of Hindu and Christian minorities by Islamic radicals

DHIMMI: A BRIEF OVERVIEW

7th-21st century. The notion of Dhimmitude, originating in the 7th century, still applies today to non-Muslims under Islamic rule—whether Jews or Christians, whether in Saudi Arabia or in Sudan. Dhimmitude began in 628 CE when Mohammed and his forces conquered the Jewish oasis at Khaybar. They massacred many of the Jews and forced the rest to accept a pact ("Dhimma") which rendered them inferiror to their Muslim conquerors. Over the centuries, the ideology of Dhimmitude expanded into a formal system of religious apartheid.

Institutionalized apartheid. In Shari’a law, there are official discriminations against the Dhimmi, such as the poll-tax or jizya.

No legal rights. Jews may not testify in court against a Muslim and have no legal right to dispute or challenge anything done to them by Muslims. There is no such thing as a Muslim raping a Jewish woman; there is no such thing as a Muslim murdering a Jew (at most, it can be manslaughter). In contrast, a Jew who strikes a Muslim is killed.

Humiliation and vulnerability. Jews and Christians had to walk around with badges or veils identifying them as Jews or Christians. The yellow star that Jews had wear in Nazi Germany did not originate in Europe. It was borrowed from the Muslim world where it was part of the apartheid system of Dhimmitude.

Conditional protection. The protection of the Dhimmi is withdrawn if the Dhimmi rebels against Islamic law, gives allegiance to non-Muslim power (such as Israel), refuses to pay the poll-tax, entices a Muslim from his faith, or harms a Muslim or his property. If the protection is lifted, jihad resumes. For example, Islamists in Egypt who pillage and kill the Copts do so because they no longer pay their poll-tax and therefore are no longer protected.

http://www.dhimmi.com/about.htm

ABOUT THE COALITION

The Coalition for the Defense of Human Rights (CDHR) began in 1993 as a cooperative effort of ethnic and religious organizations that pledged to share resources, information, and to work together for the promotion of human rights in countries where Islamic extremism is dominant. The Coalition for the Defense of Human Rights represents minority religious and ethnic communities from around the world. These communities have borne the historical degradation of their cultures and still today endure the ravaging effects of an ideological movement that is intolerant, discriminatory, racist and even genocidal: a Radical Islamist-Jihad culture.

The Coalition for the Defense of Human Rights is an umbrella coalition representing various organizations from the following communities: Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Bahais, Humanist Muslims, Copts, Assyrians, Syriacs, Southern Sudanese, Maronites, Philippinos, West Africans, Ibos, Slavic Christians, Armenians, Arab Christians, Nubians, secular intellectuals, and women's groups.

http://www.dhimmitude.org/archive/by_lecture_10oct2002.htm

Dhimmitude Past and Present : An Invented or Real History?

BAT YE'OR

October 10, 2002

.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ewv, thanks for the information on terminology. It generally confirms what I read in Glasse's encyclopedia. Here is my summary of the meaning of "anti-dhimmitude" and related terms.

1. A dhimmi originally was a person who was a "person of the Book" (the Bible), that is, a Christian or Jew, given a special "protected," but actually subservient status in states ruled by Shari'ah (Islamic law).

2. Dhimmitude then is the attitude of subservience which some Muslims expect from Jews and Christians. (These Muslims would hate others -- such as Hindus and Buddhists, but atheists (Objectivists) most of all.)

3. Anti-dhimmitude is opposition by Western Jews, Christians, other religionists, and atheists to the attitude of subservient humility which multiculturalists as well as some Muslims expect as a response to Islam.

I hope this term/idea, "anti-dhimmitude," doesn't catch on. It is a term/idea of a negation of a bad condition. It smells of conservatism -- opposition with nothing positive to offer. Surely Objectivists, at least, will in the years ahead use terms and ideas that are more direct and informative, and aren't dependent on Muslims as term-setters. Examples are: reason, freedom, individualism, egoism, pride, and independence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes indeed it is time to boycott Google, for several reasons. Check out this boycott Google campaign site:

http://hem.passagen.se/boycott-google/

I am new to this forum, as well as on this one:

http://capitalismforum.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=213

I wrote there earlier today about why I am urging people to boycott Google, and a few hours later a friend gave me a tip about this thread in this forum, so now I have registered as a forum member here to.

I am Swedish, was born 1959, and became an Objectivist in 1986.

Filip Björner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes indeed it is time to boycott Google, for several reasons. Check out this boycott Google campaign site:

http://hem.passagen.se/boycott-google/

I just did a quick check of Ask.com and it seems to be a pretty decent search engine. In addition to "Web" searches, it has "Images," "News," Maps & Directions," "Local," etc. I think I will try to start using it.

Does anyone else have a suggestion for a good Google replacement?

I am new to this forum ... I am Swedish, was born 1959, and became an Objectivist in 1986.

Welcome, Filip.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thankyou Stephen!

I have written to AltaVista and to Exalead asking questions about their policy on censorship in general and also about their policy against Communist China in particular. They have not answered my mails.

So far I will not recommend any search engine at all, but I will continue my own research and I hope to present a list with search engines I can recommend for several different purposes. But making this research will take some time...

In the mean time I just recommend everybody to avoid Google.

Filip Björner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In the mean time I just recommend everybody to avoid Google.

I'm for avoiding Google's advertisers -- and sending emails to them (cc: Google) explaining why.

