The Google Dictatorship: Domain Authority and SEO Have Become Meaningless With Anything "Unwanted"; ISGP "De-Ranked" Systematically by Trilateral and Bilderberg Company Google Since 2015

By: Joël v.d. Reijden | V. 1: Dec. 1, 2017 | V. 2: May 12, 2019 | Updated: Oct. 8, 2024

Contents

Censorship summary
1. Google censorship and harassment of ISGP: point-summary
2. Quality ISGP content increases 800% over 2010-19; visitors decrease 5%
3. Google, as of 2019, ranks ISGP 20x lower than Bing, Yahoo, DDG
4. May 2023: brief ISGP ranking test: Google, Baidu, Yandex, Yahoo!, DDG, etc. Same story
   
   
   History and details of censorship
5. 14 reasons why Google censorship is problematic
6. Google, in 2018, lied to congress about censorship - blatantly
7. Google shielded by politicians
8. Google unimpressed by congress in 2018 and blatantly censors the entire web from 2019 on
9. Google shielded by Democrat and Rockefeller-tied judges
10. Google shielded by "liberal CIA" online privacy activists


11. 1st Amendment questions: Google neither "press" nor "media"
12. Summary of why Google shouldn't be protected by 1st Amendment
13. Prosecuting Google: anti-harassment laws
14. Prosecuting Google: anti-discrimination laws
15. Prosecuting Google: the case for treason


16. Solution: oversight, not anti-trust
    
    
    Original site traffic analysis - plus updates
17. Intro
18. The rise of "populism" and the birth of the "fake news" war
19. The anti-conspiracy blitzkrieg
    
    
    ISGP of 2005-2010: the pre-Google penalty era
20. The good old days of crude security state harassment
21. When Google domain rank was honest
    
    
    ISGP since Dec. 2014: continuous Google penalties
22. Restarting ISGP, quarantine, and its effect on Domain Authority
23. 2015: Google takes over ISGP harassment?
24. Aug. 2016: from ISGP.nl to ISGP-studies.com: instant 50% traffic boost
25. Google incompetence - or partly by design?
26. Oct. 2016: duplicate content removal doubles views to low 700s
27. Nov. 2016: Pizzagate screws up measurements, but 800 is new low
28. Dec. 2016: 770s despite continued removals
    
    
    2017: The way down
29. Jan. 2017: daily bottom averages at 900
30. Feb. 2017: 26% total drop from 900 to 663
31. Early April 2017: 33 to 40% drops to 478
32. June-July 2017: visiting the low 400s and 392
33. Key articles suddenly losing readership
34. Aug. 2017: another post-publication Google retaliation?
35. The situation until late 2017
36. Google dominance from 97-100% down to 84-92%
    
    
    2018: Down further
37. Google dominance down to 57.8%; hitting the 251
38. Triple whammy penalty tied to "Liberal CIA: Hollywood" notice?
39. Narcos season 4 drops Google dominance to... 12.7%!
40. Anomalies: brief huge ranking bursts for individual articles
    
    
    2019: Rock bottom?
41. First half 2019: from 400s to 294; 48-72% Google dominance
42. May 2019: a first search engine ranking test
43. Google penalties start hurting ISGP in Moz Rank (unpublished)
    
    
    2020
44. May: Google's "Corona Penalties"
45. ISGP has a lower ranking than ugly, Holocaust-denying, disinfo blogs
    
    
    Summary and conclusions
46. How much proof and evidence is enough?
    
    
    Appendices
47. A second set of statistics
48. Google hits largely visible on Alexa
    
    
    Case studies
49. Search King v. Google (2003): dismissed over 1st Amendment
50. Search King v. Google (2003): black activist, Democrat elitist judge
51. ChinaIsEvil.com v. Google (2007): dismissed over 1st Amendment
52. ChinaIsEvil.com v. Google (2007): judge not too controversial
53. Kinderstart.com v. Google (2007): dismissed over 1st Amendment
54. Kinderstart.com v. Google (2007): judge with Clinton-Trilateral Comm. mentors
55. Zhang v. Baidu (2014): dismissed by Rockefeller-Obama-tied judge
56. Google's use of 2003-2014 rulings as fuel
57. CoastNews.com v. Google (2014): dismissed
58. CoastNews.com v. Google (2014, 2017): neocon superclass links and "fast-tracked" gay Democrat judges
59. e-ventures v. Google (2017): dismissed for good reason
60. PragerU v. Google and YouTube (2018): dismissed by Obama/superclass-tied judge
61. Google v. Equustek
62. James Damore, et. al. v. Google
63. Tim Chevalier v. Google
64. Knight Institute v. Trump over Twitter bans (2019)
    
    
    Google's elite-tied history
65. Google's earliest history: seed funding and oversight at Stanford from NSA, CIA, MITRE, NASA, DARPA, NSF; Sun Microsystems founders the next investors
66. 2000-: Google has become mainstream: Davos, Bilderberg, Trilateral Commission, etc.
67. Why was Davos and soon Bilderberg veteran Eric Schmidt selected to head Google?
68. Google part of the NSA's PRISM spy program by 2009
69. "GOOGLE is getting WH and State Dept. support [to do what] CIA cannot... in fomenting up-risings"
70. Google IS the Democrat Party: list of Democrat-globalist "state action" evidence
    
    
    Extra
71. History of security service harassment of ISGP

"We are working on detecting and de-ranking those kinds of sites – it’s basically RT and Sputnik. ... But we don’t want to ban the sites – that’s not how we operate."

Long-time Google head, Bilderberg steering committee member and Trilateral Commission member Eric Schmidt (November 20, 2017, RT.com, 'Google will 'de-rank' RT articles to make them harder to find – Eric Schmidt'). What else is Google "de-ranking"?

"Google is also setting new rules encouraging its "raters" -- the 10,000-plus staff that assess search results -- to flag web pages that host hoaxes, conspiracy theories and what the company calls "low-quality" content."

April 25, 2017, Bloomberg, 'Google Rewrites Its Powerful Search Rankings to Bury Fake News'.

"- Freedom of Expression: We believe that people should be able to speak freely, share opinions, foster open dialogue...
- Freedom of Information: We believe that everyone should have easy, open access to information ... for education, building understanding and documenting world events, big and small. - Freedom of Opportunity: We believe that everyone should have a chance to be discovered, build a business and succeed on their own terms, and that people – not gatekeepers – decide what's popular."

Mission statements of Google's YouTube at youtube.com/intl/en-GB/yt/about/ (accessed: June 25, 2019)

SUMMARIZING CHAPTERS

Google censorship and harassment of ISGP: point-summary

Quality ISGP content increases 800% over 2010-19; visitors decrease 5%

After a year of trial and error at a free domain provided by my internet provider, ISGP initially was in operation from 2005 to 2010, at that point mainly at ISGP.eu. It was shut down in September 2010. The admins of Wikispooks.com downloaded a copy of ISGP and here the site remained for a number of years. After updating the "ISGP archive" on Wikispooks became too cumbersome, ISGP was restarted in December 2014 at ISGP.nl. It moved to ISGP-studies.com in August 2016.

It has been a rather long road putting together the contents of this site, so maybe it is pertinent to analyze to what extent hard work actually is paying off. We're not talking here about site content: that's unique enough. Or finances: the site has cost a small fortune in unpaid work and missed income. No, we're talking about overall visibility over the last 15 years. If, for example, ISGP still is not very visible after so many years of hard work, maybe the focus should be switched to dealing with the causes of this before producing any significant new content.

Let's analyze the situation. ISGP:

In other words, by May 2019 ISGP has a solid 7 times (800%) more content compared to 2010, when ISGP received a steady 300-320 unique visitors per day. Old articles have been updated greatly. Most new articles have been at least as popular as older ones. All duplicate content, much from the 2005-2010 period, has been removed from the search engines. SEO and site design have massively been improved. Search engine rankings should have improved by 50% during 2017 alone. Etc. Hence, we're talking about an ENORMOUS amount of improvements over the last couple of years. Based on these facts, one would think ISGP would be having about 2,200 unique visitors per day at the very least. An estimate of 2,500 per day or more due to a cumulative effect of incoming links, visitors sticking around, and all the site-wide improvements really would not be an unreasonable estimate.

Well, measuring the period from April 20 to May 8, 2019, the average unique daily visitors stood at just 397, 5.5x less than expected! Soon after the publication of the second version of this article in mid May 2019, unique visitors collapsed to a new all-time-low of 205, with the average over an 11-day period in late May and early June 2019 sitting at most at 298 visitors (291 might be more realistic), 8.5x less than expected, or less than 1/8 of what is to be expected. This crash represented another 25%, which is basically in-line with the harshest single-event penalties ISGP has received in the past.

The dip to 295 is one of many strange ones ISGP has experienced. Similarly below-300 dips happened in early October 2018. October 5, 2018 saw a sudden dip from the 400s to 288. On October 6 just 261 unique visitors came to ISGP. Also, on December 22, 2018, there were just 317 visitors.

The release of the 4th season of Narcos on November 16, 2018 gave a major boost to the site through all search engines besides Google. Looking at the overall trend, however, it seems clear that the number of visitors only keeps going down, despite all the new content being uploaded continually. Here's the situation from early 2015 to May 2019, and in particular the situation since the move to ISGP-studies.com in August 2016:

Also from this perspective we find that daily unique visitors should be around 2,000. But it's only 1/5 of that, much, if not all of it, due to Google censorship. So much will be clear from the next section.

Google ranks ISGP 20x lower than Bing, Yahoo, DDG

Thinking it would not yield indisputable proof, for the longest time I refrained from doing the obvious: figure out Google censorship by comparing rankings for certain search queries over different search engines. I actually didn't do so until May 1, 2019, one year and five months after the publication of the first version of this Google censorship article - and four years after first suspecting Google censorship of ISGP.

It must be said, the results are quite stunning, certainly after so many years of observing Google penalties. Essentially this is the proverbial "cherry on the cake", confirming what I have been suspecting, saying and writing for all these years:

Isn't it fascinating how easily the results for DuckDuckGo, Yahoo! and Bing can be compared, with Google results almost entirely existing in a different universe? The most realistic average ISGP ranking for the listed search queries of DuckDuckGo, Yahoo! and Bing respectively is #5.5, #6 and #6.5. There are a couple of anomalies to be found, and there certainly is the question if there exists censorship with regard to IQ and crime in relation to race - but that's not a primary concern right now. What is a concern right now is that with Google, based on all the banned and fully unlisted ISGP content, the most realistic ranking is #157.

Depending on which numbers one decides to focus on, this gives ISGP a Google ranking between 1/5 to 1/29 of the other search engines. This is extremely in-line with earlier calculations and estimates of this author that Google has been handing ISGP only about 1/20 of the traffic it should be receiving.

In addition, of course, Google should be forced to explain how its visits to ISGP dropped from an average of 96-100% (it's higher for research sites than average) and hundreds coming in per 10-hour time frame or so, to (quite regularly) the following:

What we're seeing here makes perfect sense: if Google censors ISGP, incoming visits go down, and Google's overall percentage among search engines for ISGP diminishes. Mind you, Google's dominant search engine market share has remained stable over the years. Here are the global numbers for April 2019:

Readers can run the listed ISGP search queries in DuckDuckGo, Yahoo!, Bing and Google to see for themselves. Certainly in Google, results will differ somewhat based on geographical location (even when forcing yourself to Google's .com domain) and selected languages (English and Dutch in this case), but overall these results represent incredibly succinct, concrete evidence of Google censorship of ISGP.

Add to this the work this author has been doing over the years of documenting sudden, permanent whole-site or individual-article ranking penalties, often soon after the release of new ISGP articles, and it's hard to see what additional evidence is necessary to prove that Google most certainly is engaged in extreme censorship of ISGP, a sensitive political website to put it mildly. Ignoring any "incompetence" or "coincidence" theories, the question is how this type of censorship is implemented. Have the security services penetrated Google's website review staff? Or ss Google's leadership directly responsible? Or... is it both?

May 2023: brief ISGP ranking test: Google, Baidu, Yandex, Yahoo!, DDG, etc. Same story

The following ranking test was carried out on May 1, 2023. In quick succession in each search engine a basic "ISGP" querie was used. Back in 2010 this would always result in the number one spot for ISGP-studies.com (which was ISGP.eu in that period). Years of heavy censorship dwindled the ranking of ISGP-studies.com. Still, the results below easily reveal that Google and China's Baidu have manually censored ISGP much heavier than all other search engines.

The same goes for the "uncensored private" Gibiru search engine, whose search query wasn't recorded for it being to irrelevant at the moment.

Furthermore it is interesting to see that, among commonly-used alternative search engines, ISGP now ranks relatively the lowest on the much-advertized "independent" DuckDuckGo search engine - which has Sun Valley-involved owners, as ISGP already wrote years ago. In the past the result for "ISGP" would be in line with other search engines, around place 6 to 8.

In contrast, Yandex is the only (really) pleasant exception at this point for ISGP. Why ISGP is ranked number 1, is hard to say. It could be manual tinkering, it could be a different type of algorithm, or it could be both.

The search results for "ISGP":

• 1st: Yandex.
• 7th: Yahoo! and Bing
• 7th: Dogpile
• 8th: AOL
• 8th: Ask
• 8th: Swiss Cows
• 8th: Qwant
• 9th: Meta Germany
• 10th: DuckDuckGo
• Unlisted: Google
• Site fully unlisted: Baidu
  
  
  Unrecorded search engine test
• Unlisted: Gibiru: "Uncensored private search - Protecting your privacy since 2009."

The video in question cannot be uploaded, as it would take up too much bandwidth.

HISTORY AND DETAILS OF CENSORSHIP

14 reasons why Google censorship is problematic

Google's censorship of ISGP represents a huge threat and problem to ISGP. And not just to ISGP, but also more universally to the free market in both business and truth research / intellectualism. Here is a list of these threats and problems:

1. ISGP is prevented from helping society, this by spreading its information and teaching, influencing and inspiring individuals, and eventually societies as a whole.


2. ISGP is prevented from helping people on an individual basis. Various ISGP readers have reported that the understanding ISGP has provided them with regard to conspiracy, has given them a sense of acceptance, closure and peace. Also, unpublished due to Google censorship are various articles related to health and spirituality, in particular how anyone, without cost, can cure a whole range of chronic diseases as digestion problems, dandruff, rosacea and hay fever.


3. ISGP is prevented from spreading its message in more effective ways, primarily through the equally dominant media platform YouTube, because YouTube is owned by Google and increasingly equally well-known as a platform for censorship.


4. ISGP is prevented from getting sponteneous aid from readers/researchers/whistleblowers - because no one can learn about the existence of the site. Early on, readers would share various key documents with the author after having ran into the site: on the Pilgrims, the 1001 Club, or various dossiers. That hasn't happened anymore in over decade.


5. ISGP is prevented from doing a lot of unique research, because a site with 400 visitors a day is taken far less serious by potential interview subjects and other contacts than an uncensored version of the same site with 5,000 visitors a day - that even drawns some revenue.


6. ISGP's creator cannot properly defend himself from any legal, physical, or psychological threats by elites, the intelligence services, or any mafia, because he's not able to reach even a small portion of the masses on his own - through his site. This is extremely dangerous. He could be grabbed, put into prison indefinitely, tortured day and night, and still there's a good chance not one mainstream or alternative outlet would ever report on it.


7. Elites and intelligence services can study ISGP material virtually by themselves, learn from the insights provided, predict where conspiracy might be 10, 20, 30 years from now, and develop more complex counter-measures (read: disinformation). The creation of political boxes, or a more systematic implementation of ISGP's Third World Immigration and Media Disinformation manuals, would be primne examples of this.


8. Anyone (disinformers in particular) can easier steal ISGP content, incorporate it into their own verbal or written work, mix it with half truths, publish it, and in the process help bury ISGP in the rankings even more, all the while undermining the power of ISGP's uniqueness and pioneering quality. If this process continues for one or two decades, it will look as if ISGP took its ideas from dozens of writers and speakers, who in reality took their information from ISGP.


9. It (greatly) diminishes income for the owner of ISGP in a direct way. Less visitors means less donors, less cookie-related ad revenue, and less interest in corporations willing to have their ads on ISGP. True, ISGP is a non-proft, but with more income, giving freedom to work on the site and purchase copyrighted content for for-profit publications, a for-profit model might be a better and safer option long-term. Google censorship has put this option completely out-of-reach.


10. It (greatly) diminishes income for the owner of ISGP in an indirect way. Far less visitors means far less status, recognition and perceived achievement. Take out the money and a "meaningful job" is turned into a "(bizarre) hobby" that you can't put on your resumé, promote as "work experience", or even talk about socially or professionally to most people. Parallel to this, you can't use "your name" to make other businesses work for you, because you simply won't be taken serious by most people. It could easily lead to you being seen as "eccentric" or "crazy" and hurt your business.


11. It represents financial terror to the owner of ISGP. If ISGP can be wiped "off the map" so easily, without any defense from the mainstream and alternative media, what about any online business this author starts?


12. It represents a threat to ALL online business in EVERY country. What if a business owner decides to advertize on ISGP? Or express a supportive opinion in the media? Will his or her company receive a Google penalty and be put out of business as a result?


13. It increases visibility and income for the competition. When ISGP gets taken out of the discussion, other sites take its place in the Google rankings, driving additional traffic and advertizement revenue to them. In fact, who is to say that many newspapers and major websites would still exist if traffic is not artificially driven to them by tweaking the Google rankings?


14. It represents psycholical terror to the author by making him look like a loser to family, friends, associates, colleagues, etc. with over 20 years of never-ending work and nothing to show for it in terms of money, recognition, fame, or even visitors. All that can be seen is a tiny, "angry" little website that is visited by sometimes no more than 250 "crazy people", "extremists" and "potential terrorists" a day - while without articifial censorship the sky is the limit.

Google lied to congress about censorship - blatantly

Based on the presented evidence/proof provided by ISGP in this entire oversight, the December 11, 2018 congressional testimony of a clearly very nervous Google CEO Sundar Pichai (the real CEO, of Google's holding company, was Bilderberg steering committee member Eric Schmidt) certainly comes down to a lie:

"They haven't found any evidence to substantiate that [email of one of our executives about us pushing the Latino vote]. We as a company didn't have any effort to push out [the vote] for any particular [strongly anti-Trump] demographic. That would be against our principles. We participate in the civic process in a non-partisan way. ...

"Providing users with high quality, accurate and trustworthy information is sacrosanct to us. ... We need to welcome viewpoints from all sides. ... I see a wide variety of opinions expressed [on our platform]. ... We review things both with our automated systems, as well as manual reviewers." 1

Pichai is testifying here about the contents of an internal November 9, 2016 email by Eliana Murillo, Google's head of its "Multicultural Marketing" department, to senior leadership at the company. Entitled 'Election results and the Latino vote', it read:

"We pushed to get out the Latino vote [but] we kept our Google efforts non-partisan... Even Sundar [Pichai] gave the effort a shout out and a comment in Spanish, which was really special. ... We also supported partners like Voto Latino to pay for rides to the polls in key states (silent donation). We even helped them create ad campaigns to promote the rides... We supported Voto Latino to help them land an interview with Senator Meza of Arizona (key state for us) to talk about the election and how to use Google search to find information about how to vote. ...

"Ultimately, after all was said and done, the Latino community ... completely surprised us. We never anticipated that [as much as] 29% of Latinos would vote for Trump. No one did." 2

So again, clearly Pichai was lying to congress. Google company executives clearly did "push out [the vote] for [a] particular demographic" and in the end were dismayed that as much as "29% of Latinos would vote for Trump." Company leaders were actively aiding Hillary Clinton, who received just 37% of the white vote, get elected by exclusively driving Latino voters to the polls. 3 It just failed.

More evidence of this dates to November 11, 2016, three days after the Trump election. That day Google held an extensive "Thank God It's Friday" meeting. Labeled "Confidential - Internal Only", a copy of the video was leaked to Breitbart and made available in September 2018. 4 In the video, Google founder Sergey Brin looks like he hasn't slept in days while his CEO, CFO and the vice president of "People Operations" are virtually breaking out in tears while addressing the immigration issue.

Despite superficial claims to the contrary, also to congress, it is very, very clear that anti-globalist opinion absolutely is not allowed at Google. Even when during the second half of the meeting questions are allowed from employees, it is noteworthy to mention that the first employee to do so is an activist from "Lesbians Who Tech". A quick check reveals that this is a major Silicon Valley NGO financed by Google itself, as well as the CIA, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase, Nike, Amazon, Microsoft, and various additional Sun Valley corporations. Putting spokespersons for these groups at the front of internal Q&A's is quite the convenient way to additionally stifle dissent. It's called "controlled opposition".

An extensive transcript of this video has specifically been created here, because it clearly demonstrates just how cult-like working conditions at Google are:

• Google founder Sergey Brin: "OK folks, I know this is probably not the most joyous TGIF [Thank God It's Friday meeting] we've had. Let's face it, most people here are pretty upset and pretty sad because of the election. BUT... there is another group that we should also think about - who are very excited about the legalization of pot [as per George Soros' agenda] [laughter]. ...
  But on a more serious note, as myself, as an immigrant, a refugee, I certainly find this election deeply offensive. And I know many of you do too. And I think this is a very stressful time and it conflicts with many of our values. I think it's a good time to reflect on that and hopefully we are going to share some thoughts on that today.
  I guess there are two dominant reasons to be upset: one is that apparently so many people don't share many of the values that we have. I guess we have known that for many months now. ... And secondly, confronting the reality of an administration that is now forming and we have no idea what it is going to do is the honest truth. ...
  It's uncertain for many of us here, especially for immigrants or minorities - women. So I don't have great answers for you up here today, but it's important that we chat about it and are thoughtful about it in the coming months. And with that, Sundar."


• Google CEO Sundar Pichai: "I'm glad we are getting together at a moment like this. ... You have a lot of polarization. It's a deeply divided country. ... I think we can all agree that this election was particularly hard. There was a lot of rhetoric. And there were a lot of groups targeted. ... There is a lot of fear within Google. We have a lot of females. ... There are a lot of people who are very afraid. And as Sergey pointed out, women, blacks, [people with immigration] status, [the] LGBTQ community and I can go on. There is a lot of fear. So I think it is important to be aware of that fear and reach out. I would be sensitive and try and have conversations... Nothing will change. We will always stand up [at Google] for the values we believe in. And especially in our society, you stand up for the people who are minorities. That's what defines a society and we will continue to do that. [pretends to become teary-eyed; a loud applause follows]"


• Google VP of Global Operations Kent Walker: "So it was a shock to all of us, the results of the election. ... It showed an incredible level of division... What can we do to reach out to people whose perspective we've a hard time understanding? ... This is not the first time we've seen this rising tide of nationalism, populism, and concern. ... Not just Brexit, but new parties coming onto the scene. We've seen it through Germany, France; Italy has a referendum next month. ... Globalization, immigration, and you are afraid, and you are trying to look for answers. And that fear ... is fueling xenophobia [and] hatred... It's fueling a distrust of experts and a disregard of traditional institutions. And we are trying to figure out: how do we respond to that? What are the next steps for us before the world comes into this environment of tribalism that is self-destructive? ... There are cycles of these things that can often last 5, 10 years [the Nazis and World War II?] before people feel they've had a chance to vent that anger [with a Holocaust and 80 million dead?]. ...
  Prime minister Matteo Renzi in Italy talks about two worlds: the world of the wall and the world of the square. The world of the wall, the world of the fortress, the world of the silo - isolation and defensiveness - and the world of the square, the piazza, the market place, where people come together in a community and enrich each other's lives. The tools that we build help people come into the world of the square. ...
  We need to be able to work together. We need to have each other's back. We need to stand together in a time that is going to be incredibly difficult. As we advocate for our values. ... And let me turn it over to first [CFO] Ruth [Porat] and then [VP] Eileen [Naughton] about how we internally can continue this work of building bridges."


• Google CFO Ruth Porat: "So, for what it's worth, I've been a very long-time Hillary [Clinton] supporter. But, as Ken said, I very much respect the outcome of the Democratic process. [Now looks like she is about to cry] I wanna take you back to 8:30 p.m., Tuesday night. I was at home with friends and family watching the election returns, and as we started to see the direction of the voting I reached out to someone close to me who was at the Javits Center, where the big celebration was supposed to occur in New York City, somebody who had been working on the campaign. ... I got back a very sad, short text that read, "People are leaving. Staff is crying. We are gonna lose." Phoeh! [Virtually starts crying] That was the first moment I really felt we were gonna lose. And it was this massive kick in the gut... It was really painful. ...
  My father was a refugee to this country ... because you would never be discriminated against... Hillary said, "We are a great country, because we are a good country." And I firmly believe that. [Another Hillary Clinton quote.] A lot of people clearly felt disenfranchised, left out..."


• Google VP of People Operations Eileen Naughton: "[Virtually crying:] I've seen so many instances and examples of Googliness in the last two days. The hugs is one. I have seen open and heartfelt communications. I feel people feel safe sharing their thoughts. ... I see Googlers show up for each other. Spontaneous groups. Employee resource groups holding sessions. ... Tips for how to get through hard times. ... Let's internalize the kindness and keep it with us. ...
  I've seen this trying to intellectualize and understand the election results, much this year as Googlers earlier this year, when I was in London, tried to understand the vote of the British people to exit the European Union [Brexit]. "

As the reader can see, the situation at Google is rather extreme. The passive-aggressiveness towards anything non-globalist-Democrat is absolutely terrifying. The Google leadership is literally telling its employees: "You can vote for whomever you want, but WE are ALL massively distraught about Hillary's loss and anything Trump stands for is xenophobic, racist and hateful. But yeah, you can feel safe sharing your thoughts." Would you? Unlikely. Even as Democrat supporter, you should have the feeling, "I need to get out of here. Fast."

They are not exactly the only Silicon Valley / Sun Valley corporation to be involved in such practices. One only has to look at FWD.us, Silicon Valley's leading pro-Third World immigration lobby, for that: the founders and leaders of Google, Microsoft, Facebook, Instagram, Whatsapp, LinkedIn, Netflix, Reddit and Airbnb all have been prominent members.

Google shielded by politicians in 2018

Judging by the lack of regulation of search engines over the past few years and the superficial questions asked, it seems clear that Google and fellow search engines have more than few friends in politics. We also saw that during the earlier-mentioned December 11, 2018 congressional testimony of Google CEO Sundar Pichai, during which he lies that Google never censors conservatives or other political opponents of the company, congressman Ted Lieu can be heard saying:

"This is now the fourth hearing in a series of ridiculous hearings on the free speech of internet companies. A significant portion of this hearing was a waste of time, because the First Amendment protects private individuals and corporations' free speech rights. ...

"So I'm gonna search for congressman Steve King. I'm gonna hit the news tab. The first article that pops up is from ABC News. It says, "Steve King's racist immigration talk prompts calls for congressional censure." That's a negative article. But you don't have a group of people at Google sitting and thinking and try[ing] to modify search results every time Steve King comes up, a negative article appears.

[Pichai - obviously - explains, "We always operate for the same query with the same set of principles."]

"Thank you. So let me just conclude here by stating the obvious. If you want positive search results, do positive things. If you don't want negative search results, don't do negative things. And to some of my colleagues across the aisle, if you're getting bad press articles and bad search results, don't blame Google or Facebook or Twitter; consider blaming yourself." 5

Lieu's approach is just unbelievably simplistic, childish and propagandist. It also comes across as rehearsed and staged to help get Google off the hook. A little checking immediately confirms that Ted Lieu not just is a Democrat congressman, but also a member of Bernie Sanders' ultraliberal Congressional Progressive Caucus. This essentially makes Lieu "liberal CIA" to ISGP. Looking at Lieu's Twitter, where we see little besides daily cheap, childish anti-Trump propaganda, to the point of Lieu wearing Trump-Putin '16 t-shirts and all the usual go-to "love over hate" statements, and we certainly have to conclude that Lieu is a puppet of the liberal-globalist establishment. The fact that this kind of obvious stage-play can go on in a supposedly free, democratic society, only tell us that we don't live in such a society at all.

Fact is, the entire 2018 congressional hearings of Facebook and Google largely were just a superficial horse-and-pony show tied to liberal and conservative political interests, whether they be "establishment" or of the "liberal CIA" and "conservative CIA" variety. The congressional hearing of TikTok in 2023, when congress kept repeating the nonsense that TikTok was controlled by the "communist Chinese government" instead of asking questions about the CFR, Davos and Trilateral companies really controlling TikTok; and the one on UFOs/UAPs, also in 2023, would be even bigger charades.

Loudmouth, ultra-famous conspiracy disinformer Alex Jones served as the usual main reason for censorship. Similar to what he had done with 9/11 "truth" in the 2000s, by 2018 Jones largely was the face of conservativism campaigning against big tech censorship. In April 2018 Facebook head Mark Zuckerberg was famously "grilled" by congress, looking even more nervous than Pichai later that year. In August 2018, the month before the congressional hearings of Pichai, Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey and Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg, Alex Jones was outright banned or heavily censored by YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, Apple and Spotify. Of course Jones was present at some of the Washington, D.C. hearings to protest the censorship. 6

Fact is, none of these pre-conceived "alt-right", "liberal CIA" and "mainstream Democrat" political boxes" want anything to do with ISGP, which they have purposely worked to silence into oblivion. It all comes down to roleplay with several layers of deception for the public. As these elites know all too well: whatever is given attention to, grows. Bad press is infinitely better than no press at all.

Also when we look to the multi-billion dollar fines Google has received in recent years from the European Union, these are related to censorship and the bundling of software to undermine economic competition, mainly from other economic giants as Microsoft and Apple. They have nothing to with political censorship of individual websites ran by fully independent researchers. It's these fully independent interests that Google is helping to suppress.

Google unimpressed by congress in 2018 and blatantly censors the entire web from 2019 on

During his 2018 congressional hearing, Google CEO Sundar Pichai also said:

"Some of the studies you mention [of people having their pro-Trump post downranked or flagged], we have investigated those [and] we have found issues with the methodology and the sample size and so on." 7

Outside of ISGP, it is very hard to go back and find evidence of Google censorship before the 2018 congressional hearings. In 2017 this author noticed that the antifa-inclined (meaning: "liberal CIA" without overt foundation funding) World Socialist Web Site (WSWS) complained about it.

Going back anno 2024 to see if WSWS published some details about this censorship in 2017, it actually is clear that the site had very good reason to complain. After Google, in April 2017, publicly disclosed its intent to manually boost "authoritative" websites, WSWS saw its traffic collapse by two-thirds over May-July 2017, with 97% of its popular search terms decoupled. WSWS wrote about this in August 2017:

"Google has severed links between the World Socialist Web Site and the 45 most popular search terms that previously directed readers to the WSWS. The physical censorship implemented by Google is so extensive that of the top 150 search terms that, as late as April 2017, connected the WSWS with readers, 145 no longer do so. ...

"The fall took place in the three months since Google announced on April 25 plans to promote “authoritative web sites"...

"Because of these measures, the WSWS’s search traffic from Google has fallen by two-thirds since April. ...

"Users of Google will be able to find the WSWS if they specifically include “World Socialist Web Site” in their search request. But if their inquiry simply includes term such as “Trotsky" ... or “inequality,” they will not find the site. ...

"Despite repeated attempts to contact Google’s press office, the company continues to refuse to comment on the facts revealed by the WSWS’s investigation." 8

A lot of articles about Google censorship followed on WSWS.org, and it all sounds extremely familiar. It's exactly what happened to ISGP, but at a slower pace, since 2015, and very aggressively in late 2016 and early 2017, before Google had announced any policy of boosting "authoritative" websites.

It could well be that large-scale, moderate downrankings of "alternative" content started in 2016, around the time of Donald Trump's election. As far as old Alexa rankings could be retrieved, Infowars.com showed a marked drop in ranking from 2017 to 2019, going from about place 1,000 to 4,000. There could be other reasons though. It's hard to say.

Similarly, looking at the statistics of Wikispooks.com, a site that has always been expanding its articles and, very uniquely, has been maximally supportive of ISGP (one of its key admins did engage in a bit of no-planerism and Holocaust denial, but considering the site sits on one line with ISGP otherwise, it's not much of an issue), saw a mild drop in traffic over April-June 2017, followed by solid 55% drop in June 2017, going from 2,245 visitors on average to just under 1,000 a day. Slowly the site's traffic creeped up, as would be expected from all the added new content, until seemingly another penalty hit in September 2018, regularly dropping traffic to the 700s in late 2018 and early 2019. This is exactly the patterns seen with ISGP:

In contrast to ISGP, it appears that in mid 2019 and mid 2020 many of the ranking penalties were undone again, but it also appears the visitors were not entirely where they should be yet. Now, Wikispooks actually is a site that has been hotlinked by CNN as an alternative to Wikileaks 9 (talk about domain rank juice), and also was included in a 2016 PropOrNot.net list of 200 websites considered to be "routine peddlers of Russian propaganda during the election season." The (bizarre) list and allegations were promoted by the Washington Post 10 and other news outlets, and included a list of "liberal CIA", "conservative CIA" and UFO, 9/11 and general conspiracy disinformation websites, a lot of them very familiar to ISGP and vice versa:

1. aanirfan.blogspot.co.uk
2. abovetopsecret.com
3. consortiumnews.com
4. corbettreport.com
5. counterpunch.org
6. disclose.tv
7. drudgereport.com
8. foreignpolicyjournal.com
9. globalresearch.ca
10. henrymakow.com
11. infowars.com
12. lewrockwell.com
13. moonofalabama.org
14. paulcraigroberts.org
15. prisonplanet.com
16. rense.com
17. ronpaulinstitute.org
18. sott.net
19. thetruthseeker.co.uk
20. thirdworldtraveler.com
21. truth-out.org
22. truthdig.com
23. veteranstoday.com
24. washingtonsblog.com
25. wearechange.org
26. whatreallyhappened.com
27. wikispooks.com
28. wikileaks.com
29. yournewswire.com
30. zerohedge.com

But yes, Wikispooks clearly received Google ranking penalties as well by mid 2016, before any formal censorship policy by Google.

By mid 2018, after the Donald Trump election, there were many accusations among conservatives, and by Trump himself, that their news outlets were beings downranked anywhere: on Google, Facebook and Instagram, and Twitter. 11 In September 2018 conservative conspiracy disinformer Alex Jones attemped to crash a congressional hearing of Twitter owner Jack Dorsey and Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg on the matter. 12 In December 2018 Jones and age old right-wing propagandist Roger Stone also crashed a congressional hearing on the matter of Google CEO Sundar Pichai. 13

The congressional hearing, nor Alex Jones crashing it, didn't impress Google much. Six months later, in June 2019, it very blatantly reduced Alex Jones Google ranking, similar to what it had been doing to ISGP since 2015 (with far less good reason here) - which Alex Jones and every other conspiracy promoter and "conservative CIA" outlet had been quiet about:

As already discussed, Pichai had little more to say on the matter than the usual deflections, such as too small a "sample size" and such. 14

The censorship of ISGP from 2015, and then conspiracy disinformers as Alex Jones in 2018, was just a sign of things to come though. Other conspiracy sites were downranked to a lesser extent during the Trump years. Certainly by September 2020, in the months before the Trump-Biden elections, all "conservative CIA" websites - exactly the ones given attention to the above issues - were completely buried in Google. This author and others quickly noticed it in the search queries. No longer would sites as Breitbart, Newsmax, the Washington Times, etc. pop up anymore, not even when looking for criticism of George Soros or leading Democrats. You really had to add "Breitbart" or some other site name to the query. Or move to another search engine.

This author wasn't the only one to notice it either. Here a received email from September 27, 2020 in which an ISGP collaborator first reported the exact same problem:

The first backed-up non-ISGP search anomaly in Google for this author dates back to July 24, 2019, eight months after the Sundar Pichai hearing. That was the day that this author was puzzled that Google all of a sudden refused to show articles about punker John Lydon, a.k.a. the semi-conservative Johnny Rotten, having been the first to expose pedophile Jimmy Saville back in the day. Screenshots were made of the differences between Google and DuckDuckGo. The issue not only was the exclusion of key articles in the search results, but that all of a sudden Google only showed results from Dutch-language sites - which it didn't do in any other searches, not even when searching from Google.nl. By this time Google already had discarded the option "only show Dutch language results", which used to be an extremely useful option when searching items to buy in local stores. We're also not even talking about the strangeness in these years that Google assigned the almost unreadable Friesic language to this author's account, despite its whois IP address being hundreds of kilometers removed from the tiny Friesland province. In any case, moving the search to DuckDuckGo, it instantly showed all the relevant results:

Again, this was just a sign of things to come, with Google removing and downranking as much controversial information as it could. On April 13, 2021, not only all forums discussing LSD use all of a sudden had been removed from Google's (ranked) search results, the results it did give back literally made it seem as if the term "LSD" did not exist, resulting top links about "cold climate self storage" and "battery storage":

Since then, of course, Google not only artifically downranked all controversial forums, from conspiracy to psychedelics, it got rid of all forums in general. By 2020 already plenty of people were complaining that they had to artificially type "forum", reddit" or "site:reddit.com" to prevent getting little more than a list of superficial SEO articles from showing up in the Google search. Click here for a 2020 example from steroid users, or here for a PDF of 2022-2023 YouTube comments criticizing Google search, including a lack of reddit results. Google's YouTube was heavily criticized as well by 2023 for its ever stricter demonetization policies:

Another key realization for this author occurred on February 2, 2023. On that date the author attempted to find back an article on "alt right" / "conservative CIA" shock blog GeenStijl.nl, which included in the title "Meer migratie-achergrondiers in 2050", translating as "More migration-backgrounders in 2050". Even when putting the sentence in (verbatim) quotation marks in Google, it showed absolutely "0" results. Copy-pasting the search query to Yahoo and DuckDuckGo not only instantly revealed the GeenStijl article, they also showed additional article and Facebook posts linking to the "anti-immigration" article:

Fascinatingly, if not bizarrely, while updating this article on January 30, 2024 with the above information, a quick test shows that Yahoo and DuckDuckGo both also fail to show any result anymore copy-pasting the sentence "Meer migratie-achergrondiers in 2050" into their search. Metager shows nothing. Qwant at least seems to know it is about immigration, but can't find the article. Doing the same at Yandex though, still instantly reveals the article. It appears to be one of the examples that other search engines are increasingly censoring their search results too. In particular anything that undermines "multiculturalism".

Google shielded by Democrat and Rockefeller-tied judges

One of the final realizations of this oversight was the corruption of America's judicial system - certainly in California, and all too often also outside it. Despite being suspected and reading vague comments about politically biased judges, this was only fully realized after studying all known past cases in which website admins accused Google of censorship and subsequently didn't get anywhere through the judicial system. You look at the judges that let Google off the hook and you find the most incredible Democrat Party and superclass ties. A summary, with many of these cases discussed later in this oversight in more detail:

• Search King v. Google (2003): Case filed in faraway Oklahoma. Dismissed by judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange, a black activist judge affiliated with "liberal CIA" groups who ended up in Ghana and Vassar College, and who went on to become a major Democratic National Committee (DNC) power player in her native Oklahoma. In 1994 she was appointed a federal judge by Bill Clinton, for whom she had campaigned.
  
  In 2012 and 2015 President Barack Obama nominated Miles-LaGrange as a trustee of the Harry S. Truman Scholarship Foundation, presided over since 2003 by top Democrat globalist superclass member Madeleine Albright. Also on the board of trustees today is Betsy DeVos, a member of a major Council for National Policy family whose brother is Blackwater USA founder Erik Prince. Miles-LaGrange never appeared on the board, however, so it seems the Senate never confirmed her.


• ChinaIsEvil.com v. Google (2007): Case filed in faraway Delaware. Dismissed by Reagan appointee Joseph J. Farnan, Jr., who is not a particularly well-known figure. He has only been accused of not paying attention to a controversial 1989 case against Coca-Cola, allowing this (Warren Buffett) company to walk away unscathed.


• Kinderstart v. Google (2007): Dismissed by San Diego / Silicon Valley District Court judge Jeremy Fogel, a Democrat who thanks his 1998 appointment, apart from Bill Clinton, to Dianne Feinstein, a Democrat Senator from California who also is a long-time member of David Rockefeller's Trilateral Commission, a visitor of David Rockefeller's Bilderberg and a leading member and chair of the powerful Senate Intelligence Committee, along with Senator Jay Rockefeller.
  
  Presidential recommendations for judicial appointments in California have been made for the longest time not just by Dianne Feinstein, but also by Senator Barbara Boxer, whose daughter, from 1994 to 2001, was married Tony Rodham, the younger brother of Hillary Clinton.
  
  Earlier, in the 1980s, Fogel had been appointed by long-time Democrat California governor Jerry Brown, an old ally of "liberal CIA" psychedelic guru Timothy Leary.


• Zhang v. Baidu (2014): Dismissed by the Harvard, Oxford, Yale-educated, Barack Obama appointed judge Jesse Furman, who ruled that Google can do whatever it pleases under the 1st Amendment.
  
  If that isn't enough, Furman's brother, Jason Furman, was chairman of Obama's Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) since 2013 and a protege of Rockefeller elitist Larry Summers in the first Obama administration. Summers, a top superclass member, is a veteran of Bilderberg, the Trilateral Commission and the Peterson Institute. Jason Furman ended up as a fellow of the Peterson Institute, home not just to Summers, but also David Rockefeller, (leading "neocon") George Shultz, (close Hillary Clinton ally) Lynn Forester de Rothschild and other elites.
  
  In addition, Summers is the mentor of Facebook COO and former Google executive Sheryl Sandberg, a regular at the Sun Valley with Mark Zuckerberg.


• CoastNews.com v. Google (2014, 2015): Initially dismissed by San Francisco judge Ernest Goldsmith, an appointee of Republican California governor Pete Wilson, a particularly close ally of right-wing Rockefeller friend George Shultz at the "conservative CIA"-funded Hoover Institution, Defense Policy Board, the 2003 Arnold Schwarzenegger gubernatorial campaign and at private birthday parties. His various NGO appointments have also overlapped with the likes of Donald Rumsfeld and Henry Kissinger.
  
  The appeal to the original decision was dismissed by Californian judge Joseph M. Quinn in 2015. Quinn, a Democrat, has been a homosexual activist, whose male partner, Jim Humes, has been accused of having been "fast-tracked" by good old Democrat California governor Jerry Brown, to whom Humes used to serve as executive secretary and chief deputy.


• PragerU v. Google and YouTube (2018): PragerU is a conservative content producer who saw its videos getting flagged and subsequently boxed in with improper age restrictions by YouTube staff. PragerU sued YouTube-owner Google, but Judge Lucy Koh threw out the case over the 1st Amendment and dismissed claims that YouTube is a "state actor".
  
  The thing is, Koh was an extremely hardcore student activist at Harvard fighting injustices against "women and minorities" who went to work in Silicon Valley, and in 2010 was appointed a federal judge by Barack Obama at the recommendation of Senator Dianne Feinstein, the Trilateral Commission and Bilderberg veteran, and Senator Barbara Boxer, the former Hillary Clinton in-law.
  
  Meanwhile, Koh's husband, the Stanford-, Yale- and Harvard-educated Mariano-Florentino Cuellar, interned with Senator Barbara Boxer and the Clinton White House in the mid 1990s, was part of the Obama-Biden Transition Team in 2008-2009, specifically as "Co-Chair, Immigration Policy Working Group", and then, until July 2010, served on Obama's Domestic Policy Council. Back in California, Cuellar became a senior fellow and director of Stanford's Freeman Spogli Institute, whose International Advisory Council consisted of close David Rockefeller friends George Shultz, Paul Volcker, John Whitehead and a whole slew of international Bilderberg elites. Susan Rice, Obama's later national security advisor and a protege of Democrat superclass member Madeleine Albright, served on the regular advisory board of Freeman Spogli in the 2000s.
  
  All a coincidence? Unlikely. Conflict of interest? Definitely.

Google shielded by "liberal CIA" online privacy activists

Apart from corrupts politicians and the judges they appoint, Google has also been protected by a prominent handful of online privacy activists who provide the media and court with "expert advice". These "experts" are quite easy to dismiss though, because all too often hints of superclass backing can be spotted in the background.

Fascinatingly, the first staunch defender of Google's 1st Amendment rights noticed by this author was Eric Goldman, who had a prominent article of his published by the Knight First Amendment Institute, tellingly entitled Of Course the First Amendment Protects Google and Facebook (and It's Not a Close Question). The second staunch defender was UCLA Law Professor Eugene Volokh, who wrote a document on behalf Google in 2012 to remind the world that all of the company's delistings and provided rankings are protected by the First Amendment.

You look around a little bit and find that the Knight First Amendment Institute, which published Eric Goldman's article, was created at Columbia University by the "liberal CIA" Knight Foundation to "safeguard free [online] expression..." It even is concerned with "the aggregation of massive amounts of personal data in the hands of private corporations." Tellingly, it also is worried about "the demonization of the media by the nation's most senior officials" 15, a clear reference to Donald Trump and a good indicator that the Knight INstitute isn't concerned at all with freedom of the press.

Next you see that Volokh is a Libertarian, which is a "conservative CIA" no-tax movement that will (secretly) lead to giant cartels and monopolies controlling whatever is left of any semblance of a government. At the very beginning of his law career, Volokh clerked for supreme court justice, Bohemian Grove visitor, and Pilgrims Society member Sandra Day O'Conner. More recently he's been involved in the American Law Institute 16, which still counts former CIA director William Webster, an emeritus life council member, among its annual meeting participants. 17

Next you find the following October 2016 court paper prepared by Volokh, Goldman and allies on behalf of Silicon Valley, Sun Valley, The Giving Pledge (Buffett, Ted Turner, David Rockefeller) and FWD.us (Mark Zuckerberg, Bill Gates, Google CEO Eric Schmidt, etc.) giant Airbnb:

The three allies here of Volokh and Goldman are the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Center for Democracy and Technology, and Daphne Keller, identified in the paper as the director of intermediary liability at the Center for Internet and Society, which is the Stanford branch of the Harvard-based Berkman Kleinman Center for Internet & Society.

Let's see: the Electronic Frontier Foundation has been financed by "liberal CIA" foundations as the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Omidyar Network and Craigslist. Despite the EFF's concern with online privacy, as of June 7, 2019, the EFF hasn't written one word about the controversy surrounding Google over the past year.

Looking at grants lists, the Center for Democracy and Technology has received roughly $1,000,000 from the "liberal CIA" Ford Foundation alone throughout the 2010s. Other funds have come from the MacArthur and Soros foundations, with the largest corporate financier, certainly in the 2010-2014 period, having been none other than Google. Unsurprisingly, questions have already been answered why the CDT has been so soft on Google.

