Search-engine censorship, socialism, ant hills, and female supremacism
Yes, there appears to be censorship by Google. I don’t know what can be done to stop it, other than to promote search engines that are more objective in the ranking of web pages.
harrietharmansucks.com (that link no longer functions and now leads to a webpage containing porn) having vanished completely from listings at Google, at google.com it is now in 135th place of 763,000 search results. In comparison, altavista.com ranks harrietharmansucks.com in 30th place of 2.56 million results. However, even though harrietharmansucks.com is listed now again on search returns by google.com, it, and some other similar web pages, reportedly disappeared from search-return listings for quite some periods of time.
Google provides an advantage and does make it easy to determine such things. Set google preferences to display 100 entries at a time, but you probably knew that. It appears that
harrietharmansucks.com is not necessarily “delisted,” but that Google’s ranking algorithm possibly contains something that down-ranks such a page.
Note 2018 05 03: You will without a doubt wonder what was so terrible at harrietharmansucks.com that it warranted sabotaging and obfuscating by someone as powerful as Google as well as vandalizing by an unknown party. Well, you can find out, because there is a mirror-site.
However, pay attention to the note of caution that is displayed there and consider that, in the world of the Internet, there is no place where one can truly be safe from persecution by powerful forces. Here is a snip of that note:
End of Note —WHS
A search for fatherlessness shows http://fathersforlife.org to be in first place (it’s been there for years [but not anymore now, 2018 05 03, when using Google), and in fourth place is Trish Wilson’s
MYTHS AND FACTS About Fatherlessness
[2018 05 03: That link now no longer functions. —WHS]
“Mainstream” fatherlessness statistics come not from valid sources but from father’s rights organizations. They are used to denigrate single and divorced …
The respective rankings for that at Google and Altavista are similar. So, why does Google pick on
Note 2018 05 03: Trish Wilson, a.k.a. Asherah, was a noted, rabid feminist, a dedicated enemy of all men and especially fathers rights activists. The preceding comparison of the ranking of web pages owned by a fathers rights activist and by a feminist, respectively, were not that important then and are most definitely not important now, except that Google is now heavily involved in using its search engine and other venues for extensive and very intensive social engineering (essentially, Google does on an unimaginably larger scale what Trish Wilson and other feminist fanatics engaged themselves in, attempts at censoring politically incorrect information, that is, the suppression of information that is true but inconvenient). The consequences of that are ominous and seriously threatening, but not for as long as there are search engines that compete with, and remain independent from, Google. The following observations will illustrate some of what Google is doing.
Today, 2018 May 03, a Google search for fatherlessness listed 491 results. Not a single web page at fathersforlife.org or at blog.fathersforlife.org was contained in Google’s list of those 491 search results. I tried the same search a few hours later. On that second try, there was one result, #202 on a list of 297 results. About four hours later, I tried a third time. On that third try, Google again did not identify a single web page at fathersforlife.org which contained the world fatherlessness, this time out of a total of 295 results on the search return list.
That is very curious. It quite plainly shows that Google’s search results cannot be trusted, because “fatherlessness” is one of the most-often mentioned and discussed concepts at Fathers for Life, at its website, as well as at its blog. Both of the latter are being treated by search engines as one domain (technically, the blog – dads&things – is a subdomain of the Internet domain fathersforlife.org, with the designation of the subdomain for the blog being blog.fathersforlife.org).
Consider the search results for site-specific searches (at fathersforlife.org) for the term fatherlessness, using various search engines:
- Freefind: 1,207 results. More…
- Google: 994 results. More…
- Bing: 941 results. More…
- Duck Duck Go: 223 results. More…
- Ask: 196 results. More…
Note: Freefind is the search engine installed for site-specific searches at fathersforlife.org and at blog.fathersforlife.org, an obvious necessity, given the findings discussed here, but there is another advantage in having a trusted search engine for site searches. That is that any revisions or edits to any web pages or blog postings can instantaneously be reflected in search engine results, without the often long wait before search-engine spiders crawl a given website and index new or revised content.