---

P.S. Welcome to THE FORUM, Filip.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Betsy!

That's an interesting idea, and it's a similar way to hit Google where it hurts; in the wallet. Because if we stop using Google, or at least minimize our googling, Google will have fewer consumers for the advertisers to reach. Only problem is that in order to identify the advertisers you have to google...

I hope that people will put up my banners on their own sites. And if they link to the campaign site ( http://hem.passagen.se/boycott-google/ ), and then mail me about it -- filip.bjorner@chello.se -- i will make links back to their sites. And then anybody can check out which private persons and organizations are joining the campaign.

Filip Björner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was dead-set on boycotting Google after they complained to the DOJ about Microsoft, but I'm having second thoughts. I mean, their main competitors do equally immoral things (Yahoo, MSN) and their small competitors like Ask probably would if given the chance considering the general cultural climate. So it feels like cutting weeds instead of pulling their roots out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone else have a suggestion for a good Google replacement?

I used to dmoz here. They are an open source search engine I used to use on Linux. Google is integrated with Apple's Safari browser, but I think I am going to go back to dmoz.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I used to dmoz here. They are an open source search engine I used to use on Linux. Google is integrated with Apple's Safari browser, but I think I am going to go back to dmoz.

I instinctively searched for the following and wasn't pleased with the results :)

http://search.dmoz.org/cgi-bin/search?search=ayn+rand

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I instinctively searched for the following and wasn't pleased with the results

Though I don't know what you mean by "instinctively," I agree about the poor results of using dmoz. My litmus test is to search for my own name. I got the most results with Google, lesser but still good results with ask.com (in an elegantly simple display), and no results from dmoz. Is there a special technique for using dmoz?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's an interesting idea [refusing to patronize Google advertisers], and it's a similar way to hit Google where it hurts; in the wallet. Because if we stop using Google, or at least minimize our googling, Google will have fewer consumers for the advertisers to reach. Only problem is that in order to identify the advertisers you have to google...

I would say USE Google, but make it clear you will not BUY from Google advertisers. That puts to pressure on advertisers to put the pressure on Google.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Oakes!

Think carefully now! Google is very sensitive about being the BIGGEST search engine. And therefore they are sensitive against a serious boycott campaign, even if only a small number of persons join the campaign in the beginning.

And don't think we shouldn't care about Google because there are other immoral software companies. It's true; there are. Let's take them all, one by one. We start with Google and fire with canon shots, not with a fowling-piece.

Filip Björner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Betsy!

But my time is limited. It's far easier boycotting Google than spending time on finding their advertisers, and contact them. I prefer going straight on target, and Google -- the search engine -- is my target.

Well, this is my way of acting. And I do appreciate if you assist me with some heavy intellectual gunfire against all those advertisers.

Filip Björner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Think carefully now! Google is very sensitive about being the BIGGEST search engine. And therefore they are sensitive against a serious boycott campaign, even if only a small number of persons join the campaign in the beginning.

At the very least, a boycott campaign should be just as much positive as negative. It would be helpful to give people one or more alternative search engines to migrate to. I use the internet more than normal people, and even I do not see an alternative that provides the same services & quality along with a clear declaration that they will never censure results.

The smaller ones like Ask.com may not have signed any deals with China or blocked anti-Islamist websites, but I imagine they would be willing to if they were big enough to want to expand to China or create Ask News (respectively). If they knew the moral evil of it, they would proudly declare it. I imagine they would win many customers just on that...I'm with Burgess - what an opportunity for other companies out there!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The smaller ones like Ask.com may not have signed any deals with China or blocked anti-Islamist websites, but I imagine they would be willing to if they were big enough to want to expand to China or create Ask News (respectively). If they knew the moral evil of it, they would proudly declare it. I imagine they would win many customers just on that...I'm with Burgess - what an opportunity for other companies out there!

Whoops, it looks like the do have Ask News. My point about China remains the same, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But my time is limited. It's far easier boycotting Google than spending time on finding their advertisers, and contact them. I prefer going straight on target, and Google -- the search engine -- is my target.

Maybe you could have someone set up some software that, whenever you use Google, it scans the Google ads on the page and fires off an email to each advertiser on the page and to Google.

You could also contact like-minded bloggers -- try those belonging to Pajamas Media -- and invite them and their readers to join the boycott. If you don't have the time, I'll bet many of them do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I instinctively searched for the following and wasn't pleased with the results :)

http://search.dmoz.org/cgi-bin/search?search=ayn+rand

I take it you weren't pleased with the order of the results? Because I found all the bad results on Google as well.

She didn't have it as bad as my moniker did, several of the search engines have a call-girl service as one of the results for Thoyd Loki.

Upon retrying dmoz for the first time in while, it does seem like it has gone downhill a little. However, when not able to find results for TL, I was suprised to learn how many other search engines there are.

These are the ones that are offered by dmoz if your search gets no results (something that you won't get with Google).

Alta Vista, A9, AOL, Clusty, Gigablast, Yahoo, Lycos, MSN (didn't know they even had one), Teoma, Wisenut.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this sort of thing a problem -- or an opportunity for another company?

This is what I thought. If people start to realize that their search results are censored, how long before they look for and find, or create better alternatives?

I'm for avoiding Google's advertisers -- and sending emails to them (cc: Google) explaining why.

Google can just censor itself into losing its edge. If the business of a company is information, and they start to censor - I don't see how that business can stay on top.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites