Skip to content

Insanity & Doom Update XXIV

A very special update to our Insanity & Doom series, the time focusing on Google’s social justice warriors.

Google doesn’t like white people, especially white men. Not all whites: American whites. How curious. You can have some fun proving this to yourself, following the links below, or by typing in the search terms yourself.

When you do a Google search for classes of people, like artists or scientists, they sometimes list a row of headshots across the top of the main Google page, with clickable links. Sometimes you have to click the Images links if you want to see faces. Below I list the headshot if they have it, or give the link to the Images if not.

You might expect search result rankings to be in the order of prominence or importance or accomplishments, or perhaps even by time. Alas, no. Google seems to have another algorithm in mind. Before you get exercised and start throwing the silly “r-word” about, I say God bless every one of the people shown.

Try the following searches. Your results might vary a bit.

American inventors (a well known classic). Contrast it with Chinese inventors or, say, French inventors, or even Canadian inventors.

American scientists. Try the same contrasts here and below.

American doctors

American artists

American astronomers.

American mathematicians.

American architects. Oops!

American chemists. Another oops. Not shown, because the “oops” gives it away. Same with American philosophers.

White couples. Another classic, with the results showing a dearth of the term searched for. Contrast with Black couples or Asian couples or whatever else. Then jump to white couple with children.

Now people at Google say that when searching for, say, white couple it will also match images tagged with words like black and white couple. Might be possible. But if that’s so, why doesn’t black couple also match black and white couple? Seems the same images ought to show. Black and white couples produces a lots of images of couples in black and white (sans color, I mean).

Another well known one: European history people. I saw one explanation that trolls are going through marking the images you see as “European”. Maybe so. But they’d have to be awfully busy, because the results go on for pages. And it doesn’t work for, say, French history people nor for many other European countries. British history people is a partial hit, which might indicate the real interest in non-whites in Britain.

As far as Google shadow-banning and censoring sites aligned with Reality and Tradition, that’s already well known. E.g. “Google Preaches ‘Net Neutrality,’ Then Censors Conservative Videos?“, “Google’s New Fact-Check Feature Almost Exclusively Targets Conservative Sites“.
Heck, even socialists complain of Google’s censorship.

So prevalent are these stories that I am able to find them using Google’s own search engine!

What to do? Besides the obvious alternatives, just laugh at them. For unless the government steps in and makes Google official policy, these kinds of things self correct—because of the laughter.

26 thoughts on “Insanity & Doom Update XXIV Leave a comment

  1. When my brother first brought this to my attention a year or so ago, the first thing I did was try the same searches in Bing and DuckDuckGo. Same results, which suggests something else is probably at work than Google not being evil.

  2. This is an excellent demonstration of the results of Politically Correct Progressivism, the anti-Normal belief system that is purging our culture of all that makes up Normal-America.

    Notice that the results have nothing to do with “Marxism,” or “Socialism,” or the USSR.

    Instead, what you see is hatred of Normal-America and Normal-Americans. And t a typical PC-Prog operation to “Change America.”

    Next time you find yourself reading an analysis by a neocon that babbles about “Cultural Marxism,” remember the anti-Normal results of American Inventor. Nothing to do with Marxism.

    The PC-Progs work steadily and tirelessly to destroy the greatest culture in the history of the world. They infest the media (including the online media, as we see here), academia/education, and Hollywood. Nothing to do with Marx. They’re all about destroying our culture.

  3. Lynn – Duck Duck Go is a front end for Google. It just strips out all the tracking information that Google so desires. And Bing is Microsoft, and they’re not any less SJW infested than Google.

  4. Suppose I’m looking for some photographs of black people’s faces. I type in “black face photograph”, and what so I see? Mostly pictures of Caucasians, especially near the top of the results. If I were a race-baiting, conclusion-jumping guy with a political agenda that far outweighed my interest in knowing and disseminating the truth, I might write a screed exposing Google’s obvious anti-black bias. Or, I could spend ten minutes on research and figure out what’s actually happening. Briggs even links to a pretty good explanation, but either doesn’t fully understand it, or prefers a dark conspiracy theory to mundane reality. Sorry, “Reality”.

    But this is the guy who was convinced that Twitter had “shadow banned” him, when a simple check showed that it had not.

  5. Kent Clizbe writes “Next time you find yourself reading an analysis by a neocon…”

    What is a neocon? I have spent YEARS trying to understand it. When I returned to the USA after my Navy career, I was accused of being whatever it is, but I am many things, so it didn’t help.

    “They’re all about destroying our culture.”

    Ah so, now I understand. You are a socialist (more or less). There is no “our” culture. Many cultures exist but tend to be immiscible; that is to say, the pot did not melt. So when you write “our culture” you mean the one you are in, which you suppose everyone here is also sharing and thus has some idea what you mean.

    Well, I’m not (but I might be) and I don’t (but I’m not sure about that either).

  6. “Our” culture, our United States American culture is based on the premise of individual liberty, or as some say, freedom. The different dimensions of our freedoms are spelled out in our founding documents. This is the culture that is worth defending, and that is the culture that is is being chiseled away by those who perceive some sort of personal gain by doing so.

    This is not to deny that the United States is a “melting pot” from citizens who hail from all corners of the earth, and who bring their own traditions and practices (language, food, dress, etc.), but it is to recognize that all citizens are children of the Constitution, and have certain protections and responsibilities under the law. “We the people” need to be alive and awake to our culture heritage, and perceive what we risk losing.

  7. “Our” culture, our United States American culture is based on the premise of individual liberty, or as some say, freedom. The different dimensions of our freedoms are spelled out in our founding documents. This is the culture that is worth defending, and that is the culture that is is being chiseled away by those who perceive some sort of personal gain by doing so.

    This is not to deny that the United States is a “melting pot” from citizens who hail from all corners of the earth, and who bring their own traditions and practices (language, food, dress, etc.), but it is to recognize that all citizens are children of the Constitution, and have certain protections and responsibilities under the law. “We the people” need to be alive and awake to our culture heritage, and perceive what we risk losing.

  8. Years ago I read a book on the psychological origins of political correctness and the psychologist author pointed out that when you become PC you have to deny reality and live in fantasy land.

  9. Hello,
    People of that caliber (top astronomers, astrophysicists, etc.) are so rare in any country/culture/’race’ and represent such a negligible proportion of the population, that it is really irrelevant what hue they represent. They might all as well be green or purple.

    If google wants to fix the centuries of deliberate racism, exclusion, etc. they need to start with kindergartens.

    What I find funny though is the myth of ‘white’ people, especially in the US. Most of what passes for white here, would not be considered so in many other countries. Genetically, US ‘white’ population is so diverse, that the criticized word ‘diversity’ can really only be applied to whites themselves. My Mexican neighbor would fit in Denmark just fine and is whiter than probably 60% of people who call themselves white. Yet, in US census, he is of ‘Hispanic’ origin.
    Take Paul Ryan for example. In most of Europe people would think of him as originating from southern Italy, Turkey, maybe Bulgaria (heck, half of all those countries are much whiter than he’ll ever be, and the residents of those countries would not be considered overly white to begin with). However, here in US, everyone would think of him as white.

    I don’t mean any of this in a negative sense. Genetically, that sort of variation produces healthy and better looking people, but there is no denying biology. White in US is really a social construct. ‘Race’ is mostly a continuous variable that has been categorized for our practical purposes. Just look at a variety in Caribbean and Pacific and try to categorize them.

    It is because in the US, we have members of other ‘races’ that are clearly different on a spectrum (even though by % they do not constitute a large group) that gives the ‘whites’ an illusion that they are actually homogeneously white. The skin of many people who self-identify as Asians, for example is much whiter than of many who consider themselves to be white.

    Not to mention some of those loudest ‘nativists’ bearing Italian, Hungarian, Armenian last names and sporting quite a tanned complexion, dark hair/brown eyes and such.

