Category: Blog

Blog posts.

Update to Google Is Evil Post: Desperate Need for Alternative to Corporate Controlled Internet Search

This is an update to my previous Google is Evil blog post (found here   It’s a letter I just wrote to the membership of May First1 which hosts my website and which solicits input from its membership to decide its forthcoming priorities.


A New Priority for May First in 2018:

Providing an Answer to Alfredo’s Question in his 11/1/17 email to the membership:

His Question:

“What does our movement do to create an alternative to the corporate-controlled Internet?”


– Educate its members and all others about corporate Google’s political control of humanity’s access to all information through its Internet search engine, and join others already working towards creating an alternative, distributed, neutral search engine for humanity’s access to all information through the Internet. In short, ASSIST WITH THE CREATION OF AN ALTERNATIVE TO CORPORATE CONTROLLED INTERNET SEARCH

Some Quick Facts May Firsters Need About Google which I’ll address in this document here with examples and references:

Corporate Google has a monopoly on search – and alternative search engine websites use Google’s search engine results – so simply using other internet search engines is NOT a solution to the problem addressed here & all other search engines are following Google’s lead. First, Google DEGRADED its search engine so that even when you use quotation marks to find specific content you knew was out there, Google ignores them and no longer offers up what it previously did – instead it offers up what it thinks you really want, or what it wants you to want, not what your search query tells Google you want. If you can’t find it on Google, does it exist? (For background, see my article )

Now, Google has moved on to blatantly altering its secret search algorithms to hide left political content on the net. EXAMPLES:

“Beginning in April of this year, Google began manipulating search results to channel users away from socialist, left-wing, and anti-war publications, and directing them instead towards mainstream publications that directly express the views of the government and the corporate and media establishment (i.e., the New York TimesWashington Post, etc.)”

Copied from: An open letter to Google: Stop the censorship of the Internet! Stop the political blacklisting of the World Socialist Web Site! – World Socialist Web Site –  (emphasis supplied).

See also this from Salon:

“Liberal and progressive sites appear to be among the victims of a policy Google announced on April 25, designed to boost “reliable sources” of information, after Google and other technology companies were criticized for allowing low-quality and even fraudulent websites to proliferate during the 2016 presidential campaign.

In a blog post, Ben Gomes, Google’s vice president of engineering, admitted that the company had been providing searchers with “offensive or clearly misleading content” in a small percentage of results. To combat this, Gomes wrote that Google had “adjusted [its] signals to help surface more authoritative pages and demote low-quality content.”

Gomes did not specify just what “adjusting signals” meant in regards to political content. Google and its employees have historically refused to release details about how results are filtered and prioritized . . .

“Not only are people being essentially blocked from accessing leftist viewpoints, they are not even being told they exist,” he said. “We would think that the WSWS would be an authority on socialism, but apparently that’s not what Google thinks.”

When asked how Bing, Google’s less-popular search rival, has handled the socialist publication, Damon said he had noted similar declines in referral traffic. “They’re just copying what Google did,” he said.”

Copied from: “Fake news” or free speech: Is Google cracking down on left media? – –

Out of Google’s own mouth: (through Eric Schmidt, who from 2001 to 2011 served as the CEO of Google and who since then is the Executive Chairman of Google’s parent company, Alphabet):

“We’re very good at detecting what’s the most relevant and what’s the least relevant. It should be possible for computers to detect malicious, misleading and incorrect information and essentially have you not see it. We’re not arguing for censorship, we’re arguing just take it off the page, put it somewhere else…make it harder to find,” Schmidt said, adding: “I think we’re going to be ok.” (emphasis supplied)

Source: Alphabet’s Eric Schmidt on Google advertising and extremist content
Address :

And this from the New York Times:

“In April, Google announced an initiative called Project Owl to provide “algorithmic updates to surface more authoritative content” and stamp out fake news stories from its search results.

To some, that was an uncomfortable step toward Google becoming an arbiter of what is and is not a trustworthy news source.. . .

Most people have little understanding of how Google’s search engine ranks different sites, what it chooses to include or exclude, and how it picks the top results among hundreds of billions of pages. And Google tightly guards the mathematical equations behind it all — the rest of the world has to take their word that it is done in an unbiased manner.

Copied from: As Google Fights Fake News, Voices on the Margins Raise Alarm – The New York Times –

Google however is NOT unbiased. It does have a political agenda OPPOSITE to those on the left.

For just one example, Google sees it as its mission to prevent the radicalization of a surplus population, again in Google’s own words (through Jared Cohen, director of Google Ideas):

“With more than 50 percent of the world’s population under the age of thirty
and the vast majority of those characterized as “at risk” either socially,
economically, or both, an oversupply exists of young people susceptible to
recruitment by the extremist religious or ideological group closest to them
in identity or proximity. Google Ideas and the Council on Foreign Relations aim to initiate a global conversation on how best to prevent young people from becoming radicalized and how to de-radicalize others.”

Quotes found at:


Google Ideas and Council on Foreign Relations Team-up on Counter-radicalization

For more on Google’s evil politics, with other examples, see my backgrounder:

Creating an honest and unbiased alternative to Google Search must be a TOP PRIORITY of any left technological organization and May First needs to join and assist those already working on this. I’m not a techie myself, so I implore the techies in May First to work on saving the internet from this ongoing menace I’m addressing -and for its membership to vote to make this May First’s top priority. Here’s an article about techies already working on this:


“The free, distributed search engine, YaCy, takes a new approach to search. Rather than using a central server, its search results come from a network of independent “peers,” users who have downloaded the YaCy software. The aim is that no single entity gets to decide what gets listed, or in which order results appear.

“Most of what we do on the Internet involves search. It’s the vital link between us and the information we’re looking for. For such an essential function, we cannot rely on a few large companies and compromise our privacy in the process,” said Michael Christen, YaCy’s project leader.

The project is supported by the Free Software Foundation Europe (FSFE), which is concerned that dominant search engines have too much control and power over what information Internet users can find online. “That company will also know what you’re currently interested in. The search terms used tell others a lot about what you’re up to. Targeted advertising is only the most benign use of this data,” explained Karsten Gerloff, FSFE president.

“We are moving away from the idea that services need to be centrally controlled. Instead, we are realizing how important it is to be independent, and to create infrastructure that doesn’t have a single point of failure,” added Gerloff.

The YaCy network currently has around 600 ‘peers’, but project organizers expect this to grow along the lines of other free software projects that aim to replace centrally-run services. For example, ( offers a free software alternative to Twitter; diaspora ( and many others provide a free, distributed alternative to Facebook.

As is often the case in the early stages of a new technology, results are better on some topics than on others — mainly computer-related issues.

The YaCy peers create individual search indexes and rankings, so that results better match what users are looking for over time. Each instance of the software contains a peer-to-peer network protocol to exchange search indexes with other YaCy search engines.

Everyone can try out the search engine at Users can become part of YaCy’s network by installing the software on their own computers. YaCy is free software, so anyone can use, study, share and improve it. It is currently available for GNU/Linux, Windows and MacOS. The project is also looking for developers and other contributors.”

Source: Free Software Activists to Take on Google with New Free Search Engine | CIO
Address :

(emphasis supplied).


Thank you for your time and consideration!

Angie (I’m having problems now with this email address:

  1. [1] “May First/People Link engages in building movements by advancing the strategic use and collective control of technology for local struggles, global transformation, and emancipation without borders. Flowing from that mission, our organization redefines the concept of “Internet Service Provider” in a collective and collaborative way. Like any democratic membership organization, we gather together each year to evaluate the past year’s experiences, plan the coming year’s work…”
Written by Comments Off on Update to Google Is Evil Post: Desperate Need for Alternative to Corporate Controlled Internet Search Posted in Backgrounders, Blog Tagged with ,




As a New Yorker myself, I’ll begin this post discussing the New York primary, but you’ll see that it’s not a New York story, it’s a national one.

While in New York, it’s probably pretty well known that serious problems in New York on primary day (and before New York primary day with the earlier purging of 126,000 Brooklyn voters from the registration rolls) put “a cloud over these results”,

“A record-setting deluge of Primary Day voter complaints led Tuesday to the angry promise of a full-scale investigation into the city’s long-bumbling Board of Elections. The flood of gripes, running the gamut from locked doors to botched voter rolls, led irate city Controller Scott Stringer to announce an immediate probe of an incompetent agency. “Unfortunately in New York City, this is nothing new,” Stringer told a news conference some 10 hours after the polls opened — or didn’t — at 6 a.m. “The next president of the United States could very easily be decided tonight. “And yet the incompetence of the Board of Elections puts a cloud over these results. It’s time we clean up this mess.” . . . Mayor de Blasio issued a statement charging that entire buildings and city blocks of voters were among the 126,000 voters purged from the Brooklyn books since last fall.”

Source: Bungled NY primary voting brings Board of Elections probe – NY Daily News
Address :

what is not well known, and not investigated by the corporate mainstream media, is how the huge discrepancies between exit poll data, which is used to confirm the integrity of elections, was wildly off on primary day in New York – and elsewhere – and this suggests that election FRAUD is at play, not just the incompetent administration of registrations and voting. See below.

“When properly conducted, exit polls should predict election results with a high degree of reliability. Unlike telephone opinion polls that ask people which candidate they intend to vote for several days before the election, exit polls are surveys of voters conducted after they have cast their votes at their polling places. “Around the world, exit polls have been used to verify the integrity of elections. The United States has funded exit polls in Eastern Europe to detect fraud. Discrepancies between exit polls and the official vote count have been used to successfully overturn election results in Ukraine, Serbia, and Georgia.”

Source: Probability of the 11.8% discrepancy in the NY exit poll is 1 in 236,000 according to mathematician Richard Charnin
Address :

“CNN Exit Poll reported a four point difference between Sanders & Clinton with a 2.6 percent margin of error yet the reported results are 57.9 Clinton – 42.1 Sanders.  Exit polls have repeatedly shown Sanders wins in prior states (Massachusetts, Missouri, Illinois, Arizona) yet the results consistently do not match the final results even when the same polls are accurate predictors on the Republican side.”

Source: Huge Discrepancy Between Exit Polls & Reported Results in NY Democratic Primary Election | Election Fraud Watch 2016
Address :

“Exit polls provide remarkably quick data on elections that comes with a smaller and smaller margin of error as an election night passes, telling us who came out to vote for which candidate and why. . . When polls closed in New York on Tuesday, exit poll estimates showed Bernie Sanders trailing Hillary Clinton by only four points. That eventually got adjusted, but it was the most recent example of a poll showing a number that ended up being way off the final result.”

Source: How exit polls work, explained – The Washington Post
Address :

“CNN has some explaining to do today about its exit polling. . . CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer said that exit polling had Hillary Clinton ahead of Bernie Sanders by only 52-48. . . As the vote came in, it became clear that the exit polling was way off. Clinton ended up winning by what appears to be a large 58-42 margin. . . It made you wonder how in the world CNN’s exit polling was so wrong.”

Source: CNN’s exit polling is suspect; Trump ignores Buffalo and Paladino in victory speech; Benigni blasts Ryan – Talkin’ TV
Address :

“Shortly after the polls closed on primary election night in New York, CNN made a bold prediction. The network’s exit polling showed Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders locked in a tight Democratic primary race. Clinton’s win would be close, said anchor Wolf Blitzer: 52 percent to 48 percent. Less than an hour later, that prediction was as laughable as the famous headline from the Chicago Tribune on Nov. 3, 1948, announcing that voters had elected Thomas E. Dewey as the next U.S. president. . . Another aspect is the paucity of discussion over what went wrong at CNN. I don’t know the answer . . .”

Source: The Real Story of the New York Primary: Beware of Big Data | The American Lawyer
Address :

“The initial overall exit poll, +4 or +5 Clinton, was outside the margin of error for the final result, Clinton +16 with 99.6% reporting. I have attempted to contact Edison Research for a response. Yesterday afternoon, I was patched through to the voice mail of Joe Lenski, co-founder and Executive Vice-President of Edison. He has not responded and other calls and emails have also gone unanswered.”

Source: New York Primary: Why is Exit Poll Data Adjusted to Match Final Voting Results?
Address :

Here’s one voter’s election fraud story:

Alba Guerrero was dumbfounded. She’d arrived at her polling place in Ozone Park, Queens, only to be told that she had been registered as a Republican since 2004. That was news to her. She remembers registering to vote for the first time as a Democrat so she could vote for Barack Obama in the general election in 2008. . .But on her way out she saw a Board of Elections worker holding something with her name on it. It was her 2004 voter registration, replete, she remembers, with her name, her social security number, her birthday—and someone else’s signature. I said, ‘Excuse me, that’s not my signature,’” she said. “It’s not my handwriting. It showed completely different signatures.” Sure enough, the signatures are strikingly different. Next to a box checked “Republican,” her 2004 signature is written in clear, deliberate, legible cursive and includes her middle name. Her more recent signature is a loopy, illegible scrawl. She insists she’s never changed it in her life, and says she can produce old tax forms to prove it. . . Guerrero calls the whole incident “creepy.” She has “no idea” who might want to forge her signature on a voter registration form. “It’s just disheartening. We’re supposed to be the number one country in the world, but things like this you’d imagine would happen in a second- or third-world country,” she said. “What happened to me, basically, was fraud.” Repeated calls to the New York City Board of Elections went unanswered at press time.”

