Google; Don't be evil

Googles censorship of the Internet through its biased search engine pagerank is undemocratic, but did we really expect any differently?

Google is well known for its censorship in China, which seems to contradict the very principles that Google - whose unofficial motto "don’t be evil" - was founded upon. The "don't be evil" principle, recognises that Google holds great power over the information the public relies on, and their fiduciary duty to uphold the public trust by refusing payments that would influence the information they provide to users.

Until January 2006, Google's Support Centre claimed that it "does not censor results for any search term", but removed this claim after reaching its deal with China. Which just goes to show that Google uses the "don't be evil" principle as a propaganda campaign to convince the masses that they aren't an evil malevolent corporation. However, there is evidence prior to the Chinese censorship 2006, which can be found in Europe.

On October 22, 2002, a study reported that approximately 113 Internet sites had been removed from the German and French versions of Google, who were complying with local laws by not including sites containing certain material in its search results.

In Australia on September 20, 2007 at 9:58am, the Australian Government tabled new legislation where ISPs will be required to "take reasonable steps" to prevent users accessing websites or content, by expanding the URL "black list".

The laws will, can and do extend to Google and their operation in Australia.

Googles search engine works using a "PageRank" system, wherby the more links to a website the higher it is ranked. This is undemocratic because the E-commerce people have recognized the direct correlation between high rank of their site, and more sales. Google also has a spider system that scoures the internet to add new web sites to its search criterea. However, deletion of critical sites from Google search results is decided by individual human beings according to company policy. Effectively google will target its search results based on the originating computer IP, making the results region specific.

You will notice when "googling" in Australia, the search engine automatically registers google.com.au after hitting the search button. I found that after using google without a proxy server, NO result came upon this blog, however, after going through a U.S proxy, I was able top the list for anarchy down under. Here are the images:

Image 1: "Anarchy down under" not on any search page through Australian IP address

Image 2: "Anarchy Down under" top of list using proxy through U.S IP address

The following is taken from a Google Censorship FAQ:
Is Google transparent about their censorship?Google discloses what they censor when you hit on a specific search result (they didn’t always do this, but they regularly do since 2006). However, Google Inc does not respond to questions regarding how specifically they censor, how the process of censorship is implemented, which blacklists they use , which words are censored, which specific discussions they have with governments, and so on. Additionally, making censorship more transparent helps defeat its original purpose of hiding information, so it gives less incentive to governments to try impose such censorship regulations.

And there it is. Google uses blacklists and their search engines are region specific.

One way to get around this pagerank system and any of their blacklisting is to manually go and add your blog to as many directories as possible. The directories themselves cannot be blacklisted, thus, by adding your URL with enough tags (description), they will appear under a google search engine, regardless of regional filters.

Image 3: after adding this blog to the following directories:

Technorati, Bloggernity, Bloghub, Blog Rankings and Blogarama.

References:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don

http://www.anonproxy.ca/index.php?q=aHR0cDovL3d3dy5hdXN0cmFsaWFuaXQubmV3cy5jb20uYXUvc3RvcnkvMCwyNDg5NywyMjQ1MTUyMi0xNTMwNiwwMC5odG1s

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_by_Google
http://web.amnesty.org/pages/internet-110506-action-eng http://sethf.com/infothought/log/archives/001027.html

http://www.google-watch.org/

The war is won with the propaganda

Psychological Warfare: The use of propaganda or other psychological means to influence or confuse the thinking, undermine the morale, of an enemy or opponent.

Mind control is referred to as coercive persuasion, effectively; restraining, impairing, or compelling through the gradual application of PSYCHOLOGICAL FORCES. I thought it relevant to discuss mind control and propaganda after discussing with a colleague of mine about the protest on Sept 26. He informed me that he disagreed with protesting the workchoice laws as he believed it to be appropriate to dismiss someone if they were not a cultural fit. At this point I reminded him that his wife, had lost 3 jobs in 6 months with no redundancy package nor any notice, the psychological impact, the stress and loss of confidence in having these things happen to her, and how these workchoices laws were the cause. This didn't seem to make any difference, he still agreed with the laws.

In one foul swoop my colleague had dismissed his wife's suffering, his concomitant suffering, and yet still wholeheartedly told me that the laws were still a good idea.

What astounds me here was my colleagues inability to connect the politics of the Australian Government and the experience endured by himself and his wife, rather to treat it all as abstract. John Howard's minister for propaganda deserves an oscar. Wars are not won on the battlefield, they are won in the minds of the people.

TACTIC 1. The individual is prepared for thought reform through increased suggestibility and/or "softening up,". Mind control through repetition; my favourite example is through advertising. When watching T.V, we're in a relaxed and open state, ready for subliminal messaging.

TACTIC 2. Using rewards and punishments, efforts are made to establish considerable control over a person's social environment, time, and sources of social support. See previous post on "Culture of the organisation".

TACTIC 3. Disconfirming information and nonsupporting opinions are prohibited in group communication. See previous post on "The individual or the Organisational Culture". This tactic is reinforced through non-physical punishments. Whatever you do, don't talk about politics and religion, keep it to infotainment and weather.

TACTIC 4. Frequent and intense attempts are made to cause a person to re-evaluate the most central aspects of his or her experience of self and prior conduct in negative ways. Cults do this all the time, it is the use of guilt to control and manipulate. Mothers do it best.

TACTIC 5. Intense and frequent attempts are made to undermine a person's confidence in himself and his judgment, creating a sense of powerlessness. The Government does this with their two party system, so don't bother voting for a minor party, it makes no difference. In fact, go and jump off a bridge because you have no real impact in the world because you're not a celebrity. Oh, and the only thing you should really be preoccupied with is sex, your appearance and what Britney is up to.

Still not convinced that there's a targeted campaign to control your brain? Couldn't happen to you eh? Here's a quick test: Are you satisfied with the current state of the world? No? Doing anything about it? No? Well, that's mind control in action,- APATHY! Makes you feel hopeless, there's no point in trying, so why not just live YOUR life, don't worry about anyone else, just do what's good for you.

For anyone who is game enough to go on and watch the next video, it's actually very disturbing. Some of the mind control experiments conducted on animals are rather unpleasant. You've been warned.

So, what's the point of all of these things? Don't take my word for it, from the mouth of George Bush Snr himself:

We have before us the opportunity to forge for ourselves and future generations a new world order. A world where the rule of law, not the law of the jungle governs the conduct of nations. When we are successful, and we will be, we have a real chance at this new world order, an order in which a credible united nations can use it's peacekeeping role to fufill the promise and vision of the
U.N's founders.

References:
My stupid colleague
http://www.factnet.org/rancho1.htm

Practial Anarchy - Work Choices

Language is a potent weapon for legitimizing any political system, and in the west a level of communication has been reached which avoids confrontational discourse and resorts to words devoid of substantive meaning.

In Melbourne on September 26, 2007, the trade unionists marched against John Howard's "Work Choices" legislation. It reminds me of the term "Newspeak" from George Orwell's 1984, or as i like to call it, the euphemism treadmill. I find liberal "double-talk" to be a fascinating thing, in its ability to subvert the thinking of the cattle class. Call the new legislation "Work Choices" and it sounds like it has a positive spin, when in reality has very little in the way of choice. Tell that to a 15 year old apprentice who's signed a work contract for less than $20 an hour "all in" (less I'm told). Of course, the workchoices advertising will tell you that a 15 year old can only sign an agreement if they have a parent/guardian present. What if the adult has no capacity to bargain? Should we rely on the goodwill of an employer to abide by their fiduciary duty? The capitalist system is designed for the interests of the self-centred, and at these rallies, it's pretty obvious that the message is "Howard out, NOW!" and that all unionist problems have come about because of Liberal party politics. Let me assure all of you, a Labour Government will make no difference. We do not have a democracy here in this country, we have Corporate Governance. You should have noticed ads on TV saying "lets keep workchoices", these advertisements ARE NOT by the Liberal Government, but rather from business lobby groups. These lobby groups are powerful vested interest groups, whose sole mission is in maintaining the status quo. So much so, that the Government has changed legislation to include protests, where the only legal protest is over pay disputes, and therefore for a wage increase. Subsequently, the protest today over Workchoices legislation is considered illeagal. According to The Age 30,000 protestors were expected, however, the threat of individual fines of $6,600 would be issued against employees and $33,000 for unions if they went.

Thirty construction union members from Austral Bricks site in Craigiburn voted reluctantly yesterday to work as usual after they were told the company planned to call the Australian Building and Construction Commission to seek fines against individual workers.

Make no mistake, even if Kevin Rudd does get into power (and put all bets aside, Howard will get back in), these business lobby groups would never allow the removal of concessions granted to them, like the ability to sack workers for no legitimate reason (so long as you have no more than 100 employees). No, I'm afraid our hope for change through reform by Kevin Rudd will only lead us down the path of disappointment, after all, he admits to being an economic conservative, has already stated that "some" of the workchoices will stay, and then of course there is his wife's conflict of interest with her multimillion dollar business, supplying casual workers to the Government. Hmmm. I'm afraid that unions are misguided if they believe that Labor will have any real or lasting impact on their job security. Taking my job as the harbinger seriously, it's important to inform you that the opportunity for reform has passed, and I would like to leave you with one last thought.

Flying Cattle Class and the Power of No

Animals are instinctual, and respond in kind, while a human has the ability to override instinct with awareness.

At least, i would like to think that humans have the ability to override instinct with awareness. In practice, I've noticed that most people are in fact, cattle. Too easily herded and too concerned about appearances. Have you ever been in a situation where you were sure you were short changed, but didn't say anything because you didn't want to make a scene? Well, thats flying cattle class, and you have allowed your instinct, that is, your desire to fit in and be considered a part of the crowd (herd), to override your awareness and stand up for yourself, your rights and your pride. You walk away feeling cheated, downtroden and deflated. Then the internal arguments start - "Why didn't i say anything?", "Oh, it was only a dollar. I didn't want people starring at me" and so on.

The cattle class phenomenon continues into organisational cliques, people all too consumed in their own lives and egos, completely self absorbed and contrite, all the while unwittingly contributing to the cattle class syndrome. While profesionally assertive, this particular species is so outrageously naive about their own self-importance to be aware that anything exists outside of their communist fiefdom. In fact, the only defence against such a creature is the power of refusal.

I've mentioned previously about these professional cliques who spend far too much of their personal hours engaging in social events together. Even after a polite refusal, this will only buy the victim a short amount of time before the onslaught of rhetoric post-event begins. What amazes me with these individuals is the NEED for acceptance, acknowledgement and most importantly validation. Considerable effort on their part is outlaid in attempts to manufacture your validation and subsequent justifaction for their petty excuse for life. The power of refusal is also the power of independence, the perception to others that your affections cannot be bought, manufactured or manipulated. You, unlike the cattle class have the courage of your convictions, with an authentic and genuine spirit. However, cognizant independence comes with a price tage, and the cultural (and individualist) culture of the organisation is a powerful beast, that must maintain and assert it's control. While flying cattle class will give you anonymity, protection and security from the masses, it is the power of No that is the true affirmation of life.

The Individual or Organisational Culture?

Free speech is a term all political activists endeavour

to own in the moral high ground stakes.

I've noticed how the White Nationalists, Supremacists, Nazi's and extreme Right use the sacred defence of "Freedom of Speech" to defend their views and ideology. They are not alone in their quest to push their own agenda through such a defence. The Pro-life and Christian activists also complain about their lack of ability to speak out about their views in such a polarised society, and the hard ugly truth is, whether you agree with them or not, they do have the right to an opinion, and the right to express that opinion. The question is, when and where do they have the right to express said opinions? Their homes? Workplaces? Public forums? or not at all? I came across an interesting example where un-popular politics meets the culture of the organisation.You may or may not recall a man named Andrew Fraser, who was a Professor of Law at Macquarie University in 2006. He was forced to retire after making comments about an ethnic hierarchy in Australia. While i do not condone what was said, what has primarily fascinated me about this case, were not comments themselves, but rather WHEN and WHERE they were said. Prof Fraser wrote an email to his local paper The Paramatta Sun. The email was sent from his professional account at the university with (I'm assuming) a university signature at the bottom, and was published with those details. Subsequently, after a long and arduous process, Prof Andrew Fraser was forced disgracefully into retirement, which superficially, may seem like a good thing.

However, fools rush in where angels fear to tread.

The truth of the matter I'm afraid, is that the disgraced Professor didn't hold the party line. He didn't put the organisational culture ahead of his personal beliefs. I know most of you reading this will be thinking - so? I agree with the university in this instance. Ultimately, what it boils down to, is what happens when the organisational culture doesn't agree with what you have to say, or what i have to say? What happens when we don't hold the party line? (Both within work hours and outside of work hours).