    Here’s an article I found interesting:
    https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/mythsofbritishancestry

    I believe that future genetic testing and maps will shed more and more light on what is basically political history we have been taking for granted all along that has nothing to do with reality.

    Finally, let’s not forget the figures of how the population self-identifies (US census 2010 estimates):

    White – 75.1%
    Blacks – 12.3%
    Asian – 3.6%
    Foreign born US citizens (not including green cards, H1Bs and such) – 12.9%

    https://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-02.pdf

    Thanks

  10. Google is as much a battlefield as a search engine. The social engineering battles in the examples pointed out by Professor Briggs here are dwarfed by the commercial battles, as one would expect when there’s money on the line. A typical example for me: I need a part for a design, but a straightforward search yields parts from Acme, and I can’t use Acme’s part for some reason (e.g., part isn’t suitable, Acme has pissed off Procurement in the past, etc). No problem, just repeating the Google search adding “-Acme” often yields usable results.

    Compare Google search results for “American inventors” with “American inventors -black”, and magically you’ve largely stepped off the battlefield. Black inventors will still show up in the linked content, not because they are black, but because of their accomplishments, which is probably what you were after to start with. (Of course, you’ll miss that great advancement in black dyes.)

  11. Albert Einsten was most certainly not an Astronomer. Not even an Astrophysicist. There are plenty of American Astronomers, like Barnard, Tombaugh, Humason, Lowell, Swift, worthy to have their picture there instead of Einstein.

  12. “What is a neocon? I have spent YEARS trying to understand it. When I returned to the USA after my Navy career, I was accused of being whatever it is, but I am many things, so it didn’t help.”
    “They’re all about destroying our culture.”
    “Ah so, now I understand. You are a socialist (more or less). There is no “our” culture. Many cultures exist but tend to be immiscible; that is to say, the pot did not melt. So when you write “our culture” you mean the one you are in, which you suppose everyone here is also sharing and thus has some idea what you mean.”

    Mike 2,

    Great question.

    Neoconservatism is not complicated. Shouldn’t be a mystery for so long for anyone.

    Here’s an easy intro to neoconservatism, current as of the 2016 election. It’s the trailer for a 3 part documentary on the neocons:

    https://vimeo.com/ondemand/averyheavyagendatrilogy/

    You’d do well to get all three parts and watch closely.

    In the meantime, a quick overview:

    Neoconservatism was the brainchild of a clique of Trotskyite “intellectuals.” American Marxists, socialists, and communists, their roots went back to the 30s. They fell out of love with the USSR when Stalin embraced Hitler. Thus, they leaned towards Trotsky, against Stalin. But they were Americans. Most have Russian roots—their families coming here as refugees from 1880 to 1915. As the 50s developed, they saw the writing on the wall, and many/most became overtly anti-communist, but socialist. But, always, always, they put Israel before all else—including America.

    They were active commentators, analysts, journalists, and academics. In the 1950s, the clique coalesced at a magazine: Jewish Commentary (later they dropped the religious identifier, and the magazine is now a fake “conservative” magazine–Commentary). This magazine is the home nest of the neocons. Today they control Commentary, Weekly Standard, National Review, and every non-libertarian, non-PC center of influence. Their array of NGOs, and DC think tanks is staggering.

    Background:
    http://www.jewishquarterly.org/issuearchive/article10bf.html?articleid=170

    In the 60s, this clique saw the radical anti-war swing of the Democrats, and disengaged with their roots. They swung, in a bloc, to the Republicans. Their motivating beliefs, anything and everything for Israel, was kept intact. They just pretended that they were now “conservative.”

    In fact, their “conservative” beliefs were not at all conservative. Economically, they accepted socialism, but they were all for a little profit. Socially, they really don’t care about any of the real conservative issues. All that leaves is defense. Their main concern is constant, never-flagging support for Israel. Thus, never-ending wars in the Middle East. They always see another government that needs toppling, and a stable Muslim country that needs undermining. If American invasions and wars in the Middle East incite WW3 with Russia, all the better. Since they have inbred hatred of the “tsar,” they’re always ready for that.