As for the Berkman Center, at least its main Harvard chapter, has been financed by the "liberal CIA" Knight, MacArthur, Soros and other foundations. Once again, Google.org has been a financier, as has the Department of State. In addition, already in the Sun Valley Meetings article we discussed at length the deep and crucial "liberal CIA" activism ties of the Berkman Center.

1st Amendment questions: Google neither "press" nor "media"; courts don't care anyway

We mentioned the 1st Amendment a number of times. So, let's find out what this First Amendment of the U.S. constitution is all about. In full, it reads:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Translated, in more modern, basic terms, the First Amendment says that the government - the houses of congress are the government's legislative arm - shall make no laws that:

• prohibit the establishing or exercising of religions;
• infringe upon free speech, a free press, and the organizing of peaceful protests, both in the streets and through petitions.

That's it. So, where does this amendment say that a search engine as Google is allowed to prohibit free speech? Well, nowhere. [update: an Obama-Rockefeller-tied judge ruled in 2014 that Google can censor, because it has free speech, with the company having the right to not believe in democracy or free speech] But prohibiting free speech is exactly what it is doing, arguably in collusion with the Democrat Party and to a lesser degree establishment Republicans - hence government. And we're not even talking about Google's strong Bilderberg and Trilateral Commission ties. This provides us with "state action", a prerequisite at this point in U.S. court to strip Google of its 1st Amendment protection.

Even apart from any government collusion, search engines absolutely do not classify as "free press" - arguably one of the few corporate exceptions listed in the First Amendment. Google doesn't publish books or articles - at least not its search engine wing. It's just a searchable database (of "what is") that organizes and visualizes an otherwise unsearchable internet. It clearly and repeatedly explained so on its website during its early days:

"Google ... ranks relevant websites based on the link structure of the Internet itself. ... Without a powerful search tool, finding a specific website can be as difficult as finding a book in a library that has no card catalogue and a completely random method of storing its books.

"Google Brings Order to the Web. Google is designed to impose order on information chaos. It's what a search service should be; not an edited, limited [i.e. censored] directory or a list of results that have been auctioned to the highest bidder, but a thoughtful method of organizing the Internet according to its own structure. ...

"Google['s] patent-pending PageRankTM technology ... leverages the structural nature of the web [where] any web page can link to any other web page, instantly, directly, and without an intermediary. In a sense, this link structure automatically democratizes the Internet. It eliminates hierarchy and enables information and ideas to flow unimpeded from site to site." 18

During its earliest beta testing days in, May 1999, Google didn't underscore its "fair" system, but did explain its supposedly "secret" ranking mechanism in quite some detail:

"A page like www.google.com has high importance if:

1. Other pages with high importance point to www.google.com;
2. Lots of other pages with high importance point to www.google.com. ...

- Google uses sophisticated text-matching techniques to find pages that are both important and relevant to your search. For instance, when considering a page, Google looks at what the pages linking to that page have to say about it. ...
- Google understands that location is important. ...
- Unlike many other search engines, Google only returns pages which match all of your search terms..." 19

Not much has changed over the past two decades. In 2019 it was revealed that "links [link juice], [unique, well-written] content and [at 3] RankBrain" are Google's three main ranking factors. 20 RankBrain is some obscure AI aspect of Google's overall Hummingbird search algorithm, which may play a role in recognizing what category of content a user is looking for. Not much is known about it. But the two main factors - "links" and "content" - are as old as Google's first days, with high Domain Authority links being the hardest the obtain.

What does all this mean? Let's say that the Washington Post has 10,000 incoming links with a total "link juice" of 85,000 (sites vary between Domain Rank 1 and 10) and the New York Times has 12,000 incoming links with a total "link juice" of 112,000. Both publish the same article on the same date. Whenever people use the same set of specific search words, the New York Times copy of the article will rank higher than the Washington Post's one. Unless, maybe, the IP of a visitor shows he or she lives in Washington, D.C. At that point the balance might tip in favor of the Washington Post, depending on what the Google founders exactly have coded.

Google's purpose has never been to say that the New York Times is a better resource than the Washington Post. That's the job of the people and the internet. If a source is considered less reliable, then over time it receives less links, especially high Domain Authority ones, than a site that is considered reliable. Google's job is strictly to analyze the web for links, sources, opinions, correct spelling, SEO; and rank and display everything "as is" - not as the company wants it to be. That's its self-proclaimed purpose. And it has nothing to do with "the press" of the 1st Amendment. Or even the wider "media" if you will. It's an IT company; nothing more.

This "as is" role continues into the modern day, judging by the December 2018 testimony of Google CEO Sundar Pichai. Or when looking at the mission statement of Google-owned YouTube at youtube.com/intl/en-GB/yt/about/ per June 25, 2019:

"- Freedom of Expression: We believe that people should be able to speak freely, share opinions, foster open dialogue...
- Freedom of Information: We believe that everyone should have easy, open access to information ... for education, building understanding and documenting world events, big and small. - Freedom of Opportunity: We believe that everyone should have a chance to be discovered, build a business and succeed on their own terms, and that people – not gatekeepers – decide what's popular."

This mission statement is only shocking in its disingenuity. The only reason this author hasn't bothered with YouTube is because it would be a total loss in views. If Google is so active in burying ISGP, it will do the same through YouTube, as many conservatives in particular have been finding out since the election of Donald Trump. There's already been a ruling on it by an Obama-tied judge: YouTube censorship is legal per the 1st Amendment.

The Guardian, a first rate "new left" "liberal CIA" newspaper, put Google's position on being both an editor and an "unbiased" mediator in an interesting perspective when, on March 9, 2018, it wrote:

"So far, in the courts, Google has successfully argued that its decisions about what to rank, the ordering of its rankings, what ads to run, what videos to allow on YouTube and who will see them are all analogous to a newspaper editor's decisions about what op-eds to run. And since a newspaper editor's decisions are protected speech under the first amendment, so, Google argues, are its search engine decisions.

"That Google compares itself in these cases to a newspaper editor might come as a surprise, given that Google, Facebook, Twitter and others often make the contrary claim to users and governments that they are neutral platforms, mere conduits for information."

However, obviously, Google needs to "edit" search results here and there to prevent exploitation of its system. But this is only to keep things "fair". According to its own recent admissions in 2018 and 2019, including in the mid 2001 - mid 2005 period at google.com/webmasters/2.html (accessed: August 2, 2001 and April 29, 2005), humans aren't even directly involved in any Google and YouTube ranking decision-making, unless maybe some type of exploit is detected. It's all automatic, AI-based.

"You can be assured that no one at Google has hand adjusted the results to boost the ranking of a site. Google's order of results is automatically determined by several factors, including our PageRank algorithm. ... If your page does not appear at all, here are some other possible explanations.

"- Your site may not have been reachable when we tried to crawl it...

"- A technical glitch on our side may have caused us to 'miss' your site. ... your site will likely show up in the next index. ...

"- The contents of your page or the links pointing to your page changed significantly and you no longer have a sufficiently high PageRank, or your page had low PageRank to begin with and a small change caused you to be dropped from the Google index.

"- Your page was manually removed from our index, because it did not conform with the quality standards necessary to assign accurate PageRank. We will not comment on the individual reasons a page was removed and we do not offer an exhaustive list of practices that can cause removal. However, certain actions such as cloaking, writing text that can be seen by search engines but not by users, or setting up pages/links with the sole purpose of fooling search engines may result in permanent removal from our index."

So, is Google a publisher with editing rights? It depends. If one wants to force this issue, it is always possible. Here's how I would do it: media outlets often, possibly almost exclusively, publish content of freelancers. Editors oversee publication and "tidy up" the articles a bit along "politically neutral", "unbiased" lines before they reach the public. Google does the same: it brings content to the public and only "tidies it up" to avoid exploitation - and for the rest is "politically neutral" and "unbiased" - similar the the newspaper industry.

It's all a lie, of course. And looking at past cases in which Google was provided 1st Amendment protection, this question doesn't even matter, because courts have handed Google this protection simply because it is "non-government": if it's a company, it has the same right as citizens, and can do whetever it pleases. At least, that's what judges have been arguing. The question whether or not Google can be defined as "press" doesn't even matter, except in the case that Google's actions can be equated with "state action". For the time being, no one has made such a case very clearly. And one wonders if any establishment-appointed judge is even interested, no matter what the evidence.

It should be clear that when Google manually starts to decide that news outlet A is better than news outlet B and corporation A is better than competing corporation B (they have already been doing that with their "reliable" "news partners" with YouTube) that this would be the birth of one super-corporation that controls the entirety of the so-called "free" online press and online "free" market. The ultimate result will be an elitist, dictatorial, arguably communist system in private hands. How convenient is that? Judges can just keep arguing in that manner that Google actions never constitute "state action" - even more so because "conspiracies don't exist". These ruling are basically harassment, but it might going to be easy to overrule them.

Summary of why Google shouldn't be protected by 1st Amendment

To summarize much of the previous chapter, Google's 1st Amendment protection is about as silly as the claim that "corporations are people", an overlapping argument next to Google being "press" that is often brought up to help shield Google under the 1st Amendment. Case studies show that superclass-appointed judges don't necessarily see it this way, but let's recap and summarize these reasons:

1. Google doesn't qualify as "free press", as defined in the 1st Amendment. It's a searchable database of "what is" that from the start meant to visualize the internet "as it is": who is linking to who, how often, and what search terms are applicable with each site.


2. The Google leadership itself is extremely aware, of course, of the importance of having an impartial, automated ranking system. We can see that from Google's earliest explanations to the 2018 congressional hearing of Google CEO Sundar Pichai, where he was squirming and lying non-stop that his company is "welcome[s] viewpoints from all sides" and it "non-partisan".


3. Arguably Google is synonymous with the Democrat Party. Google's first "Thank God It's Friday" meeting after the 2016 Trump election clearly shows an extreme, literally cultic bias of the Google leadership, including Pichai, to Hillary Clinton and the Democrat Party. The leadership is even enforcing their views onto their employees. Complaints of censorship over the years coincidentally virtually always come from conservative opposition to the Democrat Party.


4. Arguably Google can additionally be labeled "government" due to the company's deep involvement in Bilderberg and the Trilateral Commission, which historically have had extremely deep ties to governments throughout the West and the Far East.


5. "People are corporations", as is often argued to make the case that (all) corporations are protected by the 1st Amendment, is a flawed statement. People are "natural persons". Corporations are "artificial persons" and fall under corporate law, which includes widely known concepts as "limited liability", where a shareholder in a company is not personally liable for any of the debts the company incurs beyond his or her investments in the company.


6. Just because there exists "freedom of speech", as defined in the 1st Amendment, doesn't mean individuals or corporations can say and do whatever they want. For example, hate speech, from threats of violence to (extreme) racism, is against the law.


7. Why would a government not be allowed to stifle free speech, but a corporation with the power of multiple governments be allowed to do so? Arguably, instead of being protected by the First Amendment, Google should be prosecuted with it. After all, Google undermines people's right to free speech and therefore violates the 1st Amendment.


8. Certainly in regard to ISGP, Google can be prosecuted under Unfair Competition laws that are part of the Consumer Protection Laws and/or Intellectual Property Law.

Prosecuting Google: Unfair Competition laws

As should be clear from previous chapters, under ordinary circumstances, Google would only be protected by the 1st Amendment as long as it is not undermining free speech itself, or undermining the free market. Case studies have demonstrated that judges don't care at all, about neither aspect. Despite that, there's plenty of evidence, in no small part produced by ISGP, that is pointing in both of these directions. As for the relevant unfair competition laws in California, where Google headquarters resides, we have the following laws to work with:

• Unfair Competition Laws (UCL), sections 17200-17209: The entire spread of this law.


• UCL section 17500: Specifically focused on prohibiting false advertising.


• UCL section 17200: Also forbids "fraudulent business acts or practices" not linked to misleading advertising. In addition, it doesn't require a plaintiff to prove that a business knew about making false advertising claims.


• California Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), sections 1750 – 1784: Focused on consumer protection involving the "sale or lease of goods or services", and explicitly prohibits about two separate business acts and practices. These include:
  • "Passing off" goods or services as those of another.
  • Selling used goods as new.
  • Knowingly recommending unnecessary replacement or repair of goods.
  • "Robocalling" non-customers.
  • Making false or misleading statements about someone else's products.
  • More (that need to be figured out).

At this point I'm still looking for the exact subsets of these laws describing Google's transgressions towards ISGP, but we'll get there.

Prosecuting Google: anti-harassment laws

A second category of laws Google censorship can be countered with are anti-harassment laws. Years of continuous downranking classifies as stalking, harassment and psychological warfare. It's completely illegal. However, also here, the exact description of the law would have to be found.

Prosecuting Google: anti-discrimination laws

A third category of laws Google censorship might be countered with are anti-discrimination laws. The big question is to what extent California has banned discrimination. If this extends to political affiliation or belief, there might be something there, because Google has clearly targeted ISGP for its political beliefs. Of course, this only works if a judge forces Google to provide an answer as to why it deranked ISGP. Because, until now, Google can do whatever it pleases under the First Amendment. I can't find the law in question. Only this for now:

The California Labor Code prohibits any employer policy: (1) limiting workers' participation in politics; (2) barring employees from becoming candidates for public office; (3) requiring workers to adhere to any particular political action/activity; or (4) "controlling or directing ... political activities or affiliations of employees." California law also prohibits adverse action against employees because of "lawful conduct occurring during nonworking hours away from the employer's premises."

I'm not an employer of Google, but one would be tempted to think there are laws for refusing customers, or people in general, over "political beliefs". Then again, Democrat-dominated as California is, having this clause might not be particularly useful anymore.

Prosecuting Google: the case for treason

The U.S. definition for treason reads:

"Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years"

It's somewhat unfair to try and prosecute Google's leadership under this law without including allied politicians and superclass members, but this case can definitely be made. After all, there exists a demonstratable conspiracy among politicians, the media AND a search engine as Google (in no small part demonstratable through ISGP) to suppress genuine conspiracy investigations as 9/11 in particular; and also a refusal to discuss ethnic crime numbers, racial IQ and immigration-related poll statistics.

It's very easy to look at the above data and come to the conclusion that black and Arab Third World immigrants coming to the West are "the enemy". It's not about the individual and there's no personal element to it. If an ethnic group has 10x, 15x, 20x, or more the murder, rape, or sexual assault rates, it's too bad for the individual, but as a group, when too many want to come over here, they can easily be labeled an "enemy of the state". It's the same looking at polls among western Muslims looking to implement Sharia Law in the West, or their widespread support for violence against those insulting Islam or even for suicide bombings (Franc in particular here).

So with Google aiding the Democrat Party, establishment Republicans and the media in burying and ridiculing all this type of incriminating information, it's equally easy to label the company an "enemy of the state", even more so if with "the state" is meant the opinion of the (vast) majority of the native people living in it.

Alternately, with Google we could also be looking at the Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, which again comes down to Unfair Competition laws.

Solution: public oversight, not anti-trust

As the second version of this oversight is being finished, in mid 2019, there are appearing media reports that the U.S. Justice Department under Trump is exploring a Google antitrust case. This has basically been the basic reasoning ever since controversy surrounding Google and Facebook/Instagram hit the headlines over the course of 2018. Also the European Union has repeatedly fined Google in the billions of dollars in recent years over unfair competition / anti-trust laws.

The thing is, and as already discussed to an extent, anti-trust measures are not really a solution. The reasons?

1. How are you going to break Google's virtual monopoly in the search engine market? It's the most powerful search engine with by far the most content, combined with a non-invasive, basic look that people have gotten used to.


2. You can spin off Google's Chrome browser, Android mobile phone OS, AI and SpaceX divisions and investments, but this still keeps a highly censored, highly dominant search engine in place.


3. The primary companies standing by to take Google's place in the search engine market are Microsoft's Bing, Yahoo! and DuckDuckGo. As discussed in ISGP's Sun Valley Meetings article, the leadership of Google, Bing and Yahoo! have been annually visiting the Sun Valley for a very long time, with the primary investor in DuckDuckGo, also being part of these meetings. Silicon Valley and the wider Sun Valley also are overwhelmingly obsessed with Third World immigration. There's little to no evidence at all that there's any independence to be found here.

Anti-trust measures might make certain markets, primarily phone OS and web browser markets, more competitive, but there's little evidence it will solve search engine censorship issues. As the market share of Bing, Yahoo! and DuckDuckGo grow, so will pressure by the superclass to start censoring certain content and websites.

So, what would be a solution with regard to search engine censorship? Simple: force their practices into the light.

1. Write new laws specifically for search engines, by keeping in mind that search engines are "super-corporations" that wield almost total control over the entirety of online media and business: who gets to hear his voice heard, who gets to sell his products or services, who gets to eat and provide for his family. They control way too much of that.


2. By law, force search engines to:
   
   
   • cease any direct or indirect (through investors or superPACS) political involvement;
   
   
   • stick to algorithms that apply for ALL websites within a certain category: business, news, etc.;
   
   
   • provide the public with information on what type of content is downranked over-the-line and to what extent (which should be illegal except in cases of spam and other abuse);
   
   
   • log and make ALL manual ranking deviations (penalties, boosts) to various websites public, with the possibility to challenge it through the court (similar to DMCA/copyright removals).
   • provide detailed, automated ranking information (including a full history and all incoming and outgoing links) for all websites, certainly the top 2 million;

These measures will make it nearly impossible for a search engine to implement ranking penalties. For example, even with illegal, manual tampering with the rankings of ISGP, based on all the historic ranking and performance information available on ISGP and similar websites, it would still be quite easy to spot that something is off. Provide that information to the Justice Department or any media outlet and controversy should ensue. These type of laws also aren't exactly unprecedented: health care companies aren't allowed to refuse customers in many countries, while utility companies need to have policies for "requiring deposits or letters of guarantee [that are] the same for all customers," with a customer having "the right to know why the utility company denied you service, required you to pay a deposit, or asked you to provide a letter of guarantee..." 21 Search engines need similar laws.

Even a giant company as Google cannot be expected to finance and handle all law suits by themselves. After all, there will always be people trying to exploit the search engine's algorithms and look to make a quick buck by filing a law suit.

By classifying any search engine of a certain size (5% market share or higher, for example) into a separate category of "super-corporations", one that mixes private sector and public interests, one can easily provide it with financial, logistical and judicial support, as well as assign one or more oversight bodies to it. One type of oversight body might be set up by national governments, another through NGOs, and yet another through the United Nations.

Anything is possible really when you start thinking out of the box. And that's necessary because the internet and search engines have only been around since the mid 1990s. Anti-trust measures simply do not cut it.

ORIGINAL 2017 ARTICLE WITH ADDITIONS

Intro

Anyone who has been surfing to conspiracy sites in 2017 with some regularity will probably have seen criticism along the lines that Google is increasingly censoring certain websites. In general this censorship is seen as a response to the fake news debate that erupted during the Trump presidential campaign, most notably after the so-called Pizzagate "scandal" of November 2016. However, is Google censorship really this recent?

The rise of "populism" and the birth of the "fake news" war

It should be clear that since the successful Donald Trump presidential campaign from late 2015 to November 2016, the dominant liberal media has been in complete panic mode. The Trump presidency represents the first time in U.S. history that a (semi) anti-establishment, "alt-right", "populist" candidate (ISGP prefer to label him "conservative CIA") not just stood a serious chance of becoming U.S. president, but actually became president. If one thing absolutely, completely spasms the internal media and all political parties it is when these "alt-right" candidates are about to rise to power.

Why? Not because these candidates are truly independent, but because they are not meant to win presidential and prime ministerial elections and implement national policies opposite to what the Bilderberg and Trilateral Commission network has in store for countries throughout the West. Open borders to the crime-ridden, religiously extreme Third World is just one of these sacred cows to which this supranational crowd absolutely does not allow the slightest opposition. The promotion of genuine conspiracy theory would be another "off-limits" policy.

Trump both represents and not represents these elements. That's where the whole "conservative CIA" narrative comes in. Trump only seems to represent these elements. But he's just there to hijack popular, necessary, grassroots sentiment. Trump, seldom, if ever, focuses on ethnic crime and IQ data, or polls surrounding this subject. In addition, he and the people around him - most notably General Michael Flynn and son - have played important roles in the "fake news" hype, which emerged in 2016, by supporting the bogus Pizzagate "affair" in the days before the election. Trump has a history of this type of conspiracy disinformation-pushing, most notably the Obama-fake-birth-certificate hype. In addition, these individuals also fully rely on and support a small, inbred network of "conservative CIA"-type media outlets that spin the truth on key issues. The dominant liberal media for the most part has always ignored, ridiculed, or discredited the right because of this habit. Clearly that turned out not to be sufficient anymore at the time of the Trump election, so Bilderberg and Trilateral Commission elites switched to rather crude suppression of anything that might halt their Third World immigration agenda. Google, Facebook, Twitter - they have all increasingly been put to good use in this respect.

One of the main narratives has been to protect the public from the "alt-right" parrotting "Russia-inspired" propaganda. Or, more generally, from "conspiracy theory". If big media were so troubled about this "fake news", someone could have taken Infowars, Rense, Globalresearch, Coast to Coast AM and all of 9/11 "Truth" to court a long time ago and shut all of them down after a conviction for spreading deliberate misinformation and committing treason. However, these conspiracy media outlets obviously serve a purpose. They are working for the CIA and the Eastern Establishment as controlled opposition outlets.

But now that these alternative outlets have become too influential, despite the mountains of disinformation and fake news that they spread, the establishment apparently is getting desperate and resorting to more overt censorship. Google is playing a key role in this, because when one controls access to the internet, one controls the internet itself, at least for 99 percent. If your site does not appear in a search engine, how is anyone going to find your information? That's right, they're not.

The hilarious thing is that belief in "conspiracy theory" really isn't the main driver behind "populist" candidates. Certainly over here in Europe extremist globalist Third World immigration policy - supported by virtually the entire media and all political parties, including the "socialist" and (Rockefeller) "green" ones - is. The only thing that prevents people from electing "populist" candidates all over the place is because this handful of alternative candidates tends to be highly eccentric, with massive liberal establishment psychological warfare programs in place that make anyone critical of Third World immigration feel like an isolated pro-Nazi Hitler supporter. These programs are failing increasingly, with the Trump election being a prime example. So whether or not these "populist" candidates are independent, the Bilderberg establishment needs to find additional methods to prevent the election of these candidates. It appears that in desperation they are resorting to very obvious censorship.

The obvious question for ISGP, a conspiracy and geopolitical research site, is what effect these so-called anti-fake news measures are going to have on visibility in search engines. Although... it might be better to ask what ADDITIONAL effect these NEW steps are going to have, because ISGP has been having issues with suddenly dropping readership numbers going back at least a year before the fake news media debate exploded in late 2016 - with all evidence pointing to Google.

The anti-conspiracy Blitzkrieg

Earlier we recorded 800% more content for ISGP, but barely 25% more traffic. How is this possible? A first problem is that conspiracy sites, whether of the large gate-keeping kind or the spammy blogger-type, are avoiding putting any links to ISGP. The explanation for this is simple: all of them are controlled by the security state. They push nothing but very organized and systematic conspiracy disinformation. Do you think, for example, that it is normal that pretty much every single 9/11 "researcher" has pushed the no-Flight-77-at-Pentagon theory? Of course not. All of them are assets; every single one. Independent conspiracy researchers essentially don't exist. It's just too costly in every possible way for people to create an independent conspiracy research or news site, certainly one that digs deep.

Secondly, and the more immediate cause, is that Google is censoring ISGP to a very extreme extent. Every time there's an increase in daily visitors due to additional content or other improvements, within weeks there's a sudden, overnight crash, dropping the average daily visitors back to what it was before the updates.

We have summarized this last issue above and we are going to explore it in great detail in this article. It might be tedious to do so, but the evidence needs to be organized somewhere. So let's do that here.

ISGP IN 2005-2010

The good old days of crude security state harassment

As long-time dedicated ISGP readers might be aware of, I've been talking about security state harassment in ISGP's FAQ since 2005, the same year ISGP went up.

It started out pretty blatantly with receiving a supposedly "top secret" "JASON Group" email containing detailed information on how to protect U.S. nuclear power plants from terrorist attacks. This email subsequently disappeared from my inbox and was quickly followed by a major phone anomaly and three separate book orders from England permanently going missing, all of which never happened before or since. Thinking it was all quite exciting, I wrote about it. The problems instantly disappeared.

From 2008 to 2010 my site was hosted by two colleagues of mine who were setting up their own internet provider. It was cheap and reliable. This last aspect changed some time after I became their client. By 2009 their server regularly crashed. Subsequently my .eu domain was suddenly canceled from Brussels a few weeks after I switched addresses. For some reason the move was registered in Brussels, a foreign city, weeks before the local city council documented it. To this day nobody understands how. By late summer 2010 ISGP went down so often that even David Icke Forum dwellers started to ask questions: "[ISGP] is always going down, probably offsite attacks... it happens quite frequently seems once or twice a month for the last few months." 22 The continuous issues actually put my (very knowledgeable) colleagues out of the hosting business for a while, at least until I was not a client anymore.

The details of these experiences - plus a few others - can all be found in a separate article, the contents of which I already made available way back in the day. What is clear to me is that the harassment started out very crude, but that it quickly became so subtle that you couldn't tell for certain anymore that it was even going on. Ultimately Google appears to have taken over this job of harassment and censorship from the security services.

When Google's domain rank was honest

Apart from experiences with harassment by the intelligence services, something else that has been available on ISGP for many years is a chart of the number of daily visits to ISGP in the first three years:

The chart reveals a very steady number of daily visitors - as steady as I remember it being. After the Beyond the Dutroux Affair article in July 2007, the site generally drew between roughly 300 to 320 visitors, with me not remembering any sudden, random 25% drops in traffic or so, whether temporary or permanent. These drops also aren't visible here. There is almost no fluctuation in the daily number of visitors. And every rise or fall is well-explained: either newly-uploaded articles receive links or the site changes locations. In other cases random links result in a temporarily heightened number of daily visitors (usually from forums, which add little to nothing to Domain Rank), with the graph slowly smoothing out again over the succeeding period.

For the longest time I assumed that Infowars was responsible for increasing the daily number of visitors to ISGP by drawing attention to it with a number of links. This turns out to be a completely false notion. The links actually provided very important Domain Authority for search engines as Google, in turn leading to a rapid, permanent and very stable increase in traffic. As sad as it is, I have never observed a significant slow increase in site traffic by interested readers who stick around, despite various readers telling me they are fans and having brought others to the site. Search engine Domain Authority seems to be king.

The above chart additionally shows how to move a site to a new domain the bad and the correct way. It was done in a very bad way in May 2007 from a free domain of my internet service provider to PEHI.eu. Wrongly assuming that people would just Google and find the site again, no 301 redirect was used. The result shows: traffic dropped to about one-third and I had to rebuild Domain Authority. Luckily I was able to "bribe" Alex Jones and Paul Joseph Watson of Infowars in July 2007 in linking the hyper-popular Beyond the Dutroux Affair at the top of the front page for two days, which subsequently was also linked on Rense.com and a number of other fake news conspiracy sites. It instantly rebuild the Domain Authority of the previous domain. Then, in mid 2008, I moved the site to ISGP.eu, this time in the proper manner through a 301 redirect. I still lost about 5 to 10 percent in daily traffic, but the move was a lot less rough than the year before.

All this information is important in light of events that would transpire a decade later.

ISGP SINCE DECEMBER 2014

Restarting ISGP, quarantine, and its effect on domain rank

When I decided to restart ISGP at ISGP.nl in December 2014, I was confronted with more subtle methods of obstruction than when I first started ISGP in 2005. One issue was that it was next to impossible for me to get ANY conspiracy site to link to ISGP. Major gatekeepers as Infowars and Rense had already thanked for my "services" back in 2006 and 2007, but now it became obvious that even the vast majority of smaller conspiracy sites, including the entirety of 9/11 "Truth", had no interest in linking to ISGP under ANY circumstance.

By the time ISGP.nl switched over to ISGP-studies.com in August 2016 it appears ISGP had become even more notorious, because now it was even harder to get links. Major liberal CIA outlets as Sourcewatch and Disinfo.com absolutely refused to update any old urls. Incoming links were now even more scarce. I don't believe that any new article of ISGP since 2014 has been linked by any conspiracy news site anywhere. Apart from Wikispooks, ISGP has been completely shut out by the conspiracy community. The mainstream media won't touch or attack ISGP anymore either. This only occurred in the first few years of the site's existence when news editors apparently assumed ISGP was similarly controlled as all other conspiracy sites.

From an establishment point-of-view, this type of isolation is not just smart in order to prevent conspiracy enthusiasts from learning about ISGP through other, more popular conspiracy sites, but it is also smart because it doesn't allow ISGP to build up Domain Rank in search engines, thus condemning it do the abyss in search results. Very, very smart. But at the same time it shows one just how much control there is over the so-called "alternative" media.

2015: Google takes over ISGP harassment?

You get used to this state of quarantine from the conspiracy community. I even take pride in it. I have always just written what needs to be written and let the search engines decide from there. Over the line my articles are unique and detailed enough to still get half-decent page rankings on a number of topics. And from there people can discover the other articles on ISGP. It's not ideal, but it is what it is.

Unfortunately, starting about two weeks before my first domain renewal payment for November 2, 2015, I became increasingly worried about the drop off in traffic to ISGP. Over the past several two months or so this had finally been rather stable at just above 200 unique visits per day, even with no incoming links. Except for a day of 197 unique visitors - a drop of about 4% - that I passed off as a minor anomaly, 204 was the lowest in this period. Articles were produced and updates were continually going on, so an uptrend in daily traffic was to be expected from here. But, no. That's not what happened. All of a sudden ISGP started to hit occasional deep drops to the 170s and 180s. October 29, 2014, four days before my domain renewal, there was another huge dip, down to just 154 unique visitors.

This might seem minor to the average reader. However, it's not. In the previous period I pretty much had a guaranteed minimum number of 205 visitors a day, even without any new, incoming links. Two weeks later I'm hitting the 154. That's a 25% drop in traffic. Even if we take the 197 visitors as our baseline, that's still a 22% drop in traffic in a matter of days. That's HUGE! There's also no reason for it.

Puzzled about these drops in traffic, I first thought Wikispooks.com, a website that previously kept a backup of ISGP, had made this old archive available again, causing competition in search results. This turned out not to be the case. Then I considered it possible that another site copy-pasted several major ISGP articles, causing competition in this manner. This also was not the case. Ultimately I began to suspect that the sudden drop in traffic must have something to do with Google rankings, considering quite literally 97 to 100% of search engine traffic came through Google at that point. One can observe this through Statcounter, probably the best tracker out there for website owners. Unfortunately, in this period I didn't systematically check and record this statistic.

The drops in traffic motivated me to expand existing articles, produce additional articles, and improve site-wide SEO. SEO such as a modern layout, HMTL5 tags, H1 tags, proper names for pictures, etc. already had been hugely improved in late 2014 and early 2015. What could still quickly be done, however, was to put a lot of secondary data - such as backed-up articles used in ISGP's suspicious deaths list and UFO newspaper archive, later followed by membership lists of groups as Le Cercle - into the regular ISGP site framework, so they benefit from the greatly improved SEO. As a result, these articles ended up being visited more often. Combined with new information, soon ISGP drew about 10-20% more traffic, even without links. The reader can see that particularly well for a three week period from late November to mid December 2015 in the graph below:

By mid December 2015 I was increasingly celebrating that VERY hard work was slowly paying off, despite suspicions of Google censorship and no links from other conspiracy sites. Then I learned that Google apparently can keep playing the same trick over and over: from a three weeks above-200 average, all of a sudden I fell back down to 158, a solid 20% drop. One-fifth of my daily traffic just vanished into thin air. Despite climbing up a little in between, ISGP continually hit the 150s to 180s until mid January 2016. You're looking at a very solid drop in daily traffic, despite countless updates and additional pages having been integrated into the website's main framework - which were visited more often.

In early 2016 we see ISGP hit the 260-360 unique visitors a day for much of May, until mid June, after which there again is a rapid drop off. As appears to be rather often the case, this new period of lower ranking is heralded by a brief sudden fall to 207 on June 16, followed a few days later by a more definitive drop. The last week of June ISGP had great trouble hitting the 200, with one drop as low 174. You're talking roughly 25% less visitors on average than in previous weeks. And without any special links. How does this happen? A year's worth of work on ISGP and right back to the same visitor numbers I was the year before. It was amazing to behold.

Obviously, the more these sudden drops happened, the more I began to try to pinpoint the exact cause. It also led me to working even harder with creating new content to prove that it most likely is Google canceling out any growth of ISGP.

August 2016: From ISGP.nl to ISGP-studies.com: instant 50% traffic boost

In August 2016 I decided to change the domain of ISGP from ISGP.nl to ISGP-studies.com, this after running ranking tests for .com and .nl domain. It quickly turned out that .com domains score much higher in English language rankings than .nl, despite the fact that my website is entirely in English. Many readers might now go, "Duh!", but the whole reason I dared to take the ISGP.nl domain in the first place is because Google's so-called SEO god, Matt Cutts, in 2012 stated that it doesn't really matter which country domain - known as top-level domain (TLD) - you take, because Google primarily looks at the language your site is written in. Here's a tweet of him that is often discussed:

In 2013 the Dutch government also had a study carried out to find out if it mattered if it would take .nl or .overheidnl as top-level domain for its government website. Conclusion? It didn't matter all. 23 So back in December 2014 it appeared quite safe to go for ISGP.nl. After all, domain TLDs with ISGP were getting scarce.

Well... on August 3, 2016 I switched from ISGP.nl to ISGP-studies.com - so I switched TLDs - and OVERNIGHT I experienced a 50% increase in daily traffic. This overnight rise in traffic - without any additional incoming links - was very real. And very exciting. But how is this possible? Is it because top-level domains quietly do matter to Google? Or is it because the 301 redirect did not automatically transfer any ranking penalties imposed on ISGP.nl? You be the judge.

The victory celebrations after the domain change lasted for about two weeks. As expected, at that point ISGP traffic crashed back to almost what it had been at ISGP.nl, at least for a while. What was frustrating even before this was that by August 8, four days after switching domains and implementing a wholesale 301 redirect - similar to what I did in 2008 when moving from PEHI.eu to ISGP.eu - that Google managed to completely scramble the search ranking of ISGP's main site. First, ISGP-studies.com was only represented with its intro article in Google on the 34th place when typing "ISGP" (on a never-before-used proxy). Worse, ISGP.nl had dropped from the 2nd or 3rd place (it used to be number one in 2008-2010) to the 10th (!), behind at least two websites for which Mozrank calculated a domain authority for of 9.21 (!). This included ISGP.in, a barely loading and functioning site in India. Yes, ISGP.nl was handed a lower ranking than that!

Bing.com also immediately dropped ISGP.nl from its first page by August 4, but somehow it remained at number one in Bing.nl, despite it being an English language website. Because visitors were up, I didn't complain too loudly, but certainly it is an odd way of handling domain switches.

Over the next month, ISGP-studies.com slowly started to take over in search engines, but the switch was a slow and painful process. To this day I occasionally run into ISGP.nl urls. All this is very interesting, because I used the same wholesale 301 permanent redirect that I had used in 2008 to transfer PEHI.eu to ISGP.eu. Back in 2008 there had been a loss of five, maybe 10, percent in traffic, but for the rest everything remained quite stable in the search engines. It's incredible that Google did these things better in 2008 than it did in 2016.

Google incompetence - or partly by design?

Chances are that Google was just incompetent here with the 301 domain switch. Google has great aspects, but also has shown serious incompetence on occasion. For quite a while they removed the option to only view links of a certain language, which forced me to use Bing whenever I was looking up certain product on Dutch websites. That must have been the pinnacle of incompetence. Although... In late 2016 I had a Beyond the Dutroux Affair article copy-paste removed from the Sign of the Times website. I did this before removing the url in Google. Big mistake. That empty page remained at the top of Google's ranking for a full year! Only now I see that this completely empty page has begun to drop in ranking.

Google is also horrendous when it comes to figuring out copy-paste material. The biggest copy-paste websites out there, such as Biblioteca Pleyades, have some of the highest rankings, well above any originals of ISGP. Also, it has not been unusual for third rate blogs to copy ISGP articles wholesale in the weeks and months after uploading them. What does Google do with these copy-pastes? That's right, it boots ISGP out of the primary rankings, replacing them with these secondary copy-pastes that were created months later. To make matters even more disgraceful, these prominent copy-pastes often are to be found on free blogs with zero markup and zero custom design! We're talking Wordpress, the Google-owned Blogspot and sites.google.com.

Here is another disgraceful example I ran into 1.5 months after the original version of this article was written. At this point the independent Moz company gave ISGP-studies.com a somewhat respectable domain authority of 45 out of 100. However, Google clearly didn't agree, as in this example two .tk Tokeleau domains with absolutely zero domain authority, zero Webarchive presence, and completely inaccessible pages unless one is willing to click on all kinds of extremely invasive full-page ads are ranked HIGHER than ISGP-studies.com, with another .tk domain listed only place below this website:

It should be clear that Google has its ranking priorities mixed up.

Another issue ISGP has been having with Google for years is that it loves to rename titles of ISGP articles in Google. The worst example ever dates to 2014 when I noted that ISGP's The Supranational Suspects Behind 9/11 simply was renamed to "Part 2"!! That was it! And then one wonders why no one clicked on the article.

These issue still continue. Only recently did I notice on a mobile phone that ISGP's index page was renamed from the Institute for the Study of Globalization and Covert Politics to "ISGP's study". Just incredible. Plenty of ISGP article titles continue to be overwritten, virtually always by far less appealing titles, and sometimes affixed with "ISGP's study". Examples mentioned earlier, of which I made screenshots, include ISGP articles on Alex Jones and the "liberal CIA" network. The Alex Jones article was renamed from Alex Jones of Infowars Admits to CIA and "Army Special Forces" Ties simply to Alex Jones. I only found out about this after noticing a major drop in visitors of this article. It's also highly curious that only the title of ISGP's url was overwritten, with copy-pastes retaining the original title.

Similarly, ISGP's article title The Grassroots Myth: "Liberal CIA: Network of New Left" Foundations, Media... was renamed to Liberal CIA. Luckily this title is still intriguing enough for many people, but it is highly undesirable nonetheless. I certainly noticed a major drop off in visitors compared to the early days, similar to the Alex Jones article and many others. Countless other ISGP articles have had their titles changed. I regularly run into such examples. Some now have also been affixed not with the full ISGP name, but with "ISGP's study". How incompetent can Google get? Strangely, a lot of these title changes only occur for a few weeks or months. Then they're gone for another few weeks, only to return.

Yet another problem is that for now Google is the only search engine (after 10 years) that has decided to remove ISGP's Beyond the Dutroux Affair from its index, with the reason that the article involves "content with apparent child abuse". Yes, it obviously does. Google is not lying here. However, the article exposes child abuse and shows a few very small, censored pictures from the Dutroux dossier to demonstrate that the accusations made actually have a factual basis. This includes girls being raped by dogs, which people undoubtedly would find hard to believe; and a few censored screenshots of snuff movies, which the mainstream media claims do not exist. It might be a coincidence, but the timing of this article has been very convenient, because I had just removed about 50 copy-pastes of this article from the internet, none of which have ever been touched by Google. Then there's the issue that I have not been able to protest the removal, because there are no forms or contact addresses that exist on these issues, in contrast to copyright claims. There's basically no easy way to protest this removal. Talk about incompetence.

As readers can see, it has been a crazy ride with Google since 2015. The problems may have started even earlier. I remember around May 2015 having Wikispooks put temporary redirects from my old archived pages to a good number of new pages on ISGP.nl. Temporary redirects should remember the page rank of the redirected page. Because Wikispooks.com had higher Domain Rank, I thought this to be a good temporary solution. And it was. Overnight overall visitors to ISGP increased from barely 200 to a solid 300. Unfortunately, this only lasted for three days or so. After that, traffic crashed back down to the 200 range. First Google has trouble removing these old pages from its index, even with permanent 301 redirects, causing unnecessary competition. Then you turn them into temporary redirects to benefit from this dual listing in Google and within days the older urls are significantly down-ranked. It appears ISGP can never win with Google.

The interesting thing is that I never had a single issue with Google or Google rankings in the ISGP period of early 2004 to late 2010. They were always steady and improved only by getting more high quality links that generated Domain Authority. That was very tough to get after 2007. I also switched domains no less than three times. So the fact that I didn't generate a steady increase in daily readership isn't that surprising. If there was any suppression, Google did a better job of hiding it than they did later on. I don't remember observing any mysterious overnight drops in traffic. And I most certainly did pay a lot of attention to statistics in those days.

October 2016: Duplicate content removal doubles views to low 700s

What has been discussed until here is far from all. On September 9, just over a month after the change from ISGP.nl to ISGP-studies.com, and frustrated with the still somewhat horrendous rankings at this point, I began the process of removing all duplicate ISGP content from the web. A lot of old ISGP articles were copy-pasted to literally dozens of purple-black-colored Wordpress and Blogspot websites, suppressing my own presence in search engines. As already mentioned, even recent copy-pastes on recently set up, ugly, third-rate, pro-Nazi blogspot sites uploaded months after my original was published were causing major competition, often completely replacing my original in the Google index. In fact, I saw the same thing happening in Bing. That's interesting, because these search engines take pride in detecting duplicate content. So why remove the content that appeared first? In situations like this one would think Domain Authority doesn't matter.

The duplicate content removal process began with the earlier-mentioned Beyond the Dutroux Affair on the SOTT website. After ignoring a polite August 30 request to add updated source urls to their copy-paste, I went to SOTT's provider on September 9 and forced down the article. Quickly realizing that 90 percent of the conspiracy community and even some internet service providers ignored my polite and time-consuming email requests to have duplicate content removed, on October 4, 2016 I began to use Google's much quicker Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) forms and soon also those of Bing and Yahoo. This turned out to be a better method for another reason as well: you want to have the urls removed from search engines before taking the actual article down through the internet service providers. In case of the SOTT article, the empty version of my article was still listed prominently in Google's search index for almost a full year, above ISGP's version. Right when ISGP started to take over this empty copy-paste, Google permanently banned my version of the article. Just incredible.

At ISGP.nl I clocked about 250 unique visitors per day before the switch to ISGP-studies.com on August 4, 2016. By the time I started to systematically remove duplicate material on October 4, 2016 through Google's DMCA system I was clocking about 360 unique visitors per day. A huge part of this increase, of course, was due to the domain name switch.

Soon after beginning this systematic removal process, it looked to be a major success. Even without any significant incoming links, ISGP-studies.com all of a sudden started to hit the 400s easily, with 500s also happening very regularly. Even the occasional 600+ soon became a reality.

These drastic increases in traffic make sense, because when searching for groups as Le Cercle, the 1001 Club and the Pilgrims Society, ISGP had been completely removed from the search engines, despite having produced the first major articles and documents on these groups and being listed at the number 1 spot for these groups in the period until 2008. People looking for these groups would now largely bump into my old articles copy-pasted on bibliotecapleyades.net, including articles on the Bohemian Grove and JASON Group. This website, once again, is proof of the hypocrisy of Google in particular to be able to detect and remove duplicate content and fake news. Bibliotecapleyades.net, with its super-outdated site design, entirely consists of conspiracy disinformation copy-paste material for which no permission has been granted for the most part. And yet, it clearly has a very high ranking score, certainly much, much higher than ISGP.

Bibliotecapleyades.net's internet service provider, Aruba.it, absolutely refused any cooperation with DMCA requests, but eventually I was able to block all relevant articles from bibliotecapleyades.net and its mirror site. The first batch was blocked in early October, combined with plenty of other material. Another significant part was removed from search engines in late October. What do we see over this period? We see a significant rise in daily traffic to ISGP. 400+ to 600+ throughout October and then, after a huge dip, to an average of 730 over the first three days of November. ISGP was starting to do good in terms of daily traffic. Finally. We're talking about three times more traffic than ISGP.nl and a solid two times more than ISGP-studies.com of September.

The dip on October 29, 2017 is very strange, but also very similar to what has happened on roughly two dozen other occasions since restarting ISGP in December 2014. This dip most definitely did not involved a crash of Statcounter. As usual, every hour just less visitors poured in. This problem began the late on October 28 and ended on October 30, explaining why the day before and after also relatively low unique visitors came to ISGP. If this brief dip had not been there, daily visitors to ISGP would have been completely in line with two major sets of duplicate content removals.

November 2016: Pizzagate screws up measurements, but 800 is new low

Unfortunately, on November 4, 2016 the bogus Pizzagate "affair" broke, with more than a few links being placed to ISGP's soon-to-be Google-banned Beyond the Dutroux Affair article. It's unfortunate that this "affair" did not break a few weeks later, so that the effect of the duplicate content removals would be much easier to analyze. I generally got 1,100 to 1,700 unique visitors per day during the period from early November 2016 to early February 2017. A second major wave was generated on December 19, 2016 by a similarly questionable article of Anneke Lucas on Global Citizen about elite child sexual abuse that once again linked to the Beyond the Dutroux affair article. This Global Citizen article received several major links over the course of a few weeks, which in turn filtered through to ISGP.

Despite the Pizzagate inconvenience, I removed three times as much information during November. Despite not being able to properly analyze ISGP progress with daily visitors, the now increasingly usual peculiar dips continued to occur. After a major Pizzagate spike on November 4, and hovering around an apparent new low of about 830, on November 9 ISGP visitors suddenly and heavily fell down again to 578, a solid 30% drop. I never saw these strange drops in the decade before 2015. To make these drops even more peculiar, the next day, on November 10, ISGP is back up to 793 without any significant links coming in, a 38% overnight increase in traffic.

At that point another significant (Reddit) link came in, so the bottom numbers were obscured again for a few days. Interspaced with a few minor links, ISGP bottomed out throughout November at 810, 834 and 800. So, once again, how did ISGP manage to bump down to 578 just days before? Having gained quite a bit of experience with this over the past few years, if 1,300 Reddit participants - many of them conspiracy disinformers or Illuminati believers - click on an ISGP link, maybe 30 are still around the next day (assuming the link has dropped out of sight). A week later, maybe three or four. Visiting numbers through Reddit links drop off very quickly, because few people read or have any degree of patience. They'd rather just share their opinion on the forum than actually study. Also, very few people realize the uniqueness of ISGP within the conspiracy community. Keeping this in mind, it is only reasonable to assume that ISGP's new bottom average for daily visitors would have been in the mid to high 700s by mid November 2017. The duplicate content removals most definitely seem to have effect.

On November 27, 2017 another major link comes in and visitors for the shoot to 1,500 uniques. A few more minor links follow and for three days ISGP comfortably sits in the 1,100-1,200 range. At that point a crash down to 926 occurs, which is fine. But the next day? 667! What?! That's 13% below what I assumed ISGP's new long-term bottom of about 770 would be. 770 actually is a conservative estimate, because I kept removing articles in the mid November period when ISGP wouldn't drop below 800. So again I ask? How did this mysterious drop happen? They are always relative to the apparently real number of visitors. It went down to 358 on October 29, to 578 on November 9, and then to 667 on November 25. Throughout this period duplicate content was removed, with an apparently ever higher number of daily visitors as a result. Each time we're talking about a drop of roughly 25%. Is 20 or 25% a basic ranking penalty that Google ranking staff can switch on and off? One almost begins to think so.

December 2016: 770s despite continued removals

Moving on, especially the December 14 - December 18, 2017 period was very quiet for ISGP. The daily number of unique visitors during these four days? A steady average of 770. After the prominent December 19, 2017 Global Citizen article of Anneke Lukas article with its included ISGP link, ISGP has another brief lull in links around New Year's Eve 2016-2017. The absolutely low? 783, indicating that only about 15 visitors or so from the Global Citizen article are still hanging around or coming in. The rest is all determined by Google Domain Authority and a few dozen to maybe one or two hundred regular visitors.

The evidence is very clear: ISGP now has a good two times more traffic than before any of the duplicate content removals. In December there's a constant daily average of a solid 770 unique visitors a day while back in September it was about 340. This apparently was after a penalty hit, because in early August ISGP-studies.com was sitting at about 375. And who knows, it is entirely possible, if not likely, that ISGP received one or more penalty hits in November or early December, which would be obscured by the countless Pizzagate-related links coming in. After all, the relatively quiet period of November 11 to November 25 didn't see a single day below 800. And large amounts of duplicate content were removed throughout November and December. Just in the November 22-24 period I removed 134 copyrighted ISGP content from Google. While earlier this quickly resulted in a 50 to 100% traffic boost starting in the days after, this second wave of removals appears to have had no effect. In fact, daily visitors went down by about 4%. These articles maybe have been less crucial, but how much sense does that make?

2017: THE WAY DOWN

January 2017: Daily bottom averages at 900

Throughout January 2017 the Global Citizen article by Anneke Lucas was linked several more times. In minor lulls in between ISGP didn't drop below the 902, but due to the frequent links the daily number of visitors clearly did not have time to bottom out. The sharp correction down to 840 on January 28 is odd. The day before visitors weren't at average levels, but stood at an elevated 1,200 views, preceded by an average of about 975 in the three days before. Once again, the day after diving down to 840, visitors bumped back up to an elevated 1,061. If we take 1,050 as an entire reasonable number for January 28, 840 represents a decline of 20%. Even at a super-rational estimated 940 visitors, 840 still represents a sudden drop of 10%. It's a very significant drop and highly surprised me at the time. It gives one the impression that this was another day someone at Google briefly flipped a 20 to 25% ranking penalty switch. Granted, I did not check if hourly visits were consistently down on this day. It must have been though, because I certainly did not watch any Statcounter crashes or website crashes.

Assuming that roughly 900 unique visitors would be the new norm, in mid January I upgraded my hosting package for ISGP to guarantee that the website would continue to have fast loading times. A number of .htaccess commands were also inserted to aid this process.

At the time I was contemplating putting up a few ads, because donations have always been far and few between. Now that ISGP was easily hitting more than 50,000 total page loads per month, a number of well-known ad agencies had become available to ISGP, assuming they wouldn't oppose the actual content of the site. Having over 50,000 page loads per month also gives ISGP a bit of credibility when trying to bring in manually sought out advertizers. Clearly I was getting excited in this period that one day ISGP would provide me with some steady additional income, as maybe one should expect from a website that is as unique and in-depth as ISGP.

While worried about additional ranking penalties, the last thing I expected to happen was a return to below 500, let alone below 400, daily visiting numbers. With so much duplicate content removed, such a new domain, and slowly building Domain Authority by not switching the domain anymore, it just couldn't fathom daily visitors falling by a whole lot. If this were to happen, it would simply be too obvious a sign of government censorship, wouldn't it be? Well, read on.

February 2017: 26% total drop from 900 to 663

If January 2017 was the month of over-confidence, February 2017 came to be the month of reality-check. Well, reality already should have set in on January 28 with a drop to 840, but in these days I still had hope that these brief sudden dives did not herald in an upcoming period of a more permanent drop.

Right on February 1 there was a drop from the low 900s to 863. Then on February 7 to 846. These drops puzzled me a little, because just before I was generally hitting the 920s without any incoming links. It's likely that over time this number would slowly drop off to the high 870s, maybe even the mid 850s, but within a week or two consistently dropping even below 850 is pretty darn extreme. While not liking it at all, I did my best to get used to the 840 or so as the new low for days when ISGP didn't get any incoming links. It's still a giant improvement over the recent past, so let's make the best of it, right?

Well, optimistic thinking only gets you so far. February 10 - just three days after the already very low 846 number - all of a sudden there's a drop to 677, a process that seems to have been set in motion somewhere the previous day when I hit the already shockingly low 731. Once again, the familiar trend of a 30 to 40 hour depression in readership is visible: February 11 saw visitors shoot back up to 931 - without any major links. Not that this matters. As the reader can see in the graph above, from now on I am lucky to the 800 on days without links. The new low for February 2017 are the 660s and 670s.

One wonders how on Earth this is possible. ISGP's absolute daily bottoms were in the low 800s in November and December, the low 900s in January, and the mid 800s in early February. And by mid to late February it crashes down again 670?! That makes no sense at all. If there was any doubt about censorship taking place, it should now be removed.

Although it might be a coincidence, ISGP had its steepest drop in daily visitors on February 23, a drop set in just hours after publishing the article $150 Billion in Foundation Funds Attacking Trump and Pushing Third World Immigration; Soros, Ford, Carnegie, Gates, Rockefeller, Etc. This would be just about the most sensitive article ever, certainly at that point with Trump just having been inaugurated and protests still being organized left and right. The article was put out in the afternoon of February 22. On February 23 ISGP logged 677 unique visitors, together with February 10 the lowest number since that equally peculiar post-Pizzagate drop to 578 on November 9. On February 24, visitor numbers went down to 663, followed by 708 the next day.

Not only are these numbers strongly indicative of yet another temporary Google penalty in the 20% range, but it also demonstrates that ISGP gets 0,0 support from the rest of the conspiracy community. Not a single conspiracy website, as pro-Trump most appear to be, put a link to this seemingly very revealing article. And to this day not a single conspiracy website has done so. Even Trump himself does not seem to care about these foundations being behind all the protests against him, preferring to blame Obama, Hillary Clinton, or some other insignificant individual or group. Why is that? Most likely because all of politics and the entire news business involves one giant conspiracy against the people. Nothing, absolutely nothing, is independent.

Early April 2017: 33 to 40% drops to 478

After the 20% three-day dip right after publishing the February 22, 2017 article $150 Billion in Foundation Funds Attacking Trump and Pushing Third World Immigration, daily readership of ISGP climbed up again a little. The first half of March saw 800+ on most days, with a bunch of dips into the 700s. March 21 saw a dip to 696, from which point the low 700s instead of the low to mid 800s became the new baseline, a drop of about 12%. This is nothing ISGP hadn't seen in February, however.

April 1, 2017 carried another, huge surprise though: from 820 visitors on March 31 to just 605 visitors, in reality a loss of about 17% compared to ISGP's average bottoms of about 730. The next day? Back up at 783. But experience told me that more permanent dips were to come.

Early April actually came with a triple whammy. On April 5 visitors went down to 541. If that wasn't enough of a shock, on April 9 ISGP went down to just 478 unique visitors, a number not seen since October 2016, immediately after starting the process of removing duplicate content! If we compare 720 of late March as a bottom average to 478 of April 9, we're talking about a solid 33% collapse in daily traffic. If we take 780 of early March and much of February, early April saw a drop of 39%. Looking at the all-time-high daily bottom average of at least about 900 of January 2017, 478 represents a 53% drop in traffic in less than three months. One wonders how can anyone run an online business if daily visitor numbers were this random.

A partial explanation for these lows is that somewhere in early April 2017 Google removed ISGP's Beyond the Dutroux Affair from its index, consistently the most popular article of ISGP since it was written in July 2007. Despite its deletion from the index, because ISGP removed every single copy from the internet and redirected various appendices to the main article, people still find their way to it to an extent and it still remains one of the more popular articles. Fact is, the article's removal can easily lead to 20-40 missed visits per day. However, at most its removal would explain one major dip in traffic - and only if this dip would be a rather permanent one. It hard to see how the removal of this single article explains three massive dips in a row, representing a total loss of almost 250 unique visitors per day.

June-July 2017: visiting the low 400s and 392

Ignoring the regular links ISGP received in May and June 2017, the 500 range had now become the new average. Although, early June saw two major dips: one on June 3 to 436 and another on June 11 to 411, both preceded by major spikes in traffic. In both cases traffic also bounced up again a day later. June 12 to June 22 actually saw above average daily numbers of high 500 to low 600, higher than they had been in May. But, predictably, more sudden dips would occur. On July 1, ISGP actually managed to dip down to 392 daily visitors! The exact same thing happened on July 9: 392 visitors.

We're looking at numbers here that basically are the same as when ISGP.nl was transferred to ISGP-studies.com in early August 2016, before any of the more than 400 removed duplicate content articles from the internet. It looks quite obvious that these removals largely were responsible for giving ISGP daily averages into the 900 unique visitors by January 2017, and possibly higher if no additional ranking penalties had taken place. And here, in June and July 2017 - with not allowing ANY new ISGP copy-pastes onto the internet - ISGP's daily averages still go down to similar levels as if these massive amounts of duplicate articles are still around.

Anybody still thinking that nothing out of the ordinary going on?

Key articles suddenly losing readership

Another things that happened in the mid 2017 period apart from Beyond the Dutroux Affair being banned from the Google index, is that two articles created in mid 2016 quite dramatically lost readership, likely explaining part of the drop in daily ISGP visitors.

The first was an article analyzing the Kay Griggs story. After lifting it out of another, much larger ISGP article, updating it, and publishing it separately, this article blew up in readership. In fact, within days it became the consistently most-read article of ISGP. Beyond the Dutroux Affair - before it was banned - received a lot of links from all over and in that manner continued to compete, but on days without these links, the Kay Griggs article easily outperformed it. If the average popular article maybe got 15 visitors a day, the Kay Griggs article would get roughly 60 to 100.

This went on for 10 months or so, at which point the Kay Griggs article all of a sudden descended to the average range, and sometimes even below average. Considering no one copied the article, how much sense does that make? As with the Google ranking penalties, the loss in readership was sudden. Several months later I purposely mentioned/complained about this in an email to a major conspiracy disinformation outfit looking to do an interview, considering ISGP on at least three occasions received ranking penalties immediatly after talking about statistics in emails to others. Coincidence or not, within days the popularity of this article was partially restored, although definitely not to the extent that it used to be. To this day it hovers around 15 to 30 visitors a day. At the time of this writing it is the 7th most popular article.

The second article involves the one about Steven Greer and his bogus Disclosure Project. This article became one of the most popular ones written by ISGP, although not nearly as much as the Kay Griggs one. It quite consistently hovered in the top 8 or so of most-visited articles. I even added a bunch of screeshots of quite funny Google queries on the Disclosure Project to the top picture: "stephen greer hoax", "steve greer cult", "dr steven greer scam", and is "dr steven greer a fake". I would continually see these queries, sometimes as the top hit or close to the top hit in Google. But then, similar to the Kay Griggs article and around the same time, the Steven Greer article suddenly lost its readership by at least 50% - overnight. Since that time it is an averagely visited article at best.

The question, of course, is how these sudden drops and partial rises in readership of individual articles happen. Realistically, it can only have been Google. Unfortunately, I did not register any exact dates, so it's impossible to determine to what extent the lowering of the ranking of these articles contributed to a loss in overall readership. We'll leave it at this for now.

August 2017: another post-publication Google retaliation?

It's safe to say that ISGP lost 45% of its daily traffic from January to June and beyond, despite the creation of a lot of new content, the removal of additional duplicate content from the internet in April, June and September, and a 50 percent higher Domain Authority, according to Moz.com. A few percent can be ascribed to a natural drop in readership after so many Pizzagate-related links from the November-January period and the removal of Beyond the Dutroux Affair from the Google index, but a solid one-third remains unexplained - and really more because of the afore-mentioned reasons.

Well, "unexplained"? The only explanation that seems to fit is Google ranking penalties. And these seem to be doled out not just as permanent, genuine penalties, but more in a harassing manner. For years ISGP has been observing brief 24 to 40 hours ranking penalties, with each hour during these periods incoming traffic severely depressed, only to shoot up again afterwards. Usually within days a more permanent ranking penalty seems to be put in place. Most of these temporary penalties seem to instated right after major traffic spikes. Visitor statistics are not stock market charts. There is no reason for high peaks to be compensated with low dips. Yet this is what ISGP statistics reveal on two dozen occasions or so since at least October 2015. It's very strange business.

Similarly strange is that traffic, certainly in 2017, was severely depressed the day after major anti-liberal establishment article releases. Earlier the February 22 publication of a "pro-Trump" article was listed as an example: traffic instantly collapsed for three days by about 20%. A similar collapse could be observed on August 22, one day after ISGP made its Center for Responsible Immigration available to the public for the first time. ISGP lost a solid 11% from its period lows and about 20% of the to-be-expected visitors for that day:

The situation until late 2017

For the rest of 2017 the situation basically remained stable. Occasionally low 400 dips occur, but for the most part daily lows are into the 470s. Sometimes there are periods, such as has been the case since late October, that the mid 500s or higher is regularly reached.

That having been said, one shouldn't forget that a huge amount of content has been made available in just the last few months. September saw the creation of virtually the entire Center for Responsible Immigration. In October ISGP's Psychedelics and Elitism article was published. November saw an article on Opus Dei. In between countless updates have taken place to a variety of articles.

There's really no evidence that the creation of this new content has any significant impact on total daily readership, despite it being visited directly through Google. On October 7, for instance, ISGP clocked 426 visitors. October 18 saw 483 visitors, with two other days in this period bringing in numbers in the 490s. These numbers simply aren't healthy, because ISGP was getting these numbers or almost getting these numbers in early August 2016 with 25% less content and 400 copy-pasted ISGP articles still clogging the internet.

2017: Google from 97-100% down to 84-92%

Unfortunately, only in June 2017 I started paying attention to how dominant Google was with visitors reaching ISGP through search engines. I observed this statistic countless times over the past decade, but didn't really think of using it as evidence of Google censorship. That changed upon noticing that U.S. visitors, who use Google.com, only accounted for 35.6% of all Google visitors to ISGP. In mid 2017 Google.com often hovered between 35 to 40% for ISGP. Here's an example of June 30:

This percentage for Google.com is absurdly low. Sure, ISGP is quite unique in its conspiracy content involving Europe. However, most of mainland Europe doesn't properly speak or read English, including countries as Germany and certainly France, Spain and Italy. The Netherlands is the primary exception, followed by the Scandinavian countries. Conspiracy thinking is also rather uniquely an American tradition. It is not even as remotely as popular in Europe, although the internet has been changing that. To illustrate just how low 35% is, back in 2016 I added the following lines to ISGP's FAQ:

"I love Americans. They're 50 percent of the visitors to this site. Used to be 70 percent, but mainland Europe is catching up a little in recent years."

The United States has always been the number one country of origin for ISGP visitors, followed by either Canada or the United Kingdom, and then often Australia, another English-speaking country. Increasingly Australia has been trumped by mainland European countries, but it varies all the time which country this is. In other words, I'm very well aware of the countries ISGP visitors come from and how many. You know what? Let me check the percentages right now, because I have not noticed any anomalies with this for months at this point:

Amazing, isn't it? The United States sits at a perfect 50% - and generally revolves around this - followed by the United Kingdom and Canada. The rest is quite random, with Australia, which only has about 27 million inhabitants, often sinking quite a bit in the list. But, isn't it strange then that in the June-July period, right when ISGP visitors were dropping to absolutely ridiculous lows, that all of a sudden way less U.S. visitors were able to make it to the site? Also very strange is that the United Kingdom and Canada often weren't listed as the numbers 2 and 3 either. Random European countries took those spots. Above, it was the Netherlands and Germany; a week later all of sudden tons of visitors came from Italy, all of it without any specific links. It all made very little sense. After a while, overall visits to ISGP went up again - and so did the percentage for U.S. Google.com visitors. Very strange business.

The problem of extremely low Google.com visitors did return on a number of occasions. After a decent period without too many issues, September 15, 2017 saw another sudden, major dip in daily visitors. Once again we're talking about an estimated 20% of traffic loss for that day. So I checked the overall percentage of Google visitors and did not spot just a relatively low percentage, but also yet another major depression in Google.com visitors:

Maybe it's all a coincidence, but it does appear that on occasion Google manipulates rankings for websites specifically for certain countries, in this case the United States.

If this is always the case when ranking penalties are handed down is hard to say, but what I can say is that the overall percentage of search engine traffic for Google has been dropping rapidly this past year. I checked this Statcounter statistic quite regularly for many years and always was surprised at how dominant Google was. Until possibly 2016 seeing a full 100% of search engine traffic come through Google was not common, but I certainly remember seeing that number on at least one occasion. 97-99% was very common. And anything lower than 97% certainly was noteworthy. However, by 2017 the 97% basically was never made anymore. The average percentage dropped to about 90%. ISGP's deepest slumps in traffic in July, actually coincided with the deepest slumps in Google traffic, down to about 85%:

Note here that Google.com visitors were sitting at a comfortable 55%, yet still there was a great depression in overall Google visitors. When overall traffic climbed up a little in succeeding months, the 85% also wasn't reached anymore, although 87-88% on occasion does still occur. Then again, Google is slowly losing its absolute dominance among search engines.

Unfortunately, I never captured how many ISGP visitors came through Google in a certain period of 2014-2016. Looking at the above example, let's say I received 50% more Google (not Bing, etc.) visitors in that time period. So instead of 107 for Google, it would be 161. The rest remains the same: 9 + 9 + 1 = 19, giving a total of 180 visitors. At that point the chart would read that 89.4% of visitors came through Google -- because 161/180 = 89.4. If we double the number of Google visitors in this time period - 214 out of 233 (still 19 outside Google) - the percentage is 91.8%.

Looking at this basic math, how many Google visitors does ISGP need to come back to the once ordinary 96-99%? Let's see:

• 3x more would result in 94.4% (321 Google hits out of a total of 340).
• 4x more would result in 95.7% (428 Google hits out of a total of 447).
• 5x more would result in 96.6% (535 Google hits out of a total of 554).
• 6x more would result in 97.1% (642 Google hits out of a total of 661).
• 7x more would result in 97.5% (749 Google hits out of a total of 768).
• 10x more would result in 98.3% (1070 Google hits out of a total of 1089)
• 20x more would result in 99.1% (2140 Google hits out of a total of 2159).

As the reader can see, in order to get back into familiar and comfortable territory, about 4.5x the Google visitors over this specific time - mid 2017 - would have been needed. Even if someone would argue that Yahoo! visitors are a bit high and we would take off 5, giving us a total number of non-Google search engine visitors of 14, we would still need a several hundred percent increase to get back to familiar ground:

• 3x more would result in 95.6% (307 Google hits out of a total of 321).
• 4x more would result in 96.7% (414 Google hits out of a total of 428).

It seems no matter kind of arguments you come up with, already in mid 2017 incoming Google traffic was orders of magnitude too low compared to other search engines.

2018: DOWN EVEN FURTHER

Google dominance from high 80s down to 57.8%; hitting the 251

After the publication of the first version of this article on December 1, 2017, the downward trend of ISGP visitors continued. The first thing that readers might notice is the near instant drop in traffic after publishing the article (early in the day). ISGP went from riding the high 600s and 700s in the previous days and seldom dropping below 500, to all of a sudden 441 and 444 unique visitors on December 1 and December 2. Predictably, the visitors shot back up after that in the solid 500 range. Already on December 16, there was another crash down to 437. ISGP already hit lows like this - and even deeper - in mid 2017, so that is nothing new. But these sudden drops tend to be harbingers of more structural changes down the line. And the timing is interesting.

Early 2018 didn't start out too bad, but on March 1 another penalty hit went in. Daily traffic dropped from an average of roughly 560 to 450 for three days, a very usual collapse of 20%. Traffic briefly recovered, in part due to an incoming link, but from that point on the mid 400s became the norm. March 22 and 23 actually saw another drop to 425 and 417 respectively. Mid April saw another three-day drop, this time down to 398. Early May brought another surprise. May 2 was a nice precursor with 389. This was followed on May 4 with 331 and May 5 with an unprecendented 251 visitors.

It should be clear that the two-month early March to early May 2018 period represented yet another very strong downturn with ISGP visitors. It was not a gradual downturn, however. The decrease in visitors came through sudden, overnight "bursts", after which traffic never really restored to the previous level. If we zoom in on the mid April downturn, for example, we can clearly spot the sudden downturn:

Looking at the percentage of Google visitors for April 29, 2018, a few days after (I did not check consistently yet at this point), and we find that this percentage has lowered as well. This was the first time I noticed it dropping below the 80%. In other words, this is consistent with the "theory" that Google is responsible for the drop in visitors.

Becoming more and more alert, after noticing the unbelievable drop in visitors to 251 on May 5, 2018, I checked Statcounter's hourly visits feature, which since then has been removed unfortunately. It can clearly be seen that somewhere just after 5 a.m. local time (Netherlands), a huge drop in traffic can be be spotted for the rest of the day. What are the chances that Statcounter all of a sudden started registering roughly half of the incoming visits for the rest of the day? Based on all the other evidence, most people would probably be suspecting Google.

Checking the search engine percentages on May 6, when uniques "recovered" a bit to 368, we find that Google has dropped yet again: to just 71%.

Over the next month, ISGP keeps hitting the 200s and 300s, making it clear that one or more ranking penalties have "stuck" - and were not just temporary for a one or more days:

May 13, 2018 appears to be the first day that Google hit the 69% with search engine percentages. Notice how, once again, the super-tiny 0.3% market share DuckDuckGo search engine is coming dangerously close to overtaking 91% market share Google with ISGP. Granted, Google.com is only for U.S. visitors - but it remains an incredible statistic. On both May 6 and May 13 the DuckDuckGO visitors, as usual, represent (almost) completely different queries and IPs. It's not like one DuckDuckGo user was repeatedly running ISGP-related queries on those days.

2018: Triple whammy penalty tied to "Liberal CIA: Hollywood" notice?

From early June to mid September 2018, daily traffic actually slowly increased again. By September the mid to high 500s, and even the 600s, were regularly reached again. Late September and early October saw major, rapid crashes in traffic again, to the point the statistics for this period actually look like a downward staircase. In a manner of two weeks, ISGP visitors move from the 500s to the 400s to the 300s and to the 200s. It's quite incredible to behold:

It made me think what changed in this period. After all, there were no updates to the site between a July 4, 2018-published article on immigration polls and the huge - both in scope and sensitivity - October 14, 2018-published "liberal CIA: Hollywood" article. So why these penalty hits in advance of the publication of the Hollywood article? Then I remembered. And then I verified through Webarchive: on September 22 I both widened the left column of the site and announced that a "Liberal CIA": Hollywood article was about to be published, as was a "Liberal CIA: Music" article. I remember at the time that it may not be too smart to announce this in advance. But I did - and the first of three successive ranking penalties came 3.5 days later. Coincidence? Who knows - but I doubt it.

Blown away after the October 14 publication of the "liberal CIA: Hollywood" article of not spotting a single incoming Google hit - anywhere in the world - after a week, I regularly checked Google dominance again. Once again it collapsed deeper than before. Google dominance hit a low of 57.8% on October 22, 2018, with just 37 visitors coming in through Google over a 12-hour period - just 3 an hour.

In addition to this, plenty of 58 and 59 percenters were spotted throughout this period. Over a period of a month, and checking daily, I only observed three incoming Google hits to the "Liberal CIA: Hollywood" article. The article was not published ANYWHERE and even blocked by moderators of a major Reddit conspiracy forum.

Despite that, to long-time ISGP visitors, the Hollywood article was extremely popular. This probably contributed to an extent to visitors recovering to the high 300s and low 400s on average over the rest of October - and a little higher in early September after a major incoming link of some kind. However, structurally, in terms of Google ranking, it appears ISGP was basically wiped off the map, with just a visitor or 3 an hour or so coming in.

2018: Narcos drops ISGP Google dominance to... 12.7%!

Over the first weeks of November 2018, Google dominance for ISGP hovered between the high 50s and low 70s for the most part. Then, on November 16, season 4 of Narcos was released. Already in the past, ISGP's article on the 1985 torture-murder of DEA agent Kiki Camarena would be visited much more frequently in the wake of Narcos-related news. This year though, the scale of the visits escalated big time with the release of Narcos season 4. Overnight, hundreds of visitors started pouring in on a daily basis.

But, here's what's even more interesting than people's morbid fascinations: these visitors came from every search engine EXCEPT Google. Today, the reason is clear as day: typing in 'kiki camarena death' would result in the number #2 spot in DuckDuckGo, Yahoo! and Bing, but absolutely nothing in Google, which appears to have almost fully delisted the article. The result can be seen below. By December 2, Google dropped to second place in the rankings, behind Yahoo!:

Five days later, on December 7, an absolute bottom was reached, with Google now ranking 3rd, behind both Yahoo! and Bing:

Fascinating, isn't it? Yahoo! and Bing had, and have, a combined market share of about 5% - versus Google's 92%. Granted, the vast majority of visitors came from the United States, where Google "only" had an 87% dominance versus Yahoo! and Bing's combined 13%. Even with the delisting of the Kiki Camarena article by Google, overall censorship of ISGP has to be extremely strong for both Yahoo! and Bing to overtake overall visits to the site.

We actually see that aspect back in the statistics as well. On December 7, ISGP received just 15 Google visits over a 10-hour period: 1.5 per hour and just 3x more than DuckDuckGo, with its market share of about 0.4%. If we look back at July 2017, we find that over a 15-hour period, ISGP received 107 hits through Google, accounting to 7 an hour and an overall percentage of 84.9%. That already was amidst major ranking penalties, but still 4.7x the amount of Google visitors we find at this point. The only realistic explanation seems to be that Google censorship heightened even more over this period - which we see tons of other evidence of.

2018: Anomalies: brief huge ranking bursts for individual articles

In one of the latest sections, readers may have noticed the comment "Black crime article Google ranking explodes out of nothing" for April 22, 2018, right after an apparent ranking penalty. Here it is again:

So yes, all of a sudden this particular article exploded in popularity. It wasn't due to a link. It wasn't due to one particular visitor going to that article over and over. Visitors came from all over the world, through national Google versions. The only explanation seems to be that for some reason this article was given a good 10x higher ranking. A screenshot:

This phenomenon occurred again on September 14-15, 2018 with ISGP's article on unacknowledged special access programs (USAPS):

Who knows what the reason was behind these apparent ranking improvements. Maybe any ranking penalties for these articles were lifted by accident. Or it could be a form of taunting. In any case, these incidents make the crucial importance of Google ranking perfectly clear. Essentially Google is judge, jury and executioner of the internet. If they don't like you, (virtually) no one will read your articles or visit your webstore.

2019: ROCK BOTTOM? First half 2019: from 400s to 294; 48-72% Google dominance

The effect of Narcos continued for a number of months into 2019: elevated numbers of daily visitors and Google not reclaiming its number 1 spot - while in the 30s and 40s percentage-wise - in search engine dominance until late December. As the Narcos influence went down, it became clear that ISGP's new daily baseline of unique visitors was... Well, there simply is no baseline anymore. Generally it was in the neighborhood of 400; sometimes over it, sometimes below it. Regularly though, the number of visitors would drop to the 320-330 range, what ISGP used to have on a steady basis way back in 2010, with a fraction of the content and no proper SEO or design. On April 25, 2019 - coincidentally a few days into a very rare fundraiser - visitors dropped to just 294 - so slowly but surely the 200-range is becoming more and more common as time goes by (and content goes up). There's no telling where the bottom is really.

On February 3, 2019, Google dominance hit 40.9%, which is noteworthy because by that time the Narcos article had dropped to 3rd or 4th place and was not that influential anymore. In addition, at this point Statcounter registered 27 Google hit over a 16-hour period - just 1.7 visitors per hour. Remember how in mid 2017, even amidst already major Google censorship, a number in the low hundreds over the same time period was the norm.

Google dominance went up to the 50s, 60s and 70s percentage after that, but on May 4, 2019, a Google dominance of 48.8% was measured. Narcos had become almost totally irrelevant at that point. 39 Google visits over a 16-hour period was measured: 2.4 per hour. Fact is, while the Google percentage seldom drops this low, by late 2018 and early 2019 it had become the norm that Google only contributed about 1.5 to 3 visitors per hour to ISGP, where in January 2017 for example, with much less content available and seemingly already one or two penalties in place, it was in the 20s and maybe even low 30s (38 visitors per hour was the baseline for a certain period in this timeframe). How do you explain this? Apart from Google censorship?

2020

May: Google's "Corona Penalties"

Over late 2019 and early 2020 the familiar pattern is visible: despite regular updates, visiters keep going up and down over several week to several month periods. Often declines are initiated by sudden drops. Late December (down to 370) and late January (down to 500 again) are examples of that:

In early March 2019, a week after the lockdown of northern Italy due to the Coronavirus crisis, daily visitors to ISGP started steadily increasing again. This trend only became visible by late March 2020, as daily visitors kept steadily increasing while countries in North America and Europe were locked down and people were told to stay home. This trend reached a plateau in mid April, days after the last series of lockdowns in the United States.

Coincidence? Maybe. The main thing I noticed over the period is the Google's search engine dominance increased from generally hovering somewhere in the 60s to low 70s, regularly started hitting the upper 80s. Most likely this is due to many casual internet users using Google. In the same period, in particular, ISGP's (anti-Trump) Pizzagate article clearly had received a higher ranking, as all of a sudden it had become much more popular. Not to the extent it would explain an overall steady upclimb over March. If anything, interest in the Pizzagate article peaked early and steadily declined over the weeks.

In any case, as expected, the steady stream of just over 1,000 visitors a day over a four-week period in April and early May 2020 didn't last long. May 5, May 7 and May 16 all saw heavy penalties of 20% on average, bringing down overall daily visitors by 50% from just 11 days earlier. Coincidentally, Google's dominance dropped hard again, from the high 80% to the 70s, 60s and even down to just 39% right after the apparant May 15 penalty (which became fully visible on May 16):

2020: ISGP has a lower ranking than ugly, Holocaust-denying, disinfo blogs

In-line with the above ultra-low Google dominance with ISGP, are continuous observations that ISGP has been virtually removed from Google, with even the most questionable, lowest quality blogs having (much) higher rankings. That is not a new observation, but it regularly remains shocking to see nevertheless.

Take the following example from May 5, 2020, when ISGP still was at "peak ranking" (relatively speaking) for 2020. ISGP has been thrown out of the rankings, but a copy-paste on a fourth-rate Curacaoan "Place4Free"-blog is right at the top.

Three weeks later, on May 26, 2020, I notice how ISGP's Pilgrims Society membership list now has also disappeared from the Google. However, the even more horribly-looking, Holocaust-denying, conspiracy disinformation blog 9-11truthbds.org is still right up there.

Ironically, the 7 DMCA complaints removing 7 copies of this page all were filed by me in 2016, allowing the original to surface again in the Google index. Not for long though. My copy simply doesn't exist, as the option to view "not visible results" is nowhere to be seen.

Increasingly I do searches via search.yahoo.com and regularly run into my own site. The last time ran into ISGP via Google, which I still use 100 times more often, I can't even remember.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

How much proof and evidence is enough?

Over the course of this timeline/article readers could see:

• ISGP visitors drop - in sudden, overnight steps - from the 900s to 663, to 478, to 392, to 251.
• the Google dominance among search engines for ISGP drop during the same period from the 97-100%, to the low 90s, to the 80s, 70s, 60s, 50s, 40s - and even to 30s, 20s and eventually 12.7% during the height of Narcos' season 4 hype;
• the absolute number of visitors through Google drop from about 10 an hour (already mid-way the penalties) to about 1.5 to 2 an hour over 2017-2019, and that with a doubling in content;
• that by May 2019 Google is the only search engine to have structurally unlisted or extremely deranked almost all ISGP articles;
• evidence for severe downranks of individual articles;
• evidence that might indicate harassent, from temporary penalty hits and two-day extreme ranking boosts for individual articles, to derankings right after new content is made available or announced.

Questions of CIA

In addition, a narrative and/or evidence has been produced that ISGP has been a target of the West's security services for a long time before evidence of Google suppression started to emerge. That might lead one to suspect that there is a connection between the two: that Google is not just doing its own or the liberal etsablishment's bidding, but that the company is actually used as a front for the CIA.

The chances of this theory being correct only increase when we see how tolerant Google and its YouTube platform are to the giant army of very obvious "Holohoax", chemtrail, 9/11-no-plane-promoting conspiracy disinformers flooding the internet. Despite some of the anti-Infowars postering, all this disinformation is tolerated. However, ISGP, which happens to be ignored by said conspiracy disinformers, is not.

Of course, as already discussed at length, the liberal establishment has traditionally been as much a front for the CIA as the CIA is fronting for it. It's all the same thing. "Liberal CIA" versus "conservative media" dominates the political narrative. Anti-Trump street protests are all funded by the same "liberal CIA" foundations. And we know that long-time Google head Eric Schmidt has been a member of the David Rockefeller-dominated Trilateral Commission and the equally David Rockefeller-dominated steering committee of Bilderberg for quite some time at this point. Thus, we should be prepared for the ultimate revelation that Google is operating as a CIA front, formally or informally.

Anti-censorship measures

Regardless of the political forces behind Google's censorship measures, it should be quite easy to get a handle on the censorship itself. Search engine companies create algoritms for fair, automatic ranking: the more incoming high Domain Authority links, the higher the rank. The more incoming links (of a certain minimum quality) over the last x months or so, the higher the rank. The more often visited a certain page related to a certain search word, the higher the rank. Good SEO? Higher rank. Looking at the large amount of similarity in ISGP rankings for DuckDuckGo, Yahoo! and Bing, it appears basic ranking algoritms are largely the same. Google just manually tinkered with them for ISGP.

So, what is the solution? Simple. Make all manually inserted ranking-deviations public: both uprankings (to prevent nepotism) and downrankings. That way website owners will always know:

• if their website has been manually downranked;
• why measures have been taken by Google and/or other search engines;
• which Google - or other search engine - employee has done so (based on an ID number);
• if similar and/or competing sites have received similar ranking penalties for similar reasons;
• immediately has all the evidence it needs to oppose the downranking through the court system or the media.

It's that simple: no more secret down- and upranking by search engines, certainly not ones with a large (5% or more) market share. The public interest is just too large with Google in particlar. You can't have one super-corporation deciding the fate of millions of smaller companies - and not have some really good checks and balances in place.

APPENDICES

A second set of statistics

Since 2016, I did not just pay attention to Statcounter's statistics, but also to the one provided by web host One.com. Granted, these statistics are a bit crude. It lists all PHP includes as separate visits. However, considering this statistic has been doing that consistently and I have only occasionally added an additional include related to donations, it should roughly show the same data as Statcounter.

So, does it? Well, when we look at the entire period from August 4, 2016, when ISGP-studies.com went live, and as of this writing, May 12, 2019, we find that ISGP visitors have increased... well, essentially nothing. Back in 2016, visitors started around 1700 and within days stabilized around 2000. So let's take 2000 as the baseline. Since May 1, 2019, the average number of visitors, according to this same One.com statistic, on average is about 2120 - and slowly dropping. So, despite double the content, tons of deleted duplicate material, higher Mozrank / Domain Rank, and many more people being aware of this url... there is maybe a 10% improvement in visitors in both Statcounter and the One.com metric. In other words, they show the same thing. For specifics:

• August 2016 to January 2018 One.com metric analysis. (shows similar penalties as Statcounter, but, strangely, 2.5x growth from start instead of 1.5x in Statcounter)
• November 2017 to October 2018 One.com and Statcounter metrics compared. (very similar up-down trends, also with Alexa)
• May 2018 - May 2019 One.com metrics. (back to 2000).

What we see is only partially conclusive. Despite many similar trends and penalties being visible, and the 0-10% end result in daily visitors over 2016-2019 being exactly the same, the (very crude) One.com metric definitely differs when looking at certain specific periods or days, primarily for 2017. There's not much else to say, except that it's a good thing we have a firm grasp of actual Google rankings of ISGP these days.

Google hits largely visible on Alexa

As it turns out, many of the apparent Google ranking penalties are visible on Alexa's ranking chart for ISGP-studies.com. Below is an oversight from August 2016, when ISGP-studies.com was founded to October 2017.

The chart also reveals how by late October and early November 2016 ISGP was bursting vertically into the Alexa ranking, two-and-half-months after ISGP-studies.com was set up. This once again seems to indicate that the continuous duplicate content (DMCA) removals were paying off big time. As already explained, on November 4 the (bogus) Pizzagate "affair" broke, putting a lot of doubt into how effective all the additional content removals were.

Most people looking at this Alexa chart would probably think that ISGP was inactive at the time - which is the furthest thing from the truth. Most people also wouldn't think that the deep, sudden drops in the first months of 2017 were due to ranking penalties. However, when we compare the Alexa chart with the ISGP's earlier-discussed Statcounter charts for 2017, we find that there's definitely a close correlation.

The Alexa chart from late 2017 to late 2018 is not perfect, but certainly also not incompatible. The earlier-discussed Statcounter charts for 2018 show that traffic was somewhat elevated - relatively speaking - from late December 2017 to roughly March 1, 2018, when the first of a number of major penalty hits affected ISGP. When we look at Alexa - which always has a few days to maybe one or two weeks of a delay in its chart due to its cumulative nature - we find the same trend:

The peak of ISGP's "resurgance" for Alexa was in early March 2018, after which a continuous, steep crash in the rankings is visible, to the point that ISGP was even pushed out of the top 1 million sites by mid August 2018. This makes sense, because ISGP.nl - already targeted with penalties - was hovering around the 925,000 rank or so when it had daily unique visits in the low 300s. ISGP-studies.com's numbers were even a little lower than that in May. ISGP very slowly recovered from that to August, but it's entirely possible that it was not enough for Alexa - which uses estimates at that level - to up the rank. The strongest recovery, according to Statcounter, was in September - and we see that all of a sudden Alexa puts ISGP back at 900k by later September.

As discussed, on September 26, September 30 and October 5, 2018, ISGP was hit hard with multiple ranking penalties, seemingly in response to an announcement days before of a soon-to-be published "Liberal CIA: Hollywood" article. It harshly collapsed traffic - and we see that again in Alexa, where ISGP's ranking goes down again over late September and October.

Traffic for late October 2018 recovered a little bit to the level before the last ranking penalty, likely in part because of the (relative) popularity of the Liberal CIA: Hollywood article, and we find that in Alexa too. Then there was the November 16, 2018 release of season 4 of Narcos, which brought a huge amount of (non-Google) traffic to ISGP. We see the same trend in Alexa:

Why ISGP has climbed all the way to 600k in the last few months is a good question, but overall ISGP's rises and falls in Alexa can generally be strongly correlated to (suspected) Google ranking penalties.

CASE STUDIES

Search King v. Google (2003): Dismissed

Search King might be the first time that Google was sued over censorship issues. SearchKing.com was founded in 1997 as a web host, search engine and later an online advertizing agency. In the early 2000s, SearchKing.com labeled itself on its website as "The World Cheapest Web Host", but also was a competitor of Google. Its search bar at the top came with options as "Show My Hometown Websites First", "Yellow Pages", "White Pages", etc., and featured the options, "Download the new SearchKing Toolbar - Free!" and "Build Your Own Search Engine". Later, after the failed lawsuit, SearchKing focused on SEO.

In August-September 2002, Google suddenly decreased SearchKing's ranking. According to SearchKing, this move was made "because Google learned that [SearchKing's] PRAN [ad wing] was profiting by selling ad space on web sites ranked highly by Google's PageRank system" and subsequently sued Google for "tortious interference with contractual relations." One wonders which these "contractual relations" involved, because from the court document it appears they weren't there.

Google did not deny descreasing SearchKing and PRAN's PageRank. According to the court document:

"Google admits it intentionally decreased the PageRanks of the web sites at issue. Google asserts, however, that it was entitled to do so for three reasons: "- First, SearchKing and PRAN's actions (i.e., selling advertising space on highly ranked web sites) undermine the integrity of Google's PageRank system.

"- Second, Google has no obligation to rank SearchKing at its desired level, or to include SearchKing's web site on its search engine.

"- Finally, Google argues its PageRanks represent speech protected by the First Amendment."

It is hard to see how the first reason can be true, primarily because it isn't explained in more detail in the court document. Google's ranking system is "fair" and simply based on how many incoming links of what quality it has. Hence, other "fair" search engines should roughly display the same result. Looking at results from Yahoo, Bing and DuckDuckGo, this is largely the case (not with regard to ISGP). The thing is, because already at this point Google was becoming a very dominant search engine, with its PageRank system being public, it's only logical that ad companies are going to look at Google's PageRank system to determine value and pricing for ads. The only time it might become problematic is if Search King was not using its own search engine, but simply building one based on public PageRanks. This aspect should have become clear from court documents, but hasn't. If that wasn't the case, it would certainly lead one to suspect that Google saw an obnoxious, potential competitor in SearchKing, both in the future search engine (creation) department as the ad market.

Most relevant to ISGP and probably the most worrying arguments put forward by Google are the last two. Technically, because Google is a private, for-profit entity, it can pick and choose what websites to include in its search engine and with which rank. It has never advocated doing so, because any outspoken political bias or nepotistic cartel-forming on the part of the company, would immediately discredit it in the eyes of the masses, leading to its own demise. As discussed earlier, search engines are (self-described and actual) search databases of "what is". They are not newspaper editors, as Google likes to claim so often - but only in court.

Also, how many of the top 1 million websites - in which ISGP has been included for many years, despite censorship - does Google rank? It's probably safe to say 99% or higher, if not 100%. Excluding websites for anything other than exploitation or crime simply destroys the value of a search engine. Hence, the second argument has stuck in court for the time being, but only here, as it is an extremely perverted way of describing a search engine's purpose. Legally, something has to be done about it.

The third argument is pretty much similar to the second. Google claims to (legally) have no obligations with regard to ranking (reason 2), due to the existence of the First Amendment (reason 3). As discussed in detail, this is incredibly disingenuous and a recipe for wholesale political suppression and cartel-forming. Google can't be allowed to sidestep all unfair competition laws.

Speaking of unfair competition, in March 2019 Google was fined $1.7 billion by the European Union for forcing websites using Google's search bar to "display a disproportionate number of text ads from Google's own advertising services". Google had this policy in place from 2006 to 2016. This was the third fine in a row for Google for undermining competition. Hence, SearchKing could well be the first court case of Google undermining a competitor - and getting away with it. As the court concluded in the SearchKing case:

"While Google's decision to intentionally deviate from its mathematical algorithm in decreasing SearchKing's PageRank may raise questions about the "truth" of the PageRank system, there is no conceivable way to prove that the relative significance assigned to a given web site is false. A statement of relative significance, as represented by the PageRank, is inherently subjective in nature. Accordingly, the Court concludes that Google's PageRanks are entitled to First Amendment protection. ...

"While it could be argued that Google acted maliciously and wrongfully as to SearchKing, the Court concludes that Google's actions were nevertheless privileged. Google has no business relationship with SearchKing. Moreover, neither SearchKing nor any other web site has the option of demanding a particular PageRank, or even whether their web site will be accessible on Google's search engine. In short, Google owes no duty to rank, or refrain from ranking, SearchKing or any other web site, and its PageRanks, whether favorable or unfavorable, confer no rights upon the owners or operators of ranked web pages. SearchKing consciously accepted the risk of operating a business that is largely dependent on a factor (PageRank) over which it admittedly has no control."

This leap of logic of Google's ranking system never possibly being "unbiased" is something we also find back in future cases, and is likely to have been dreamed up by Google's spin-doctor lawyers.

Search King v. Google (2003): Black activist, Democrat elite judge

The SearchKing came, filed in Oklahoma, was dismissed by Democrat judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange, "the first black woman elected to the Oklahoma Senate [1986-1993] and the first black woman in the nation to serve as a U.S. attorney [federal judge]." She was appointed to the latter position in 1994 by President Bill Clinton. 24

Looking deeper at Miles-LaGrange's history, we find that she grew up in the Civil Rights turmoil of the 1960s. From elementary school on, she was very active in this movement. She and her parents regularly were in the audience of Martin Luther Kind speeches. As early as 1961, she was enticed to write a letter to the newly-elected president John F. Kennedy.

Particularly important is that she was very close friends with a son of the black activist couple Dr. Charles N. Atkins and Hannah Atkins, who were mid-level activists in Oklahoma-based chapters of the Ford and Rockefeller foundation ("liberal CIA")-financed groups as the NAACP and the Urban League. In 1968 Hannah Atkins became the first black woman elected to the Oklahoma Congress, with Miles-LaGrange having explained that her group, "Hannah's Girls", solicitated by Hannah herself to Miles-LaGrange, played a key role in getting Hannah elected. 25 Hannah later was appointed to the United Nations by Democrat globalist Jimmy Carter and came to serve on the boards of wide variety of black and women activist NGOs, as well as the national board of the Ford, Rockefeller and Soros-funded American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). In later years she also was a ranking member of the Democratic National Committee (DNC).

In 1973 she received a certificate from the University of Ghana in West Africa. In 1974 she received a BA from Vassar College, an elite, Upstate New York liberal arts college that groomed more than a few "liberal CIA" activists, including Mary Pinchot Meyer, the CIA-Washington Post-Georgetown Set wife who died under unusual circumstances in 1964. Miles-LaGrange thought becoming a lawyer would equally open the doors towards politics. In 1977 she received a JD from Howard University in Washington, D.C. and was an editor of The Howard Law Journal. While studying law in Washington, D.C., she worked part-time as a congressional intern for Carl Albert, the Speaker of the House of Congress in the 1971-1977 period who twice, during the Nixon years, came close to becoming U.S. president. Similar to Miles-LaGrange, the Democrat Albert hailed from Oklahoma - but also had been a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford, where he had been a classmate of Dean Rusk 26, later on a top Rockefeller man and secretary of state. Earlier in life, Albert too had been a friend and political ally of LBJ.

