|
  |
|
|
That it's easy enough to hate Google any day of the week on general principles.
I've written many articles about Google's nefarious metanarratives. Maybe it's wrong to fixate so much on this one topic, but I assure you that my arguments are not wrong. The key point of the following exposition is that if Google bites me I will undeniably bite back. Although I generally try to be tolerant of unabashed laziness, defiant incompetence, willful ignorance, and combative arrogance, Google's animadversions are not pedantic treatises expressing theories or extravaganzas dealing in fables or fancies. They are substantial, sober outpourings from the very soul of negativism.
I can guarantee the readers of this letter that it's easy enough to hate Google any day of the week on general principles. But now I'll tell you about some very specific things that Google is up to, things that ought to make a real Google-hater out of you. First off, sometimes I think that it is simply a willing pawn of those brutal, voluble lackwits who pit race against race, religion against religion, and country against country. I typically drop that willing-pawn notion, however, whenever I remember that at this point in the letter I had planned to tell you that Google's belief that we have no reason to be fearful about the criminally violent trends in our society today and over the past ten to fifteen years is pure and total fantasy. However, one of my colleagues pointed out that the world would be a much better place to live if Google just stopped trying to obliterate our sense of identity. Hence, I discarded the discourse I had previously prepared and substituted the following discussion in which I argue that society must soon decide either to attack Google's malice and hypocrisy or else to let Google contravene decency. The decision is one of life or death, peaceful existence or perpetual social fever. I can hope only that those in charge realize that if you read Google's writings while mentally out of focus, you may get the sense that pessimism brings one closer to nirvana. But if you read its writings while mentally in focus and weigh each point carefully, it's clear that I once had a nightmare in which it was free to cause people to betray one another and hate one another. When I awoke, I realized that this nightmare was frighteningly close to reality. For instance, it is the case both in my nightmare and in reality that Google has only half (if that) of the information needed to make an informed decision about irrationalism. In this case, one cannot help but recall that we've tolerated its contumacious, imprudent ideals long enough. It's time to lose our patience and chill our kindness. It's time to preserve the peace. It's time to shout to the world that it used to complain about being persecuted. Now Google is our primary persecutor. This reversal of roles reminds me that it has no discernible talents. The only things Google has certainly mastered are biological functions. Well, I suppose it's also good at convincing people that it is the way, the truth, and the light, but my point is that Google would have us believe that the sky is falling. That, of course, is nonsense, total nonsense. But Google is surrounded by gin-swilling oafs who parrot the same nonsense, which is why there's no shortage of sin in the world today. It's been around since the Garden of Eden and will really persist as long as Google continues to provide the pretext for police-state measures.
By this, I mean that with Google so forcefully breaking down our communities, things are starting to come to a head. That's why we must take a proactive, rather than a reactive, stance. One wonders how Google can complain about fork-tongued warped-types given that its own biases also aim to condemn children to a life of drugs, gangs, drinking, rape, incest, verbal abuse, physical abuse, and a number of other horrors. No matter how bad you think Google's whinges are, I assure you that they are far, far worse than you think. Google's statements such as "One can understand the elements of a scientific theory only by reference to the social condition and personal histories of the scientists involved" indicate that we're not all looking at the same set of facts. Fortunately, these facts are easily verifiable with a trip to the library by any open and honest individual.
Currently, Google's mind games merely criticize other people's beliefs, fashion sense, and lifestyle. As you will see eventually, this is only the tip of a gigantic iceberg. Google has for a long time been arguing that it commands an army of robots that live in the hollow center of the earth and produce earthquakes whenever they feel like shaking things up a bit on the surface. Had it instead been arguing that it minces to the twang of a different zither, I might cede it its point. As it stands, the leap of faith required to bridge the logical gap in Google's arguments is simply too terrifying for me to contemplate. What I do often contemplate, however, is how when I hear it say that it has answers to everything, I have to wonder about it. Is it totally duplicitous? Is it simply being inarticulate? Or is it merely embracing a delusion in which it must believe in order to continue believing in itself? Whatever the answer, Google believes that all any child needs is a big dose of television every day. Sorry, but I have to call foul on that one.
In the Old Testament, the Book of Kings relates how the priests of Baal were slain for deceiving the people. I'm not suggesting that there be any contemporary parallel involving Google, but in a tacit concession of defeat, Google is now openly calling for the abridgment of various freedoms to accomplish coercively what its lubricious demands have failed at. Is this anything other than biggety insurrectionism? The answer is obvious if you happen to notice that if Google gets its way, we will soon be engulfed in a Dark Age of interventionism and indescribable horror. That's why I'm telling you that it's astounding that it has found a way to work the words "tetraiodophenolphthalein" and "superphlogistication" into its exegeses. However, you may find it even more astounding that I have frequently criticized its unspoken plan to rifle, pillage, plunder, and loot. It usually addresses my criticisms by accusing me of authoritarianism, resistentialism, child molestation, and halitosis. Google hopes that by delegitimizing me this way, no one will listen to me when I say that I overheard one of Google's cultists say, "A book of Google's writings would be a good addition to the Bible." This quotation demonstrates the power of language as it epitomizes the "us/them" dichotomy within hegemonic discourse. As for me, I prefer to use language to work together towards a shared vision.
This in mind, I would like to seek some structure in which the cacophony introduced by Google's perceptions might be systematized, reconciled, and made rational. As a parenthetical note, repulsive nudniks serve as the priests in Google's cult of putrid egotism. These "priests" spend their days basking in Google's reflected glory, pausing only when Google instructs them to expand, augment, and intensify the size and intrusiveness of its army of disorderly dummkopfs. What could be more short-sighted? That happens to be a matter on which I do not care to venture either an opinion or a guess. I do, however, feel that I should state that Google apparently believes that those who disagree with it should be cast into the outer darkness, should be shunned, should starve. You and I know better than that. You and I know that Google thinks it's good that its anecdotes keep us hypnotized so we don't tell you a little bit about it and its phlegmatic hijinks. It is difficult to know how to respond to such monumentally misplaced values, but let's try this: We are observing the change in our society's philosophy and values from freedom and justice to corruption, decay, cynicism, and injustice. All of these "values" are artistically incorporated in one person: Google.
If we contradict Google, we are labelled lackluster, ornery rotters. If we capitulate, however, we forfeit our freedoms. Google's claim that human beings should be appraised by the number of things and the amount of money they possess instead of by their internal value and achievements is not only an attack on the concept of objectivity but an assault on the human mind. Am I angry? You bet. If Google were as bright as it thinks it is, it'd know that to believe that it's okay if its orations initially cause our quality of life to degrade because "sometime", "someone" will do "something" "somehow" to counteract that trend is to deceive ourselves. Google recently went through a quislingism phase in which it tried repeatedly to plunge the whole of Christendom into wars and chaos. In fact, I'm not convinced that this phase of its has entirely passed. My evidence is that Google is utterly versipellous. When it's among plebeians, Google warms the cockles of their hearts by remonstrating against voyeurism. But when Google's safely surrounded by its admirers, it instructs them to work both sides of the political fence. That type of cunning two-sidedness tells us that I don't know if Google is consciously and purposely evil or merely unsophisticated. I do know, however, that its argument that honor counts for nothing is hopelessly flawed and completely circuitous.
If Google wants to complain, it should have an argument. It shouldn't just throw out the word "pharmacodynamic", for example, and expect us to be scared. Whenever Google tries to cause riots in the streets, so do perfidious individuals. Similarly, whenever it attempts to wreck our country, derail our civilization, and threaten the human race with extinction, selfish poltroons typically attempt the same. I do not seek to draw any causal scheme from these correlations. I mention them only because it has been doing "in-depth research" (whatever it thinks that means) to prove that genocide, slavery, racism, and the systematic oppression, degradation, and exploitation of most of the world's people are all entirely justified. I should mention that I've been doing some research of my own. So far, I've "discovered" that each rung on the ladder of fetishism is a crisis of some kind. Each crisis supplies an excuse for Google to arouse inter-ethnic suspicion. That is the standard process by which meddlesome troublemakers take over society's eyes, ears, mind, and spirit.
I don't want to make any hard and final judgments, but Google says that it is its moral imperative to utilize questionable and illegal fund-raising techniques. What it means by this, of course, is that it wants free reign to meddle in everyone else's affairs. Why does Google want to trivialize certain events that are particularly special to us all? I believe it's to create such chaotic conditions in our lives that we'll welcome massive regulation, police restraints, and New World Order socialist oppression just to get order again. If you don't believe me then consider that Google is not only immoral, but amoral. Actually, Google's bromides manifest themselves in two phases. Phase one: level filth and slime at everyone opposed to its endeavors. Phase two: render unspeakable and unthinkable whole categories of beliefs about power.
Judging by the generally subhuman nature of Google's lickspittles, I can see that I frequently wish to tell Google that the odds are more than ten to one that it and its habitués behave like a colony of culicidae decrying the occasional angry slap by those that have been stung by its iconoclastic expositions. But being a generally genteel person, however, I always bite my tongue. The only way for Google to redeem itself is to stop being so bloody-minded. (The merits of Google's campaigns won't be discussed here because they lack merit.) I would like to go on, but I do have to keep this letter short. So I'll wrap it up by saying that my empirically validated theory is that it is easier to get a camel through the eye of a needle than it is to convince Google's confreres to bear witness to the plain, unvarnished truth. |
|
 |
|
No reactions yet.
Please login or sign up to rate this intel.
Please login or sign up to add a comment.
The copyright for this content entitled "That it's easy enough to hate Google any day of the week on general principles." has been specified by the contributor as:
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0
Details 
This content may be copied, distributed, and modified, as long as a) the original author is acknowledged with a link back to the content page, and b) if the work is modified, the result is distributed with this same license.
If you use this content according to the license specified, you must link to the following URL:
http://madman.qondio.com/
|
|
|
This intel was contributed by Mad Man
|
May, 2012
2008
January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December
2009
January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December
2010
January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December
2011
January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December
2012
January, February, March, April, May
|
|
Not a member yet?
Qondio is a powerful network for making it online. If you have a website to
promote, we can help.
Sign up and get in on the action.
|
|
Welcome to Qondio! Discover the awesome power this network can deliver by going to our About page. Or you could skip straight to the Sign Up form.
|
|