Generally, a bureaucracy is based on merit, but is commonly "corrupted" by other systems of power. The result is that most bureaucracies seethe with rumours, power plays, upheavals, takeovers and changing organisational structures. Bureaucratic elites like to collect information about workers, from personal details to comments on job performance. This information can be used to control the workers. On the other hand, information about the elites is not made available to workers. In other words, surveillance is natural to bureaucracies, and much of it is targeted at workers.

Bureaucratic elites have considerable power and, as usual, it tends to corrupt. When possible, elites give themselves high salaries, plush offices, grandiose titles and special privileges. They can exercise power by supporting workers who support them personally and by penalising those who criticise or just annoy them. They can foster fear by intimidating subordinates. They can create havoc through reprimands, demotions, dismissals, restructuring and a host of other mechanisms. Just about anyone who has worked in a bureaucracy has a good idea of the sort of problems that can arise.

A bureaucracy is not a free society. There are no elections for top offices. There is little free speech, and there is no free press for opponents of the current elites. Open opponents of the ruling group are likely to be harassed, demoted or dismissed. This is exactly what happened to Prof Andrew Fraser, and I too have suffered and continue to suffer discrimination in my workplace based on my anarchist ideas and agenda. I consider what happened to Prof Fraser akin to the frog in the boiling water syndrome, the slow boil akin to our slow erosion of freedom of expression. So again, i ask you when and where do ALL OF US have the right to express our opinions? Our homes? Our workplaces? Public forums or not at all?

References:
http://news.csu.edu.au/director/features/society.cfm http://www.culturejamforlife.com/free_speech/free_speech_pro_life.htm http://slackbastard.anarchobase.com/?p=375 http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/counterpoint/stories/s1424337.htm http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/98il/il05.html

The Culture of the Organisation

Organisational culture is the personality of the organisation, comprised of the assumptions, values, norms and artifacts of organisation members and their behaviors.

Members of an organisation soon come to sense the particular culture of an organisation, and will adapt their personality to fit, ergo loosing their career momentum. This is evidenced through the status of the employee to clique groups, whether or not they participate and engage in extra-curricular activities, and their willingness to put the organisation as their first priority. I have noticed that in many work places the world is reduced to the microcosm of the organisations existence, and these clique groups spend significant amounts of their private lives interacting with one another, either with sporting teams, binge drinking and the like. This is encouraged by the organisation, as the organisation provides each employee with all they need. Why would you have relationships with humans outside of your workplace? which tends to remind me of Orwell's "1984". All relationships are fashioned by Big Brother FOR Big Brother.

Extra-curricular activities in particular are designed to bring about a sense of community within each organisation, and often take the form of conferences, picnics and group bonding exercises. These events are compulsory to attend, and failure to do so labels someone "not a team player". So, these large multi-national organisations force their already poorly paid employees to sacrifice their private hours in the name of organisational harmony, which is nothing more than forced assimilation, and in practice a communist fiefdom.

With the rise of the large multi-national and the development of "organisational culture", there seems to be little need or tolerance for culture outside of the organisation. Already we can see the signs of cultural decay, which is evidenced in Western countries already. Travel to any big city in Australia and they all appear the same, the same McDonald's, the same Coles, Safeway, Bunnings, the list goes on.

Organisations don't have culture, people do!

I get frustrated when dealing with people who have become institutionalised. These are people who for some foolish reason hold the belief that what is good for the organisation (Big brother!) is good for them. Thus, when firing workers or choosing to be unethical within the realms of law, they choose to side with the organisation. We've all been there, you've gone to some institution with their own bureaucracy, and someone behind the counter just keeps telling you no for inane or banal reasons. You try and convince them they have the ability to think for themselves, but it makes no iota of difference.

How can you make a difference? Make choices not for the culture of the organisation, but for the little guy. If you have the opportunity in your work, make the decision that doesn't side with the large multi-national! The best example of this is tobacco companies covering up the truth about the dangers of smoking, another is the housing sector in America. Brokers were encouraged by banks to provide sub prime (high interest) loans rather than prime (standard interest) loans EVEN to people who were eligible for the prime loans! Legally the broker was well within his rights to do so, but ethically, should not have. Many of us have occupations where we have a choice that while legal, is ethically questionable. Don't get sucked into the culture of the organisation, you are NOT who you work for.

References:

http://www.managementhelp.org/org_thry/culture/culture.htm