This is a story about Google, not First Word. But to make make the case I will be developing here, I will need to present evidence,Â and the only evidence at hand for me is concerning First Word.
We have a statistics monitor that tells us hit counts on daily, weekly and monthly basis, lists search strings that led to us, and so forth. About a month ago, our hit count dropped suddenly to about half its normal level (even including the normal random and cyclical variations), and the hits from Google searches dropped to near zero*. This has happened before, whereupon it has jumped back to normal after a few days. But this time, it has held for several weeks. When things were working normally, we would get around 50-100 google hits per day, of the ones recorded by Slimstat; and based on correlating with the visit counts, and how that varies in proportion to google hits, I have reason to think that Slimstat may not catch all of them, and that the true number is around twice that. So dropping to near zero is definitely statistically significant.
So, on a peradventure, I started typing search strings into Google that normally bring us up on the first or second page. Sure enough: we have vanished.
In order to be sure, however, I added enough qualifiers so that there aren’t a bazillion hits, so that I can search exhaustively. I picked key words from some of our most heavily-trafficed articles, which have received many google hits in the past, plus one more recent article (the Wagner podcast) which has gotten many hundreds of hits though perhaps not yet a google hit. Here are some examples.
Type the string
Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde mixture-of-good-and-evil
Nothing. Now paste the same string into Yahoo, and we come up #7.
Here are some more examples. We come up in the position shown, as of Saturday morning, 7/19/08.
measure the quarter-meridian using some pre-existing metric
Google, absent; Yahoo, #1
Gordon Clark science Zeno Galileo curved geometry “self-existent universe”
Google, absent; Yahoo, #1
wagner rheingold and ring cycle podcast MBâ€™s synopsis discussion
Google, absent; Yahoo, #1
baseball refashioned after the image tempora mutantur nos et mutamur
Google, absent; Yahoo, #1
Now here is the clincher. Append the string “site:butler-harris.org” to any of the search strings, and Google reports it immediately. In other words, we are in their database, and they cough it up if you know to look here. But otherwise, we are censored.
Whether this situation will hold or not, I don’t know. Maybe the censorship function is in beta-test. (* I said near-zero because it looks like there may be some foreign google deployments that break through, and possibly one article has been grandfathered in.)
Google has the right to provide any kind of service it wants, since it is free. But it is false advertising to pretend it is a non-political search engine that simply reports what is out there. Clearly, deliberate censorship is going on.
Now, someone might wonder why, if this is so, certain anti-jewish sites like stormfront still appear on google. My guess is something like this. Those sites are less “dangerous” because only people seeking them out are likely to go there. Whereas, a high school student trying to get jump-started in thinking about “Dr Jekyl and Mr Hyde” might end up at our site, and find some “interesting” material on other subjects. Or, we are a small fish that they can use to test and refine their censorship program without raising instant public awareness. Perhaps the bigger fish have yet to be fried.
I have had it up to here (chopping motion at the necK) with jewish control of communications. First it was the movie industry; then it was the television networks. Now, it is the internet. I am boycotting Google, and urge others to do the same. Yahoo appears to still be safe. Delete your shortcut until the new habit sets in. Pass this information on to friends and contacts that value freedom of speech and the integrity of scholarly search.
Wow! Old habits are hard to break, but I’ll try.
I think you are on to something. I found your site with Google some time back. I think the search was
Solzhenitsyn 200 Years Together
But now you are so far down I would probably not find you that way.
Put in the title to this post and you will get connected to First Word.
Eliza — that’s not happening at my station. I get the response,
“No standard web pages containing all your search items were found”
whatever “standard” is supposed to mean.
Just so you know T, it was acting exactly as Eliza said yesterday, but has seemed to stop doing as such and is now acting as you assert.
When are you going to address Keith in the jew thread? Can I if you would prefer not to? [Daniel– I thought I had answered Keith fully, then he just asked the same question again. You can always wade in, no permission needed — though in this case MRB’s nice post may suffice. Tim]
As of 7:15 pm Monday “no matches” for this post’s title. Curiouser and curiouser…
Things that make you say hmmmmmm
Actually, guys, as tempting as it is to conjure up theories about Google’s political pretenses in action… this happens to a lot of sites. It happened to one of mine, actually. This site underwent the same thing: disappeared from searches using common keywords that normally brought it up #1 previously, yet the site still came up using “site:”.
You can always re-submit your URL using this link, which I would recommend. If your site is like mine, it should re-appear in a month or two—but I have no way of knowing the exact time.
You might also want to read about this incident with JewWatch.com.
I asked a friend of mine about this problem, who is a professional hacker. He trains Secret Service Agents how to hack websites, and does other very high level computer stuff. He says that Google is regularly reorganizing web sites according to usage. He gave me some details on how this is done, but it is far beyond my understanding to relate. Basically, it seems, if your website gets “only” 100-200 hits per day, it is moved way outside the pack. Remember that it is not uncommon for websites to get 10,000 (yes!) hits per hour. Imagine how many hits Netflix gets, for example. You need a professional who is called a search engine optimizer. These people can improve your exposure, but command huge sums of money. Google is only improving its service to all users, by bringing up the most popular sites. Yahoo’s search engine is barely a mom and pop corner store compared to Safeway and Walmart put together. So no wonder the results are what you find. It has nothing to do with content. Sorry about that.
I’ll be glad to put you in touch with my friend if you want more details.
Jim — Nothing to be sorry about. If it is not intentional, then one feels better, sort of like the feeling of relief to discover that the scratch on the car you thought was vandalism was actually from when you drove through some brushes. However, there are several things that makes me dubious with your argument:
1. First, our daily hits were nibbling at more like about 10 times that — say, 600 visits/2000 hits per day.
2. It is a bit of a catch-22: those links near the top of google will get more hits, and vice-versa. So to some extent, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy; or self-fulfilling manipulation, as I believe.
3. Granted, we do not get the hits of Netflix, but that’s not the point. We should generate more hits for those interested in the “effects of the Reformed faith on the history of Prussia,” than Netflix does; and we did do, before the change. Moreover, you look at some of the links that do appear there, and no one will convince me that many of them are getting more natural traffic than us.
4. The algorithm to move sites up and down the list would be running continuously; but this change was sudden; and earlier, how did we get to the top of the list to begin with, unless our traffic was noticable for the topics in question?
5. The evidence I presented showed that we do not come up any more, even for strings that generate only a handful of google references. So it is not a matter of moving DOWN the list, it is a matter of having been moved OFF the list.
6. Even if Yahoo search is much smaller than google (in total internet hits, Yahoo has sometimes exceeded google, though perhaps that is because of the popular email utility), it would still be proportional. That is, the relative ranking of sites based on traffic would be the same. If they used the same basic concept for sorting, we would appear in about the same relative position, even though fewer people are using the engine. So that argument seems completely irrelevant.
Even if my suspicion is correct, I don’t doubt that Rev. 2 of the GCP (Google Censorship Program) will be more sophisticated, making the personae non gratae appear at position 10 million or whatever, and still disappear from the short lists, to increase the plausible deniability.
Has anybody tried cuil.com?
I’m trying to switch over to it from Google. The other thing about Google is that it walks hand in hand with Homeland Security, or so I’ve heard.
Interesting. Here’s a link with more info. Particularly telling was the statement about google, “After getting inquiries about Cuil, Google asserted on its blog Friday that it regularly scans through 1 trillion unique Web links. But Google said it doesn’t index them all because they either point to similar content or would diminish the quality of its search results in some other way.” (my emphasis)
It’s a non-tracking, truly unbiased search engine.
I am Jim’s friend. Google doesn’t discriminate in the US. It does filter based on preferences.
However, what you are seeing is Google doing what they think their customers want. They are providing the most recent, relative, and recommended resources that their algorithms can provide.
To put in another way, why would a user want to look at information on a subject that is 200 days old and that only 10 people link to when there is content that is 10 days old that 1000 people link to. Plus, if a website has a wide range of subjects, then chances are it is not an expert or very valuable for users.
To get the best results from Google, the subject matter must be consistent, regularly updated, and referred to by many websites. Plus, don’t forget that Google can create a profile of the user via cookies.
Seth — Let’s unpack your answer a little.
First, whatever algorithm is being used, a sudden change can be dated in our case almost to the day: June 1, plus or minus a couple days. That’s when we instantaneously dropped from maybe a thousand Google-referred visitors per week, to almost zero. So, either they rolled out a new version containing the heuristics you describe around that day, or it is not the case that their program is blind.
If that algorithm is “what they think their customers want” (what customers? no one ever asked me), it is strange that it took until exactly June 1, 2008 to unroll it.
But if the heuristics you describe is indeed their (new) program, let’s analyse the logic of it.
“Why would a user want to look at information on a subject that is 200 days old and that only 10 people link to when there is content that is 10 days old that 1000 people link to?” But the disjunction “more recent links or fewer older” is ambiguous. What about an older site with more hits vs a newer post with fewer hits? Obviously, the two criteria need to be treated separately.
