Why I Turned Off Google as My Search Engine: to Stop their Indoctrination

Earlier this year I finally turned off Google as my primary search engine. I have been considering it for a long time because of concerns around privacy and manipulated search results. The bottom line is that Google has a socialist, progressive world view with which I strongly disagree and the evidence is clear that they are using their position of power to push that agenda on others. I’ve decided not to take the abuse anymore, and if I can get the word out and help encourage others to free themselves from Google’s manipulations, then the world will be a better place for it.

Being a Search Engine Marketer Made the Decision Difficult

The switch to other search engines came as the culmination of many factors, but now that I did it, I’m very glad and wish I had made the switch years ago. One of my fears in switching away from Google’s search engine was that I would have a hard time finding what I needed from other search engines.

You see, I have worked as a search engine marketer for twelve years and I know that Google has traditionally delivered the best results to help you find the information you need fast. Most of my days at work are consumed with understanding how my website ranks on Google and how to get more traffic from Google search engine users. This made the decision to turn off Google as my primary search engine even more difficult, and honestly, in my work, I still have to use Google search from time to time.

More and more topics are being politicized in our country, therefore more and more of Google’s results are showing that company’s political leanings. For example, Robert Epstein’s research found, in the 2016 US presidential election campaign, that Google filtered out negative results for searches related to Hillary Clinton to surface primarily positive ones–more on that below. But regarding the fear of not getting high-quality search results, I can personally attest to the fact that my fear was unfounded. I have been able to find information just as quick and easily from other search engines, and even better, I am free from Google’s attempts to influence me with their filtered, politically biased results.

Google’s Politics Leans Far Left and They Try to Manipulate Voters

The socialist, progressive political leanings of the management and culture at Google are well-known, but let me give you just two examples.

In 2018, Breitbart released a video of Google leadership team discussing the 2016 Trump election results and demonstrating the company’s bias against conservatives and Republicans. “A video recorded by Google shortly after the 2016 presidential election reveals an atmosphere of panic and dismay amongst the tech giant’s leadership, coupled with a determination to thwart both the Trump agenda and the broader populist movement.” The New York Times also covered this story saying the video showed “Google executives bemoaning the election of President Trump at a company meeting in 2016.” Sergey Brin, the co-founder of Google, said in the video that he was “deeply offended” by the election of Mr. Trump.

Last year, Dr. Robert Epstein, a Democrat who supported Hillary Clinton, told the Senate Judiciary Committee that in the 2016 presidential election, Google gave Hillary Clinton “between 2.6 and 10.4 million votes depending on how aggressive they were in using the techniques that I’ve been studying, such as the search engine manipulation effect.” Dr. Epstein went on later to say in an op ed that “when it comes to election manipulation, left-leaning American technology companies make the Russians look like rank amateurs.” Dr. Epstein, a Harvard PhD and well respected psychologist, professor, author, and journalist, has shown through his research how big tech, particularly Google, is aggressively pursuing tactics to keep Republicans out of office. And he has sounded the alarm, not because he wants Republicans to win, but because he wants freedom and democracy to win.

Google News and Google Discover Pushes Left-Wing Sources

google news feed supposedly personalized for me but notOne of Google’s strengths as a search engine is that they know individual users and serve up personalized results that are more likely to deliver the information the person is looking for. Google knows the political leanings of their users because they track search history, the websites you visit, and they have countless other ways to track your personal data.

Regarding me personally, Google knows I prefer conservative, Republican, libertarian, and Constitutionally-minded sources. Why then, does Google push CNN and other left-wing news results on me so relentlessly? I occasionally have clicked CNN articles over the years, but CNN is a socialist, progressive leaning news source that I rarely read.

Despite knowing that about me, if I visit the Google News website, logged in as myself with Google’s personalized results for me, 5 of the top 15 (33%) news results are from CNN (see the screen shot and count them for yourself). Only 3 of the top 15 (20%) are from FoxNews, a source I’m much more likely to read. Of course, if it wasn’t for the fact that Google knew me, perhaps I wouldn’t see FoxNews at all and even more of the results would be from CNN.