Source: Failure, Fraud and More In New York’s Punk Rock Voting Disaster – The Daily Beast
Address :

This post doesn’t address other, visible, problems with the U.S. Presidential “Election”, such as how voters registered as “independent”, which make up approximately 40 of the electorate, are being locked out of many state primaries, not permitted to vote at all.

Source: Closed primaries, ‘warped’ democracy? –
Address :

The U.S. is not a democracy.

Written by Comments Off on FRAUD RAMPANT IN U.S. PRESIDENTIAL “ELECTION” Posted in Blog Tagged with


WHY You Need To Learn To Search The Internet

Because news isn’t what it should be, we’ve got to seek out real news and information ourselves.  As Dr. King said “First, we are challenged to develop a world perspective. No individual can live alone, no nation can live alone, and anyone who feels that he can live alone is sleeping through a revolution.” 1

Those of us lucky enough to have access to the internet, either through a computer or a smart phone – and in 2015, that’s still only 43 percent of the world’s population2 – have a virtual library of information and different viewpoints at their fingertips.  But how can the lucky 43 percent of us find the information and differing viewpoints we’re looking for on the internet?


Searching The Internet

To search the internet, you have to use what they call a “search engine”.  The dominant search engine in the United States, in Europe and in other countries, but not Russia or China3, is Google.

So you head over to Google’s search page:  www.Google.com4, or to another search engine, to find what you’re looking for, by entering words to search for in their search box. But there are many search engine tips which can help you more easily find what you’re looking for, and find it faster, which you need to learn about – even while Google has slowly been taking this capability away from us, as you’ll soon see.

Tips & Shortcuts To Find What You Want Faster on the Internet

Searching for Phrases or Quotes

Let’s say you read or heard an interesting quote or part of a speech and want to read the whole thing.  If you type the phrase you heard between quotes into Google, you used to be able to find what you’re looking for at the top of your search results because putting the phrase in quotes used to ‘glue’ those words together, with your results showing only web pages where those words are ‘glued’ together.  I’m using the past tense because the quality of Google search results has truly deteriorated – more about that in a second – but sometimes using quotation marks will still get you what you want, like it will in the example I’m about to use:   I typed into Google a part of the Dr. King speech I referenced above – with quotation marks at the beginning and at the end of the phrase, like this:

First, we are challenged to develop a world perspective

and the first Google search result is to this website’s Dr. King’s Challenge, and the second result is to the full speech by Dr. King.  In this example, typing a part of something between quotes quickly got us the full text of this something.  In other examples, however, it won’t work, because Google has switched from giving its users exactly what the user says it wants, with what Google thinks you really want, or rather with what Google wants you to have instead.  More on that in a minute, but note that to get more accurate results when searching for a phrase where you want the words to stay glued together, you should now also consider first adding to your search query before the phrase the word “intext” followed by a colon (:), and immediately after the colon without even adding a space, your phrase in quotes, like this:

intext:“First, we are challenged to develop a world perspective

The “intext:” command is supposed to tell Google that you want the phrase to appear ‘as is’ in the text of webpages.  However, sometimes Google will ignore and override that command as well, so currently the best, but still not foolproof method, is to use Google’s “verbatim” tool when looking for results containing an exact quote.5

Rather than the formerly easy tip of simply putting quotes around your phrase into Google to use the verbatim tool, you must now go through the following three-click process:

To use Google’s verbatim tool, perform your search by typing in the search box as normal with your phrase in quotes and hitting the enter key to reach the search results page.  Then, underneath the main search bar on the right-hand side find the “Search tools” button. Click it, look for the drop-down menu titled “All results,” and choose “Verbatim” from the list.   And again, unfortunately, Google can ignore this verbatim command too! (see Why can’t I do a truly “verbatim” search anymore?!topic/websearch/QmM99GhW1VU), but this is the best we’ve currently got.

Get Recent Webpages on a Topic, or Webpages Written During a Specific Time Frame

Another helpful tip, in addition to searching for words ‘glued’ together, is to know that you can filter your search results by date, in effect telling Google you want search results only from web pages written or edited during a specific time frame you indicate.  If you’re searching the internet for other people’s opinions about something that happened recently for example, you’d want to see at the top of your search results web pages written or edited only recently.  Previously, Google made it easy for everyone to know that limiting their search results by date was possible because it was a visible choice on the left hand column of the Google page.  Now, Google has hidden this option and made it a cumbersome 3 click process.  To restrict your search results by date, at the time this article is being written, you must first conduct your search, and then at the results page, you must click on the “Search tools” menu, for another menu to display, on which you then need to click on the “any time” menu, to get the following date range choices:  “past hour”, “past 24 hours”, “past week”, “past month”, “past year”, and “custom range” (where you can input a starting and ending date).

Searching Blogs and Discussion Groups on Google For Less Commercial Results

To get results of your search from only internet blogs or discussion groups, helpful if you want to find less corporate and commercial, and more individually written results,6use these two links while they still work: and  There’s now, however, no way to search groups by date.  See  “Never Trust a Corporation to Do a Library’s Job” at; “Google Drops Search Filters; Including Discussions Filter”: and “Google Kills Blogsearch – But Here’s How You Can Force Google to Display It”:

Other Internet Search Tips


Internet links that are bad, no longer work or give off error messages that its content is “not found” – There’s still hope to see what used to exist at bad internet links.   Copy the bad link into the internet archive where older pages may have been saved before they were deleted or went bad.   Go to and copy the bad link into their “Way Back Machine”.  Hopefully, you’ll get lucky and still be able to read the page you’re interested in.  And check out all the other many resources available at the Internet Archive!

There are many other tips to aid in your internet searching that you can find, see for example,;; but comprehensive and current guides to searching the internet with Google are impossible to find.  Google keeps diminishing its important search features 7, and burying them so they are harder to find so frequently, that it seems internet search guides can’t keep up, not even Google’s.  For example, Google’s own ‘Power Searching with Google Quick Reference Guide’ (link to ), refers to the Google search page’s left panel, where you can filter your results into different categories, like asking Google to show only results gathered from internet blogs and internet discussion groups, which would be helpful if you wanted to find less corporate and commercial, and more individually written results8, however that formerly very visible left panel has been eliminated by Google.  The very visible left panel was also the way you used to be able to filter your search results by date.  Now, however, Google has either hidden those ways to filter your search results underneath various layers of menus which appear across the Google search results page, or, as we’ll see in a moment, removed their links to certain search features on their way to killing them off completely.

For advanced internet search tips,


***And to keep up with the latest on internet searching to get new tips as they are found, I highly recommend subscribing to Gwen Harris’ free short daily email blog posts called the “Web Search Guide”, link below. The internet and how to search it keeps changing, so you’ve got to keep up and this is a very easy way to do so. Thank you Gwen! :  “Welcome to this site about tools and strategies for searching the Web. It is a . . . site . . . . where I record news items and developments related to search engines, search technology, browser aids, desktop tools, academic or scholarly resources – and anything else that will help the novice searcher become better, and the experienced searcher to stay up to date.”

HUMANITY’S ACCESS TO KNOWLEDGE AND INFORMATION IS IMPAIRED – It’s All In the Hands of Corporation Google Which Secretly Controls & Hinders Our Ability to Access It

Unless someone provides you with a direct internet link to a webpage of interest, the only way to find information on the vast wide world web, is to use a search engine, like the dominant one, Google, to find it.  Note, however, that Google never makes public how they come up with the search results they provide.  They use secret formulas, called “algorithms”9 which they change daily, and also secretly.  See this May 19, 2015 report for example:  “[T]here were changes to [Google’s] core ranking algorithm in terms of how it processes quality signals . . . Google wouldn’t provide specifics about how quality is now assessed.”  Source: The Quality Update: Google Confirms Changing How Quality Is Assessed, Resulting In Rankings Shake-Up
Address : and see the links I’ve provided about Google’s secret algorithms in the above footnote too.

Think about that secrecy for a second.  With all the information that’s out there on the internet, Google decides what you see in response to your search terms, and what you don’t, or what you’ll only find if you go to the 20th result page, rather than the 1st page of results.  They’re the gatekeeper of the whole internet!  A corporation that does not reveal how it produces its search results!  Humanity can be easily kept in the dark with its access to important information and knowledge impaired.

“The need for search has existed at least since the 80s and . . . we are to blame for not having collectively put the public pressure on that … and it could all have been quite cheaply publicly funded and it would be publicly accessible. But we didn’t do this. So along comes a private firm that’s doing it. So we . . . have passed it to this private corporation, which seemed a very tiny, little start-up and now is, arguably one of the most important institutions on the planet.”

Search firms, largely trusted by the public, reveal little about how their searches work. Hinman chides that ‘[n]ever before will so few have controlled so much with so little public oversight or regulation (2008: 74).

Search engines are often seen as impersonal, given their largely automated opera­tions. However, editorial judgment is inevitable. Ranking and weighting criteria are built into search algorithms. Google’s PageRank uses a popularity metric, treating inbound links to a website as popularity votes, and votes from more popular sites are weighted more than the lesser known ones. Such a metric favors majority over quality (Cho et al., 2005), often giving preference to those with financial power (Introna and Nissenbaum, 2000). Its limitation is noted by the Google founders themselves: ‘We expect that adver­tising funded search engines will be inherently biased towards the advertisers and away from the needs of the consumers’ (Brin and Page, 1998).

“Google’s technology thus had an enormous influence on virtually all online discourse and communication, since its results were shaping what the Web would consist of for the vast majority of Internet users. Its dominance is of great political, social, and economic import, whether one is searching for information about the invasion of Iraq or looking to purchase a digital camera. As Jonathan Zittrain of the Harvard Law School explains, Google had quickly become the “the traffic cop at the main intersection of the information society.” . . . For instance, if users find websites primarily through search engines (they do), if Google handles the vast majority of these search queries (it does), and if the use of PageRank does result in popular, mainstream opinions dominating the search results, then Google’s monopoly could make it considerably difficult for ‘ordinary’ sites to be seen by a significant population of Web users.”

“Recently, Edelman (2011) found instances of Google’s search results bias across search engines, searches and over time”

“We may see Google as a savior, but it rules like Caesar.  The mythology of the Web leads us to assume that it is a wild, ungovernable, and thus ungoverned realm.  This could not be further from the truth.  There was a power vacuum in the Web not so long ago, but we have invited Google to fill it.  Overwhelmingly, we now allow Google to determine what is important, relevant, and true on the Web and in the world.  We trust and believe that Google acts in our best interest.  But we have surrendered control over the values, methods, and processes that make sense of our information ecosystem. . . we should influence – even regulate – search systems actively and intentionally, and thus take responsibility for how the Web delivers knowledge.  We must build the sort of online ecosystem that can benefit the whole world over the long term, not one that serves the short-term interests of one powerful company” From the book: The Googlization of Everything: (And Why We Should Worry).

“[W]e would predict that information seekers on the Web, whose experiences are mediated through search engines, are most likely to find popular, large, sites whose designers have enough technical savvy to succeed in the ranking game, and especially those sites whose proprietors are able to pay for various means of improving their site’s positioning. Seekers are less likely to find less popular, smaller, sites, including those that are not supported by knowledgeable professionals.  When a search does yield these sites, they are likely to have lower prominence in rankings . . .

The power, therefore, that search engines wield in their capacity to highlight and emphasize certain Web sites, while making others, essentially, disappear, is considerable. If search engines systematically highlight Web sites with popular appeal and mainstream commercial purpose, as well as Web sites backed by entrenched economic powers, they amplify these presences on the Web at the expense of others. Many of the neglected venues and sources of information, suffering from lack of traffic, perhaps actually disappear, further narrowing the options to Web participants. . . .

If trends in the design and function of search engines leads to a narrowing of options on the Web—an actual narrowing or a narrowing in what can be located, the Web as a public good of the particular kind that many envisioned is undermined. The ideal Web serves all people, not just some, not merely those in the mainstream. It is precisely the inclusivity and breadth that energized many to think that this technology would mean not just “business as usual” in the electronic realm, not merely a new tool for entrenched views and powers. The ideal Web would extend the possibilities for association, would facilitate access to obscure sources of information, would give voice to many of the typically unheard, and would preserve intensive and broadly inclusive interactivity. . . .

If access to the Web is understood as access by seekers to all of these resources, then the outcome of biased search engines amounts to a shrinking of access to the web. This perspective, however, does not represent all that is at stake. At stake is access to the Web in the shape of those, in addition, who would like to be found, to be seen and heard .  . . The public good of the Web lies not merely in its functioning as a repository for seekers to find things, but as a forum for those with something (goods, services, viewpoints, political activism, etc.) to offer. The cost of a biased search-and-retrieval mechanism may even be greater for Web site owners wishing to be found—the senders. . .

If search mechanisms systematically narrow the scope of what seekers may find and what sites may be found, they will diminish the overall value of the Web as a public forum, as well as a broadly inclusive source of information. . .

We have claimed that search-engine design is not only a technical matter but also a political one.  Search engines are important because they provide essential access to the Web both to those with something to say and offer as well as to those wishing to hear and find. Our concern is with the evident tendency of many of the leading search engines to give prominence to popular, wealthy, and powerful sites at the expense of others. This they do through the technical mechanisms of crawling, indexing, and ranking algorithms, as well as through human-mediated trading of prominence for a fee. As long as this tendency continues, we expect these political effects will become more acute as the Web expands.”

“Search filtering has a particularly perverse effect on public discourse and memory, as search engines are molded to reproduce prevailing ideologies. Given search engines’ centrality in the information universe, when public discourse is removed at the whim of search firms or the state’s will, particular conversations or events, for many, practically did not happen. Blocking by search algorithm or removal of content from computer memory for censorship purposes is more than a ‘rewrite’ of the past (Hellsten et al., 2006): it is tantamount to virtual political disappearance. The loss of search memory contributes to public amnesia in such a way that makes search engines part of the new repertoire of the state’s disciplinary mechanisms (Foucault, 1980). . .

As this study shows, not only can search engines be architecturally altered to reproduce dominant political values, different search engines also offer different results and different realities. . . .

user trust in search engines tends to turn algorithmically generated reality into truth in its own right. The programmable nature of search engines makes it possible for political authorities, search firms and other powerful interest groups to shape and control social realities via search.”

Not only are web search results biased, so too are the advertisements shown by search engines along with its regular results.  Here’s an example of same with Google:

Google, however, has been wielding its power as a private speech regulator to censor a considerable amount of valuable expression, including political speech that would fall within the core of the First Amendment’s protection. Adhering to its policy of refusing to accept sponsored links that “advocate against any individual, group, or organization,”, Google has refused to host a range of politically-charged, religious, and critical social commentary in the form of advertisements themselves, as well as the websites to which these advertisements link. Google has also required prospective advertisers to alter the content within their sponsored links-as well as within their websites-as a condition for Google’s hosting such content. . .

[W]hen Unknown News sought to advertise anti-Iraq-war bumper stickers on Google’s Sponsored Links with an ad headlined “Who Would Jesus Bomb?,” Google censored the ad, claiming that the ad was in violation of its policy against “sites that promote hate, violence, racial intolerance, or advocate against any individual, group, or organization.” Unknown News, Google Refuses Our Ad, at (last visited Apr. 25, 2005). When Unknown News responded to Google’s censorship decision by explaining that it merely “advocate[s] against killing thousands of Iraqis,” Google explained that it would reinstate the ad only if the website was edited “to show both sides of the argument” over attacking Iraq.

And Not Only Are Google Web Results, And Google Advertisements Biased, So Is Google News, Which Shows You Only Those News Sources It Deems Fit:

Google News discontinued listing stories from Inner City Press, a United Nations–focused media organization, after an Inner City Press staffer questioned Google on its failure to sign on to the human rights and anti-censorship principles of the Global Compact. When questioned by Inner City Press regarding this censorship, Google simply responded, “We periodically review news sources, particularly following user complaints, to ensure Google News offers a high quality experience for our users. When we reviewed your site we’ve found that we can no longer include it in Google News.” . . .

“In short, Google—as the dominant Internet search engine and news aggregator— enjoys and exercises substantial control over the content of news headlines presented via Google News and over search result links and sponsored links that appear on Google News’s and Google’s main search page.”

“these results suggest that search engines can be architecturally altered to serve political regimes, arbitrary in rendering social realities and biased toward self-interest.”

So What Are Google’s Political Interests?

A Very Brief Introduction Into Google’s Evil Politics

First we’ll hear from Julian Assange, Editor & Co-Founder of Wikileaks, about this, and then we’ll hear from the chief Google players themselves:

Google, which started out as an expression of independent Californian graduate student culture — a decent, humane and playful culture — has, as it encountered the big, bad world, thrown its lot in with traditional Washington power elements, from the State Department to the National Security Agency.” 10

“Assange’s 2014 book, When Google Met Wikileaks,is built around painstaking research into the links that publicly implicate Google in the highest circles of the American state. He lays into characters like Jared Cohen, who in 2010 moved from the US State Department, where he had been senior adviser to secretaries of state Condoleezza Rice and Hillary Clinton, to head up the “think/do tank” Google Ideas.

Assange is especially critical of Eric Schmidt, who served as Google’s CEO from 2001 to 2011 and is now its executive chairman. Assange spent time with Schmidt in mid 2011 and describes him as part of the “Washington establishment nexus”. Now tacitly backing Hillary Clinton’s bid for the presidency, Schmidt pays regular visits to the White House and delivers “fireside chats” at the World Economic Forum in Davos. He likes the “pomp and ceremony of state visits across geopolitical fault lines”. Assange dubs him “Google’s foreign minister”, a “Henry Kissinger–like figure whose job it is to go out and meet with foreign leaders and their opponents and position Google in the world”.”

From John Keane’s 7/5/15 article, “Julian Assange on Google, surveillance and predatory capitalism”,  about his interview with Assange where they discussed Assange’s When Google Met WikiLeaks book

About those visits to the Whitehouse:

“Since Mr. Obama took office, employees of the Mountain View, Calif., company [Google] have visited the White House for meetings with senior officials about 230 times, or an average of roughly once a week, according to the visitor logs reviewed by the Journal.

Source: Google Makes Most of Close Ties to White House – Wall Street Journal, March 24, 2015

Assange on the book written by Google Chiefs Eric Schmit and Jared Cohen entitled The New Digital Age: Reshaping the Future of People, Nations and Business:

“The New Digital Age” is a startlingly clear and provocative blueprint for technocratic imperialism, from two of its leading witch doctors, Eric Schmidt and Jared Cohen, who construct a new idiom for United States global power in the 21st century. This idiom reflects the ever closer union between the State Department and Silicon Valley, as personified by Mr. Schmidt, the executive chairman of Google, and Mr. Cohen, a former adviser to Condoleezza Rice and Hillary Clinton who is now director of Google Ideas. . . They decided the tech industry could be a powerful agent of American foreign policy. . . It is not surprising that a respectable cast of the world’s most famous warmongers has been trotted out to give its stamp of approval to this enticement to Western soft power. The [book’s] acknowledgments give pride of place to Henry Kissinger, who along with Tony Blair and the former C.I.A. director Michael Hayden provided advance praise for the book. . . .

Source: The Banality of ‘Don’t Be Evil’ by Julian Assange – The New York Times :

-From Statfor (a global intelligence firm) cables which Wikileaks released:

Google is getting WH [White House] and State Dept support and

air cover. In reality they are doing things the CIA cannot do . . .

[Cohen] is going to get himself kidnapped or killed. Might be the

best thing to happen to expose Google’s covert role in foaming

up-risings, to be blunt. The US Gov’t can then disavow knowledge

and Google is left holding the shit-bag.

14 March 2012,

(See also

Now Back to Assange’s review of the Google chiefs, Jared Cohen & Eric Schmidt’s book:

“The authors fantasize about the future of “well resourced” revolutionary groups. A new “crop of consultants” will “use data to build and fine-tune a political figure.” “His” speeches (the future isn’t all that different) and writing will be fed “through complex feature-extraction and trend-analysis software suites” while “mapping his brain function,” and other “sophisticated diagnostics” will be used to “assess the weak parts of his political repertoire.”

The Banality of ‘Don’t Be Evil’ by Julian Assange – The New York Times :

So what is all this about Google chiefs’ “covert role in foaming up-risings” and Google helping the U.S. to resource “revolutionary groups”?  Now stay with me, if this is new to you.  As I wrote about previously on my website 11, Google and other corporations work hand in hand with the U.S. State Department to effect “regime change” in countries and to ensure anti-capitalist movements don’t get off the ground or stay ‘anti-capitalist’.  First a little background:

“From Washington’s standpoint, regime replacement no longer requires the installation of authoritarian military rulers, as in the heyday of US imperialism. Regime change can be implemented by co-opting political parties, financing civil society groups, infiltrating the protest movement, and by manipulating national elections.12

The ultimate objective is to sustain the interests of foreign powers and to uphold the “Washington consensus” of the IMF/World Bank economic agenda that has served to impoverish millions throughout the Arab World and beyond. 13

Moreover, Western powers have used “Political Islam” –including the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda-affiliated groups– to pursue their hegemonic objectives. Covert operations are launched to weaken the secular state, foment sectarian violence and create social divisions throughout the Arab World.”14


Google, The U.S. State Department, and other corporations including the mass media, are all in the mix of what they call their “counter-radicalization” mission – where they pretend that violence is the radicalization they want to counter, whereas it’s really anti-capitalist radicalism they want to stop.

In former U.S. State Dept./Now Director of Google Ideas, Jared Cohen’s own words, which I admit take my breath away, they all need to get together and form initiatives to address this:

With more than 50 percent of the world’s population under the age of thirty and the vast majority of those characterized as “at risk” either socially, economically, or both, an oversupply exists of young people susceptible to recruitment by the extremist religious or ideological group closest to them in identity or proximity. . .

Google Ideas and the Council on Foreign Relations aim to initiate a global conversation on how best to prevent young people from becoming radicalized and how to de-radicalize others . . . In addition to radicalization, Google Ideas is also focused on the role technology plays in fledgling democracies and fragile states.”

See and (emphasis supplied)

Damn that “oversupply” of young poor people!!!  Let’s use our resources to keep them in line and make sure they don’t effectively challenge the status quo and create a political system which uses the resources of society for all of humanity, to meet humanities needs and make poverty a thing of the past.  These politics of Google are evil.


So, Google has all this power, the gatekeeper to all of humanity’s information, and an evil political agenda, and they’ve already made searching it much more difficult.  I’ve noticed in my own web searching when looking up things for this website, that the relevancy of search results at Google has truly declined in recent years, making searching the internet extremely frustrating.  You know somebody must have written about something you’re interested in, that must be out there somewhere on the net, but why is it taking so long to find it, if at all, and what relevant stuff am I no longer finding that is out there?

Google is going to continue to downgrade the search functionality of its search engine. We’ve seen this over the past few years, and I have no reason to think that anything is going to change.

“I remember when Google was the tool of choice for esoteric searches, the best tool with which to expose the darkest, most obscure – yet useful – corners of the web. Google was, in the past, a thoroughly excellent search tool. Today’s Google seems to go out of its way to hide the same results it went out of its way to expose 10 years ago. Even in so-called verbatim mode and with double quotes around a whole sentence I get completely irrelevant results containing only a single word from the search string. Some searches which would have been a piece of cake on Google a decade ago are seemingly impossible now. This is a terrible state of affairs, and no one among Google’s staff seems at all bothered with it, at least not publicly.”!topic/websearch/QmM99GhW1VU

In point of fact, back in the 1990s, when I switched to using Google, I did so largely on the basis that it accepted operands that allowed for advanced control over searches, such as “AND” and “OR.”  Back then, basically all searches happened literally, so getting results for stuff I didn’t search for wasn’t an issue.  Today, however, hardly a day goes by where I must argue at length with Google to get it to search for what I actually typed in, rather than what it has decided I must have really meant.  In almost every case, I’m forced to concede defeat and sift through many, many pages of irrelevant search results, in hopes of finding a single genuine “hit” that I can use.”  Why can’t I do a truly “verbatim” search anymore?” – Google Product Forums Address :!topic/websearch/QmM99GhW1VU

“I search for something and the first few pages don’t even have all my search terms.
No warning, no clue.  Then when someone asks for help here in the (Google) forums some employee, acting like a reverse troll, espouses how much better this new way is than the old.  When you say that the old way was why you switched in the first place, you are told to give it a try, you’ll see its better.  I ask this, does Google even care what we want.  Google used to be a company that valued its users.What has happened?
If this were the old Google there would be a way to permanently leave verbatim on. . .
But Google is not a company for people who know what they want anymore.
If it were, then a way to define the search in a query …would exist, the geek engineers who founded it wouldn’t have had it any other way. . . . If there were an alternative, I would use it. I want a useful search engine back

“Count me among the group that is really dissatisfied with the changes to literal searching. It has really reduced the usefulness of Google for me, and I would switch in a heartbeat if someone can provide an alternative that provides the option to handle things the way Google used to.”!topic/websearch/QmM99GhW1VU

“[B]y providing direct answers, Google is offering up results as factual information when there’s an obvious debate over what’s right or wrong.”  Source: When Google Gets It Wrong: Direct Answers With Debatable, Incorrect & Weird Content
Address :

“The mistake here, of course, is thinking that Google’s users are people doing searches. Google’s users are advertisers who have an interest in maximum exposure, even when that means loss of targeting.  Search is now spam and has been for some time, and that deprives it of its power.  Yet, the infrastructural requirements for indexing and service present a nearly insurmountable barrier to competition in a pragmatic sense.”!topic/websearch/QmM99GhW1VU


While there are alternatives to Google, like Microsoft’s Bing, and for those who want to use a search engine that doesn’t invade their privacy or personalize results in a “filter bubble” (more on that later) like http://www.DuckDuckGo, these alternatives don’t properly sort your search results by date, a very important search engine feature, and so searchers are still left with having to use Google.  “Bing’s time filter comes up a bit short of Google’s in a couple regards”  On Duck-Duck-Go, its users have been begging in vain for years for a date filtering search method so they could switch from Google :   See and Why I love DuckDuckGo–but don’t use it:, and Duck-Duck-Go admits this failure keeps people from using its services in place of Google:  “[M]any users would never come back to Google if there is accurate sort by date feature implemented, however…we’d like to do a lot more with dates, but don’t have great data for them yet., posted by TV:; “It’s an oft-requested feature, but not currently possible to implement.”: To avoid the “filter bubble” (discussed later) though, you need to use

*Here’s an excerpt from a very positive review of Russia’s most popular search engine -which you can search in English:

“We’ve seen in recent months – in fact in recent years – that Google really isn’t interested in the search process. Rather than developing and improving their offering they have in fact been reducing it. . . It’s clear that Google doesn’t want us to search, it wants to know best, and give us exactly what IT thinks we need, irrespective of our own search criteria. The result is that Google has brought itself back in line with other search engines, and there are fewer reasons to consider using it above and beyond the other engines out there . . . Yandex is a great search engine. It’s very powerful, and it really does match or exceed Google in almost every area. If you’re an advanced or specialist searcher, Yandex really does deserve your attention. The elephant in the room with it is of course the fact that it’s Russian. However, I don’t see why this should detract – in fact if anything it may give a slightly different perspective on the results that you get. However, don’t take my word for it – try Yandex out for yourself!”

“A review of Yandex”. Address :



Here are excerpts from  a question and answer session on Amazon with the author of the Book “The Filter Bubble: How the New Personalized Web Is Changing What We Read and How We Think”:

Q: What is a “Filter Bubble”?

A: We’re used to thinking of the Internet like an enormous library, with services like Google providing a universal map. But that’s no longer really the case. Sites from Google and Facebook to Yahoo News and the New York Times are now increasingly personalized – based on your web history, they filter information to show you the stuff they think you want to see. That can be very different from what everyone else sees – or from what we need to see.

Your filter bubble is this unique, personal universe of information created just for you by this array of personalizing filters. It’s invisible and it’s becoming more and more difficult to escape.

Q: Which companies or Websites are personalizing like this?

A: In one form or another, nearly every major website on the Internet is flirting with personalization. But the one that surprises people most is Google. If you and I Google the same thing at the same time, we may get very different results. Google tracks hundreds of “signals” about each of us – what kind of computer we’re on, what we’ve searched for in the past, even how long it takes us to decide what to click on – and uses it to customize our results. When the result is that our favorite pizza parlor shows up first when we Google pizza, it’s useful. But when the result is that we only see the information that is aligned with our religious or social or political beliefs, it’s difficult to maintain perspective. . . .

But one of the creepy things about the filter bubble is that we’re not really doing the selecting. . . You don’t know who they think you are or on what basis they’re showing you what they’re showing. And as a result, you don’t really have any sense of what’s getting edited out – or, in fact, that things are being edited out at all.

“-So Facebook isn’t the only place that’s doing this kind of invisible, algorithmic editing of the Web. Google’s doing it too. If I search for something, and you search for something, even right now at the very same time, we may get very different search results. Even if you’re logged out, one engineer told me, there are 57 signals that Google looks at — everything from what kind of computer you’re on to what kind of browser you’re using to where you’re located — that it uses to personally tailor your query results. Think about it for a second: there is no standard Google anymore. And you know, the funny thing about this is that it’s hard to see. You can’t see how different your search results are from anyone else’s.”

Q: What is the Internet hiding from me?

A: As Google engineer Jonathan McPhie explained to me, it’s different for every person – and in fact, even Google doesn’t totally know how it plays out on an individual level. At an aggregate level, they can see that people are clicking more. But they can’t predict how each individual’s information environment is altered.

In general, the things that are most likely to get edited out are the things you’re least likely to click on. Sometimes, this can be a real service – if you never read articles about sports, why should a newspaper put a football story on your front page? But apply the same logic to, say, stories about foreign policy, and a problem starts to emerge. Some things, like homelessness or genocide, aren’t highly clickable but are highly important.

Q: What are the business leaders at Google and Facebook and Yahoo saying about their responsibilities?

A: To be honest, they’re frustratingly coy. They tend to frame the trend in the passive tense: Google’s Eric Schmidt recently said “It will be very hard for people to watch or consume something that has not in some sense been tailored for them,” rather than “Google is making it very hard…” Mark Zuckerberg perfectly summed up the tension in personalization when he said “A squirrel dying in your front yard may be more relevant to your interests right now than people dying in Africa.” But he refuses to engage with what that means at a societal level – especially for the people in Africa.

“People still thought that everybody sees the same things through Google and everyone sees all of the posts on Facebook and the Facebook news feed. When you can demonstrate how inaccurate that is, it’s really surprising. It’s sort of like being told that your glasses edit out certain people as you’re walking down the street. Which maybe someday Google Glass will do.”

Source: Who rules the Internet? The answer might surprise you |
Address :

“So it’s not just Google and Facebook either. This is something that’s sweeping the Web. There are a whole host of companies that are doing this kind of personalization. Yahoo News, the biggest news site on the Internet, is now personalized — different people get different things. Huffington Post, the Washington Post, the New York Times — all flirting with personalization in various ways. . . we really need the Internet to be that thing that we all dreamed of it being. We need it to connect us all together. We need it to introduce us to new ideas and new people and different perspectives. And it’s not going to do that if it leaves us all isolated in a Web of one.”

Eli Pariser: Beware online “filter bubbles” | Talk Video |


All of the following tips to avoid the filter bubble were copied from slides available for a short time at from Karen Blakeman’s 4/22/15 presentation entitled “New Google, New Challenges”:

Quickest Way To “Un-Personalise”Search  – Private Browsing

It’s not search engine specific, but built into the browser you use to search the internet, so use the commands below for the web browser you use:

Chrome – New Incognito window Ctrl+Shift+N

FireFox  Ctrl+Shift+P

Internet Explorer Ctrl+Shift+P

Opera  Ctrl+Shift+N

These tips won’t remove country personalisation, however.

A Search Engine Which Does Not Track, Does Not Personalize:

DuckDuckGo – –  Their results are a compilation of about 50 sources including Wikipedia, Wolfram Alpha, Bing, and its own Web crawler DuckDuckBot. “In partnership with Yandex”

For Advanced DuckDuckGo search commands see

See also DuckDuckGo – silly name but a neat little search tool


Still, the fact that a search engine could effectively evaluate  truth, and that Google is actively contemplating that technology, should boggle the brain. After all, truth is a slippery, malleable thing — and grappling with it has traditionally been an exclusively human domain.

“Google has developed a technology to tell whether ‘facts’ on the Internet are true” – The Washington Post
Address :

Google is considering putting itself in charge of online truth, in order to assist users in an age of information overload. The web giant would rank search results based on each site’s ‘truth score’ instead of its popularity level.

“In charge of truth? Google considers ranking sites on facts, not popularity” — RT News
Address :

[T]he paper presented a method for adapting algorithms such that they would generate a “Knowledge-Based Trust” score for every page. To do this, the algorithm would pick out statements and compare them with Google’s Knowledge Vault, a database of facts. It would also attempt to assess the trustworthiness of the source—for example, a reputable news site versus a newly created WordPress blog. . .

The Google method is still in development, but the researchers say it shows “promise” and “improvement.”

“Google researchers try search ranking based on factual accuracy instead of links.”
Address :


Internet freedom is being curtailed in many ways, and this post only discussed the Google search engine’s role in this.  Not addressed here, but still of course significant are other entities curtailing it, such as internet service providers:

“Internet speech conduits—such as broadband service providers—are now responsible for facilitating a vast amount of expression. Unlike telephone companies or the postal service—which have long been legally required not to discriminate against the content they are charged with carrying—these Internet speech conduits are not similarly regulated. While many individuals may be content to entrust to the market their ability to communicate, recent developments suggest that such trust is misplaced and may very well lead to the “end of the Internet as we know it.”  Here’s an example “Comcast blocked emails from AfterDowningStreet, an organization that sought to lobby Congress to impeach the president for his conduct in bringing about the war with Iraq”Virtual Freedom : Net Neutrality and Free Speech in the Internet Age. Stanford, CA : Stanford Law Books, 2009.  Entire book free download here:


Countries around the worlddemocracies as well as dictatorshipshave implemented nationwide filtering systems that are changing the shape of Internet freedom. In addition to usual suspects like China, liberal democracies such as the United Kingdom and Australia have taken steps toimplement nationwide Internet filtering regimes.


“Verizon steadfastly maintained that it enjoys the discretion to determine which text messages to facilitate and which to prohibit.”


“The Web—that thin veneer of human-readable design on top of the machine babble that constitutes the Internet—is dying. And the way it’s dying has farther-reaching implications than almost anything else in technology today.  Think about your mobile phone. All those little chiclets on your screen are apps, not websites, and they work in ways that are fundamentally different from the way the Web does. Mountains of data tell us that, in aggregate, we are spending time in apps that we once spent surfing the Web. We’re in love with apps, and they’ve taken over. On phones, 86% of our time is spent in apps, and just 14% is spent on the Web . . . App stores, which are shackled to particular operating systems and devices, are walled gardens where Apple, Google, Microsoft and Amazon get to set the rules. . . .Apple regularly bans apps that offend its politics, taste, or compete with its own software and services. . . Anyone could put up a Web page or launch a new service, and anyone could access it. . . But app stores don’t work like that.”

From The Web Is Dying; Apps Are Killing It – Wall Street Journal
Address :

Note, however, that the above is only looking at web users in the United States, not the rest of the world.  See for example:  “[I}n China, Russia and UK mobile Web is preferred to apps”

Source: Global mobile statistics 2013 Section E: Mobile apps, app stores, pricing and failure rates | mobiForge:



Certainly NOT The U.S. Congress –

Congress sought to encourage ISPs and other owners of Internet speech forums to restrict expression, and access to expression, that the providers found undesirable. Accordingly, Section 230(c)(2) of the CDA provides:  No provider of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider … considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected. 5 2 . . .   In passing the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA),47 Congress sought to remedy perceived ills caused by certain types of offensive Internet expression (primarily sexually-themed expression).

And certainly NOT the U.S. Courts:

In sum, courts have resoundingly concluded that private entities’ regulation of speech on the Internet does not constitute state action and that such private speech regulation is wholly immune from First Amendment scrutiny. Consistent with Congress’s intent (as embodied in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act) to turn the reins of Internet speech regulation over to private entities, private Internet actors have been allowed to wield substantial control over Internet expression, wholly unchecked by the First Amendment.

The Death of the Public Forum in Cybersapce, Berkeley Technology Law Journal, March 2005,

As a first step we would demand full and truthful disclosure of the underlying rules (or algorithms) governing indexing, searching, and prioritizing, stated in a way that is meaningful to the majority of Web users.

Evidently, if we leave the task of charting the Web in the hands of commercial interests alone, we will merely mirror existing asymmetries of power in the very structure of the Web (McChesney, 1999).

Many have observed that for the Web to become a democratizing technology and a public good, we must first take the question of access seriously. We agree, but would define the question in broader terms. Access is not merely a computer and a network hookup, even when coupled with the skills and know-how that enable effective use. Rather, access implies a comprehensive mechanism for finding and being found. Thus our concern with the politics of search engines—a politics that at present seems to push the Web in a direction that favors special interests at the expense of marginalizing the general public.

“A Right to Reach an Audience: An Approach to Intermediary Bias on the Internet”

In the same way that news isn’t what is should be, compelling me to create this tiny little website, search engines aren’t what they should be for all the reasons expressed above.   May you be inspired to solve this problem, so that all of humanity’s knowledge is readily accessible to all to take humanity out of the dark ages in all respects.

  1. [1]
  2. [2] See this page with statistics on internet access: and statistics on world population, see also– so that means that BILLIONS of people still cannot access the ‘world wide’ web:  4.2 BILLION!

    If you think, by the way, that world population figures are accurate, think again.  They’re mostly guesses because the powers-that-be have still not seen fit to accurately measure how many people live and die, and from what causes.  See my article on this topic here: .

  3. [3] “Google’s search engine, with about 90 percent of the market in some European Union countries, is even more dominant in Europe than it is in the United States.”  Source: E.U. Parliament Passes Measure to Break Up Google in Symbolic Vote –

    Address :

    In Russia, the dominant search engine is Yandex, and in China, it is Baidu,

  4. [4] You can go directly to by typing in into your web browser. That is supposed to take you to the main Google web site, which is designed to serve the United States plus the world in general.  If you are outside the United States, you may prefer to go to the version of Google designed for your own country. You’ll find a list of country-specific versions of Google shown on this page.”  Source: How To Use Google To Search
    Address : BUT “The problem Google has faced with country-specific versions is that habits are hard to break. People were used to going to, and they kept doing that even when country-specific versions were introduced. To solve this, about 10 years ago, Google began redirecting people. For example, if you tried to reach from the UK, you’d get redirected to Google UK at  If you really wanted, you could get back to You could even make this your permanent choice. Google’s made that much harder now”  Source: How The Myth Of Google Censorship Was Busted By The EU & Canada Address :
  5. [5] See


  6. [6] See and
  7. [7]  “Google thinks hard before removing your loved features but sometimes, even the features prominent Googlers want, also get on the chopping block.”  Source: Google Search Designer Explains Why Some Features & Tools Get Axed  Address : ;

    “One by one Google strips itself of the features that made  the Google search engine  excellent for web search. This time it’s the reading level search filter . . . ” ; Karen Blakeman, a professional searcher, is one who feels the loss. She commented . . .that feature helped to separate the technical, serious articles from ‘consumer or retail focused pages’ – which I think we could call the trivial. She wonders, as do I, which of the few remaining advanced search features Google will drop next.” May 9, 2015:

  8. [8] See and
  9. [9] Here are some links to articles about Google’s search algorithms generally, some of which hint at the mind boggling fact of a corporation having monopoly control over the access to all human information . . .

    For a typical query, there are thousands, if not millions, of webpages with helpful information. Algorithms are the computer processes and formulas that take your questions and turn them into answers. Today Google’s algorithms rely on more than 200 unique signals or “clues” that make it possible to guess what you might really be looking for. These signals include things like the terms on websites, the freshness of content, your region and Page Rank.” and see Google, Facebook, Amazon: algorithms will soon rule our lives so we’d better understand how they work; and The human process behind Google’s algorithm
    Address : How Google’s Algorithm Rules the Web, New York Times Editorial – The Google Algorithm:

  10. [10]    Source: The Banality of ‘Don’t Be Evil’ by Julian Assange – New York Times,

  11. [11]
  12. [12] Countries are catching on to this and have recently been banning U.S. ‘civil society groups’ in their countries.  See for example Why Do Some Foreign Countries Hate American NGOs So Much?
  13. [13] For info about the IMF/World Bank economic agenda see this and this from my website.
  14. [14] For a quick example of this, see discussion farther down this page: about the U.S. supporting a Muslim Brotherhood candidate for the Egyptian presidency.  You know the old adage, “divide and conquer”, and religious fundamentalists in power is a very effective divider, among other things.

What’s Really Going on in Egypt

To find out what’s really going on in Egypt, read:

Egypt: Sit-ins? Or terror camps? What’s in a name?

Here’s the Table of Contents to this article linked to above:

I. The New York Times and the State Department claim that
the Egyptian government says it is going to disperse ‘peaceful sit-ins’

II. Reuters claims that Egypt says it is going to suppress “vigils.”  Vigils?

III. Reuters, The New York Times and the State Department are all lying.

What Egypt’s Information Minister really said Egypt was going to do.

IV. Road-blocking 1: Erecting fortifications…

V. … with gun ports!

VI. Children, indoctrinated to be martyrs, used as human shields

VII. The media discovers that now, for the first time, gambling is going on here

VIII. Road-blocking 2: Traffic disruption, but even better because with automatic weapons

IX. Would the Brotherhood really physically attack people for holding different views?

Example #1: Worker seriously beaten for disparaging Brotherhood chants

X. Would the Brotherhood really physically attack people for holding different views?

Example #2: Video of three men and a boy taken prisoner and beaten inside the Brotherhood’s Rabaa encampment; photo of two men, tied up and beaten – possibly dead – also at Rabaa

XI. Would the Brotherhood really physically attack people for holding different views?

Example #3: Top Brotherhood leaders and doctors indicted for torturing policemen at Rabaa Square encampment

XII. Amnesty International report on torture and murder at Brotherhood’s Rabaa encampment

XIII. Amnesty Report masks role of Brotherhood leadership
Address :

Written by Comments Off on What’s Really Going on in Egypt Posted in Blog Tagged with




From BBC News, May 19, 2013:

“Since 1998, there has been an unexplained “standstill” in the heating of the Earth’s atmosphere.  Writing in Nature Geoscience, the researchers say this will reduce predicted warming in the coming decades.”

So, they can’t explain why we haven’t been warming and why their predictions were wrong, but no matter, they’re going to stick to the same predictions anyway:

“But long-term, the expected temperature rises will not alter significantly.”

Source: BBC News – Climate slowdown means extreme rates of warming ‘not as likely’
Address :

From The Economist, March 30, 2013:

“OVER the past 15 years air temperatures at the Earth’s surface have been flat while greenhouse-gas emissions have continued to soar.”

Temperatures haven’t risen even while “[t]he world added roughly 100 billion tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010. That is about a quarter of all the CO2 put there by humanity since 1750.”

“Over the past decade the long-term rise in surface seawater temperatures seems to have stalled”.

“[T]his lack of new warming is a surprise”

“The mismatch between rising greenhouse-gas emissions and not-rising temperatures is among the biggest puzzles in climate science just now”.

So, how do scientists and The Economist react when the scientists’ very models which made these global warming predictions don’t match up with their observations, don’t match up with reality, when the models’ ability to predict is shown NOT to work?   Not at all.   See here how they keep up with the party line even though it’s clearly bogus:

“So what does all this amount to? The scientists are cautious about interpreting their findings. As Dr Knutti puts it, “the bottom line is that there are several lines of evidence, where the observed trends are pushing down, whereas the models are pushing up, so my personal view is that the overall assessment hasn’t changed much.”

Source URL:


From The New York Times, June 11, 2013:

“As unlikely as this may sound, we have lucked out in recent years when it comes to global warming.  The rise in the surface temperature of earth has been markedly slower over the last 15 years than in the 20 years before that. And that lull in warming has occurred even as greenhouse gases have accumulated in the atmosphere at a record pace.

“The slowdown is a bit of a mystery to climate scientists.”

“[G]iven how much is riding on the scientific forecast, the practitioners of climate science would like to understand exactly what is going on. They admit that they do not”

“Now, here is a crucial piece of background: It turns out we had an earlier plateau in global warming, from roughly the 1950s to the 1970s, and scientists do not fully understand that one either.”

Source: What to Make of a Climate-Change Plateau –
Address :

It was disappointing that the New York Times didn’t have a readers’ comment section for this article about the missing warming in “global warming”, but I found this funny post about it here: where 517 people commented, and I had time to read a few of the comments, copied below:

“Ahh, but you have to admire the audacity of the global warmists….they have come up with models that not only can’t predict the future with any accuracy, but can’t even predict the past with any accuracy either. Yes, they are wrong, but by gum, they are consistent. (When I was a teen, it was the unstoppable ice age; then global warming and now that it has been unchanged for 15 years, the next crisis will undoubtedly be climate stagnation. And the answer will be the same as they have always proposed: spend billions of dollars, put millions out of work and beggar every advanced economy in the world).” (Charlie Johnston)


“And that lull in warming has occurred even as greenhouse gases have accumulated in the atmosphere at a record pace.” Ah, so greenhouse gases. mostly generated by
human activity, have greatly increased but the warming hasn’t. Presumably not a unique phenomenon in the climate history of the planet thus far reconstructed.. Perhaps it’s time to recall one of the chief principles of inductive reasoning? “Nothing is the cause of a phenomenon in the presence of which the phenomenon fails to occur.” And, as regards all those meticulously researched periods of global warming, such as the Roman and the Middle Ages, there is the second part of that principle: “Nothing is the cause of a phenomenon in the absence of which the phenomenon nevertheless occurs.” But let’s not apply logic to well-seasoned religious belief.” (Miryan)


dont you think that the area of contention is what valid inferences are to be drawn from recent observed climatic variance?
I think climate tends to change, and that this current change isnt outside the range of our experiences as a species…
other disagree. the argument that the rate of change, or overall temperature levels are unprecedented is, at best, simply incorrect, and often, when advanced by those who should know better, is mendacious. [“men·da·cious” means not telling the truth; lying]. (davideisenstadt)



This lie has serious consequences.  As I’ve written on this website previously – This global warming theory is a crock and a dangerous one at that because it is giving those who get to decide how the resources of the globe are currently spent an excuse to waste our resources on more expensive forms of energy when cheaper forms are not, in fact, causing any global warming.   Instead of creating expensive new forms of energy, our efforts should be targeted to getting energy to the 25 percent of humanity still forced to live without electricity as quickly (and by necessity as cheaply) as we can.  That’s because the lack of electricity is not just an inconvenience for ¼ of us, it kills 5,400 people each day (see )  Those without electricity have no choice but to live like cavemen, burning stuff in their unventilated homes for light and to cook, and breathing in all the resulting smoke kills 5,400 people, mostly women and children, each day.  You know, TODAY, not 50 years from now but TODAY, AND EVERY DAY.  So, while well meaning people worry and work to save the world from a future speculative threat now shown to be bogus (global warming), the well meaning do little to stop a CURRENT, REAL environmental pollution threat that kills 5,400 daily and are actually making it more difficult for those desperate for electricity by trying to force more expensive alternative energies on those who can least afford them – and all for a reason that has proven to be scientifically unsound.  (For inconvenient truths about alternative energies & how the “clean energy” scam has been a crime against humanity see )


The biggest challenge we have environmentally — and it is an international challenge that we cannot solve alone is the issue of climate change. There are other issues: dirty water, dirty air. 1 But the truth is, is that we’ve made enormous progress over the last several years, over the last several decades in the United States. And if you come to the United States, environmental quality is pretty good. And internationally, we’ve promoted policies around how mercury is released into the environment, and how other poisons are released in the environment, and how businesses have to be held to international standards in terms of worker safety. Those are areas where the United States have been at the forefront. We’ve been at the front of the line, not the back of the line when it comes to those issues.

But the existential challenge that we face has to do with a warming planet. And your generation is the one that’s going to be the most severely affected. Now, the United States and other highly industrialized, developed countries over the last 50, 100 years have been pumping up carbon emissions into the atmosphere. And slowly, this has been building up and it is warming the planet, and we may be reaching a tipping point in which if we do not solve this problem soon, it will spin out of control and change weather patterns in ways that we can’t anticipate, with drought, floods, much more severe natural disasters. And unfortunately, in those situations it’s often poorer countries that are affected the most by these changing climate patterns.

So I just gave a speech this past week on what the United States is going to do on our next phase of reducing our carbon emissions. The United States actually reduced our carbon emissions more than any other country since I came into office. I just want to make that point. (Applause.) We doubled fuel-efficiency standards on cars. We’re investing in clean energy like solar and wind. And we actually want to share that technology, because we think that all countries need to benefit. And part of the opportunity for Africa is to see if we can leapfrog some of the polluting practices of America or Europe, and go straight to the clean energy strategies that will allow you to advance economic growth, but not corrupt the planet.

So we’ve made progress, but we haven’t done enough. And what I did was to say I challenge the United States. I said we’ve got to do more. We’re going to start regulating our power plants more efficiently. We’re going to make sure that we redouble our efforts to reduce our carbon emissions, and we’re setting a goal to meet the agreements that we had both in Copenhagen and in Durban for advanced countries that have a big carbon footprint.

But let me make one last point: The United States cannot do it by itself. And the biggest emitter of carbon right now is China. They still have a much lower carbon footprint per person than the United States, but because they have so many people, it’s going up rapidly. And Chinese leaders understand this. The same thing that’s sending all the carbon into the atmosphere is also making it difficult to breathe in Beijing. So they recognize they’ve got to come up with a new development model. India is going to have to come up with new development models — Africa.

We’re going to all have to work together to find ways in which collectively, we reduce carbon but we make sure that there’s some differentiation so that countries that are very wealthy are expected to do more, and countries that are still developing, obviously they shouldn’t be resigned to poverty simply because the West and Europe and America got there first. That wouldn’t be fair. But everybody is going to have to do something. Everybody is going to have to make some important choices here. And I expect that it’s going to be your generation that helps lead this, because if we don’t, it’s going to be your generation that suffers the most.

Ultimately, if you think about all the youth that everybody has mentioned here in Africa, if everybody is raising living standards to the point where everybody has got a car and everybody has got air conditioning, and everybody has got a big house, well, the planet will boil over — unless we find new ways of producing energy. And tomorrow, or the next day, when I visit Tanzania, I’m actually going to be going to a power plant to focus on the need for electrification, but the need to do it in an environmentally sound way.

Source: Obama at Young African Leaders Initiative Town Hall | IIP Digital
Address :

  1. [1] Dirty water and dirty air are, unlike global warming, the REAL and DEADLY environmental threats humanity faces.  Regarding dirty water, see and regarding dirty air, see

U.S. Promotes “Democracy” (Syria & Arab Springs)

The strategy of the U.S. (on behalf of the transnational elite) has changed from installing puppet dictators1 to a more sophisticated and less obvious strategy of installing so-called “democracies” instead.

True democracy is not their aim of course, just a colorable appearance of same along with a colorable appearance of the protection of minorities within it.  And the “Friends of Syria”, the opposition group they created to oppose the Syrian Government and lead a new Syria 2 isn’t an opposition that’s been up to that appearance task, so now the U.S. is working on creating a new one3 .

This process is part of what William Robinson calls the U.S.’s new policy of “promoting polyarchy” (see his 1996 book of the same title) and by the “U.S.” he means not the United States “acting on behalf of a ‘US’ elite, but playing a leadership role on behalf of an emergent transnational elite”.

Robinson wittily defines “promoting polyarchy” as the promotion of “low-intensity democracies” and notes that:   ‘the U.S. exercised its domination in the post-World War II years chiefly through coercive domination, or the promotion of authoritarian arrangements in the Third World.  The emergence of “democracy promotion” as a new instrument in the 1980’s represented the beginnings of a shift – still underway – in the method through which the core regions of the capitalist world system exercise their domination over peripheral and semi-peripheral regions, from coercive to consensual mechanisms.’  In other words, doing the same thing only with another, more palatable, democratic face for the 21st Century.

