If you’ve been paying attention to alternative media sources (because the mainstream media won’t cover this), you should be aware that Google, Youtube, Twitter, Facebook and other social media sources are rather heavily biased toward the left. This is not something they make public, but it is clear from observing their behavior, and piecing together events affecting them which are reported in the media.

In this particular essay, I want to focus on Google. As you are probably aware, Google is the preeminent search engine on the Internet. They have a company slogan which is more or less, “Don’t Be Evil”. This is a statement which should raise red flags in anybody. You may believe you know what the definition of “evil” is, and you may believe that Google shares your definition. However, this is likely not the case. Google’s motto, in its vagueness, allows Google to define what evil is. So in realistic terms, it allows Google to do precisely as it wishes and define that as “good”. As Google has gotten bigger and exerted more and more influence on the Internet, I have warned that they are not to be trusted, and that relying on them is unwise.

And as it turns out, Google’s version of “good” is probably not yours. As a search engine you would expect Google to serve up unbiased search results. This is not the case. One of the first hints of this was a news item which emerged in the last year or two, when it was discovered that searches for things like “Hilary’s crimes” (referring to Hilary Clinton, a leading Democratic candidate for the 2008 U.S. presidency), yielded almost nothing. Of course, at the time, Hilary was knee deep in scandal. And to make matters worse, searches of other search engines yielded many results. Tracing this down, it became clear that Google had deliberately altered its search results in favor of the candidate. As it turns out the bias Google (now in partial view) was understandable. A search of the Board of Directors for Google and its parent company, Alphabet Inc., revealed that it was at least partially populated by Hilary supporters and major contributors. This short had a very short lifespan in the media, understandably. The people who discovered this bias were supposed to look into it more thoroughly and report their findings later. They never did.

Most recently, one of Google’s software engineers circulated a memo which made clear that the environment inside Google was openly hostile to many right leaning ideas, and even some purely scientifically proven facts. So much so that when the memo was flushed into the public spotlight, its author was fired by Google. This only served to confirm what the author expressed in the memo. (If you’re curious about this and haven’t heard of it, search for “James Damore”, the author of the memo. You can track down the memo and read for yourself.)

While this and the Hillary search bias should be enough to convince you of Google’s leanings, I just heard about another experiment which can be performed to cement the depth of Google’s bias.

Open up a search window on Google. Search using the phrase “white women and children”. Look at the images available. Note what you find. In particular, note whether what you see is what you searched for. Now change your search to “white couples” and note the new photos available. Again to what degree does it satisfy what you searched for? Now search for “black couples” and check out the images available. By contrast, note how closely these images match what you asked for.

If you didn’t notice the bias, let me clue you in. The first two searches reveal a great many images including black people, something you did not search for and did not want, based on your search criteria. In the third case, you interestingly get exactly what you were looking for. There is narry a white person in the lot. (Update 10 October 2019– Results are still as described.)

Google doesn’t have time or money to employ humans to respond directly to your searches. At this point, searches are all completely accomplished according to the algorithms they use on the back end. These are designed with artificial intelligence in mind, and are thus designed to learn from past searches. But whatever “intelligence” is involved here certainly is not very bright. Either that, or its intelligence has been tweached to satisfy some other purpose than simply serving up what the user requested. That is, on the back end, there are “knobs” or some sort of control which is being manipulated by Google insiders which is slanting the results.

If you think Google is alone here, and that a simple visit to a different search engine will yield different results, think again. Perform this same search on DuckDuckGo or Bing, and you’ll get more of the same. This tells us that other search engines are biased in the same way, or more likely, that they all end up consulting Google at some point in the search process. Other search engines may allow you to search more or less anonymously (DuckDuckGo) or can boast of some other benefit, they all apparently feed from Google’s trough.

The argument has been made that Google is a private company, and can thus do what they like, And while this is true, it is also true that they are the number one search engine on the Internet by far, and that they are not admitting to any bias. Incidentally, their response to the public on James Damore’s firing was more or less corporate gibberish. It is clear their bias is institutional and intentional, rather than being purely incidental or accidental. (Damore has filed a claim with the National Labor Relations Board [NLRB].) And when it becomes clear that other major search engines draw directly from Google’s results, you have a situation which involves deep deception at least.

What is the solution? There really isn’t one at this point. And most governmental solutions to situations like this (monopolistic behavior which opposes the public trust and works to the disadvantage of the public), don’t really work. The U.S. government’s attempt to break up the phone company (AT&T and the Bell network) has ultimately resulted in a few (instead of one) phone companies acting in precisely the same fashion, and attempting to re-form the same monopoly from which they came. Actions taken earlier to break up Microsoft’s monopoly were similarly ineffective (though they were sabotaged by the Bush White House). (Europe, attempting the same goal, only resulted in a hefty fine for Microsoft, which it would take out of petty cash and then pass the costs on to consumers, which is what always happens when a company is fined.)

I have spoken before about the end of our civilization being characterized not by a nuclear or financial conflagration, but by a police state. Police states are chiefly characterized by a curtailing of free speech and free thought. Here we have an example where commerce and politics are working in the exact direction of creating an environment of conformity to bizarre, illogical dogma. If you want an example of how this plays out, read the pre-eminent novel on this, 1984 by George Orwell. The world the author fantasized about has taken a bit longer to execute than he imagined, but is well on its way to full fruition. Google’s bias is merely serving to hasten it along.

Amusingly (or not) the novel’s protagonist, Winston Smith, works at the Ministry of Truth, a department whose job it is to scrub history of utterances and events which serve to contradict the “party line”. Guess what? There is a movement afoot to scrub the novels of Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn of terms like “nigger” (a perfectly acceptable noun at the time the book was written). This has already been done for some editions of the books. And in case you weren’t aware, there is also a movement afoot to remove statues of figures involving slavery and the like from public display across the nation. The dormitory I lived in in college was recently renamed because its namesake was a leader in the Ku Klux Klan (a white racist organization). Of course no one who ever lived there even had any idea of who this “Simkins” fellow actually was. Ask any of the residents, and they would have told you that Simkins was the guy the dorm was named after. No more, no less.

I would advise the reader to read or re-read 1984, because this is precisely what we’re seeing play out in public. Note particularly the terms “thought crime”, “doublethink” and “newspeak”. And pay attention to how circumstances in that novel are playing out in the current environment.

Google’s now revealed bias is but a symptom of a much larger movement. It may be possible to fight and ultimately win against this movement. It’s never been done before (all empires and civilizations have ultimately returned to the dust on which they were built), but there is always hope (or so my wife says; I’m dubious ;-) . In the meantime, become aware of the ways in which our world is becoming the world of 1984, and fight against it with any means at your disposal. Flush pockets of “doublethink” and “newspeak” into the light, where your brethren can see them for what they are. For example, the current fad which dictates there is a “spectrum” of genders is an example of doublethink. Factually, there are only two genders, male and female.