    The neocon kingdom is very much a family affair. The Kristols and the Kagans are the main royal families. Each has spawned multiple babblers active in politics today. Irving Kristol is known as the god-father of neoconservatism. He was active at Jewish Commentary.

    The true spots of the neocon leopard showed through most clearly in the 2016 campaign. The neocon elite were the main drivers behind the “Republican” Never-Trump movement. Virtually to a man/woman they endorsed Hillary (who is actually a neocon), against Trump. But they hedged their bets—inside, at Trump’s elbow, is a neocon stalwart, Jared Kushner.

    Also important is the neocon co-optation of the Christian evangelical apocalyptics. They now call themselves Evangelical Zionists, and are the strongest supporters of forever-war in the Middle East.

    The neocons neatly co-opted the last real Normal American political movement, the Tea Party.

    That should get you on the path to enlightenment! Let me know if you’re still struggling.

    PS: I’m a “socialist?” Might want to re-evaluate your assessment skills! Will get back to you on the American culture issue. You may want to travel a bit more, if you don’t think there’s an American culture.

  13. “Suppose I’m looking for some photographs of black people’s faces. I type in “black face photograph”, and what so I see? Mostly pictures of Caucasians, especially near the top of the results. ”

    Lee,

    If you were looking for photographs of black people’s faces then you’d be foolish to search for “black face” photographs. That has a special connotation–white people who’ve colored their faces black.

    Instead, if, like Briggs, you were a sensible searcher, you’d Google: “black peoples faces,” or better yet, as a test of the issue that Briggs discusses here, “black Americans faces.”

    And what do you get? 99.9% black people.

    Might want to slow down the condescension, and get up to speed on the American English language.

  14. Dunno Sandy, much of Einstein’s work pertained to astronomy. Light being bent grazing the sun, advancement of the perihelion of Mercury, black holes, white holes, worm holes, gravitational lensing by galaxies. In fact it’s hard to think of any use for general relativity outside of astronomy, astrophysics, cosmology.

  15. Micheal 2

    The short version, at the moment, is that neo-cons seem to hold a conservative ( which is to say classical liberal) economic policy. However their social policy can be anything, though usually it would be considered soft left in the US. Their claim to conservativism is based only on their financial policy. They “sleep” with progressives socially in order to maintain their financial hegemony. Take a walk down Wall Street swing a cat, you’ll nail a few.

  16. Kent Clizbe says, “Might want to slow down the condescension, and get up to speed on the American English language.”

    Good idea.

    It’s “blackface”, not “black face”; it’s “black people’s faces,” not “black peoples faces” (“peoples” is not a word); it’s “black American’s faces,” not “black Americans faces.” Also, you completely missed the point.

  17. Lee,

    A really, really good idea! Thanks.

    Again, something else you’re not familiar with–punctuation and search engines. Slow down and get up to speed…

    Hint: Apostrophes are not parsed by search engines.

    Hint: Your “black face photograph” is parsed as “blackface”. That’s why you got the results you did.

    If you’re looking for photographs of faces of black people, search “black peoples faces” and you’ll get just that–images of the faces of black people.

    Briggs had it right. The search engines are biased.

  18. Kent Clizbe digs himself in deeper with:

    ‘Hint: Your “black face photograph” is parsed as “blackface”. That’s why you got the results you did.’

    If you actually type in “blackface”, you get an entirely different set of results. Try it. Guess what you get: that’s right, you get results having to do with blackface.

    And deeper still with:

    “Apostrophes are not parsed by search engines. ”

    Google gives different results depending on whether you include the apostrophe. So, wrong yet again. All you needed to do to avoid this embarrassment was try things out before spouting off. Not that I’m complaining, I enjoy being entertained.

  19. I think you’re all making a mountain range out of a single molehill. Playground bullies love to boast of their “supremacy” and they love even more to have their “exploits” published by their sycophants.

    If you’re likely to be bashed on the way home go another way.

  20. When I type “black face” in a Google search I get the Wikipedia entry for “blackface” as the first result.

    When I type “blackface” I get a definition of it followed by the Wikipedia entry for “blackface”.