1. Is newer better? Only in respect to the morning news. In respect to an argument for English versus metric, or a reflection on Napoleon, it is hard to imagine that newer would necessarily be better than older. Yes, to find the latest on Britney more recent is probably better, because you’ve already hear the old gossip. But to study a review of Carson on Parliaments in the early modern age, that is not at all the case. So if google has done something so stupid, let’s boycott it for that alone. Let “google for gossip” be the watchword.
2. What about the “hit count” issue?
Apart from referrals given by a search engine, registering hits and links is a matter of having established self-conscious visitors by either advertising or having friends, plus the ripple effect as people email links to their friends (but most of those do not turn into links from other sites). So you get rewarded by either having money and spending it on advertising, or having lots of friends that know about you without the search engine and agree to link.
Now what does having a lot of money or a lot of friends have to do with scholarship? It sounds kind of jewy to me. Imagine a solitary Frege posting from his lonely little cubby hole in Jena, versus some garrulous, rich party animal blowing gas about “logic.” The latter, after buying advertisement and getting friends to link would “win” on google’s alleged algorithm. I suppose the thought is that Frege’s site would eventually cascade into natural dominance by word of mouth, after which google would finally chime in with referrals. Again, if google has done something so stupid, let’s boycott it for that alone. As if the point of going to google is a popularity contest.
Next: is it the case that a site covering many topics is going to be less reliable than one that specializes?
1. As to form: Say you are interested in comments on Orson Welles. Might you not rather hear the opinion of someone that has read in literature, drama, and philosophy than someone that only knows and writes about cinema during the 40s and 50s? To ask it is to answer it.
2. I am dubious that google has the kind of artificial intelligence needed to “know what the subject is about.” That requires a high degree of intelligence. An intelligent essay on Presidential politics might mention Plato, Calvin, statistics, polling methods, and the logic behind the thing known as the “electoral college.” Show me a computer program that could identify the subject as “Presidential politics” from an index of all those words.
3. As to matter of fact: then newspapers like NY Times and encyclopedias like Wikipedia should be excluded, because they are “too broad.” But we find the opposite is the case. So this alone proves that that is not actually a criterion that they are using. Indeed, it is silly to suggest it might be.
Moreover, as I have repeatedly pointed out, the situation here is not being bumped DOWN the list, which could be explained by some criterion of relative popularity; but of being bumped OFF the list, so that it does not appear EVEN WHEN THERE IS NOT A SINGLE OTHER LINK PROFFERED. That simply does not make sense.
Finally, with all due respect, Seth, is your source credible? Think about it: First, we already know that google cooperates with national censorship in other countries, as you coyly admit by saying “Google doesnâ€™t discriminate in the US.” So we know they don’t have scruples about it in principle. On the hypothesis that google censors in the US as well, either that fact is secret, or it is publicly disclosed. If it is publicly disclosed, where is that disclosure? But if it is a secret, then certainly only people at the VP or director level at Google would be privy to it. Is your source at that level? And would your being given that information not be accompanied by a promise of maintaining the secret? Or are you just taking a wild guess?
I wouldn’t put anything past Google:
We must sympathize with anyone who believes he is a victim of a malevolent conspiracy. Unfortunately, the said person has gained a suspicion a conspiracy and then started collecting enough evidence to confirm it. It is next to impossible to shake the conviction of conspiracy with counter evidence, which of course always exists. Think of the atheist: “throw me evidence for the existence of God.” So you throw him a piece of evidence, which he takes and throws over his shoulder. “Throw me another piece.” And he does the same. In other words, he accepts no evidence regardless of how much there might be. (Van Til’s illustration). So it is with “conspiratoree’s.” No amount of evidence is ever enough to shake their belief. Their belief, has in fact, turned into a world view. I once was good friends with a Seventh Day Adventist couple who had this view against the church of Rome. Everything bad, especially big things, politics, government, regulations, etc., was a conspiracy perpetrated against the constitution, freedoms, America, by the church of Rome. The Antichrist. It didn’t do any good to talk about it at all.
So to combat this problem, we need two counter checks. The first is to recognize within ourselves when we are becoming hardened as a “conspiratoree.” This we do when people we trust as being reasonable begin to express doubts about our conviction of a conspiracy. Then we should begin to doubt it also. The second is to understand the “Babel” principle. As godless conspiracies get started and begin to grow, the Babel curse begins also. Think The United Nations. If ever there was an institution with the curse of Babel exposed, surely that is the one. But no power, however constituted, will ever succeed in slowing the growth of the Kingdom of God. We may feel like we are small fry in that growth, but never the less we are a part of it. And nothing can overcome it.
We need to sing all the verses of Onward Christian Soldiers a lot more often. Or, if that offends you because of a prejudice against hymns, then Psalms 2 and 149.
At the sign of triumph Satan’s host doth flee;
hell’s foundations quiver at the shout of praise;
we are not divided, all one body we,
one in hope and doctrine, one in charity.
Onward, then, ye people, join our happy throng,
blend with ours your voices in the triumph song;
Let the high praises of God be in their mouth,
And a two-edged sword in their hand,
To execute vengeance on the nations
And punishment on the peoples,
To bind their kings with chains
And their nobles with fetters of iron…
The poison of Amillennialism is, I believe, a major factor excising these powerful themes from Reformed Churches.
More evidence that if your blog offers trenchant criticism of the hebishkeitsreich and you will be a targeted by jewgle.
To #14 –
Scroogle is superior to jewgle because of privacy matters. But it is not better than jewgle in terms of searches since it uses jewgle.
Jim — I assume you are referring to your friend Seth as conspiracy theorist (since there was nothing conspiracy-related in either the crime I describe nor the deduction as to “who-done-it”). However, I don’t see anything specifically conspiratorial in Seth’s assertions either. Please explain your sense.
Tim – I am not referring to Seth as anything. Many people reading your posts would come to the tentative conclusion that you see a Jewish conspiracy against your site. You yourself say, without evidence, “Jewish control of communications.” And now MRB is using the obviously intentional pejorative “jewgle.” You want Seth to cite his “secret sources.” Where are yours? Do you have the names of Google’s executives? Are they Jews? Do they worship at the altar of the Torah? How do you know they aren’t Dispensationalists? What is it about your website that would make you yourself believe that it is a JEWISH conspiracy and not some other? Are you admitting that Jews would have some reason to blacklist it? The fact is, you yourself acknowledge a “Jewish conspiracy against communications” and against your site specifically. Where is the proof? You sound very much like a conspiracy theorist. At least that is what is likely to be concluded by the novitiate.
Jim — The main thesis of this thread is a simple one: google hits dropped from (say) 1,000 to 0 overnight, and no explanation (except censorship) offered to this point takes account of that fact, or makes any logical sense.
True, I have seen enough in print for a long enough time about google’s jewish origins and control that I took it as common knowledge. (Same with the jewish domination of Hollywood and the networks.) I don’t know anyone that challenges that facticity. If you know otherwise, then point it out; if you want documentation, then ask. But regardless of google’s motive, the evidence of censorship stands and calls for an answer. That would remain the same if it turned out to be controlled by dispies. (Which of course, is not really contradictory to being controlled by jews. It was perhaps an unhappy counterexample to choose.)
The Dispies reference was of course an attempt at irony. You know I know about Dispies the same as you do. I don’t know that Jews “control” the media, but even if they attempt to, my point about Babel confusion still stands.
Incidentally, the news media is 85% behind Obama. That doesn’t sound very Jewish!
Also, I don’t understand your comment in the original post about having 50 to 100 hits, which you say was likely actually double, 100-200, but now you say 1000 hits?
per day (original reference) vs per week (most recent ref). See first Para in #18.
Incidentally, the news media is 85% behind Obama. That doesnâ€™t sound very Jewish!
The NAACP had jewish presidents until the 70’s! It is a jewish organization. jews are constantly propping up blacks.
“the news media is 85% behind Obama”.
Where does that accurate-sounding statistic come from? You ought to read “How to Lie with Statistics”–I did, and now I question all statistics whose origin and methodology remains unexplained.
The statistics supplied in the original post and follow up comments by TJH are substantive and therefore believable.
86%, pardon me. World Magazine, Aug. 9/16, 2008, page 6, second column. I acknowledge that stats are always subject to interpretation, and even if correct (probably not often), may communicate conflicting opinions.
I’m still not sure I understand what Jewish CONTROL of the media means. I thought it was as likely market control. I have tried to imagine what “Christian” control of the media would look like: Inflammatory slander against Jews (which actually did happen, resulting in the Jewish owners not permitting any Christian access; I heard some of it myself); or pandering drivel favoring Israel; constant eschatological warnings by date setters who “take the prophecies of the Bible literally” and always get it wrong; constant sucking up to the president if Republican, and slamming him if a Democrat. Do you really think that what you hear on “Christian radio” is preferable to the general media, bad as it is?
