Thursday, September 21, 2017
Why are all curators alike?
Somebody on some website was complaining about the "new" and "unprecedented" partisanship of librarians. Following my perpetually constant form, I posted my perpetually constant comment that prudish and partisan librarians are perpetually constant. Nothing new about the current trend, nothing new about me saying nothing is new. Metaconstant.
Even so, writing my standard comment raised a nonstandard question.
Regular public librarians censor books and facts that question globalism.
Google is a corrupt librarian serving as an advertising agency. Thus you'd think that Google's style of partisan prudery would be commercially driven.
A commercial librarian should censor books and facts that question the interests of its paying sponsors. (Pre-modern newspapers did behave this way.)
But no. In fact Google behaves just like the public librarians. It censors facts and searches that question globalism.
Question: Why don't we have ANY archivists or historians or librarians or journalists or museum curators on the OTHER side?
Why do ALL jobs classified as 'curating' serve Goldman and Soros? I don't see the necessary connection. Seems like you could have an innate talent and desire to curate stuff without being a loyal globalist slave, but it never happens.
Selection by education doesn't answer the question because Google's archivists weren't trained in university Departments of Library Science.
Who is censoring the censors?
Labels: Asked and unanswered, constants and constants
¶ 10:14 AM