And that’s why they’ve instigated these ‘April Spring’ uprisings, toward that very end:

–  “The State Department has secretly financed Syrian political opposition groups and related projects . . . The U.S. money for Syrian opposition figures began flowing under President George W. Bush . . in 2005. The financial backing has continued under President Obama . . .” Source:

– From a New York Times front page story on 4/15/11 entitled

“U.S. Groups Helped Nurture Arab Opposition”:

“[A]s American officials and others look back at the uprisings of the Arab Spring,  they are seeing that  the United States’ democracy-building campaigns played a bigger role in fomenting protests than was previously known, with key leaders of the movements having been trained by the Americans in campaigning, organizing through new media tools and monitoring elections.”

Address :

–   See also the English review of a French book entitled “American Arabesque: the Role of the US in the Revolts in the Arab Streets”, not yet available in English, here: along with a partial list of the book’s references contributed in a comment to the review.

–  And see Part B here:

The U.S. wants (as can be seen by its actions, despite its words to the contrary) non-secular “democracies” with the Muslim Brotherhood and other extremists playing chief roles to flourish, since they’re capitalists through and through & very happy to play ball and have economies completely acceptable to the transnational elite (not the 99 percent), witness Egypt (again see Part B here:

***So, democracy promotion DOES INDEED motivate US foreign policy***, just the hollow kind of democracy.  Setting up fake democracies is a more sophisticated, savvy, and less blatant way to dominate – as Robinson says “from coercive to consensual mechanisms” and the US (on behalf of the transnational elite) together with its media and corporate partners like Google, needs a more sophisticated way to deal with this threat described by Google’s “Chief of Ideas”:

‘more than 50 percent of the world’s population is under the age of thirty and the vast majority of those are characterized as “at risk” either socially, economically, or both – an oversupply of young people susceptible to recruitment by the ideological groups closest to them in identity or proximity.’  (see that same link  again, at Part B,

Our opposition to a more sophisticated domination strategy has to be more sophisticated and savvy too, starting with a clearer understanding of this new strategy.

  1. [1]


    to begin your reading if you weren’t aware that the U.S. did this.

  2. [2] See this excerpt of a NY Times article:  “But as representatives of 60 countries and international organizations converged on Tunisia on Friday in search of a strategy . . . The need to build a united opposition will be the focus of intense discussions at what has been billed as the inaugural meeting of the Friends of Syria. Fostering some semblance of a unified protest movement, possibly under the umbrella of an exile alliance called the Syrian National Council, will be a theme hovering in the background. . . “They will have a seat at the table as a representative of the Syrian people,” Mrs. Clinton said. “And we think it’s important to have Syrians represented. And the consensus opinion by the Arab League and all the others who are working and planning this conference is that the S.N.C. is a credible representative.”

    Source: After a Year, Deep Divisions Hobble Syria’s Opposition

  3. [3] From the NY Times:


    Hundreds of opposition figures are gathering in Doha, Qatar, next week to try to form such a group — ostensibly under the auspices of the Arab League but really pushed there by the United States. Mrs. Clinton said she had been heavily involved in planning the meeting, including recommending individuals and organizations to include in any new leadership structure. “We’ve made it clear that the S.N.C. can no longer be viewed as the visible leader of the opposition,” Mrs. Clinton said, referring to the Syrian National Council. It can participate, she added, “but that opposition must include people from inside Syria and others who have a legitimate voice that needs to be heard.”  . . . “They are hoping that some new body will emerge that they can work with, that they can recognize and that they can insert inside,” said Amr al-Azm, a Syrian academic in the United States who has long been a critic of the council.

    Source: As Fighting Rages in Syria, Clinton Calls for New Opposition Movement –
    Address :

    From The Washington Post:


    The Obama administration has spent the past several months in secret diplomatic negotiations aimed at building a new Syrian opposition leadership structure . . . Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton made official what had been the increasingly obvious U.S. disenchantment with the Syrian National Council, the exile-led organization that the administration has backed for most of the past year as the leading opposition group. . . The SNC, Clinton said, should no longer be considered the “visible leader” of the opposition. . . . a senior U.S. official said that “the new group will have a “political outreach function,” to build “basic credibility” among Syrian fence-sitters and regime supporters . . .”

    Source: U.S. looks to build alternative Syrian opposition leadership – The Washington Post
    Address :



Here is some must reading about Kony 2012, the most popular video on Youtube ever, seen by more than 100 million on the internet.1  The video is actually tricking you into pushing for a solution which will only further harm the people in Africa!  This reading will set you straight and explain why you’re being lied to and manipulated with this video, and their follow-up video, Kony 2012 Part II, released today.

First read an article called “The downside of the Kony 2012 video -What Jason did not tell Gavin and his army of invisible children”, at  In it you will learn about how the brutal government in Uganda used the hunt for Kony and the LRA as an excuse for the atrocities the Uganda government was committing on its own citizens:

“Young adults recall the time from the mid-90s when most rural residents of the three Acholi districts were forcibly interned in camps – the Government claimed it was to ‘protect’ them from the LRA.  But there were allegations of murder, bombing, and burning of entire villages, first to force people into the camps and then to force them to stay put.  By 2005, the camp population grew from a few hundred thousand to over 1.8 million in the entire region – which included Teso and Lango – of which over a million were from the three Acholi districts. Comprising practically the entire rural population of the three Acholi districts, they were expected to live on handouts from relief agencies. According to the Government’s own Ministry of Health, the excess mortality rate in these camps was approximately one thousand persons per week – inviting comparisons to the numbers killed by the LRA even in the worst year.

The article also explains why the Ugandan people themselves do not want what the Kony 2012 video urges – they do not want the U.S. to help the Uganda government with its military:

“[T]he civilian population of the area – trust neither the LRA nor government forces.  Sandwiched between the two, civilians need to be rescued from an ongoing military mobilization and offered the hope of a political process.”

The second must-read about Kony 2012, is a three-paragraph excerpt from an article written by a  Professor who teaches about Uganda in which he discusses these 3 topics:

1) that the video tricks its viewers into thinking that the U.S. military in Uganda is a good thing

2) what the real problems are now in Uganda

3)  what people in the U.S. can do to help the people suffering in Uganda – rather than making their problems worse by seeking continued and further militarization.

Here are those 3 paragraphs:

First, Invisible Children’s campaign [“Invisible Children” are the makers of the Kony videos] is a symptom, not a cause. It is an excuse that the US government has gladly adopted in order to help justify the expansion of their military presence in central Africa.  Invisible Children are “useful idiots,” being used by those in the US government who seek to militarize Africa, to send more weapons and military aid to the continent, and to build the power of states that are US allies. The hunt for Joseph Kony is the perfect excuse for this strategy—how often does the US government find millions of young Americans pleading that they intervene militarily in a place rich in oil and other resources? The US government would be pursuing this militarization with or without Invisible Children—Kony 2012 just makes it a little easier. Therefore, it is the militarization we need to worry about, not Invisible Children.

Second, in northern Uganda, people’s lives will be left untouched by this campaign, even if it were to achieve its stated objectives. This is not because all the problems have been resolved in the years since open fighting ended, but because the most serious problems people face today have little to do with Kony. The most pressing are over land. Land speculators and so-called investors, many foreign, in collaboration with the Ugandan government and military, are grabbing the land of the Acholi people in northern Uganda, land that they were forced off of a decade ago when the government herded them into internment camps. Another serious problem for northern Uganda is so-called “nodding disease”—a deadly illness that has broken out among thousands of children who had the bad luck to be born and grow up in the camps, subsisting on relief aid. Indeed, the problems people face today are the legacy of the camps, where over a million Acholi were forced to live, and die, for years by their own government as part of a counterinsurgency that received essential support from the US and from international aid agencies.

Which brings up the question that I am constantly asked in the US: “What can we do?” where “we” tends to mean relatively privileged Americans. In response, and as a contribution to the debate going on in the US about Kony 2012, I have a few proposals. The first, perhaps not surprising from a professor, is to learn. The conflict in northern Uganda and central Africa is complicated, yes—but not impossible to understand. For several years, I have taught an undergraduate class on the conflict, and, although it takes some time and effort, the students end up informed enough to be able to come to their own opinions about what can be done. I am more than happy to share the syllabus with anyone interested! In terms of activism, I think the first step is to re-think the question: instead of asking how the US can intervene in order to solve Africa’s conflicts, we need to ask what we are already doing to cause those conflicts in the first place. How are we, as consumers, contributing to land grabbing and to the wars ravaging this region? How are we, as Americans, allowing our government to militarize Africa as part of its War on Terror and its effort to secure oil resources? These are the questions that those of us who represent Kony 2012’s target audience must ask ourselves, because we are indeed responsible for the conflict in northern Uganda—responsible for helping to cause and prolong it. It is not, however, our responsibility, as Invisible Children encourages us to believe, to try to end the conflict by sending in military force. In our desire to ameliorate suffering, we must not be complicit in making it worse.

Source: Adam Branch on Invisible Children

Here also is an excerpt from the short statement of the “The Association of Concerned Africa Scholars” about Kony 2012, located here :

“[W]e are deeply concerned that the recent campaign in the United States to pursue and arrest Joseph Kony, leader of the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA), could have dangerous unintended consequences.  Expanding U.S. military operations with the Ugandan army to capture Kony could increase the militarization of the region and lead to deaths of civilians who are caught in the crossfire or become targets of retaliatory attacks by the LRA, as has occurred in the past. Indeed, the Ugandan army itself has been guilty of atrocities and abuse of civilians.”

See also this article which links to:

a photo of the founders of Invisible Children posing with weapons and personnel of the Sudan People’s Liberation Army. Both the Ugandan army and Sudan People’s Liberation Army are riddled with accusations of rape and looting, but Invisible Children defends them, arguing that the Ugandan army is “better equipped than that of any of the other affected countries”, although Kony is no longer active in Uganda and hasn’t been since 2006 by their own admission. These books each refer to the rape and sexual assault that are perennial issues with the UPDF, the military group Invisible Children is defending.”

Think Twice Before Donating to Kony 2012, the Charitable Meme du Jour
Address : along with it’s follow-up

For more links:

“A special Africa Focus bulletin has pulled together reflections of videos, blog posts, and articles with Ugandan voices and other commentaries.  [See here and here.] This record is important in that it gives a comprehensive list of resources so that young students who are organizing rebuttals can find resources to counter the planned April 20 manifestations to support the call for the US military to intervene in Africa.” 2


The United States Government, through its State Department, provided training, as you’ll see, to the Invisible Children filmmakers before they made the Kony 2012 film and they’ve been providing training to activists in other countries too.  For example, let’s turn for a moment to the training and assistance they gave to the Egyptian activists:

“Not long ago, the State Department created its own group on Facebook called “Alliance of Youth Movements,” a coalition of groups from a dozen countries who use Facebook for political organizing. Last month, they brought an international collection of young online political activists, including one from the April 6 group, as well as Facebook executives and representatives from Google and MTV, to New York for a three-day conference. “
Address :

From a New York Times front page story on 4/15/11 entitled

“U.S. Groups Helped Nurture Arab Opposition”:

[A]s American officials and others look back at the uprisings of the Arab Spring, they are seeing that the United States’s democracy-building campaigns played a bigger role in fomenting protests than was previously known, with key leaders of the movements having been trained by the Americans in campaigning, organizing through new media tools and monitoring elections.

Address :

From the New York Post discussing the training sessions:

“There was also a panel devoted to “Egypt’s pro-democracy youth movements” and how to advance them with social media. Despite strong US ties with Mubarak, there’s evidence US officials quietly supported the same activists seeking to remove him, the cable shows.  .  .   In 2008, the State Department co-sponsored a youth activist conference that helped organizations use social media to spread opposition across the globe.”

Why, you ask, would the United States Government actually help train Egyptian activists to use Facebook and other social media to help them organize protests to fight for democracy and overthrow a dictator that the United States Government has always supported?  You know they’re not similarly supporting or training activists in the “99 Percent-Occupy Wall Street Movement”, who continue to suffer from unwarranted arrests, violence and harassment at the hands of governmental authorities.  So you know the United States Government isn’t in a position to teach anybody anything about democracy.  Professor Michel Chossudovsky has the answer:

“From Washington’s standpoint, regime replacement no longer requires the installation of authoritarian military rulers, as in the heyday of US imperialism. Regime change can be implemented by co-opting political parties, financing civil society groups, infiltrating the protest movement, and by manipulating national elections.3

The ultimate objective is to sustain the interests of foreign powers and to uphold the “Washington consensus” of the IMF/World Bank economic agenda that has served to impoverish millions throughout the Arab World and beyond.4

Moreover, Western powers have used “Political Islam” –including the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda-affiliated groups– to pursue their hegemonic objectives. Covert operations are launched to weaken the secular state, foment sectarian violence and create social divisions throughout the Arab World.”5

(Source URL:

But here’s how U.S. State Department describes it in their own press briefing:

“Also, a foundation will be created called the Alliance of Youth Movements. And a hub, an electronic hub, again, anyone will have access to it around the world. Now, this conference – the entire conference will be streamed by MTV and by Howcast. We are – we at the State Department are one partner. In fact, we take a back seat to what the private sector is doing, which is just fabulous. But we’re happy to have gotten this thing started, at any rate. . . We also – you know, we strongly feel that in the world in which we live today, that we as the State Department can be a facilitator or a convener, but we really can’t serve to actually build these groups ourselves. They would have – they would not have very much in the way of credibility. . . .”