I didn’t know there were that many black Jews. The feeling one gets is that they are often at enmity. I suppose it is a love/hate relationship.
I’m sorry, I still don’t have that reference correct. I often read quickly and remember things wrongly. The reference cited was not referring to actual media numbers at all, and on top of that I extrapolated incorrectly. The article said only that the three major networks gave Obama’s trip to Europe “10 times” more coverage than McCain’s trip, and that they appeared to be give Obama greater favorable press coverage than McCain. Sorry for the misstatements.
(deleted on request)
(deleted on request)
“86% of media back Obama (from World mag”
I assume you mean the fact that Obama got 10 times more news coverage of his recent trip abroad than McCain did in his March trip abroad. To translate that into 86% of the media is behind Obama is flawed. To really study who favors whom you would need to account for way too many variables. It may be that the media swing back and forth between candidates, it may mean a summer trip (closer to the convention) is more newsworthy than a March trip. It MAY mean the media do favor Obama, but please don’t give statistics like “86%” are behind Obama. And please read “How to Lie with Statistics”. It’s enlightening, though outdated in its many examples.
As I said already, I’m sorry I said 86% was behind Obama. It was a mis memory of some points made in said article. According to some of the above posts it should probably be 100%. In any event, are you suggesting the media is NOT behind Obama?
(I know what “statistics” can do. Can we live without them?)
I’m getting the feeling that “jewish” control of the media is a synonym for non-Christian (anti-Christ) control of the media: “the advancement of secular humanism, the degradation of Christ…etc.” (No. 30 above). I want some examples of specifically JEWISH, as opposed to NON CHRISTIAN control; and not just alleged censorship of obscure highly specialized minuscule websites such as this one, which are perceived as Jew hating by the Jewish controllers. (Rightly or wrongly). What does it mean for me that my Lancaster New Era (newspaper) is controlled by the Jewish controllers?
There’s no doubt that there is a media blitz for Obama, regardless of whether it can be quantified. However,
1. We don’t know what the final outcome is yet. They may be puffing Obama up to make his eventual fall even more dramatic.
2. The cryptocracy is not omnipotent. They steer, deflect, and manipulate, but cannot completely determine public opinion. But what they seem to be able to do infallibly is the upshot of #3:
3. Both candidates are completely jew-approved. Both have “made the trip” and genuflected deeply before the Holy Chosen People. Flip a coin: heads we lose, tails they win.
Here is just a small introduction to jews and media. I’ll have more to say (am at work right now) but you have to start somewhere. The point is: start.
I’m still too dull to get it! Jews get to those places mainly because they are smart and work hard. And, being Jews, they have the longest history of any tribal group on earth in communication. (Begun by Adam). Do you bemoan the fact that Christians, still often from the lower to middle classes, don’t rise to positions of influence and power? That when Christians do great things, like start all the great institutions of higher learning, in fact, start the very institution of higher learning itself, then let it go to pagans, and have no one to blame but themselves?? That write absurd novels like the Life Behind Series, and then as Gary North noted, get left behind themselves? If Jesus, who is indisputably in control of all things whatsoever, puts Jews in positions of influence because there are no Christians available, do we cry because they are Jews, or because there are no Christians?
I still want an explanation about what Jews are doing that is so despicable AND that is different than what any non-Christian would do. Or is it just the catch phrase of this particular web group? Like my friend with Roman Catholics who are behind everything evil, or another friend who started going on about Arabs. Arab this and Arab that; we were losing everything because of Arabs. Pick your tribe. Now the Asians are coming in and are much smarter and work far harder than Americans. What to do? Condemn them for that?
Be a Daniel and through patience, diplomacy, sacrifice, love, and prayer, disciple them. Than the “kings from the east” will come and worship at the manger.
I totally agree with #34.
I think McCain is actually more favored by the Powers That Be, but both are acceptable to them. Note how Obama started changing his tune on Iran and Iraq in the past few months. His plans and McCain’s are looking more and more similar all the time. Some of Obama’s progressive liberalism is just window-dressing. I would think the important thing is for the candidates to be willing to continue the military-industrial-Congressional complex (as Eisenhower originally called it).
