Search Engines Censorship & Defamation

On The Fascists Who Own And Dominate Us, And What We Read, And Want to Crank It Up.

When Google Plots to Make Patrice Ayme’ Disappear:

One of my readers was struck by the fact that I claimed that “extravagant wealth was outlawed in Rome”. This was indeed the law under the Republic. When, thanks to globalization, some of the wealthiest Romans were able to invest overseas, they build giant fortunes (the philosopher Seneca, who taught Nero, and died from it, used to joke that he didn’t know how many latifundia, absolutely gigantic farms with armies of slaves, he owned and on how many lands). When the Gracchi brothers saw this, they tried to reinforce the wealth limitation laws.

By then the wealthiest could afford private armies, not just private ships. Those armies were used to kill the Gracchi (although they . Their laws had been passed though, and for the following generations the “Populares” would try to have them enacted. This all ended with the assassination of Iulius Caesar, who was the most famous and most capable leader the “Populares” ever had. Now we have a situation arising which potentially equals the worst. Socrates had been condemned for “corrupting the youth”. Google apparently suggests users of its search engine to find the same about my work:

Patrice Ayme wants to limit wealth absolutely? Google suggests you find this hateful, violent, harmful to children, sexually explicit, etc…

How did I find this? To help my reader, I did a search under the key words Rome Absolute Wealth Limit”. (As can be seen in two places, up and down, on the screen.) It produced thousands of hits all of them headed by my own:

So far, so good, and not surprising.

Google, in its generosity, let me appear on their search engine. That’s not a given. It used to be a given. Long time ago, so did Yahoo let me appear on their search engine. I would search “Athens direct democracy” on Yahoo search engine, and proudly find myself at the head of the list. Then, one day, I disappeared from Yahoo. Completely. (Now it’s Yahoo which will disappear!) It is as if someone had decided to ban me. I told some people in the Silicon Valley about it. Including employees of Yahoo. They told me I was paranoid. Even a San Francisco Bay Area homeless bum told me so. (At that point, I knew how deep the search engine propaganda was!)

But I was still on BING and Google. Then, one day only my essays older than ten years survived in BING. All others disappeared, even when typed in full. I interpreted this as being banned from BING. Just as I am banned from the New York Times. Such bans are highly successful. I am especially banned from outwardly left sites (Daily Kos, etc.) The plutos who own or hold them are afraid that what John Lennon called the “fu…ing peasants” find out that, instead of being free and master of their destinies, they are just the opposite… And all their ideas are precisely those their masters wanted them to have.

The surprise came from reading on the right of my essay title as produced by Google something new:


With a down arrow.
I clicked on the arrow and found that readers were given the following choices to evaluate my work:


Sexually Explicit


Dangerous and harmful activity



Only my essay was thus adorned (out terns of thousands).

By the way, Google “Legal Department” wants you to request “content change”.

It is my (frequently repeated) observation that it is Western plutocrats who make Islamist propaganda possible, with their optical fibers, satellites, and software.  That, no doubt is a  hateful, violent, dangerous and a harmful activity. Many plutocrats could be hurt while shooting that movies…

The questionnaire above leads readers to identify “limits to wealth” to “limit to growth” and the latter to hatred, sex, violence, harm, and the cause of “poor schooling”. It is clearly oriented to censor any suggestion that extreme wealth should be limited. Indeed the title of my essay was unambiguous: “LIMIT WEALTH ABSOLUTELY”.

To all the preceding, search engines will reply that they are private companies, they do what they want. No, twice wrong: private moral persons, including companies have to respect the law. Now those technologies are news, Justinian refurbishment of the law, 15 centuries ago didn’t anticipate them. Yet, as Montesquieu pointed out, there is a “spirit of the laws” (“Esprit des Lois”).

All and any private company which becomes a global social utility, has, since Roman times, and Athenian times, be the object of special laws requiring special social duties. If search engines exert bias of no social utility (a fortiori if they are self-serving), they should be constrained to do so.

In other news, Prince Harry received Barack Obama at Kensington Palace. They discussed, we are told, mental health and the Manchester attack. The implication being that one is related to the other. In other words, there is no Islamism hostile to civilization, just crazy people out there. Those crazed people justify the police state, including finding those who think there should be limits to wealth crazy and harmful. This is disinformation: the Internet and TV, let alone hordes of career semi-intellectuals, have vigorously pushed Islamism, in the last 80 years, throughout the West.

Prince Harry was famous for running around naked in Las Vegas, while high on drugs. (This was immortalized in many pictures. Hard to deny.) Now in the British plutocracy, he disposes of historical palace, to pose next to Obama’s eternally plastic grin of bon banania… Nothing changed since the vague revolt of the punk wave, 40 years ago (the Sex Pistols attacked the Queen, but, in the end, the insults didn’t work. What works is to detail the exact nature of the subjugation mechanisms. And this the plutos understand perfectly, that’s what they want to block.).

The aim was to divide We The People and put civilization itself, and its spirit, under suspicion. Now we are reaching higher heights: saying that we should limit wealth absolutely, Google suggest, is hateful, harmful, violent, sexually explicit, and endangers schooling itself.

Sometimes dictatorship comes in stealthily. There is nothing stealthy about forbidding to read advanced materials (if one is not found in search engines, one does not exist). The Catholic Church did this for six centuries during the Middle Ages, by putting books at the “index”, and extended its rule, and the plutocrats (“aristocrats”) who were  along for the ride, by just as much (it finished with a number of extremely bloody wars and revolutions in Britain, Germany, France, among others…).

Meanwhile Merkel just came out storming from her meetings with Trump. Merkel is a physicist, she is usually careful, and always rational. However, Merkel was firm, not to say Hitler style, making great gestures with a closed fist:We Europeans MUST take our destiny in our own hands…” Zehr gut (just what Trump said…).  German rebellion against the USA plutocracy, at last. OK, so now the obvious ally in this endeavor is just west: Frankreich, France. The European Union has been clear (but so far rather impotent) about the abuses of US search engines (tweaking searches for self-service, and tax evasion). Time to do something about it. I already contacted two lawyers…

Life is a war, or it’s not worth living?

Patrice Ayme’

Tags: , ,

6 Responses to “Search Engines Censorship & Defamation”

  1. Midas do Tietê (@marciobu) Says:

    Sorry, Patrice. It was not my intention putting you on a litigation against the present owners of the world. I would appreciate helping you, if I could. It’s astonishing to me knowing that there was a law more then two thousands years ago limiting wealth. Here, jin the under side of the world, it takes five hundred years we don’t have anything similar to democracy, since the European plutocrats invasion. Ok, I know you are some sympathetic to colonization, and I am europeans descendent, some came as invaders, some as white slaves. I don’t have people of Pindorama (the original name of this land) blood in my vessels but I am sure they used to live under a more democratic rule before. Ok, some of them used to eat their enemies, they even eaten a Portuguese priest named Sardinha (sardine fish), not for his name. But there are just a few of them yet. Last week, police killed more ten in the jungle because they didn’t want do give their land to some agribusiness plutocrats, there is no limit to wealth. Some day we will catch ancient Rome up, I hope. By now, more Pindoramas are kilked everyday. Soon they are totally gone. And bye bye Amazônia.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      My position on colonization is, first, honesty: most of the world is the fruit of past colonizations (South Africa has very few of the original inhabitants, although Mandela was from them; the largest group there, the Bantus, more exactly the Zulus, arrived roughly simultaneously with the Dutch/French).

      The colonization of the Americas is morally complex. Not all the holocaust came from man’s will. The Meso American civilizations were worth saving, and thus thought the Conquistadores themselves. It’s a crime they were not. And some specific sub-civilizations there, which had collaborated with Cortes and his captains were destroyed in a treachery which has a lot to do with Catholicism…

      Amazonia is certainly worth saving, however, most advanced countries would not tolerate to have an Amazonia equivalent within… So it’s understandable that, in this generalized rat race, Brazil wants to emulate them… It has been Pluto first, now Trump wants America First instead, a distinction without much difference… And partly a bad example…


  2. Nathan Daniel Curry Says:

    You say:’Socrates had been condemned for “corrupting the youth”. Google apparently suggests users of its search engine to find the same about my work.’

    Nathan Daniel Curry: Who cares? (Is The Who that answers a what?). Is that that substantial? Socrates might ask that.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      They then will do like Yahoo and Bing and ban me from search. That would be the equivalent of forbidding Socrates to meet people, in the street or in salons. If that had been done, nobody would ever have heard of Socrates and his ideas.

      Generalizing this to all people with new ideas, there would have been no new ideas whatsoever since the pre-Socratic period. This extends to scientific ideas, as they ALWAYS started by criticizing authority.


  3. Gmax Says:

    This beyond spooky, it’s 1984, George Orwell. I have noticed that, in the last year, Google searches directs to commercial sources, and take much longer. If one searches for something specific one gets swallowed in a morass of businesses.

    What happened to you, that’s police state. Taciturn the Roman said one couldn’t say anything anymore because of the secret police


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      In this case: Internet censorship: they annihilate you outright, and they don’t even have to kill you with a smile.
      It’s not Taciturn, but Tacitus, BTW, your spellchecker is smart the way machines are smart.


What do you think? Please join the debate! The simplest questions are often the deepest!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: