Google Buries My Revelations of Hillary’s Lesbianism

I have quite literate friends who have actually been celebrating the demise of newspapers and magazines in our country. “They’ve shown themselves to be little more than propaganda organs,” they say, “so it’s good enough for them.”

But the fact that young people are turning away from the traditional media hardly means that they are not being propagandized. They’re just getting their poison through other venues, primarily the Internet. For every expensive and widely cited print publication with no visible means of support like Bill Kristol’s Weekly Standard, there are dozens of such web sites, with big teams of regular writers who must live on something.

We have also had a ringside seat to watch the transformation of a leading propagandist, Christopher Ruddy, from print journalist to a major force on the Worldwide Web, and he now has his own cable TV channel. We describe it in great detail in “Double Agent Ruddy Reaching for Media Pinnacle.” It would be no skin off him or his handlers should the newspapers he used to write for dry up and blow away.

Google’s Pernicious Power

There is one clear way in which the potential for spreading propaganda is now even greater than it was when a few major newspapers and television and radio networks dominated the molding of public opinion. A great deal of Internet power is concentrated in the hands of one company, Google. So dominant is its search engine that its name has become a verb meaning to search for something on the Internet, “to Google.” So far this month, of the people coming to my web site by use of a Web search, they arrive through Google at a rate about 24 times as great as through the search engine that is in second place, Yahoo’s.

Google also keeps track of everything you search for and makes profitable—and apparently propagandistic—use of that information. On the first point, how often have we seen pop-up advertisements appear on our computer screens for products or services for which we have recently conducted a Web search?

The second apparent use of its tracking information is a good deal more insidious. Working on an upcoming article on the establishment’s favorite putative racist, Jared Taylor, I have searched his name a number of times, each time in conjunction with other names or concepts. Now when I go to Google-owned YouTube, right at the top I have as my “Recommended channel” Taylor’s shadowy white-pride organization, American Renaissance, complete with a whole row of videos to click on. This presentation by Taylor is one of the videos they offered for my enjoyment and edification. Based upon my Googling record, they think I’m one of those people who equates “real American” with “white person.” No mainstream print organization could get by with touting such a person with such a message to a general audience.

My Article’s Google Burial

But that’s not what most recently brought Google to my attention and that is not directly related to the title of this article. I regularly keep track of what people are reading on my web site. For several years the most popular two articles, apart from my most recent postings, were “Is Hillary Clinton a Lesbian?” and “The Cover-up of Sonny Bono’s Murder,” regularly vying for position at the top. Then I began to notice a decline in popularity in the article on Hillary’s sexual predilections. Currently it sits at sixth place. This struck me as somewhat odd, because with her continued prominence and the early consensus that she would be the Democratic candidate for president in 2016, I thought interest in the subject would be sufficiently great to continue to draw large numbers of people to the article. Seeing the decline in hits, though, I had begun to entertain the notion that people really don’t care much anymore about her bedroom life, so successful has the homosexual crowd been in selling their agenda. I had even joked among friends that the way things are going, the press might even be able to make it a political asset for her to come out as not only the candidate who would be the first woman president of the United States but the first lesbian president as well.

Then a friend brought me back down to earth. “Have you searched for it on Google?” was his immediate response when I told him about the fall in hits on the article on Hillary’s lesbianism. “Not lately,” I responded. For quite a long time, the article had been right up near the top when I searched for anything related to Hillary and lesbianism. Maybe the friend was onto something, I thought, so I checked it out anew. The search phrase I used was precisely the title of the article, “Is Hillary Clinton a Lesbian?” When I do that with “The Cover-up of Sonny Bono’s Murder,” my article is the first one listed on Google. But when I did the new search my “Is Hillary Clinton a Lesbian?” did not come up until the eighth page. Now, as I am writing this, for some strange reason it comes up on the third page, but that’s still too far down to garner much notice.

There is one relatively good answer for why the Sonny Bono article is so much more prominent on Google than the Hillary article. Lots of people are still writing about Hillary’s alleged lesbianism and no one is writing about Sonny Bono’s death. Every one of the articles on Google’s first page is far more current than my 2007 article. However, early on Google’s second page we find this undated fluff piece from LesbianLife.com: “Is Hillary Clinton a Lesbian? New book claims the NY Senator is a Lesbian.” The “new book” mentioned here is the one by Edward Klein that prompted me to write “Hillary Biographer Crude Propagandist” in July of 2005, so the Lesbian Life article is a very old one, some two years older than my article on Hillary’s lesbianism.

I have also noticed an oddity from Google with respect to that earlier article of mine about Hillary Clinton and her biographer Klein and wrote a follow-up article about it entitled “Google Censors Me for Hillary.” Here is the heart of that article:

So what is the evidence that Google has banned reference to the article?  Try searching for the odd combination of words that appear in the article, "Hillary Klein veterinarian." (I did it without quotation marks.)  But before you do it on Google, do it on Yahoo.com, Ask.com, and AlltheWeb.com.  In each of the latter three search engines, the "Crude Propagandist" article is the first thing that comes up.  But on Google, the near-monopoly search engine, the article doesn't come up at all.  You can even add "Parade of Lies" and "David Martin" and who knows what else from the article to the search string, and it still doesn't come up. 

As a result of this article, that might change, or the other search engines might take it down, but as of this last day of June 2007, I rest my case.

And the situation did change soon after I put the article up. Try that same search now and you’ll quickly find yourself on my page. The article you are reading right now might have a similar effect on “Is Hillary Clinton a Lesbian?” In the meantime you might want to try the search engine that advertises that it does not track you, DuckDuckgo.com. If you search “Is Hillary Clinton a Lesbian?” there, my article is currently the ninth item that you see.

Et Tu YouTube?

Returning to Google, its ownership of YouTube is at least as troubling in the opinion manipulation field as is the company’s near monopoly over Internet searches. We have seen how it regularly directs me to the videos of “racialist” Jared Taylor because of a few searches I did on Google. Much worse, I strongly suspect that it fiddles with its announced hit count for videos. If, as many suspect, Google is nothing but a front for the CIA it would certainly want to dampen attention given to videos that challenge the existing U.S. power structure. Perhaps I’m biased, but I can’t think of one that does that more effectively than our video of Mark Lentz’s powerful song, “At What a Cost.” That it should garner little more than 3,000 viewers and that the viewership should be stuck at that number for a seemingly interminable period of time is almost as unbelievable as our counts of voting-machine ballots.

What is believable is that those with power would abuse it, and Google currently has way too much power in the opinion-molding field.

David Martin

August 25, 2015, with latest Google/CIA link added on August 27

Addendum

Headline: “India investigates Google over search results rigging.”

I’m shocked, shocked over such an allegation…not.

Internet heavyweight Google is under investigation by the Competition Commission of India (CCI) over alleged rigging of search results in the country – a violation that could potentially be punished by up to 10 percent of the company’s income, running into billions of dollars.

That’s how the article begins. I wish it were a class action civil suit that I could somehow get in on.

David Martin

September 1, 2015

Home Page Column Column 5 Archive Contact