In Google Discover, it’s the same story of pushing left-wing news even though they know I don’t prefer it. Google Discover is the news, pop culture, and other internet content feed that comes up on your mobile phone browser’s home screen if Google is your default home page. Google Discover says “we’ve made it our goal to help you uncover fresh and interesting content about things that matter to you.”

They are clearly failing at that goal with me, because my Google Discover feed has a constant influx of Trump-hating news from CNN and other socialist and communist-friendly internet articles that are of no interest to me. I’m no big Trump fan, but I’m not a Trump hater, and Google knows that, yet they bombard me with it anyway.

Final Straw: Google Couldn’t Find a News Story I Wanted to See

The final straw in getting me to turn off Google as my search engine was earlier this year when Google buried an unflattering story about a prominent socialist. I was listening to talk radio one day and heard the host mention that Marc Lamont Hill, a long-time political contributor at CNN, had told his followers to stop being not to be nice to the police because it is disrupting his Marxist revolution. He said, so I heard, that all police are part of a racist system in America so the race protesters should stop taking their pictures with police. Being nice to police, in his view, reinforces the view that the George Floyd death was the fault of a single bad police officer, rather than Marc Lamont Hill’s preferred narrative that all police are bad. This was an appalling statement, to me, so I wanted to find out if it was true and learn more.

 

marc lamont hill google vs duck duck go searchWhen I searched on Google, I could not find the story. I tried numerous search keyword variations, and scrolled through dozens of search results pages on Google, but I could find nothing about what Marc Lamont Hill said about not taking pictures with police. If Google was my only source of information on the subject, I would think he never said it. The source on the radio was a trusted one, so I decided to do the same search on Duck Duck Go, a search engine that differentiates itself on searchers’ privacy and unfiltered results. On the very first Duck Duck Go search, the results page was full of articles about what he said about not taking pictures with the police, like this RedState article that quotes Marc Lamont Hill as saying:

“Don’t believe your lying eyes. If you and your community have been brought up with a respect for law enforcement, if you have come to see police as friends or even friends of the family, that doesn’t serve our Marxist, revolutionary purpose. So, cut it out or stay home!”

Conclusion and How to Turn Off Google as Your Search Engine

This is not a comprehensive list of all the reasons why I am abandoning Google as my search engine of choice. But in summary, Google has long abandoned the unofficial motto they had early in their history to “not be evil.” They clearly want to use their position of power to push information they want to be seen and hide information they don’t want seen. I hope to stem that tide of this indoctrination by not using the Google Search engine, and I would encourage all others to do the same.

Now the question is how to get the other Google products out of my life, which they are also using to collect information in an attempt to have power over me–products like Google Maps, Gmail (I don’t use it but family members do), Google Classroom (again, not for me, but it has infiltrated my kids schools), Google Chrome, Google Home, YouTube (owned by Google), etc. This purging of Google could take a while.

If you want to join me in turning off Google as your search engine, there are many ways to do it. You can start your internet journeys at Bing.com, Yahoo.com, DuckDuckGo.com, or other search engines. If you use the Chrome browser, you should also go to “Settings” located under the three vertical dots in the top right corner of your Chrome browser. There you can click “On startup” to set what page, often a search engine, comes up when the browser is launched. You should also set the “Search Engine” on the left menu to be Bing or Yahoo or something else. To use Duck Duck Go as the default search engine, you will need to add their Chrome extension which you can find by clicking here.

More Examples of Corporatism. Goodbye Capitalism.

The New York Times recently posted a table that tracks the spending of the $700 billion bailout bill passed last October (see Tracking the $700 Billion Bailout). It lists, line by line, each of the companies that received money and how many billions each got. Here is the top ten:

Free Market Capitalism Is Gone
I was against the bailout from the beginning (and I’m certainly against putting the US in another trillion dollars of debt as the Obama administration is proposing) but it really hit home when I saw the report above. Capitalism is an economic system that gives you the freedom to thrive and the freedom to fail. If you work hard and have a good business, the sky is the limit, but there are no guarantees. Yet, in that bailout bill of October 2008, the government hand picked companies that it deemed were too big to fail. And the complacent American people went along with it for fear of economic ruin preached by politicians on both sides of the isle.

Government Controlled Corporatism Is Here
With billions upon billions of tax payer dollars flowing into these companies now, of course, politicians, media outlets, and a great many Americans want a say in how these companies spend that money. “No corporate jets.” “Salary caps for executives.” Etc. This all makes for a dangerous mix of government and big corporations as I described in my recent article on Corporatism.

Defining Corporatism and Examples in America

Defining Corporatism

Corporatism is a relatively new term for me and perhaps some of you readers as well. Wikipedia defines corporatism as “a practice whereby a state, through the process of licensing and regulating officially-incorporated social, religious, economic, or popular organizations, effectively co-opts their leadership or circumscribes their ability to challenge state authority by establishing the state as the source of their legitimacy, as well as sometimes running them, either directly or indirectly through corporations.”

Not a bad definition, but let me put it in a little plainer English. Corporatism is the collusion of big corporations and big government. Democrats call it right-wing when corporations exert undue influence on government. Republicans call it left-wing when government exert undue influence on corporations. But whether it comes from the right or from the left, corporatism stinks of progressivism and fascism.

Examples of Corporatism in America

Jonah Goldberg provides numerous examples of corporatism in his book, Liberal Fascism. In each case of corporatism, government power and influence grows while individual freedom shrinks. Corporatism gives more power to government and corportate bureaucrats and does so under the guise of helping the little people. Here are just a few examples:

  • During FDR’s administration, corporatism reached new heights as the government began imposing strict regulations on business. “The New Dealers invited one industry after another to write the codes under which they would be regulated…It was not only inevitable but intended for big business to get bigger and the little guy to get screwed…In business after business, the little guy was crushed or at least severely disadvantaged in the name of ‘efficiency’ and ‘progress.'” (p. 293)
  • In this same time period, “the meatpacking conglomerates knew that federal inspection would become a marketing tool for their products and, eventually, a minimum standard. Small firms and butchers who’d earned the trust of consumers would be forced to endure onerous compliance costs, while large firms not only could absorb the costs more easily but would be able to claim their products were superior to uncertified meats.” (p. 291)
  • A more recent example of corporatism is the ‘Big Tobacco’ settlement with the government. “Why would the tobacco companies agree to a settlement that cost them so much money and that forced them to take out ads disparaging their own product and pay for educational efforts to dissuade children from ever becoming their customers? The reason, quite simple, is that it was int heir interests. The tobacco companies not only had their lawsuits settled; they bought government approval of a new illegal cartel. ‘Big Tobacco’ raised prices above costs imposed by the settlement, guaranteeing a tidy profit. Smaller companies who did not agree to the settlement are still forced to make large escrow payments…The government in effect enforces a system by which small businesses are crushed in order to maintain the high profits of ‘Big Tobacco.'” (p. 308)
  • So-called campaign finance reform laws, such as the McCain-Finegold bill passed a few years ago, are also corporatist in nature. “Speech regulations in turn give an unfair advantage to some very big business–media conglomerates, movie studios, and such–to express their political views in ways exempt from government censorship…The New York Times is pro-choice and supports pro-choice candidates–openly on its editorial pages, more subtly in its news pages. Pro-life groups need to pay to get their views across, but such paid advertising is heavily regulated, thanks to McCain, at exactly the moment it might influence people–that is, near Election Day.” (p. 313)
  • Efforts to force private companies to produce “environmentally friendly” products, like efforts Obama is proposing to force car makers to produce “green” cars, is also corporatist because it imposes “technologies the government was smart enough to pick even though the market wasn’t.” (p. 342)

Corporatism on the Rise

With the bailouts of financial giants (like Citi Bank), insurance companies (like AIG), automakers, and home mortgage companies (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac), it is becoming increasingly more difficult to tell where the private sector ends and government begins. Many companies that were once proudly free-market can suddenly find themselves making arguments in favor of protectionism and corporatism.