Google and Bing have a comparable level of success with finding web pages at fathersforlife.org that contain the word fatherlessness, while coming close to what the standard (Freefind) against which they are being measured requires to meet perfection. On the other hand, Duck Duck Go and Ask fall both far short of requirements.
Finding web pages that contain desired search terms is obviously fairly easy, when one already knows which website contains the search terms one is looking for. When one doesn’t know whether there are any websites with web pages that contain the search terms one is looking for, a more general search of the whole Web must be done by a chosen search engine.
So, how well do those search engines identified above perform with the ranking of web pages at Fathers for Life when doing a general search of the Web for the term fatherlessness? Websites that mention the search term often and on many web pages should obviously rank high on a given search-return list. With respect to the term fatherlessness, the website of Fathers for Life should always be listed as one of the first few entries on such a list. If there are many websites that use the term fatherlessness, then the list of entries on the search return list should be long.
- Freefind: #2 of 690 entries on the list of results. More…
- Duck Duck Go: #2 of 178 entries on the list of results. More…
- Bing: #3 of 813 entries on the list of results. More…
- Ask: #111 of 129 entries on the list of results; More…
- Google: #202 out of 297 entries on the list of results. More…
Note: The first try of that search, using Google, provided 491 results but no hits for Fathers for Life. The second try, a few hours later, produced the result indicated, #202 on a list of 297 entries. The third try, about four hours later, produced no hits for Fathers for Life on a list of 295 entries on the search return list. What good is a search engine that does not produce consistent results?
The original 2008 version of this blog posting used two search engines for the comparisons originally discussed comparisons, Google and Altavista. Google was not yet addicted to its power and did not use that power for social engineering as much as it does now. Altavista was essentially the first practical Internet search engine (before Google was launched) and was originally used as a demonstration of the skills and capabilities of the company, digital.com, which had designed, constructed and operated it.
The rise and fall of Altavista is an interesting story:
ALTAVISTA: THE RISE & FALL OF THE EARLY SEARCH ENGINE
Learn how one of the web’s biggest accidental success stories evolved.
End of note —WHS
Life must go on. There is a lot of apathy amongst men, not as much by individual men (those wake up when they are being persecuted, although by then many are punch-drunk and dazed) as there is by men as a sector in society, in the form of that sector’s collective apathy.
I check search results now and then, such as those pertaining to Women’s Studies, Men’s Studies, Women’s Studies Program and Men’s Studies Program (results over time are shown near the top of “Feminism? You want feminism? Which brand would you like?”) The search returns are interesting. They do show a distinct decline in interest in feminist issues as time goes by. Still, even though many feminists dropped out of activism through non-governmental organizations, they moved on to posh job positions in almost all sectors of government bureaucracies and intensify their fight against traditional moral values and social standards from there.
Men continue to fail to gain ground, but that may not be due so much to men’s failing to rail against female supremacism as it is due to men’s active collaboration, aiding and abetting in the construction of female supremacism.
You may have seen the following already. If not, you will be fascinated by it:
The Socialist Phenomenon, by Igor Shafarevich (English edition1980, with a foreword by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, and now accessible in full and for free at the indicated link)
I came across that book as a result of reading Solzhenitsyn’s 1978 Commencement Address at Harvard. He stated in that,
….The mathematician Igor Shafarevich, a member of the Soviet Academy of Science, has written a brilliantly argued book entitled Socialism [i. e.: The Socialist Phenomenon]; this is a penetrating historical analysis demonstrating that socialism of any type and shade leads to a total destruction of the human spirit and to a leveling of mankind into death. Shafarevich’s book was published in France almost two years ago [1976, in Russian] and so far no one has been found to refute it.
Igor Shafarevich is a world-renowned mathematician. I read substantial portions of his book [2008 12 02: all of it by now], and I must fully agree with what Solzhenitsyn stated about the book.
Solzhenitsyn did not mention feminism as a form of socialism, and neither did Shafarevich in his book, where feminism is not mentioned at all. Perhaps neither deemed it necessary to state the obvious, namely that socialism favours the female of the human species as much as anthills and beehives favour the females of their respective insect species. That favoritism is illusory, as it means nothing more than that females do all of the work, and males serve only a single purpose, to diversify the gene pool.
Human socialism has not yet progressed to that state of existence, but that is not for lack of trying. Ostensibly, women take on an ever-increasing share of the workload. Still, job fatalities comprise between 18 and 19 men out of every twenty fatalities, and – with respect to serious and crippling job injuries – the proportions of the sexes are much the same. Those proportions of the sexes in job fatalities and serious accidents have been the same since statistics on job injuries and fatalities were kept, with there being no change in those proportions on account of women increasingly entering the job market. That means that women limit the extent of their work to doing what is safe. They leave the dangerous, dirty, sweaty and risky jobs to men. Women will not begin to die at rates equal to those experienced by men on account of the work they do until women have assumed at least an equitable portion of risky and dangerous work.
Shafarevich identified that socialism necessarily takes the form of chiliastic socialism (for “the thousand” at the top of the social hierarchy). Socialism did so in Sparta. Shafarevich, even though he quoted extensively from Plato’s writings, especially from “Republic”, apparently did not mention or allude to what Aristotle wrote about Spartan “socialism.”
Feminism is socialism, “chiliastic socialism” for women at the top of society! It is a revival of the social architecture of Ancient Sparta, and this contains the context of what Aristotle had to say about that:
Again, the license of the Lacedaemonian women defeats the intention of the Spartan constitution, and is adverse to the happiness of the state. For, a husband and wife being each a part of every family, the state may be considered as about equally divided into men and women; and, therefore, in those states in which the condition of the women is bad, half the city may be regarded as having no laws.
And this is what has actually happened at Sparta; the legislator wanted to make the whole state hardy and temperate, and he has carried out his intention in the case of the men, but he has neglected the women, who live in every sort of intemperance and luxury. The consequence is that in such a state wealth is too highly valued, especially if the citizens fall under the dominion of their wives, after the manner of most warlike races, except the Celts and a few others who openly approve of male loves. The old mythologer would seem to have been right in uniting Ares and Aphrodite, for all warlike races are prone to the love either of men or of women. This was exemplified among the Spartans in the days of their greatness; many things were managed by their women. But what difference does it make whether women rule, or the rulers are ruled by women? The result is the same. [My emphasis, —WHS] Even in regard to courage, which is of no use in daily life, and is needed only in war, the influence of the Lacedaemonian women has been most mischievous.
The evil showed itself in the Theban invasion, when, unlike the women of other cities, they were utterly useless and caused more confusion than the enemy.
This license of the Lacedaemonian women existed from the earliest times, and was only what might be expected. For, during the wars of the Lacedaemonians, first against the Argives, and afterwards against the Arcadians and Messenians, the men were long away from home, and, on the return of peace, they gave themselves into the legislator’s hand, already prepared by the discipline of a soldier’s life (in which there are many elements of virtue), to receive his enactments. But, when Lycurgus, as tradition says, wanted to bring the women under his laws, they resisted, and he gave up the attempt.
These then are the causes of what then happened, and this defect in the constitution is clearly to be attributed to them. We are not, however, considering what is or is not to be excused, but what is right or wrong, and the disorder of the women, as I have already said, not only gives an air of indecorum to the constitution considered in itself, but tends in a measure to foster avarice.
Politics, by Aristotle, (350 B.C.)
Translated By Benjamin Jowett
We know quite a bit about the brutal oppression of men (from the time they were small kids until they became 60 years old) that was necessary to make possible what Aristotle described, but that is what the Harriet Harmans of the world are hard at work to bring about for all men. Still, it is important to recognize that not only women are responsible for the systemic anti-male discrimination and the exploitation of men. We must never forget that without the active cooperation and even the leadership of men it is not possible to design, construct and install any form of socialism, not even socialism of the Spartan kind that is in essence nothing other than the construction of female supremacy as a system of government.