    So, yes, it is different but not much.

    When I type “black face photos” I get images of blackface and some black individuals.

    “White couples” returns images of mostly mixed race couples while “black couples” returns 100% black couples.

  21. Duck Duck Go is actually a meta-search engine. That is, it’s a front end for using a whole lot of search engines. It’s likely that in many cases, it will default to Google. But their bang syntax will give you a fair bit of control over where your search goes.

  22. Kalif – That’s funny right there. You claim that because it cannot be rigorously defined, and is difficult biologically, that the ‘American White’ does not exist.

    Look around. It’s easy to tell black from white. It’s a bit harder to tell white from Latino – that’s why the census uses Latino as an ethnicity, not a race. (Latinos come in white, black, and every shade of brown.) Whites, as a group, make sense only in comparison to other non-white groups. This applies in America. It used to not matter in Europe, but with mass migration from Africa and southeastern Asia, it now does. (If you claim there are no races, then you must also claim there are no breeds of dogs, and that a dachshund is identical to a dalmatian.)

    You may or may not live here, so here is a very basic education. American culture is white, Anglo, Christian culture. White, Protestant Anglos founded and built America. There are blacks here, but even they don’t consider themselves to be part of mainstream, white American culture. Neither do most of the newly arrived Latino invaders. Asians also tend to keep to themselves for the first few generations.

    All the different nationalities of white, Christian Europeans made up the “melting pot”, and it worked well as long as the overall stew was basically still Protestant and British. A few Asians, Hispanics and Cajuns here and there added spice to the stew. Blacks have added some music, but essentially count as rocks in the stew. They have never mixed in, and show no indication of having any desire (or possibly ability) to join with the majority culture. The recent wave of Latino invasion is not part of the stew – they are busy establishing a whole, separate dish of their own. The Muslim “immigrants” are busy trying to break open the stew pot and pour it into the fire. The Jews consider themselves to be the spoon.

  23. Dear McChuck, all I was saying is that the within-group variability is sometimes larger than between-group variability (to use research/applied stats terminology). I did not claim that races do not exist, but that they are on a continuum, rather than divided in categories.
    Basically, if suddenly everybody but those who self-identify as white disappeared, new categories within the whites themselves would be created overnight, because the largest variability is within whites themselves. It is natural, because they constitute the majority of population.
    “You may or may not live here, so here is a very basic education. American culture is white, Anglo, Christian culture”
    I’ve been an American for more than half of my life and the short history of this country is very familiar to me.
    You are right that it started that way (see my link about your ‘Anglo’ origin though), but immediately other European ethnic groups followed. The mistake you make is in adopting the myth how all those groups have some purity of origin and are distinct categories. All of a sudden, all ‘whites’ are Mayflower boarding pass holders. The reality is that most white Americans are mutts (not my opinion, but of my white Geneticist friend).
    I don’t blame you for thinking the way you do, because the rest of the world is very old and complex.
    So, who are those “different nationalities of white, Christian Europeans made up the “melting pot”?
    Let’s see:
    Hungarians maybe? A mix of Nothern Iranians and who knows who from central Asia (same for Finland)
    Bulgarians? Turks basically (hundreds of years of mixing, just recently), which in turn are not Turks but a mix of many central Asian races/ethnic groups
    Spaniards? (do you really think Moors needed a license to rape for hundreds of years?)
    Italians? (talking about dark complexion)
    French? (any Iranian/Persian and some Arabic and Jewish people I know are as white or whiter than your average Frenchie)
    Greeks? (white? as much as Turks are)
    True, when you compare the extremes from the darker Black people to the ones above, the difference is obvious, but still on a continuum. BTW, Blacks didn’t ‘come’ here. We all know the basics of the American history. I don’t know what you mean by ‘Muslim’, as there’s no such race/ethnicity. It is a made-up term with a very specific agenda, and many, even some smart people in this country bought into it. In any case, many countries I listed above that have predominantly ‘Muslim’ culture are quite white, by US standards.

    Best