“The summit will also put out a field manual that will provide best practices, videos, and steps for building these kinds of movements.”

Professor Jack Bratich does a very careful examination of this new phenomena, which he calls “Genetically Modified Grassroots Organizations”, or GMGO’s, where the United States, media, both old (MTV, NBC, CNN) and new (Google, Facebook, Twitter and Youtube), and other corporations collude to create these seemingly “grassroots” movements which they can then work to steer for their own ends.    I urge you to read it here: As Bratich notes in another piece,  “these emergent groups are seeded (and their genetic code altered) to control the direction of the movement.”  You can see a less-than-7-minute video introduction Bratich gives on the topic here.  And for additional details on various corporate and other ties in this project see: “Google’s Revolution Factory” at

So, they’ll steer the groups to demand bogus “democracy” rather than to make economic demands, and make sure the replacements to protest targets are friendly to capitalism.  The U.S. State Department, corporations, google, the mass media, etc., are all in the mix of what they call their “counter-radicalization” mission – where they pretend that violence is the radicalization they want to counter, whereas it’s really anti-capitalist radicalism they want to stop.  In former U.S. State Dept./Now Director of Google Ideas’ own words, which I admit take my breath away, they all need to get together and form initiatives to address this:

“With more than 50 percent of the world’s population under the age of thirty and the vast majority of those characterized as “at risk” either socially, economically, or both, an oversupply exists of young people susceptible to recruitment by the extremist religious or ideological group closest to them in identity or proximity. . .

expected to participate in the Summit, along with more than 200 representatives from civil society organizations, academia, technology companies, victims’ and survivors groups, government, media, and the private sector. They represent a wide spectrum of voices and experiences coming from Asia, the Middle East, Latin America, the United States, and Europe, including Ireland. . . .

The Dublin conference will explore the reasons former extremists turned to and then away from violence.  It will examine ways in which connection technologies—the Internet, mobiles, and tablets—present challenges to stem recruitment and opportunities to tackle the problem of radicalization.

Google Ideas and the Council on Foreign Relations aim to initiate a global conversation on how best to prevent young people from becoming radicalized and how to de-radicalize others who are currently engaged in violent extremism.

The ideas generated at the conference will be included in a study to be published later in the year.  In addition to radicalization, Google Ideas is also focused on the role technology plays in fledgling democracies and fragile states.”

See and (emphasis supplied).

How’s everything working out in Egypt by the way?  Has the U.S.-nurtured, genetically-modified-grassroots revolution been a success?   Depends who you ask.  The United States Government would say yes, while the Egyptian people say no.

As Jack Bratich notes about the Egyptian revolution:

“the post Day of Victory turn against protestors by the [U.S. trained] “youth”, the continued reliance on military power to ensure transition, the efforts to censor subsequent street signs are not just betrayals after the fact – they were likely results from the outset”.

The suffering of the people in Egypt has increased, and it appears that the United States’ “most important Arab ally”, the Muslim Brotherhood, with its “business-friendly emphasis on free markets” will be leading the country.  (Those two phrase quotes from here and here.)

“Why did we have a revolution? We wanted better living standards, social justice and freedom. Instead, we’re suffering.”   The world’s highest youth jobless rate left the Middle East vulnerable to the uprisings that ousted Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak and three other leaders in the past year.   It has got worse since then. About 1 million Egyptians lost their jobs in 2011 as the economy shrank for the first time in decades.  Unemployment in Tunisia, where the revolts began, climbed above 18 percent, the central bank said in January. It was 13 percent in 2010.”

Prior to the revolution, the Egyptian government refused to take U.S.-sanctioned IMF loans, which only wreck country economies further.  But now, post “revolution”, with the Muslim Brotherhood’s assistance, there has been an “IMF U-Turn”, as the above linked Businessweek article notes.

About the upcoming Egyptian presidential election:

“On Sunday, speaking on condition of standard diplomatic anonymity, State Department officials said they were untroubled and even optimistic about the Muslim Brotherhood’s reversal of its pledge not to seek the presidency. The Brotherhood’s candidate, Khairat el-Shater, a millionaire businessman considered the most formative influence on the group’s policies, is well known . . . Mr. Shater has met with almost all the senior State Department officials and American lawmakers visiting Cairo.   He is in regular contact with the American ambassador, Anne Patterson, as well as the executives of many American companies here.”

Shater is meanwhile “lobbying hard for support of ultraconservative Muslim clerics, promising them a say over legislation in the future to ensure it is in line with Islamic law, as he tries to rally the divided Islamist vote behind him. . . .Giving Muslim clerics a direct say over legislation would be unprecedented in Egypt.  . . . But any clerical role would certainly raise a backlash from liberal and moderate Egyptians who already fear Islamists will sharply restrict civil rights as they gain political power after the fall last year of President Hosni Mubarak. . . . Leading clerics with their trademark long, bushy beards and robes have become regular guests on TV talk shows and issue fatwas or religious edicts attacking secularists, saying Christians and women can’t run for president, and calling for greater segregation of the sexes.  Al-Shater met for four hours Tuesday night with a panel of Salafi scholars and clerics, called the Jurisprudence Commission for Rights and Reform, trying to win their support.  The discussion focused on “the shape of the state and the implementation of Sharia,” the commission said on its Facebook page Wednesday. . . .The promise resembled an item in a 2007 political platform by the Brotherhood, when it was still a banned opposition movement. It called for parliament to consult with a body of clerics on legislation to ensure it aligns with Sharia. The proposal was met with a storm of condemnation at the time, and the Brotherhood backed off of it. . . “

So what does all this have to do with Kony 2012 again???  Well, the Invisible Children “grassroots” filmmakers were also students of the U.S. State Departments’ training, so we’ll more accurately call them a ‘genetically modified grassroots organization’. You can see the Invisible Children organization right on the website the U.S. Government created for this whole ongoing project, which they brazenly chose to call “The Alliance of Youth Movements” at, here at

And so what is it about the Kony 2012 film that has the fingerprints of the U.S. State Department’s project on it?  Jack Bratich notes that:

“the mobilization for action is one already determined as an instrument for someone else’s goals . . . Youth are dissuaded from seeing in their own neighborhoods and local organizations the opportunity to get involved in street activism and direct action in which they also shape the goals.  Instead, they are routed into a heavily pre-organized package, complete with easy heroes/enemies and a game-like scenario. . . Eventually, all public Kony 2012 action is to result in a deferral of action to proper authorities (the NGO Invisible Children, the governments of the US and Uganda).  This should come as no surprise, as Invisible Children was one of the first (and highly touted) participants in the US State-Department-facilitated Alliance of Youth Movements, even discussed in State Department staffer [now] Google Ideas executive Jared Cohen’s press conference announcing the Alliance of Youth Movements”.

Source: My Little Kony, Address :

The Invisible Children Kony filmmakers also received training while in College designed by and for –  wait for it – the U.S. military.  (On the ‘military’, you’ll recall this quote earlier:

“Invisible Children are “useful idiots,” being used by those in the US government who seek to militarize Africa, to send more weapons and military aid to the continent, and to build the power of states that are US allies. The hunt for Joseph Kony is the perfect excuse for this strategy—how often does the US government find millions of young Americans pleading that they intervene militarily in a place rich in oil and other resources? The US government would be pursuing this militarization with or without Invisible Children—Kony 2012 just makes it a little easier.”)

This U.S. Military college training is discussed in the section below.


“[O]ne of the objectives of this Kony 2012 video is to experiment with alternatives to the growing political consciousness of the youth in the United States as manifest in the Occupy Wall Street Movement.”

The quote above is from Professor Horace Campbell’s piece “Kony 2012: Militarization And Disinformation Blowback” at

Here are some more excerpts from it:

“I think that it is important to examine the wider context of the ‘invisible hand’ behind the production of Kony2012 and the current campaign calling for a day of Action on April 20. . . [P]lanners of the military information operations have been studying social media and information warfare in order to neutralize the growing opposition to militarism in the United States. This social media event must be examined thoroughly because the Kony2012 video broke records to become the fastest-spreading online video in history. This fact of the breaking of records alone requires deeper understanding. I will argue that the barrage of media coverage which ensured this record was not accidental. The massive promotion of this on-line can now be understood in the wider context of full spectrum warfare in which combat operations are reserved for the last resort. Psychological warfare and disinformation operations are crucial to weaken populations both at home and in ‘enemy’ territory. I am contending that the Kony2012 was a test to intercept the social media capabilities of the youths in the USA in this revolutionary moment. . . [O]ne of the objectives of this Kony 2012 video is to experiment with alternatives to the growing political consciousness of the youth in the United States as manifest in the Occupy Wall Street Movement.

Jason Russell, the public face of this ‘non-profit’ organization, Invisible Children, had been trained in the US military sponsored information warfare center at the University of Southern California (USC) called the Institute for Creative technologies (ICT). . . The web site of ICT said explicitly,

“At USC’s Institute for Creative Technologies (ICT), high-tech tools and classic storytelling come together to pioneer new ways to teach and to train.” . . .ICT was established in 1999 with a multi-year contract from the US Army to explore a powerful question: What would happen if leading technologists in artificial intelligence, graphics, and immersion joined forces with the creative talents of Hollywood and the game industry?“ . . . The University of Southern California nestled close to Hollywood with access to ‘inventive combinations’ has been one of the most successful in this competition for defense dollars and contracts such as that of ICT. . .”

Here’s an excerpt from ICT’s own press release about it:

“Sept.1, 2011 – The Department of Defense announced this week that the University of Southern California Institute for Creative Technologies (ICT) has been given a contract extension through 2014.  The extension allows the Army to fund up to an additional $135 million dollars of research and prototype development over the next three years. . . “ICT brings USC’s computer scientists together with artists, writers and cinematographers, creating compelling and immersive training systems. . . . “This extension is a strong endorsement of the institute’s success in developing immersive technologies that have led to effective prototypes for training, leader development and physical rehabilitation.  And the impact has gone beyond the military to society at large.” . . . ICT was founded with an initial five-year contract in 1999 . . .“ICT will be a joint effort of the Army, the entertainment industry and academe – an innovative team to advance dazzling new media and ultimately benefit training and education for everyone in America,” said then-Secretary of the United States Army, Louis Caldera, at the time. . . . “This combination of scientists and storytellers is what makes ICT so unique,” said John Hart, program manager at the U.S. Army’s Simulation and Training Technology Center, which oversees ICT’s Army contract. “We look forward to continuing our successful collaboration with USC.”

Source: USC Institute for Creative Technologies Receives $135 Million Contract Extension From U.S. Army | USC Institute for Creative Technologies  Address :

And back to Campbell’s piece:

“Now, the defense planners have upped the ante in an effort to entangle the minds of the young in the United States by the skillful use of social media tools to harness support for US military operations in Central Africa. In the case of the video Invisible Children, we can see the sophisticated interplay of artificial intelligence, graphics and the exploration of new mind games. My own students from the Newhouse School have alerted me to the sophisticated techniques which were being experimented in this video, Kony 2012. Some of the experts in this field of 21st century communications and journalism call this technique ‘flashpublics’. . .

After the successful use of social media by the Obama campaign in 2007-2008 and the impressive networks refined by the April 6 movement of Egypt, long term planners had to experiment with new tools of information warfare. This information ploy against the youth had failed when the Save Darfur campaign was discredited.  Books by Mahmood Mamdani such as Saviors and Survivors exposed the real mission of the planners of the Save Darfur Movement.”

[Note that Mahmood Mamdani is also the author of the very first must-read article about the lies in Kony 2012 which I mention at the beginning of this webpage (article at )]

And back again to Campbell:

“Jeremy Keenan exposed the fabrication of terrorism in the Sahara in his book, Dark Sahara.   Abdi Samatar has exposed the fabrication of terrorism in Somalia.   Peace activists have exposed the role of AFRICOM in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the covert operations now underway. All of these forms of militaristic interventions must be exposed.

It was said then (during the Save Darfur Campaign), as it is being said now, Africa does not need saviors. Africa needs solidarity and for this the peace movement in the USA ought to be at the forefront of exposing the real intent of the manipulation of this video and campaign.  .  .

Jason Russell in his own words has described his journey from the Institute for Creative Technologies to the formation of the Invisible Children NGO. It is this training that gave this organization the expertise to use film, creativity and social action to mobilize youths in support of the US military in Uganda. . .

With the new uprisings in Africa and the birth of global movements for change, the Invisible Children initiative was an attempt to halt the radicalization of the youth. It is an effort to blunt the growing and deepening anti-war sentiments in the society. In this climate, creating images of white supremacy and saving African lives was meant to harness the energies of millions. . . .

The 20 celebrities and 12 officials who have been targeted by Invisible Children can now make their position clear on the realities of the mindset of the violence which has engulfed Africans at home and abroad. There have been many who have been seduced by the campaigns of the US military. Now, the peace and progressive forces are being called upon to develop another type of storytelling and video game which can assist in the healing of humans.

In this way, there will be a global movement calling for the dismantling of the US Africa command and another force in world politics to channel the energies of the youth away from mind control and subliminal messages.

Horace Campbell is Professor of African American Studies and Political Science at Syracuse University.”

Source: Kony 2012: Militarization And Disinformation Blowback – OpEd
Address :


How can we avoid being deceived with sophisticated and slickly created stuff like these Kony videos?