Some companies have fought the onslaught of government but it seems to be a losing battle. Take the example of Wal-Mart and Microsoft, again quoting from Jonah Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism. “For years both Wal-Mart and Microsoft boasted that they had no interest in Washington. Microsoft’s chief, Bill Gates…had one lonely lobbyist hanging around the nation’s capital. Gates changed his mind when the government nearly destroyed his company. The Senate Judiciary Committee invited him to Washington, D.C., to atone for his success, and the senators, in the words of the New York Times, ‘took a kind of giddy delight in making the wealthiest man in America squirm in his seat.’ In response, Gates hired an army of consultants, lobbyists, and lawyers to fight off the government. In the 2000 presidential election, Wal-Mart ranked 771st in direct contributions to federal politicians. In the intervening years, unions and regulators began to drool over the enormous target the mega-retailer had become. In 2004 Wal-Mart ranked as the single largest corporate politcal action committee.” (p. 303-304)

Corporatism, A Word You’ll Be Hearing More Often

Hillary Clinton, a high-profile member of Barack Obama’s new cabinet, has long been a fan of corporatist fusion of big government and big business. In her book, It Takes A Village, she states her belief that “socially minded corporate philosophies are the avenue to future prosperity and social stability.” Clinton further lauds the fact that “a number of our most powerful telecommunications and computer companies have joined forces with the government.”

I have long thought that the left’s stance regarding business was to have government regulate it to within a inch of its life. And while that is often the effect, I now see that they don’t want to kill business, they want to harness it for their own political purposes. And with liberal Democrats controlling both the executive and legislative branches of the federal government now, we can all, unfortunately, look forward to a lot more of the kind of socialism inherent in corporatism.

What is Fascism?

(Note: This is the next in my series of articles inspired by Jonah Goldberg’s book, Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning. Click here to see my review of Liberal Fascism)

The most notable examples of fascism are Hitler’s Nazi Germany and Mussolini’s Italy during the same era. Most people think fascism was defeated during World Ward II and scarcely exists in the world today. But according to Jonah Goldberg in his book Liberal Fascism, fascism is alive an well today and is in fact thriving in one of America’s major political movements.

Fascism Difficult to Define
The first step in demonstrating that fascist policies are thriving in America is to define fascism, a harder step than you might think. Most people tend to equate fascism with Hitler and Nazi Germany, and consequently equate fascism with evil, racist, barbaric, capable of executing the Holocaust, and bent on World domination. Most people, even politicians and pundits, put little further thought into it. But fascism was fascism long before the Holocaust, and though Hitler’s Nazi Germany may have been all of those evil things, such a simplistic definition of fascism prevents us from fully examining its rise and from preventing its future domination of the political landscape.

George Orwell noted in his 1946 essay, Politics and the English Language, “The word fascism has now no meaning except so far as it signifies ‘something not desirable.'” Stanley G.Payne, considered by many to be the leading living scholar of fascism, wrote in 1995, “fascism remains probably the vaguest of the major political terms.”

Fascism Dubbed Right-Wing by the Far Left
Fascism is only right-wing in the sense that it is right of far left socialism and communism. Jonah Goldberg says, “From the beginning, fascism was dubbed as right-wing not because it necessarily was right-wing but because the communist left thought this was the best way to punish apostasy.” You see, Nazism and Fascism was right-wing socialism, but still socialism. Goldberg further states, “What I am mainly trying to do is to dismantle the granitelike assumption in our political culture that American conservatism is an offshoot or cousin of fascism…Many of the ideas and impulses that inform what we call liberalism come to us through an intellectual tradition [progressivism] that led directly to fascism.”

Italian Fascism Strikingly Similar to Modern Liberalism
Mussolini was a life-long socialist. His first job was as an editor of a socialist newspaper called “Avanti” (Forward). Said Mussolini, “I am and always will be a socialist.” During his execution at the hands of a band of communists, Mussolini’s mistress allegedly dove in front of her lover and shouted “Long live Mussolini! Long live Socialism!” Here are some highlights from Mussolini’s Fascist party platform (notice how objectively left-wing these points are):

  • Expropriating land from owners and giving them to farmers’ cooperatives.
  • The obligation of the state to build “rigidly secular” schools.
  • “A large progressive tax on capital that would amount to a one-time partial expropriation of all riches.”
  • “The seizure of all goods belonging to religious congregations.”
  • The “sequestration of 85% of all war profits” by the government.
  • The nationalization of all arms and explosives industries.

Hitler Was No Conservative
“To suggest that Hitler was a conservative in any sense related to American conservatism is lunacy. American conservatives seek to preserve both traditional values and the classical liberal creed [personal freedom or today’s libertarianism] enshrined in the Constitution. American conservatism straddles these two distinct but overlapping libertarian and traditionalist strains, whereas Hitler despised both.” Here are some of the tenets of Hitler’s Nazi party (again, very left-wing socialist in nature):

  • Providing a guaranteed livelihood for all citizens
  • The nationalization of trusts
  • Expanded old-age pensions
  • “Communalization of department stores”
  • Requiring businesses to share profits with laborers
  • Click here to see the full Nazi Party Platform

American Liberalism: An Embarrassing Family Resemblance to Fascism
As you can see above, though liberalism “is hardly identical to her uglier relations [fascism], she nonetheless carries an embarrassing family resemblance that few will admit to recognize.” Jonah Goldberg further says that, “Fascism, properly understood, is not a phenomenon of the right at all. Instead, it is, and always has been, a phenomenon of the left. This fact–an inconvenient truth if there ever was one.”

Jonah Goldberg says what unites liberalism and fascism is “the need for an all-powerful state to coordinate society at the national or global level.” Such was the case with FDR’s New Deal; even left-wing historians grudgingly admit that “many of his ideas and policies were indistinguishable from fascism.” Said Rexford Guy Tugwell, an influential member of FDR’s Brain Trust, of Italian Fascism, “It’s the cleanest, neatest, most efficiently operating piece of social machinery I’ve ever seen. It makes me envious.”

H. G. Wells minted the term liberal fascism. Like many other progressive of the early 1900s, Wells was envious of the supposed success of the Italian Fascists and the Communist Russians, and was anxious for such political thought to take root in America. He said, “I’m asking for a Liberal Fascisti, for enlightened Nazis.” What he wanted fascism with a smile on its face, which explains the cover of Jonah Goldberg’s book.

Modern Liberal Fascism
Goldberg goes on to further explain how modern liberal constituent groups, such as environmentalists, employ fascist tactics. “Environmentalism gives license to the sort of moral bullying and intrusion that, were it couched in terms of traditional morality, liberals would immediately denounce as fascist.”

Fascism is nationalistic and militaristic in nature. And we see both of these tendencies from today’s liberal left. Maxine Waters, Democrat Congresswoman from California, just last year threatened to nationalize the U.S. oil industry (this link takes you to the YouTube video of it). And liberals show their militarist nature when all of their causes tend to be “wars” and constant crisis: the war on poverty, the war on drugs, the current economic “crisis”, the global warming “crisis”, etc.

Beware of Liberals Eroding Our Freedoms
Now that we have come to an understanding of what fascism is and its prevalence in American society today, let’s stand up and defeat it. The threat may not be coming in the form of tanks and armies of brown shirts; it may be a far friendly fascism as Goldberg indicates. “If there is ever a fascist takeover in America, it will come not in the form of storm troopers kicking down doors but with lawyers and social workers saying, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.'” Richard Weaver made a similar statement years ago: “The past shows unvaryingly that when a people’s freedom disappears, it goes not with a bang, but in silence amid the comfort of being cared for. That is the dire peril in the present trend toward statism.”

Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left

Book Review: Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning by Jonah Goldberg
Grade: A+, 5 Stars, A Ten, whatever the scoring system, this is a great book.

There is so much to say about this outstanding book, I’m not sure where to begin. There is no way I can put everything I want to say in one post, so I plan to dedicate the next several blog posts to topics and learnings from this book.

The premise of the book is that conservatives have long been unfairly derided by liberals as fascists. The more conservative you are, according to liberal logic (or illogic), the closer you are to being a fascist. This is because liberals equate fascism with racism, warmongering and just about any other evil you can think of, and anyone who wants to stop liberals from achieving their political goals, like conservatives, must be just as bad as fascists. The truth of the matter, though, as revealed my Mr. Goldberg, is that it is liberals, and not conservatives, that resort to fascist methods to achieve their political goals. It is liberals, and not conservatives, that have political roots in the Progressive movement which also gave rise to fascism.