Jim — first, let’s review the contour of this discussion. Notice how your argument has shifted. First, it was to poo-poo jewish domination of media as nutty conspiracy theory. Then when evidence is presented, you say “yeah but that only makes them praise-worthy”! Likewise, at first you (and Seth) thought there were all kinds of logical explanations for why First Word would stop being referred by google on June 1, 2008. From the deafening silence, I think you have conceded that I have shown those excuses are empty. So in short, it seems like the main burden of my post remains established. Now, we are going on a digression — a good digression, but still a digression — on (1) whether “what Jews are doing is despicable” and (2) what should Christians’ response be.
We first must define what a jew is: a member of a substantially Turkish tribe that follows a variety of worldviews ranging from occult Kabbalah to secular humanism, to — well pretty much anything EXCEPT Christianity. But regardless of which demonic religion is followed, all are taught from a very young age to ask, of any public question, “is it good for the jews?” The common source book of all the branches, the Talmud, instructs that ordinary rules of morality do not apply in interactions with the “goyim.” Historically, for thirteen hundred years, this tribe of Turks (and even hundreds of years before that, before the Turkish influx) does not assimilate in any host country, but begins the well-practiced craft of extracting wealth from the locals and subverting what is dear to them, until inevitably the hosts get sick of it and boot them out, whereupon they take their gold and move on to the next host.
Yes, I think that for a nomadic people to seek to take over the institutions of power and influence of their host nation for the purpose of subverting and exploiting that people for their own gain is despicable. Even if, at every step, strict legality is followed. (Of course on that note, another branch of the Tribe is “seeing to” the legalities, through domination of the law schools, legal profession, judgeships, and suits brought by ADL and ACLU.)
Fundamentally, however, the key question for us is not whether the jewish encroachment on our society (I haven’t mentioned the pornography, blasphemous and demoralizing movies, international banking, spying, and control of foreign policy through harrassment, badgering, threats and money) is “despicable.” The question is, do we not have the right and duty to stand up and resist. As you said, “when Christians do great things … then let it go to pagans, [they] have no one to blame but themselves.” Exactly. So let’s rise up and resist. That’s what we are doing. But for some reason, you want to resist the resistance. Perhaps that is because you take the libertarian solution.
Most conservative Christian Americans see the problem but think that libertarian competition plus evangelism is the answer. “We should strive to take our rightful place in Hollywood, in the media” etc etc. “Is there a problem with pornography? Then we should make such great movies that no one wants to watch pornography, and in parallel convert the pornographers to Christ.” Etc.
That used to be my view as well. In our treatment of the subject on this blog, you are seeing the living process of our reasoning our way out of that “solution.”
History is the history of peoples. Nations are common descendants of a patriarch. That is what the Bible teaches, and what we see when we study history. Nations are not, contrary to the jewish agit-prop that most Americans have swallowed lock stock and barrel the last 40 years (but which of course is not supposed to apply to the jews themselves), simply “the collection of people residing within borders that are drawn on a map.” Once this is realized, then it follows that the leaders of the folk must drive out influences that they see to be harmful for their people. And nothing should be more obvious than that the jewish infiltration of our institutions is harmful to our people. Awaken, goy! Fight for the safety and integrity of your great-grandchildren!
Now as to the question of evangelism. The insight I propose here is that we are still members of an earthly tribe after we are translated to the city of God. Luther saw this. We used to chuckle at his exposition of the Sermon on the Mount — that if someone is robbing you JUST BECAUSE YOU ARE A CHRISTIAN, then give him your cloak as well; but if he is just robbing you because he is a robber, then defend yourself. Surely something like this is a necessary distinction, however. When Christians reacted to Pearl Harbor, they didn’t say, “let’s praise them for their great stealth and technological achievements, and invite the poor dears over for tea so we can evangelize them.” No, they supported a war of resistance. (I’m leaving out that the Japanese were manipulated and the US was probably at fault — it’s just an illustration.) This is the distinction to keep in mind. Evangelize as opportunity comes — but also rise up and defend your people. Here we are dealing with an enemy far more destructive than Pearl Harbor.
This is the fallacy of Gary North’s Christian libertarianism. It presupposes that everyone is just a bare individual thrown into the great melting pot. It neglects the fact that we are a folk with obligations to watch over protect and defend that folk.
First, I would like hard evidence that your site is censured and not circumstantial. It is my prerogative to remain skeptical as long as such is not the case. I also reserve the right not to change my convictions simply because I am shouted down with arguments which are more informed than I am OR care to be. I don’t intend to research to the bottom every issue on which I have an opinion. No one does or can do that. Including you, I might add.
I have also found that most of my friends to which I refer your web site surf around a little and, find it offensive and lose interest. One man, who is very thoughtful, said he couldn’t decide whether the things you say are your real beliefs, or said only to be provocative. I didn’t dare tell him that I am convinced that all the race baiting, as most people perceive it, and Jew bashing, as most people perceive it, were indeed your real beliefs.