We can separate the good from the bad.  In the good department, this video, for example, reminds others to care about people in the whole world, not just those in their own country.   (From the first Kony 2012 video: “We are living in a new world, Facebook world, where 750 million people share ideas, not thinking in borders. It’s a global community, bigger than the U.S.” and from the Kony Part II video released today:  “It’s the idea we’re a global community, protecting each other.”)  I try to do the same thing on my website’s homepage with my Dr. Martin Luther King Challenge: (Can you take to heart the following words he spoke just four days before he was gunned down?  “First, we are challenged to develop a world perspective . . .” at

The Kony 2012 video also seemingly empowers others to work for a better world, that it’s not impossible:  “It’s always been, that the decisions made by the few with the money and the power, dictated the priorities of their government, and the stories in the media. They determined the lives and opportunities of their citizens. But now, there’s something bigger than that. The people of the world see each other. And can protect each other. It’s turning the system upside down, and it changes everything.”

The bad is the characterization of the problems and their solutions, so in the same way that we instinctively judge the credibility of something an acquaintance tells us, we must always be critical readers/viewers/researchers/participants of information in the press and from strangers, always looking for answers to the following questions:

Who is making this statement?

Who is he or she making it for?

Why is this statement being made here, now?

Whom does this statement benefit?

Whom does it harm?

Does the statement and its conclusions make sense, and do they stand up to scrutiny, to your own and others’ research?

I found all the various critiques on Kony 2012 cited above by conducting a search on the internet, something we can do before accepting and passing on, or acting on something.

Of course, be suspicious of statements from the-powers-that-be, be suspicious when the war mongering U.S. government says it’s seeking peace, or when the U.S. government,  whose two political parties both support just the 1%, says its promoting democracy.   Be suspicious of genetically modified grassroots organizations – which the corporate mainstream press will advise are “spontaneous” and “from the people”, and knowing this, will remind you to check on the true nature of their “grassroots” bona fides and their proclaimed goals.

Look at the actions and past history, not just the words, to judge anyone or anything, and their past credibility or lack thereof (whether it be a news report, a Government statement, or a video from regular guys).

Remember fake opposition, the infiltration of opposition-protest and other movements, has been and will always be a tactic of the powers-that-be & certainly they will use and even create and promote social media and other technologies to assist with it.  It doesn’t mean we can’t use their tools to fight them.  Let them be the tools of their own destruction.

  1. [1]
  2. [2] Source: Kony 2012: Militarization And Disinformation Blowback – OpEd
    Address :
  3. [3] The authoritarian military rulers themselves are catching on to this and have recently been banning U.S. ‘civil society groups’ in their countries.  See for example Why Do Some Foreign Countries Hate American NGOs So Much?
  4. [4] For info about the IMF/World Bank economic agenda see this and this from my website.
  5. [5] For a quick example of this, see discussion farther down this page about the U.S. supporting a Muslim Brotherhood candidate for the Egyptian presidency.  You know the old adage, “divide and conquer”, and religious fundamentalists in power is a very effective divider, among other things.

Economic Warfare Sanctioned by US Against Yet Another Country’s People

Yesterday, I posted about how the United States was intentionally wrecking Iran’s economy and making all its citizens suffer.  Today’s post is about how the International Monetary Fund is intentionally wrecking Greece’s economy.   You see it’s not only in Tunisia or Tibet, India and Pakistan where people are desperate enough to make political statements by killing themselves.  Copied below in full is an article from the Wall Street Journal about a 77 year old man in Greece who just shot himself in the head to give himself “a dignified end before I start sifting garbage for food”.  It was a public suicide where, as the New York Times notes in a related report, the man chose to kill himself in Syntagma Square, “a focal point for frequent public demonstrations and protests”.  His suicide note “called on young Greeks to take up arms. “I believe that young people with no future will one day take up arms and hang the traitors of this country at Syntagma Square, just like the Italians did to Mussolini in 1945,” said one passage.” (“Public Suicide for Greek Man With Fiscal Woe” at ).  In the Wall Street Journal article copied below, you’ll read how the International Monetary Fund (the IMF) is responsible for the economic devastation that’s been brought upon the Greeks.  

The “largest shareholder” in the IMF, you should know, is the United States Government, and as such, certainly “can exert influence on its policies”. (quote here)

And the IMF’s policy of wrecking countries’ economies and causing suffering, sanctioned by the United States, is nothing new.  See for example that:

“The International Monetary Fund could be bad for your health. The organisation loans money to countries with financial problems, and in return requires governments to undertake “structural adjustment” policies aimed at improving their financial management.  These usually cut government spending to control inflation. Critics have long charged that this reduces spending on healthcare, so much so that some have called for the organisation to be renamed the “Infant Mortality Fund”.

IMF loans ‘lead to TB deaths’

See also

New York Times

July 22, 2008

Rise in TB Is Linked to Loans From I.M.F.


“The rapid rise in tuberculosis cases in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union is strongly associated with the receipt of loans from the International Monetary Fund, a new study has found.”  

“The IMF is one of the most powerful institutions on Earth–yet few know what it is.”



And now here’s that promised Wall Street Journal article in full:       


Wall Street Journal, April 4, 2012

Man Kills Himself in Athens Square


By Alkman Granitsas         

ATHENS—A 77-year-old Greek man took his life in Athens’ central Syntagma Square on Wednesday, leaving a note behind linking his actions to the country’s deepening economic crisis.

The man shot himself with a handgun in a grassy area to one side of the Greek capital’s main square during the morning rush hour. His death added to a sharp rise in the number of suicides in the country that has coincided with years of recession and subsequent austerity measures that have cut deeply into the country’s standard of living, particularly for low-income earners and retirees.

The square, across from the national Parliament building, became the focus of an impromptu anti-austerity rally later Wednesday as about 1,000 people gathered to light candles and to place flowers and sympathy notes at the site. “Hopefully it will be the last death of an innocent citizen. I hope the rest [of the deaths] will be of political traitors,” said one note signed by T.L.

Sporadic scuffles later broke out around the square between dozens of hooded youths and riot police who responded by firing small amounts of tear gas.

In his suicide note, the former pharmacist likened Greece’s current crisis to the deep poverty the country suffered during the World War II German occupation. “I have no other way to react apart from finding a dignified end before I start sifting through garbage for food,” it continued. The note was found by the man’s daughter, although it wasn’t clear where. Police confirmed the contents of the note.

Eyewitnesses told police the man was in apparent despair over his financial debts, shouting just moments before killing himself: “So I won’t leave debts for my children.”

The police haven’t disclosed the man’s identity or other details as they investigate the incident.

The suicide also evoked sympathetic responses from a series of Greek politicians who blamed the austerity for the incident. In a statement, Prime Minister Lucas Papademos described the incident as “tragic” and called on the state and citizens to “support those next to us in desperation.”

Greece is now in its fifth year of a grinding economic recession, and more than two years into a series of austerity programs instituted to meet the demands of international creditors from the European Union and the International Monetary Fund.

Those various austerity measures have led to steep cuts, in some cases more than 25%, to retiree pensions and other benefits. At the same time many Greeks are being squeezed by declining wages and higher taxes on everything from property to gasoline.

The new government that will emerge from the elections, likely taking place on May 6, will have to announce some €11 billion ($14.6 billion) in further austerity measures by June to cover expected budget gaps in 2013 and 2014 to comply with conditions set by international lenders.

“This was a symbolic suicide. If it hadn’t happened here, in the square, in front of Parliament, no one would notice,” said one bystander, who declined to give his name but who heard the shots from across the square.

The social impact of the Greek economic crisis has become increasingly apparent on the streets of Athens and other cities, while suicide rates have jumped.

The Greek charitable organization Klimaka, which runs a suicide helpline, says the number of callers to its helpline has doubled in the past year. Many of those callers cite financial difficulties related to the crisis as one of the reasons for wanting to take their own lives, said Klimaka psychiatrist Eleni Bekiari. “We have seen a sharp increase in the number of calls placed to our hotline,” she said. “And many of those callers refer to the financial problems they are facing as a reason for wanting to commit suicide.”

In one case last September, a Greek man in his 50s who was struggling with his debts attempted suicide in front of a bank branch in the northern city of Thessaloniki by setting himself on fire.

More recently, in February, a married couple working at a state agency faced with closure as part of the country’s budget cuts threatened to jump off the second story of a building in downtown Athens before being talked down by police.

According to police data, the number of suicides in 2010 and 2011 surpassed 600 each year, a 20% jump over the rate in 2009, the year before the start of the Greek debt crisis.

—Stelios Bouras contributed to this article.


For recent suicide attempts in Italy – also undergoing forced austerity by the IMF – see

Fair Use Notice: The material on this site is provided for educational and informational purposes. It is being made available in an effort to advance the understanding of scientific, environmental, economic, social justice and human rights issues, etc. It is believed that this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have an interest in using the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Written by Comments Off on Economic Warfare Sanctioned by US Against Yet Another Country’s People Posted in Blog Tagged with

United States’ Economic Warfare Against Iran

Those of the 99 percent know what it’s like to suffer under the current economic conditions.  How do you feel about the United States intentionally wrecking another country’s economy to inflict such suffering on all the people (the grandmothers & grandfathers, men, women and children) who happen to live there?

“The Iran sanctions effort led by the United States appeared to be causing new fractures in the Iranian economy on Tuesday . . . Iranian leaders have acknowledged that the sanctions are causing deprivations in the country by severely restricting international financial transactions and sales of crude oil, Iran’s main export. . . . Those financial sanctions, including the recent expulsion of Iran’s central bank from a global financial communications network, have reverberated through Iran’s economy”

“Impact of Iran Sanctions Widens” – from today’s New York Times
Address :

We destroyed Iraq, caused mass destruction there with guns and bombs, and we destroy its neighboring country, Iran, with economic warfare.  The U.S.  is a war criminal any way you slice it.  People in the OWS, Occupy Wall Street Movement, are not ignoring this.    See for example .

Did you learn in school, by the way, that the United States overthrew the democratically elected government in Iran in 1953 and installed the dictator Shah of Iran as its puppet?  See   The United States supported both Iran and Iraq in their war in the 1980’s with each other.  See In short, our war crimes against the Iranian and Iraqi people have never ended . . .

Written by Comments Off on United States’ Economic Warfare Against Iran Posted in Blog Tagged with

Secret Memo on Vitamins from Pharmaceutical Gang (April Fool’s Day)

Many people have read many media reports about many dangers of many vitamins.   In keeping with the media’s current standard of accuracy (and noting the date of this release), here is an information leak.

Confidential Memorandum from the World Headquarters of Pharmaceutical Politicians, Educators and Reporters (WHOPPER)

Most Secret: Your Eyes Only

Distinguished members, our decades of disparaging nutritional therapy have paid off at last.  The public, and their healthcare providers, are completely hoodwinked.  By pushing “evidence based medicine” on the medical professions, we have elegantly slipped in our choice of evidence to base medicine on.  And this is no mere journeyman accomplishment: this is high art. Mr. Machiavelli would be pleased.  Certainly the pharmaceutical cartel is.  We are well on our way to eliminating the competition, namely that increasingly irritating “orthomolecular medicine” faction.

Here’s how we are winning the Vitamin War:   It is entirely too obvious, from our reading the nutritional literature, that vitamins and minerals are a well-proven, safe and effective therapy.  Of course, anyone knows that to work they must be employed in appropriate doses, just as any drug must be given in an appropriate dose.  That is the problem, but it is also our opportunity.  Since high nutrient doses work all too well, we eliminate all those embarrassing positive high-dose results simply by ignoring them.  By selecting, pooling and analyzing only unsuccessful low dose studies, our conclusions exactly fit what we want the public to believe.

We also make certain to use either synthetic or fractional vitamin E to “prove” that that nutrient not only has no therapeutic value, but is actually dangerous and can kill!  Sure, it is an onion in the ointment that there have been no deaths from vitamin E in 28 years of poison control center reporting.  But that’s a mere fact, and easily ignored.

We are not going to rest on our proverbial laurels.  Now that we have set the precedent for shaping medical practice into pharmaceutical hustling, there’s even more we can accomplish.

Here is our master plan.  We have solidly established that research data can be selected, pooled, meta-analyzed and then dictate solidly “scientific” conclusions.  It is now a mere step to do the same in other disciplines, including education, politics, and the social sciences.  For example:

  • By giving a large sample of the homeless 25 cents each, we can show that higher personal income is ineffective against poverty.

Here is unlimited opportunity for social engineering, and we owe it all to

S-EBM: Selective Evidence Based Medicine.

Yes indeed:  it logically proceeds from our widely-publicized analyses of vitamin supplementation, analyses that were limited to studies that used low doses.  Math is a wonderful thing:  when we sliced statistics into sound-byte-sized pieces, we even proved that vitamin E kills; vitamin C is worse; don’t even THINK of taking those B-vitamin supplements; and even multivitamin pills are dangerous.  Give us a just while longer:  we will rip the carbons out of vitamin D next.

There is so much to look forward to!

(End of memo)

The above is excerpted from an article from the Orthomolecular Medicine News Service (OMNS).  Here is their free subscription link as well as the link to their archives:

Written by Comments Off on Secret Memo on Vitamins from Pharmaceutical Gang (April Fool’s Day) Posted in Blog Tagged with