I will go into more detail defining what is fascism in a future post, but for now suffice it to say that fascism is a polar opposite to conservatism and much more closely akin to socialism and modern American liberalism. The Nazi party, perhaps the best example of fascism, was the National Socialist German Workers’ Party; hardly a right-wing organization. And Mussolini, the Italian example of fascism, was a life-long socialist; he was perhaps to the political right communism, but far left of American conservatism.

As the title of the book indicates, this is an expose on American liberals, their mind and methods. For me, every chapter was a real eye-opener. I learned much I never knew before, particularly about the Progressive movement of the early 20th century. And when I wasn’t learning new things, Mr. Goldberg was shedding new light on things I thought I already knew, like the fascist tactics of Woodrow Wilson during World War I.

This book should be required reading for every American. If we are to resist the onslaught of so-called progressive ideas from the American left, we must know their playbook and this book reveals liberals for what they really are and what they really want: an all-powerful government that reaches into every corner of our lives and replaces God with the religion of the state.

Here’s a great interview of Jonah Goldberg on the Glenn Beck TV program:

Columbia University: Applauds Terrorist Dictators, Appalled by Conservatives

Last Month, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, President of Iran (an official state sponsor of terror according to the US government), visited and spoke at Columbia University in New York. Ahmadinejad was greeted with enthusiasm by many students there. “After sitting through Bollinger’s rebuke (the university president listed many of Iran’s human right atrocities), Ahmadinejad rose to applause, and after a religious invocation, opened his remarks by objecting to the scolding, saying it was insulting to be spoken about that way.” (from a 2007 FoxNews story) I was shocked that such a clearly evil man was given such a warm welcome at one of our nation’s universities.

Fast forward about a month and this past weekend students at Columbia University held a very vocal protest of “a speech by conservative author David Horowitz…The rally was held to show disapproval over Horowitz’s visit” (Students Hold Rally Against Pundit’s Speech). Horowitz had come to the university “to talk about extremist Islam.”

Now I had heard Horowitz’s name before, but I wasn’t exactly sure who he was. So I decided to do some research to see if I could figure out why he was welcomed by protesters while Ahmadinejad was welcomed by thunderous applause. In the chart below I have summarized information I found regarding Horowitz and contrasted that with information on Ahmadinejad.

David Horowitz Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
“an American conservative writer and activist.”
“He is the editor of the conservative website FrontPage Magazine”
“He founded the activist group Students for Academic Freedom”
“He occasionally appears on the Fox News Channel as an analyst.”
“an opponent of affirmative action policies, as well as reparations for slavery”
“strongly supportive of the war on terror and the war in Iraq”
“Horowitz has rejected what he sees as the intolerance of some Christian conservatives towards homosexuals. While Horowitz disagrees with gay marriage, he believes homosexuals have a fundamental right to privacy”
“did a study titled “Political Bias in the Administrations and Faculties of 32 Elite Colleges and Universities.” The overall ratio of Democrats to Republicans they were able to identify at the 32 schools was more than 10 to 1 (1,397 Democrats, 134 Republicans, 1891 unidentified).”
Source Wikipedia
“sixth and current President of the Islamic Republic of Iran.”
“became president on 6 August 2005”
“an outspoken critic of the George W. Bush Administration”
“He was condemned, internationally, for calling for Israel to be ‘wiped off the map.'”
“He has said Iran’s nuclear program is for peaceful purposes and has refused to end enrichment despite United Nations Security Council resolutions”
“He has also been condemned for describing the Holocaust as a myth to make ‘the innocent nation of Palestine pay'”
“the Canadian government listed Iran as one of the thirteen worst abusers of human rights in 2006”
“According to Amnesty International, dissidents who oppose the government non-violently face harassment, torture and execution”
on a good note, though, “On 24 April 2006, Ahmadinejad announced that a ruling which prevented women from watching men playing sports in stadiums would soon be reversed”
Source Wikipedia

It’s too bad that the liberal professors and students at Columbia have more tolerance for a murderous dictator than a good, honest man of a different political viewpoint.

In all fairness, there were reports that “the speech generated predominately positive responses from the audience.” And “while the rally included some graduate and undergraduate students, the crowd consisted largely of local residents and activists from the off-campus liberal nonprofit organization The World Can’t Wait! Drive Out The Bush Regime.”