So maybe Google does censor anti-Jewish sites. What do you expect to do about it other than add it to your closet of evil things the evil Jews do? How did Google get to be so important in the first place? Where is the Christian Google? Because Christians don’t know how to play the market the way Jews do? If Google dominates the field, they must be doing something right. If it doesn’t, then why are you so upset at them? The vast majority of people who use Google have no idea that it is a conspiratorial attempt on the part of a Turkish tribe to take over the host country (the world). I certainly didn’t. I use it because I like its format better than others. And, I never said what they are doing is “praise-worthy” in the godly sense. Only in the market sense. You yourself acknowledge that they are successful in taking over the institutions of power and influence so I guess you are also saying they are praise worthy.
Again, the substance of your post seems to be that we, `Americans, I guess (?), are against them, the Jew, or at least anyone who asks, “Is it good for the Jew.” “We,” a vast amalgam and mixture of descendants and new tribes whenever a mixed marriage occurs, such as in our family, must resist “Them,” these Jews who out to take our wealth and subvert us. I am still convinced that if Christians were as smart as the Jews who are at the top of the heap in communications, and other institutions, and worked just as hard, that Christians would be there too.
Take our Reformed Churches, including mine and yours. Especially mine and yours. Is your community being changed because the leaders and movers in your church are working hard to change it? Are your deacons impacting the down and out so much that, as happened in our church one time, a non-Christian non-churched social worker was over heard to say to some “ward of the street” so to speak, “go to Reformed Pres. Church of Ephrata. They can help you.” Are we doing all that we could? Of course not. Right now a main focus of our ministry is to the mentally and physically handicapped. There is no one in our church who is capable of recapturing Yale, or Newsweek, or Google.
I don’t know who “our folk” are. My patriarch was John Wesley, but now is John Calvin. Noah is the patriarch of all of us. Unless you know otherwise. It seems like it is my duty to defend my people against any antichrist wherever it is found, Jewish or otherwise. If you want to focus on Jews, fine, why not? I had a good many for customers. Some were outstanding customers, others horrible. Just like all the non-Christians. And Christians, in fact, now that I think about it. I had horrible Christians for customers. They probably thought the same of me.
So what do we do to defend ourselves against the onslaught? How about turning off the TV? I did that decades ago. I don’t subscribe to any of the Jewish rags. I don’t vote for Republican or Democratic presidents. Stop buying Kosher foods or Maxwell House coffee? Do you have any other suggestions? My dentist is a lapsed Roman Catholic. My horological supplier is an attending RC. My neighbor is somewhere in between.
Maybe Gary North is right.
I’m sorry about the censorship of your web site.
Jim (#36, para #2):
Some wise person once told me this, which I had never really considered before: Jewish people today are overwhelmingly secular. I was naive enough to believe they held to the OT. They do not. If anything, they hold to the Talmud. Unlike RCs, or Jehovah Witnesses, or Hispanics, or Irish, or Mormons, or Arabs, they do not (in general, which is the only way to speak at this point) hold to a (Ten Commandment-style) moral code. If anything goes, can you see where this leads–basically anywhere. Yes, this will include a Salk or Sabin, but also an immoral Hollywood producer or an abortionist. There is nothing in their DNA that does this. They, too, can embrace the Savior, and many do, praise God for that. As our culture becomes more and more post-Christian, we’ll find more and more people of all stripes who have abandoned the moral code we find in Scripture. The spiral downward will intensify. Does this all make sense?
Of course I don’t believe they hold to the OT. If they did that, they would be Christians. I never put them in some camp other than secular. Which is why I don’t really understand this web site. It does seem to. Sort of a reverse of the Dispensational teaching. Instead of being God’s special “chosen,” they are the devils special “chosen.” Almost aliens. Out to get us. Whoever “us” is. And I think it is dangerous to accuse any subgroup of not adhering to a ten-commandment style moral code. Even if you think it may be true. Secular people of all sub-groups only regard the 10 as the 10 Great Suggestions. When push comes to shove, the 10 are thrown out the window. And that’s all of us. That’s why we need a savior. That’s why all the great sins of the day, abortion, adultery, etc., are found as equally among “Christians” as all the others.
The Roman Catholics DO want to take over the world. Study their history. Oh, and so do the Muslims. And the Jehovahs, and the Mormons. But we know Who actually has. Please see #17, para. #3 above.