I will continue to read the book by Igor Shafarevich. So far it provided confirmation of my assessment of the consequences of feminism. (Check the four major attributes of socialism: Abolition of private property; Abolition of the family; Abolition of religion and, Equality – abolition of hierarchies in society [except “for the top-thousand,” namely women — WHS])
Shafarevich mentioned several times that socialism brings about the social structure of the ant hill, and he credits Dostoyevsky with originating that thought. In that connection, if you have never read “Consider Her Ways” (that is, the ways of the ant), by John Wyndham, do it. It is a novella about a subject Angry Harry repeatedly wrote about: an engineered virus (e. g.: AH is Going to Build Himself a Virus!), except that Wyndham wrote about the sterilization of all men and about the sort of society that may grow out of that: feminist, chiliastic socialism of the sort you find in an ant hill but without the drones and with parthogenesis.
Igor Shafarevich recounts instance after instance where, throughout history, men were the primary victims of socialism, so much so that in some cases as many as two thirds of men were killed, making it necessary to establish compulsory polygamy. (Incidentally, about 96 percent of the victims who perished in the Gulags were men.)
Interestingly, one of the last wishes expressed by Adolf Hitler was to have polygamy legalized and promoted, so as to compensate for and repair the losses his brand of socialism had caused in the male demographic sector of the German population and to alleviate the resulting demographic and fiscal consequences of that. I don’t know yet whether Shafarevich addressed that in his book (2018 05 03: no, he did not). The book doesn’t mention Hitler, but it does address the subject of polygamy, related consequences and goals of social-engineering in generic terms. For instance:
…an ideology that is hostile to human personality cannot serve as a point of support for it.
We can see that all elements of the socialist ideal–the abolition of private property, family, hierarchies; the hostility toward religion–could be regarded as a manifestation of one basic principle: the suppression of individuality. It is possible to demonstrate this graphically by listing the more typical features that keep appearing in socialist theory and practice over two and a half thousand years, from Plato to Berlin’s “Commune No.1,” and then constructing a model of an “ideal” (albeit nonexistent) socialist society. People would wear the same clothing and even have similar faces; they would live in barracks. There would be compulsory labor followed by meals and leisure activities in the company of the same labor battalion. Passes would be required for going outside. Doctors and officials would supervise sexual relations, which would be subordinated to only two goals: the satisfaction of physiological needs and the production of healthy offspring. Children would be brought up from infancy in state nurseries and schools. Philosophy and art would be completely politicized and subordinated to the educational goals of the state. All this is inspired by one principle–the destruction of individuality or, at least, its suppression to the point where it would cease to be a social force. Dostoyevsky’s comparisons to the ant hill and the bee hive turn out to be particularly apt in the light of ethological classifications of society: we have constructed a model of the anonymous society. (The Socialist Phenomenon, p. 269)
Maybe it is not too late, and the discourse on female supremacy — via Igor Shafarevich’s The Socialist Phenomenon — can become part of the presently feminist-dominated and -controlled education curriculum after the big feminist purge in the mid-1980s removed it from the curriculum as being politically incorrect. If not in the education system, it can at the very least be discussed where it can reach far more people and do the most good due to the virtual absence of censorship on the Internet (2018 05 03: provided one uses a search engine that is not yet owned by Google or under the influence and control of its algorithms and web page ranking). Well, perhaps, in view of the apparent censorship of Google, censorship is not quite virtually absent, but relative to the censorship of the curriculum it is nothing more than extremely slight.
P.S.: The Internet version of The Socialist Phenomenon features an important tool that is suited to expediently cite quotes from the book. The HTM file provides all of the page numbers along with the text of the given text in the page of the book. The HTML source code contains bookmarks for every page of text, so that a given quote can easily and accurately be referenced to its precise source location by a link in which the page number is identified as per the following:
as illustrated in this example: (Source: The Socialist Phenomenon, p. 269) –WHS