Religious and commercial coercion


Who lost the argument?

Facebook is responding wrongly to misleading claims about unislamic pages.  Paul Murphy writes about it here:

Over the last couple of weeks Facebook has clamped down heavily on various (around 40) counter-jihad and patriot pages.

The administrators of these pages were shocked when they logged on and found that their pages had suddenly ‘disappeared’. In some cases Facebook has made this statement: ‘Your Page was flagged for content containing nudity, pornography or sexual solicitation.’ The page admins, however, have claimed not to have posted anything with explicitly sexual content. What will have happened is that Muslims, and/or the Leftist whores/enablers-of-Islam, will have ‘reported’ these pages for ‘sexual content’ knowing full well that it would be much more difficult to make a political/religious case for banning them…

…At least the Muslim Facebook page ‘Remove all Groups and Page that are against Islam’ is honest about its extremism and absolutism in that its very name is explicit about it. It is telling Muslims, and their Leftist helpers, to ‘remove all groups and pages that are against Islam’ so that Muslims can go on killing and oppressing without anyone doing anything about it. So that Islam can remain uncriticised; as it has been, at least in the Muslim world, for 1,400 years.

Finally, it’s strange that so many Muslims constantly boast about how many Muslims there are in the world as if that in itself proves something. But is it any wonder that there are so many Muslims with such a massive and deep iron wall of protection around Islam (which has been in place since that religion’s invention)? In any case, the numbers of Muslims proves nothing. I would guess that at the peak of National Socialism’s popularity and support there were at least 100 million Nazis in Europe and beyond. The numbers would have been even higher for Communists at the peak of Communism’s popularity and support. So, if anything, that large number of Muslims is best explained by the persecution and killing of all the critics of Islam (as well as death for apostasy). And this current campaign to get Facebook to fully implement Sharia Blasphemy Law is just the latest stage in that Islamic war against everything ‘un-Islamic’.

We know that it’s mostly the “inspectors” of Islam that care for such measures.  Most Moslems just want to have too much food, drink and sex while doing as little work as possible – they’re as human as the next man.  The women are human too.  But they’ve got to outsmart the inspectors that would kill them.

It’s probably not so far from the normal distribution curve.  A few like to judge others and kill them for thrills.  A few succeed in behaving degenerately.  Most just want a quiet life and maybe to go along with whatever minor crime will go unpunished. 

Such a belief system can only survive its failings if it prevents criticism – whether it is a religious or commercial cartel.

The degree of coercion is in proportion to the weakness of the ideology.

So this is another face of the secular coercion on which the management inspection cartel relies.  ISO 17025 is like Islam for rational scientists.  Like the ISO it has used the embrace-extend-extinguish approach to claim credit for the better ideas of others.  It mixed a bit of celestial body worship with a personality cult, a dash of Judaism, a hint of early Christianity and stirred in a lot of tribal warmongering.  Just as Islam’s survival relies on enforcing a blinkered view of life and killing its critics, so ISO accreditation relies on cutting out those businesses that will not submit to it.  Boasts of growth are less meaningful than they might seem when marketplace coercion is written into the ISO management standards.

Although the management standards may have some worthwhile ideas that some businesses might choose, being coerced by inspection bodies into paying inspectors shows these ideas are too weak to stand by themselves.   Without bullying they would wither.

This entry was posted in Cartel, Computing, Laboratory medicine, Management, Philosophy, Psychology and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

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