You (all of you) need to make more friends with Jews.
I see what you are saying. What I am saying is something like this:
Mr. RC is a practicing Catholic. He does not trust in Christ for salvation (or maybe he does; we don’t know). However, he is under the influence of RC teaching (maybe from childhood, maybe from other RC friends, maybe from RC culture which does thrive here and elsewhere). Maybe somebody like Mel Gibson. So we see many personal failings, and when he comes to make a movie, he still violates the 2nd commandment, but we don’t see some of the grosser violations of the commandments we might get from someone who is by upbringing, friendship, and subculture immersed in secularism. Dr. RC may not trust in Christ either, but she will not do abortions–she’s been inoculated against abortion from her church, family, and friends. Ditto for Muslims, Jehovah’s witnesses, Mormons, Irish & Hispanics(being primarily RCs).
Are all great sins of the day found as equally among “Christians” as all the others? I agree the Church is a mixed multitude, but I do think that the use of the law to restrain sin even prevails among unbelieving, yet professing “Christians”. So I think of Ted Haggard, for example, but I don’t think there are tons of Ted Haggards out there. Maybe I’m wrong.
Getting back to the main thesis, Michael Hoffman is having problems with google as well. Hoffman, for those not acquainted with his works, has just finished a 1000 page book on judaism. Here is what he says about google and Amazon:
“After Amazon pre-ordered eleven copies of the book, the author was notified on August 3 by David Zapolsky, Vice President and Associate General Counsel at Amazon.com, that Amazon “will not continue distributing the book.”
“Though it may have been a coincidence, in roughly the same time frame, Google Inc. e-mailed Hoffman to inform him that his “On the Contrary” blog, hosted by Google since 2006, was set to be permanently deleted. Google accused Hoffman of running a “spam” blog, in spite of the fact that Hoffman has written more than 500 original columns for the blog over the course of the nearly two years that Google has hosted “On the Contrary.” (Google has since retracted its threat). In 2006 Google Video banned two of Hoffman’s videos, “World War II Revisionists Charles Provan” and ‘Deborah Lipstadt, Amalek and David Irving.'”
(For more on Hoffman, see here. Hoffman also wrote, Secret Societies and Psychological Warfare, a fascinating book that challenges the way most look at the world.)
On a larger point, the in’s and out’s of this debate are not very interesting to me. Since seeing through the jews a few years back, I never give them the benefit of the doubt. Where they can lie, cheat and steal, they will. Or at least will do so enough of the time that one need not bother to look at all of the evidence. (See my article on stereotypes for a general defense of this way of making judgments about the world.)
This stereotype of jews did not come about due to some native anti-semitism in me (to use a vacuous jewish term). It came from observing the world, reading history, studying Talmudism, and listening to my Christian fathers. This provides my major premise. When somebody gives me a minor premise to an argument that jews are involved in this or that perfidious activity, my attitude is “probably true, probably true.”
Arthur R. Butz’s book still does appear on Amazon.
FOr what it is worth, here’s spiritwaterblood‘s comment, and the link to James Edward’s ‘political cesspool’ take on Google…
I think it touches on all points under discussion.
“Excellent work by our friend James here in noticing that, though Google hates Jesus Christ, it loves fecal weddings. Iâ€™m sure it has nothing to do with the company being created by two Jews, because that would be anti-Semitic.”
The link is to this URL.
End of Story. I use Scroogle…
Another search engine to consider: Altavista: http://www.altavista.com/
Once upon a blue moon ago, Altavista was the king of search engines. Let’s start to make the google phenom a flash in the pan by switching back.
We also need to develop a different verb than “google it.” Need help here. Maybe:
“hoo it” (for Yahoo)
“vist’it” (for Altavista)
Let me tell you my experience of how I found this web site. I found the Texe Marrs article about Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s book “Together for Two Hundred Years”. I thought it strange that I never heard of this book by this world famous author.
So I put in Google “Together for Two Hundred Years” in quotes. I received a grand total of 20 results. About 5 were actual references of the book – like the BBC web site. The rest were accidental finds of the phrase. There were no anti-Jewish sites listed.
I still thought it strange that this was all the references in the entire world, so I went to Yahoo search and tried the same thing. There were 266 results, with no shortage of anti-Jewish sites. Yahoo also gave the helpful suggestion to search for “aleksandr solzhenitsyn together for two hundred years”. Your site was number 15 on the list.
Besides, if you search on Google containing the word “Jew” you get back this page:
Google is definitely filtering anti-Jewish sites.