To summarize Miles-LaGrange's bio until here and add a few details from a 1996-published Confirmation Hearings on Federal Appointments that includes details on Miles-LaGrange's career: From 1986 to 1993, Miles-LaGrange, a long-time black activist tied to "liberal CIA"-financed NGOs as the NAACP and the Urban League, served as the first black member of Oklahoma's senate. From 1988 until 1993 she was a Democratic National Committee member for Oklahoma. In 1988 she participated in the presidential campaign of Democrat Michael Dukakis. In 1989 she aided Senator David Boren's senate campaign. In 1992 she served as a "Clinton/Gore Surrogate Speaker to 14.000 African-American women at Alpha Kappa Alpha convention. New Orleans, Louisiana" and also served on the "One Woman/One Vote National Women's Advisory Committee for Clinton/Gore [of] September 1992." Clearly considered a trusted aide, in 1994 Bill Clinton rewarded her by appointing her a federal judge.

Not much is known about Miles-LaGrange's specific activities in subsequent years. In 2003 she, of course, let Google off the hook in the Search King case. Possibly even more fascinating is that in November 2010 Miles-LaGrange drew a lot of attention when she, despite being voted-in by 70% of Oklahomans, "blocked an amendment to Oklahoma's state constitution that would bar the use of Islamic [Sharia] religious law in state courts..." 27 This injunction was imposed by Miles-LaGrange after she agreed with a lawsuit filed by the Jihadi-tied Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). In 2013 Miles-LaGrange made this injunction permanent, at which point CAIR was represented by lawyers of the Ford, Rockefeller and Soros-funded American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). 28 That's the same ACLU that is so closely tied to the Democrat Party and in which Miles-LaGrange's old political mentor, Hannah Atkins, has been involved in. Also not important, in her youth Miles-LaGrange studied at the University of Ghana, with Ghana being a country that consists of Muslims for 45%.

There's more. Barack Obama appears to have been quite fond of Miles-LaGrange in this period. Already before this ruling, reportedly he considered her for the Supreme Court. Also, in 2012 29 and 2015 30, Obama nominated Miles-LaGrange to serve as a trustee on the board of the Harry S. Truman Scholarship Foundation. She was never actually elected to the board, but the nominations remain signifant, mainly because the foundation's trustee president from 2003 all the way to today has been former Clinton UN ambassador and secretary of state Madeleine Albright. In fact, Albright is its long-term president. 31 Albright is a top 10 Superclass Index member involved in dozens of leading NGOs. One almost assumes that this is the level Miles-LaGrange has been receiving support from, and that she is extremely loyal to the likes of Bill Clinton, Madeleine Albright and Barack Obama. It's likely that she personally knows not just Clinton through her Democrat political activity, but also the latter two.

Finally, Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange is a trustee of the Oklahoma City Community Foundation, which receives a ton of foundation and other private financing - albeit not from (directly) from major East or West Coast superclass elements. 32 However, all of it points to Miles-LaGrange having been a key Democrat political operative in faraway Oklahoma. Who knows whom she was representing when she ruled in Google's favor in 2003.

ChinaIsEvil.com v. Google (2007): Dismissed

In reality this case is named Christopher Langdon v. Google Inc., et al. (2007). Christopher Langdon ran two political activist websites called www.NCjusticeFraud.com, founded in early 2006; and www.ChinaIsEvil.com, founded in mid 2006. With the former site, "NC" stood for "North Carolina".

Looking at these websites in WebArchive, both were extremely simplistic, both in appearance and content - and essentially were copies of each other in design. On Langdon's NCjusticeFraud.com, he describes a personal dispute with the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) that started in 1995, when the NCDOT apparently refused to built a retaining wall to contain dirt slides that could spill over onto Langdon's property. This started happening in 1997, with Langdon apparently being stonewalled by the NCDOT and the North Carolina Justice Department in trying to obtain compensation or really even have the NCDOT clean up his property and reconstruct their banks with proper engineering standards. So far, so good. But NCjusticeFraud.com didn't contain any images and wasn't written in a particularly readable style. Who knows what the truth is, but due the extensive name-dropping of Langdon, he entered a bit of a slippery slope with his website.

ChinaIsEvil.com is the odder of the two websites. At the top of the page, it read "Communist China is Evil" and "Boycott China". Its main (one of two) 2500-word article or so was entitled COMMUNIST CHINA HAS MURDERED MILLIONS-- BOYCOTT CHINA and accused China of having a history of attacking U.S. and U.N. troops in Korea and supporting the North Korean regime. It also criticized China's communist 1966-1976 "Cultural Revolution", threats towards Taiwan, and attempts at stealing America's high technology state secrets. This information actually is accurate, but Langdon strongly comes across as an unprofessional ranter. In addition, his site looked like it was 20 percent finished design-wise. It even contained "Page 4 Name", "Page 5 Name" and "Page 6 Name" auto-descriptions in its left column.

Already on its first June 15, 2006 WebArchive capture, ChinaIsEvil.com contained the link Googlegag / googlegagarchipelago.html. On it, Langdon criticized not just Google, but also Microsoft's Bing and Yahoo's search engine:

"Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo! won't allow me to advertise my websites, www.chinaisevil.com and www.ncjusticefraud.com. I first attempted to advertise www.ncjusticefraud.com with Google. That site accuses N.C. Attorney General Roy Cooper of lying to the U.S. Supreme Court and perpetrating other fraud on the Court. ... That ad was rejected, purportedly because:

"At this time, Google policy does not permit ad text that advocates against an individual, group or organization. In addition, this policy does not permit the advertisement of websites that advocate against a group protected by law."

I then submitted a milder, more neutral ad that read: "Roy Cooper-The Truth about Roy Cooper-the North Carolina Attorney General." That ad was rejected for the same specious reasons as the first ad. I am not aware of any group that is protected by law from criticism. At no time did Google allege that my ad for my website was defamatory, or, potentially defamatory. Besides, Google's Content Policy supposedly allows for the criticism of political candidates and those involved in public administration.

"Advertisements and associated websites may not promote violence or advocate against a protected group. A protected group is distinguished by their: Race or ethnic origin-Color-National Origin- Religion-Disbaility-Sex-Age-Veteran Status-Sexual Orientation/Gender identity...Ad text advocating against any organization or person (public, private or protected) is not permitted. Stating disagreement with or campaigning against a candidiate for public office, a political party, or public administration is generally permissable. The standard applies to everyone, whether we agree with their viewpoint or not."

Roy Cooper is a candidate for political office, and he and his associates are involved in public administration. I gave Cooper and his cronies an opportunity back in early Nov., 2005, to object to any of the allegations on my website before I made the general public aware of them. They did not object to my publishing them, nor did they respond in any way.

There is a great deal of inconsistency and hypocrisy in the application of Google's Content Policy. Google's Content policy requires that the ads and the associated website conform to the Content Policy. However, Google routinely allows large budget advertisers to evade the Google Content Policy. For example, if you Google Search "Impeach Bush," or, "Anti-Hillary Clinton," there are a large number of ads (sponsored links) next to the search results. One of those sites sells material that call Senators Clinton, Kenendy and Kerry, Communists. They also sell material accusing President Bush, and members of his administration, of murder, treason, election fraud, lying and of being Nazis. It seems to me that if those sites can make those statements, then I should be allowed to accuse Roy Cooper of lying to the U.S. Supreme Court. Unlike the wild charges against other politicians, my charges are specific and well supported.

One of Google's advertisers, www.cafepress.com, sells products that have the following designs:

- "ACLU-Aiding, Abetting and Defending Enemies of America Since 1920." That design has the hammer and sickle on it and it advocates against a group, contrary to Google's Content Policy.
- "Zionist/Facist/Satanist-George W. Bush" Does anyone really believe George Bush is a Satanist?

- "A Cuban I'd Like to Smoke" This design depicts Fidel Castro in a rifle's crosshairs. Theoretically, Google does not allow ads for sites that promote violence.

- "Hillary Clinton '08" with the communist flag attached. ...

- "When the revolution comes you will be the first against the wall" This design is superimposed on the hammer and sickle and advocates the violent overthrow of the U.S. government, contrary to Google's policy against advertisements for sites that promote violence.

- "Fuck the Ballot - Time to Consider the Bullet" same

- "I Slap Feminists for Fun" advocating violence against women, supposedly a protected group, according to Google's policy.

- "I Do Not Brake For Turbans" advocating violence against Muslims

- "Messianic Judaism Is A Lie" Anti-Religious

- "Jesus Loves Me Because I'm White" Anti-Black

- "Nuke Canada"

- "Nuke Mexico" ...

- "Kill 'Em All- Let Allah Sort 'Em Out" ...

"There are hundreds, perhaps thousands of more examples of violations of Google's purported Content Policy by Google advertisers.

"My China ad read: "Communist China has Murdered Millions-Boycott China-www.chinaisevil.com". Unlike other Google advertisers, my site does not promote violence. It is not against the Chinese people, it is for them. When I attempted to advertise my China site, Google never made a decision whether or not to run the ad. I waited a week and received no response, despite several requests from me. MSN never ran my ad for my China site and offered no explanation as to why. Yahoo refused to run any of my ads, purportedly because my websites aren't hosted by them. What are the real reasons that none of the Big Three would run my ads? Google claims that its results are objetcive and that it tries to represent all viewpoints in its results, even from those without financial clout.

"Playboy: "If we research a controversial topic, how can Google be certain to point us to sites that reflect both sides of an issue?

"Brin [Google co-founder]: I agree that diversity of sources is a valuable goal, and in fact the results tend to be diverse. We do simple things to increase the diversity. If you check almost any topic, you will get diverging viewpoints. We think it's good for us to encouage diverse viewpoints, and the search engines presents them. It happens naturally as a response to queries.""

Over the next few weeks, with the rejection of his ads, Langdon experienced the downranking of his site:

"After rejecting my ads, Google took my site www.ncjusticefraud.com out of its over 600 search results for Roy Cooper. Yahoo subsequently downgraded the ranking of my site. MSN ranked the site honestly, usually placing it in the top 12. Google ranked my site, www.ncjusticefraud.com, highly at first. On March 15th, 2006, my site was ranked #34 by Google when searching for "Roy Cooper." My site was ranked #16 when Google searching "Roy Cooper North Carolina Attorney General." however [sic], on March 19th, 2006, I did Google searches for "Roy Cooper," and "Roy Cooper Attorney General" and dsicovered [sic] that my site was no longer listed with Google's search results. However, when searching MSN on the same day, my site was ranked #8 when searching "Roy Cooper Attorney General." Whether Google, AOL, Microsoft and Yahoo will rank my China site fairly remains to be seen."

On May 17, 2006, Langdon sued Google, Microsoft and Yahoo!. Yahoo! caved in quickly:

"Plaintiff also alleges that Yahoo delisted his NCJustice website from its search results, but after the original complaint was filed, Yahoo reinstated the website."

The lawsuit went nowhere, however. The conclusions of the court read:

"Google and Microsoft argue that the Communications Decency Act, 47 U. S . C. § 230 (c) (2) (A), provides them immunity from suit from claims grounded upon their exercise of editorial discretion over internet content and editorial decisions regarding screening and deletion of content from their services. Google cites case law that holds Google is considered an "interactive computer service" as contemplated by § 230. ...

Section § 230 provides immunity from civil suits as follows: "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of ... any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected. ...

Google also relies upon Third Circuit precedent as set forth in Green v. American Online (AOL), 318 F.3d 465 {3d Cir. 2003). ...

Plaintiff's position that § 230 is inapplicable is not welltaken. Plaintiff argues there was no refusal to run his ads on the basis they were obscene or harassing [but] omits, however, reference to that portion of § 230 which provides immunity from suit for restricting material that is "otherwise objectionable". ...

Plaintiff has failed to state a claim that Defendants violated his First Amendment right to free speech. Defendants are private, for profit companies, not subject to constitutional free speech guarantees. ... They are internet search engines that use the internet as a medium to conduct business. Plaintiff's position that Google is a state actor because it works with state universities is specious. ... there are insufficient allegations in the Amended Complaint that "there is a sufficiently close nexus between the State and the challenged action of [Defendants] so that the action[s] of the latter may be fairly treated as that of the State itself." Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U.S. 991, 1004 (1982); see also Mark v. Borough of Hatboro, 51 F.3d 1137, 1142 (3d Cir. 1995). ... The Supreme Court has consistently held that a private shopping center is not a public forum for speech purposes. ... Private property does not "lose its private character merely because the public is generally invited to use it for designated purposes."

"The Court finds that as to Google, Plaintiff has adequately alleged a breach of contract claim. Therefore, the Court will deny Google's Motion To Dismiss this claim. [But] this case [aspect] is in its early stages...

"The Amended Complaint does not allege that the alleged acts took place in Delaware. Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for deceptive trade practices, and therefore, the Court will grant the Motions To Dismiss this claim."

In short, Google can refuse ads or ban any website if it determines that it is "otherwise objectionable". And because it is a private company, it is furthermore protected by the 1st Amendment to censor as it pleases. This is even more interesting in light of the fact that Google has been receiving criticism over the years of building censored versions of its platform for China and Pakistan. During his December 11, 2018, Sundar Pichai congressional testimony actually reluctantly admitted the scale of Google's China project, making it clear that Google had a motive for getting rid of ChinaIsEvil.com in particular:

"[Asked about a report of The Intercept on a censored internet:] We have explored what search could look like if it were to be launched in a country like China. It's what we explored. ["How many months?"] We've had the project underway for a while. And there are other projects we have undertaken for a while and were never launched. ["How many people?"] Uh, uh, the number of engineers, uh, uh, have varied over time, uh. ["Ten?"] At one point we've had over a hundred people working on it's my understanding."

It must be said though, Langdon's attempt to portray Google's action as falling under "state action" were not well thought-out. If he could have come up with evidence of collusion between Google and the Democrat Party, the situation might change in the future.

ChinaIsEvil.com v. Google (2007): Judge not too controversial

The Delaware judge who ruled the Langdon v. Google (2007) case, Joseph J. Farnan, Jr., might be the least controversial of all judges discussed here. Back in 1985, he was appointed by Ronald Reagan, with little having been written about him. About the only exception appears to be an accusation that in 1989 he helped shield Warren Buffett's Coca Cola from a lawsuit by basically not paying any interest to the case. 33 It must be said though, that Delaware isn't exactly the center of American civilization with a lot of national and international focus on it.

Kinderstart.com v. Google (2007): D-tour towards 1st Amendment dismissal

Founded in May 2000, KinderStart.com was a website focused on how to raise children. Looking at the site in the years prior to the lawsuit, its heading read "Kinderstart Search Engine: Because Kids don't come with instructions". Prominently at the top of the page a search function was provided for the entire website, and with one click a whole host of additional search engines could be selected: Altavista, Ask Jeeves, Excite, Google, HotBot, Go, Look SMart, Lycos, Netscape and Webcrawler.

According to court documents, Kinderstart reached about 10 million visitors per month in early 2005, when, on March 19, 2005, the site "suffered a cataclysmic fall of 70% or more in its monthly page views and traffic." Ad revenue fell by 80% as a result. PageRank - at that time still publicly visible - crashed to "0", went up again to "7" between April 7, 2006 and July 13, 2006, and then again crashed to "0". Whenever the site crashed to "0", Kinderstart could not be found anymore by typing in the usual search words in Google.

Kinderstart owners had not been notified of any wrongdoing and weren't aware of any wrongdoing. "Calling, e-mailing or otherwise notifying Defendant Google" turned out to be futile. Receiving any kind of report as to why Kinderstart was downranked also was not possible. Thus, Kinderstart sued Google, basically throwing the whole book at them. None of the accusations stuck and, once again, Google walked away scot-free.

One would expect the case to be pretty simple. Google suddenly and fully deranked a website it had hosted for five years, with the site also being part of its ad program. You would think that the judge would simply ask Google:

"Why did you exclude KinderStart all of a sudden? Your own guidelines say, you only do this "at the request of the webmaster [, with] spamming our index, or as required by law." Or, alternatively, when a site doesn't "conform with the quality standards to assign accurate PageRank." This last issue seems to come back to manipulative SEO practices. So, what did KinderStart do to warrant a sudden deranking? Can we resolve this?"

Google would look into its database, explain the reasons, and from there a judgement can be made whether or not it was a lawful decision to basically exclude KinderStart from the entirety of the online market. If there was an SEO problem, KinderStart can fix it, and gone is the problem - even if Google cannot be fined for whatever reason.

However, going over the Kinderstart.com v. Google court document, there's literally NONE of this sanity. Google had NO desire to budge on its decision to get rid of KinderStart. Worse, the court just went along with it. For some of the conclusions regarding monopoly-forming and political ties and such, Kinderstart basically didn't provide enough evidence, but in other instances, especially in regard to the ranking system, it really is Google and the court who twisted logic to the extreme in order to prevent Google from giving any kind of explanation - which is suspicious in and of itself. Very interesting is the fact that in this case the court didn't simply drew the First Amendment conclusion for Google, but opted to create a whole set of alternative "explanations" to help Google shield itself in future lawsuits.

Here is an (almost) full list of court decisions with regard to Kinderstart.com v. Google:

1. The First Amendment claim on the part of Google is skipped in this case, because "the Court will grant the motion to dismiss on [all] other grounds."


2. Google and the court somehow decoupled "Google's objectivity" from its "PageRank objectivity", despite the fact that PageRank is nothing more than the end result / sum of Google's ranking system - which is virtually the entirety of Google Search:
   
   
   "KinderStart also alleges that Google represents that in order to provide users with"thorough and unbiased search results," it will stop indexing pages "only at the request of the webmaster who's responsible for the pages, when it's spamming our index, or as required bylaw." SAC ¶ 151 (emphasis in original).
   [But] KinderStart does not allege that Google has made specific statements about the objectivity of its PageRank tool, other than to say that Google describes PageRank as explaining "how Google's algorithms assess the importance of the page..."
   
   Note: KinderStart may not have cited it, but already in 2000, we could read on Google's website that its PageRank system "[organizes] the Internet according to its own structure... [It] democratizes the Internet. It eliminates hierarchy."


3. KinderStart's explanation of PageRank mirrored the one given by Google itself in its earliest days:
   
   
   "KinderStart alleges that "PageRank is not a mere statement of opinion of the innate value or human appeal of a given Website," but instead is "a mathematically-generated product of measuring and assessing the quantity and depth of all the hyperlinks on the Web that tie into a PageRanked Website, under programmatic determination by Defendant Google."
   
   The court wanted nothing to do with this basic fact. Instead, it decided to turn KinderStart's own words against and took the stance that because humans built and maintain Google's ranking system, it is impossible to claim that it has to be "fair" and cannot be expected to serve as a "public forum":
   
   
   "KinderStart's allegation that PageRank is subject to "programmatic determination" actually undermines its claim that Google represents PageRank as free from human manipulation. The term "programmatic determination" necessarily implies human inputs that define the parameters of the program."


4. The only claimed/stated "objectivity" of Google PageRank, per Google, in a turned-in April 29, 2004, S-1 form, involves not allowing (secret) payment for high(er) ranking. In this form, there is no indication that Google's "objectivity" extends to the ranking of its sites based on its own liking or political bias. "[The evidence only] indicates that the objectivity to which Google refers is the absence of paid influence in its search results."
   
   From the 2018 court proceedings, we know that Google most certainly claims to be "non-partisan [with a] need to welcome viewpoints from all sides". And already in 2000, we could read on its website that its PageRank system "[organizes] the Internet according to its own structure... [It] democratizes the Internet. It eliminates hierarchy."


5. Because Google, according to the court, has not claimed that PageRank is "objective" with its ranking system (one would expect to find a hundred claims in the media to the contrary by Google's founders), apart from not allowing pay-to-rank-high-without-ad-notice schemes, it can rank any site however it pleases, when it pleases. "In fact, Google might choose to assign PageRanks randomly, whether as whole numbers or with many decimal places, but this would not create "incorrect" [read: "unlawful"] PageRanks."


6. Because Google is free to do as it pleases, it lowering the rank of a site as KinderStart, without reason or announcement, by itself, does not assign malice: "Google also asserts correctly that KinderStart fails to allege malice... because the SAC does not indicate which specific actions by Google demonstrate malice toward KinderStart [such as suddenly downranking it completely...], KinderStart has not alleged malice sufficiently."


7. Apart from that, Google is allowed to downrank any site to PageRank "0", for whatever reason, based on its explanation that sites sometimes don't "conform with the quality standards necessary to assign accurate PageRank." Skipped here is that Google, in this segment, only refers to manipulative search engine practices, although, partly conveniently but also partly understandably, "will not comment on the individual reasons a page was removed and we do not offer an exhaustive list of practices that can cause removal." 34


8. Google's PageRank information (which is representative of real world search query tests) apparently was barred from use against Google by KinderStart under "Common Interest Privilege," under Cal. Civil Code Section 47(c), because, technically, it represents information that needs to be requested from Google, and was provided "without malice, to a person interested therein." Hence, it cannot be used against it. According to the court document: "Google also asserts correctly that KinderStart fails to allege malice and that any statement by Google, even if provably false, thus is subject to California's common interest privilege and right of fair comment."


9. At one point the court seems to suggest that it is "reasonable" that a site as KinderStart can be removed at will - without explanation: "Although Google has published information about manual manipulation of search results, see SAC ¶ 153, a reasonable person could understand that such a statement is not in conflict with the limited, manual removal of what Google considers bad links, or other such practices." A reasonable person could understand that the court was highly biased.


10. Google (apparently) didn't break any of its contract agreements with KinderStart over its ad system: "Kinderstart still fails to identify specific terms of the AdSense agreement that are deceptive and does not indicate how the agreement as a whole is deceptive. ... Accordingly, KinderStart has failed to allege a deceptive business practice." I haven't read the agreement, but it is more than likely that Google allowed itself plenty of legal room for any censorship actions.


11. Any violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act was denied, because KinderStart failed to demonstrate which market Google tried to monopolize. "The alleged actions [with regard to KinderStart alone] do not demonstrate Google's intent to monopolize the SearchMarket or the Search Ad Market."


12. A violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act also was denied, because, somehow, the court didn't see how a random, unexplained, instant Google deranking can hurt a consumer such as KinderStart:
    
    
    ""Reduction of competition does not invoke the Sherman Act until it harms consumer welfare." ... This Court concludes, as it did in dismissing the FAC, see July 13th Order 12, that KinderStart still has not alleged a sufficient connection between the harms allegedly done to it by Google through PageRank and Blockage and any harm to competition or consumers."


13. Any violation of the California Business and Professions Code § 17200, which prohibits "any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising," was denied.


14. The First Amendment rights of free speech for KinderStart were not violated, because:
    
    
    "Demonstration of state action is "a necessary threshold" that a plaintiff must cross before a Court can consider whether a plaintiff's First Amendment rights have been infringed. ... A plaintiff must show that "the private parties" infringement somehow constitutes state action." A Google block does not represent "state action".
    
    In addition:
    
    
    "KinderStart has alleged no facts suggesting that a close nexus existed between Google and any state entity in the creation or execution of Google's alleged policy of favoring some websites over others in the results of a web search. ... KinderStart provides little argument or authority suggesting that the emanation of third-party speech from a search engine somehow transforms that privately-owned entity into a public forum."

In effect, the court basically drew the conclusion that Google's search algoritm and PageRank comes down to a personal preference and "free speech", and hence took a d-tour towards the First Amendment. Without a doubt, this is the most shocking aspect of the case.

Kinderstart.com v. Google (2007): judge with Clinton-Trilateral Commission mentors

Most people would probably agree that the above Kinderstart.com v. Google (2007) case represents fine evidence of corruption within California's courts. So, whose name can be found at the bottom of the court document? That would be San Diego / Silicon Valley District Court judge Jeremy Fogel.

Looking at Fogel's early biography, we find that he was educated at Stanford and Harvard. From 1978 to 1981, he was an attorney for the Mental Health Advocacy Project. He served as the organization's executive director from 1980-1981. From 1981 to 1986, he was a judge of the Municipal Court of Santa Clara County, having been appointed by Democrat California governor Jerry Brown.

Things start to get more interesting with Fogel in the 1990s. Described as a "moderate Democrat", Fogel was San Diego / Silicon Valley's District Court judge from 1998 to 2014 and had been appointed by Bill Clinton. 35 This occurred at the recommendation of Democrat Californian senator Dianne Feinstein, responsible for the appointment of many other Californian judges as well, alternating picks with Senator Barbara Boxer. 36 Before his appointment, Feinstein, by then already a Trilateral Commission member, wrote:

"Republicans and Democrats alike call Judge Fogel one of the 'rising stars' of the bench in the region, with a keen intellect and a fair judicial temperament. [He is] quite simply ... one of the best Superior Court judges in the state of California." 37

The ties of the Clintons to the liberal superclass and, earlier, the "liberal CIA" activism network through the New World Foundation, have been discussed at length on ISGP. Similar to the Clinton couple, Senator Dianne Feinstein is a major superclass member. Amongst other NGOs, she has been involved in the CFR, the Alfalfa Club, the Aspen Strategy Group, Bilderberg 1991, and was a member of the Trilateral Commission from at least 1995 to 2012. Hence, she operated very closely to the likes of David Rockefeller and friends. In addition, from 2009 to 2015 she was chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, where she served alongside and succeeded Senator Jay Rockefeller. Her husband, Richard Blum, has been involved in the Brookings Institution and Madeleine Albright's equally elite National Democratic Institute for International Affairs (NDI). Few senators can be considered as influential as Feinstein.

As for Senator Barbara Boxer, from 1994 to 2001 her daughter was married Tony Rodham, the younger brother of Hillary Clinton, with the wedding ceremony taking place at Clinton's White House. The couple had a child in 1995. [22] 38 Needless to say, there were many family weekends that both Clintons and Boxer were part of for many years. Only in the 2007-2010 period there was a chill between Boxer and Bill Clinton, after she came out in support of Barack Obama. That's a thing of the past and in 2016 Boxer was a fervent supporter of Hillary Clinton. 39

In 2018 Fogel became the first executive director of the Berkeley Judicial Institute. But who cares about that at this point?

Zhang v. Baidu (2014): dismissed by Rockefeller-Obama-tied judge

This case we can summarize quite quickly with a few citations, as it was quickly thrown out based on the 1st Amendment:

"Jesse M. Furman, District Judge: In this suit, a group of New York residents who advocate for increased democracy in China sue one of China's largest companies, Baidu, Inc. ... Plaintiffs contend that Baidu, which operates an Internet search engine akin to Google, unlawfully blocks from its search results here in the United States articles and other information concerning "the Democracy movement in China" and related topics. ...
"In short, Plaintiffs' efforts to hold Baidu accountable in a court of law for its editorial judgments about what political ideas to promote cannot be squared with the First Amendment. ... The First Amendment protects Baidu's right to advocate for systems of government other than democracy (in China or elsewhere) just as surely as it protects Plaintiffs' rights to advocate for democracy. ... The Complaint is dismissed in its entirety." 40

This case was dismissed by U.S. district court judge Jesse M. Furman, a Harvard, Oxford, Yale-educated Barack Obama appointee whose brother, Jason Furman, served as chair of the Obama's Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) 2013- and is a Senior Fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics. Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution 2006-2008 and a director of its Hamilton Project. During Obama's first term, Furman served as a Deputy Director at the White House National Economic Council to Larry Summers, a top superclass member, Bilderberg visitors ('98, '02 and '10), Trilateral Commission member, close David Rockefeller economist, and veteran of the Peterson Institute. Summers also is the mentor of Facebook's Sheryl Sandberg.

Google's use of 2003-2014 rulings as fuel

In later court cases, Google has loved to point to previous (often questionable) First Amendment dismissals as an argument for additional dismissals:

CoastNews.com v. Google (2014, 2017): Dismissed

According to the complaint of CoastNews.com owner Dr. S. Louis Martin:

"First, Google returns biased search results that favor its own paid advertisers and Google-owned companies. The FTC confirmed this in a January 2013 ruling. The EU has recently confirmed this as well, and the UK is now taking up the issue. While this may not financially impact each and every website, it does impact most; and it definitely impacts a website like CoastNews.com, which includes a restaurant guide among other sections. When you search on Google, Bing, and Yahoo, please see the results of a search for these keywords: "San Francisco restaurant guide North Beach". Google does not show CoastNews.com at all; Bing shows CoastNews.com as #1 out of some 32 million (the top position), and Yahoo shows CoastNews.com as #1 as well. ...

"Take a look at the search results produced by Google. In #1 position it shows the home page of North Beach Restaurant. This is an unmarked advertisment. North Beach Restaurant is not a restaurant guide. ...

"CoastNews North Beach Restaurant Guide: It is a real restaurant guide with photos and lots of information on the best restaurants in North Beach. Clearly, the search results returned from Google are fraudulent. They are based on money and not quality. Try the same search with "Chinatown" or "Nob Hill" substituted for "North Beach". The results are much the same. Bing and Yahoo give CoastNews.com top ratings; CoastNews.com does not appear on Google. The above makes it impossible for CoastNews.com to compete against Google properties and advertisers, as Google absolutely dominates the search business. ...

"Biased search results violate fundamental expectations of fairness and honesty. It is as if a calculator, asked for the sum of 2 + 2, says the answer is 5. The user, feeling that something is wrong, might say, "I think there is problem here." Google's replay would be, "Well, the number 5 paid us to say it; get used to it." ...

"AdWords and AdSense are the only games in town. There are simply no viable alternatives for buying or selling advertising on the Internet. And Google has made quite sure of this. Part of the AdWords and AdSense contracts stipulates that buyers and sellers will do business with no other entity than Google. If a company or business is detected by the Google "cop" buying advertising space or selling it to anyone or thing other than Google, that company or individual will be cut off. ...

"Second, on 2 May 2013 Google ceased delivering ads to CoastNews.com... Google falsely charged CoastNews.com with being a "pornography" web site. ... Google cited an article on a popular nudist colony in the Santa Cruz mountains, giving us three days to remove the article or the ad code from the page. (The ad code allows Google to deliver ads to a page.) Reluctantly, we removed the ad code but were then told that there could be other, though unspecified, problems on CoastNews.com pages. ... As CoastNews.com contains no pornographic material, this is an unreasonable demand; and the implication that such words as "sex" or "escort" automatically imply pornographic or adult content is childish... This is a software problem, not a content problem. Such concerns place an unfair burden upon working writers trying to make a living...

"One might fairly ask: Why does Google refuse to remove its pornography web sites? Simply money. They used to run ads on those sites, but due to complaints about directly profiting from pornography, Google removed the ads but did not remove the sites themselves. Why? Because if they removed the sites, then customers might leave the Google Search site for other, non-Google search engines. ...

"It may also be the case that Google has chosen this course of action—accusing CoastNews.com of pornography—simply as an excuse to get CoastNews.com out of its restaurant revenue space, which is now very lucrative." ...

"But the damage to CoastNews.com goes even deeper. The result of Google discontinuing ad delivery to CoastNews.com pages has left gaping holes on those pages. ... Three-days notice of a shutdown of ad delivery is nothing other than wanton destruction. If they do not resume ad delivery—and it appears they have no intention of doing so—it will take months to weed Google ad code out of CoastNews.com pages and restore their appearance. ...

"In summary, Google has clearly violated antitrust law, both (1) harming the consumer by providing false search results that are paid for by advertisers, or by providing search results totally in favor of their own properties; and (2) making small business competitors invisible and thus incapable of doing business on the Internet.

"Furthermore, Google has engaged in egregiously deceptive business practice by classifying CoastNews.com a pornography website, which it clearly is not, when, ironically, Google is the largest pornography site in the world [meaning: it doesn't ban pornography as a whole, likely to prevent it from losing market share]. Additionally, Google has wantonly destroyed the website of a competitor by withholding the display of advertising that it has delivered for over eight years. These charges are clear, obvious, and irrefutable upon the smallest amount of testing; and a heinous violation of business law. Moreover, refusal by the court to take action simply implies complicity." 41

A lot of the claims of Langdon here are hard to prove, but one would think the Justice Department would assign a little police investigation to dig up some facts. Even more so because Langdon claimed that Google broke into his Gmail account to remove a potentially harmful Adsense correspondence. But no, none of that. Judge Ernest H. Goldsmith promptly dismissed the case in November 2014 over 1st Amendment protections:

"[Google] has met its burden of showing that the claims asserted against it arise from constitutionally protected activity... [Coast News] produced no evidence supporting a probability of success. The Plaintiff's complaint shall be stricken without leave to amend."

Langdon subsequently complained about "bias" of the court, but his case against Google was thrown out again in June 2015 by judge Joseph H. Quinn. 42 And that's all she wrote.

CoastNews.com v. Google (2014, 2017): neocon superclass links and "fast-tracked" gay Democrat judges

The judge who dismissed CoastNews's case against Google over 1st Amendment protections is San Francisco Superior Court judge Ernest H. Goldsmith. He served in this position from 1997 to 2016. Not much is known about Goldsmith, but he was appointed by Pete Wilson, California's Republican governor from 1991 to 1999. We do know a lot about Wilson.

Wilson may have been known as an anti-immigration candidate in the 1990s and these days Republicans might be seen as the enemies of Google, but... a little looking around makes it clear that Wilson is just the usual pro-establishment Republican. From May 1999, immediately after stepping down as California governor, Wilson was appointed as "distinguished visiting fellow" at the "conservative CIA"-funded Hoover Institution. Right-wing Rockefeller elitist George Shultz, with whom Wilson seems to be particularly close, has been its most prominently listed fellow for decades, with board members in this period including conservative CIA elitist William Buckley Jr., conservative CIA-tied financier Richard Mellon Scaife, Knight of Malta William Simon, Stephen Bechtel Jr., and future secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld. Henry Kissinger joined Hoover as a fellow in 2013.

Appointed by George W. Bush, Wilson served on the elite President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board in 2001-2003, once also the home of Henry Kissinger. In November 2001, in the wake of 9/11, secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld appointed Wilson and George Shultz to the board of the strongly neocon Defense Policy Board, along with 6 more Hoover Institution fellows. 43 At the time it was headed by Richard Perle, with Henry Kissinger once again serving on this body. In 2003, Wilson and Shultz were both leading lights in Arnold Schwarzenegger's gubernatorial campaign, along with Warren Buffett (and Lord Jacob Rothschild more in the background). 44 In 2010 Pete Wilson was spotted at George Shultz's birthday party, along with top superclass members Condoleezza Rice (Shultz's key protege), Henry Kissinger, Donald Rumsfeld, William Perry and Sam Nunn. 45

The judge who shot down CoastNews' appeal in June 2015 was Joseph M. Quinn. In his case, he was appointed to his superior court position in 2015 by Jerry Brown 46, Democrat governor of California from 1975-1983 and from 2011-2019. Brown has a history with "liberal CIA" psychedelics guru Timothy Leary. As for Quinn, he is a "recipient of the Crusader Award from the California Alliance for Pride and Equality" and is "married to James M. Humes, the presiding justice of Division One of the First District Court of Appeal." 47 Unsurprisingly, "Quinn is registered as a Democrat." 48 So Quinn is gay, he's a Democrat, has been appointed to the court by a major Democrat - and he happens to be doing Google's bidding.

As for Quinn's husband, Jim Humes, this judge too was appointed to the court by Governor Jerry Brown, with accusations that Brown "fast-tracked" him - without enough proper experience - due to a personal relationship. 49 He's actually a major protege of Brown, to whom he used to serve as executive secretary and chief deputy. 50

e-ventures v. Google (2017): dismissed for good reason

In this case Google simply de-indexed a website about even its "own consultant told e-ventures that its websites were spam and 'way out of bounds.'" In this case once again the 1st Amendment was used to set Google free. 51

PragerU v. YouTube and Google (2018): dismissed by Obama/superclass-tied judge

PragerU, a conservative content creator, sued Google for demonitizing PragerU's conservative content on YouTube, arguing that Google and YouTube serve as a "public forum" and also that YouTube really is a "state actor", this in an effort to (finally) get around the 1st Amendment protection. The case was dismissed by Californian judge Lucy Koh, who, as usual, ruled that YouTube was a private actor and therefore enjoyed 1st Amendment rights:

"Plaintiff has not shown that Defendants have engaged in one of the "very few" public functions that were traditionally "exclusively reserved to the State." Defendants do not appear to be at all like, for example, a private corporation that governs and operates all municipal functions for an entire town, or one that has been given control over a previously public sidewalk or park, or one that has effectively been delegated the task of holding and administering public elections. Instead, Defendants are private entities who created their own video-sharing social media website and make decisions about whether and how to regulate content that has been uploaded on that website. The Court likewise declines to find that Defendants in the instant case are state actors that must regulate the content on their privately created website in accordance with the strictures of the First Amendment." 52

During the ruling, Koh referred to various previous cases that are also discussed here, most notable Langdon v. Google and Kinderstart v. Google, with the latter in particular having had a very questionable judge.

Once again, here is where it gets interesting: Koh, educated at Harvard and formerly a lawyer in Silicon Valley, was appointed a federal judge in 2010 by President Obama at the recommendation of Democrat Californian senators Dianne Feinstein, the long-time Trilateral Commission member and past Bilderberg visitor; and former Hillary Clinton in-law Barbara Boxer. 53 Similar to the judge who dismissed Search King v. Google (2003), Koh happens to have an activist background. At Harvard she was part of an activist group that organized sit-ins in front of the dean's office, protest rallies against Nobel prize-winning professors who apparently weren't too women-friendly, and even filed a lawsuit against the university as a whole for "hiring practices [that] discriminated against women and minorities". 54

Koh's husband, the Stanford-, Yale- and Harvard-educated Mariano-Florentino Cuellar 55, citing from his CV, was part of the "Obama-Biden Transition Project [from] August 2008 - February 2009" and specifically "Co-Chair, Immigration Policy Working Group", followed by the position of "Special Assistant to the President for Justice and Regulatory Policy [at the] White House, Domestic Policy Council ... from March 2009 to July 2010." Under "Earlier Positions" we find plenty of additional interesting background of Cueller: 1) "Legal Intern (Whitewater...) [for] Hon. Senator Barbara Boxer [from] May 1994 - July 1994." Coincidentally, from 1994 tio 2001 Boxer's daughter was married to Tony Rodham, the younger brother of Hillary Clinton - and two decades later Boxer helped select Cueller's wife being appointed a federal jusge. 2) "Intern [at the] White House Domestic Policy Council [from] July 1994 - September 1994." Thus from a leading Clinton in-law a young Cueller moved to the Clinton White House. 3) "Research Staff Intern [at the] Council of Economic Advisers, Executive Office of the President [Clinton] May 1996 - September 1996."

Cueller ended up being elected to the board of the Harvard Corporation, one of Harvard's overseeing boards; and becoming a leading professor at Stanford, serving, among other positions, on the executive committee of its Center for International Security and Cooperation and as a director of its elite Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies (FSI). He started at the latter institute as a senior fellow from 2011 to 2015, right after leaving the Obama administration. In 2013-2015 he doubled as a director of Freeman Spogli. This institute is particularly relevant, because until at least late 2007, the Freeman Spogli Institute had an international advisory council that looked like a miniature Bilderberg on the West Coast. Key David Rockefeller friends as Paul Volcker, George Shultz and John Whitehead all were situated on it, as were Stephen Bechtel, Jr., Bilderberg's Thierry de Montbrial and others. 56 Future Obama national security advisor Susan Rice, a key protege of top superclass member Madeleine Albright, served on the regular advisory board of Freeman Spogli in the 2000s 57, all indicating just what a crucial superclass institute this has been. The Bechtel, BP, Gates and MacArthur foundations have been the biggest donors to the institute over the years.

Can anybody say, "conflict of interest?" with the ruling of PragerU v. Google and YouTube (2018)? Ironically, soon after the case against YouTube was thrown out, a Facebook staffer, based on countless "liberal CIA"-sponsored "flags", "accidentally" delisted PragerU from the social media platform, decreasing its exposure by 99.999%. After complaints, this time PragerU's status was restored, with the employee in question being "re-trained" on Facebook's guidelines. 58

Google v. Equustek

Later.

James Damore, et. al. v. Google (2018)

On August 4, 2017, after tweets of about 8 Google employees (most likely very critical), the international media began exploding about an internal Google memo titled Google's Ideological Echo Chamber, written by a Google engineer named James Damore after he attended a Silicon Valley-sponsored "Diversity and Inclusion Summit".

In the memo, Damore criticized Google's increasingly severe policy of hiring, mentoring and promoting women and Third World ethnic minorities (blacks, Latinos, etc.), to the point of lowering recruitment standards, actively discriminating against white and Asian employees (real Asians: not Arabs, which the media often also regards as "Asian") and "teaching" all employees about "implicit bias", while restricting a variety of courses to just women and minorities (increasing the chance of them being used to radicalize).

What triggered women and the media in particular is that Damore discussed evidence that women are more agreeable, neurotic and socially (rather than materialistically) oriented than men, which was Damore's attempt at finding an explanation for the relatively low number of women in tech. By August 5, Gizmodo.com, had obtained the full memo, but declined to put in references to the sources linked to by Damore, significantly limiting the importance of the memo. Even in days after, media weren't particularly interested in getting to the bottom of the sources provided. On August 7, 2017, CNBC, for example, extensively cited from the document, but refused to put the sources in, despite already having access to them, and disparaged them for the most part by implying as much as possible Damore got his information from "Wikipedia" and "Wordpress blogs":

"(The original memo reportedly uses sources from Wikipedia to The Estonian Centre for Behavioural and Health Sciences to WordPress blogs to The Atlantic and The Wall Street Journal.)" 59

As a result of the controversy, Google fired Damore, with Google CEO Sundar Pichai writing in an internal email:

"The memo has clearly impacted our co-workers, some of whom are hurting and feel judged based on their gender [over] being "agreeable" rather than "assertive," showing a "lower stress tolerance," or being "neurotic." .... To suggest a group of our colleagues have traits that make them less biologically suited to that work is offensive and not OK. ...

"The past few days have been very difficult for many at the company, and we need to find a way to debate issues on which we might disagree—while doing so in line with our Code of Conduct." 60

Damore sued, which became public in January 2018. 61 To represent him against the US National Labor Relations Board and Google, Damore hired attorney Harmeet Dhillon. She is not just anyone. She is a former vice chair of the California Republican Party and the National Committeewoman of the Republican National Committee for California - who, in early 2017, tried to become Trump's Assistant Attorney General of Civil Rights. Somehow, Dhillon also used to be a board member of the "liberal CIA"-funded ACLU of Northern California. 62

The case made the international news on January 8, 2018, with another former Google employee, David Gudeman, having joined the lawsuit. Several others joined the lawsuit over 2018, with all of them claiming:

"Google [is] rejecting applicants who are, or who appear to be, conservative, white/Caucasian, Asian, or male, particularly where those applicants might speak out against Google's unlawful employment practices.

"Google also employs illegal hiring quotas to fill its desired percentages of women and racially-favored [non-Asian] minority candidates and openly shames managers of business units who fail to meet their quotas—in the process, denigrating employees who are, or are perceived to be, male and/or a member of a Google-disfavored race. Google created an environment of protecting employees who harassed individuals who spoke out against Google's intolerant viewpoint."

Damore didn't have much luck with US National Labor Relations Board. California labor laws don't allow the dismissal of employees simply based on their personal opinions or for trying to address company policy, even less so in a company that actually pretends to foster "debate" within its ranks 63, but in February 2018 the US National Labor Relations Board threw out the complaint, because "the statements regarding biological differences between the sexes were so harmful, discriminatory, and disruptive as to be unprotected." 64 That's pretty crazy, because Damore provided respectable scientific sources on the statements he made in this regard. They might actually be studies for inclusion in ISGP's "Liberal CIA": Globalist Feminism oversight and article.

The case against Google dragged on for longer. In June 2019, a (Democrat) judge ruled that Google was unable to dismiss the lawsuit with its argument that a class of conservatives to discriminate against cannot be defined (once again, talk about manipulation). 65 We'll see where this case goes, but the big question is whether or not this is another left-versus-right conflict that in the end will never solve anything. After all:

• Damore has a lot of libertarian ideas and in his paper asks for their inclusion.
• Damore is a coding-, chess- and gaming-genious of the highest order, educated at Princeton, MIT and Harvard. Quite possibly more than just Google have taken an interest in him.
• The case's attorney is/was a high-ranking Californian Republican who almost entered the Trump administration and served for three years on the board of California's ACLU.
• Damore received attention from the media... massive amounts actually... with his memo in the end only serving to put society as a whole on "social justice awareness". Whatever you give attention to, grows.

Tim Chevalier v. Google (2018)

In February 2018, a month after James Damore prominently sued Google over its extremist antifa/globalist-type recruitment and promotion policies in favor of minorities and women, a decent number of major publications - such as Business Insider, The Guardian, The Verge, CNET and Wired - reported that a software engineer with the name Tim Chevalier was sueing his former employer, Google, as well for firing him and not doing enough to combat racism against, and harassment of, minority employees of the company. What?! Yes, really.

This lawsuit too presents us an insightful picture of what Google's internal work culture was like, certainly pre-2018. Tim Chevalier worked for Google as "Site Reliability Engineer" in the December 2015 - November 2017 period, until he was fired, basically for being an incredibly pain in the ass to everyone around him. From Chevalier's court complaint we can get a good sense of what a party this guy is to be around:

"Throughout his life, Chevalier has engaged in political activism, advocating for civil rights for transgender people, women, disabled people, and racial and sexual minorities. When he became a Googler, he continued to engage in political activism, by participating in protests, signing petitions, and engaging in political discourse with his coworkers. ... In contrast to most Googlers, Chevalier identifies as disabled, queer, and transgender. ... His sex was identified as female at birth, and he transitioned in 2007. ...

"In 2015—the year Google hired Chevalier—Google had a homogeneous workforce, overwhelmingly composed of white, cisgender [meaning: heterosexual] men. Specifically, the technical workforce was 82% men, and its ethnic breakdown was 59% White, 35% Asian, and 6% Black, Hispanic, Native American, Pacific Islander, or multi-racial. ...

"On Google's social forums, Googlers openly questioned the engineering and leadership competence of racial minorities and women. For example, in May 2016, one Googler posted this question to Dory: "if we have fewer Black and Latino people here, doesn't that mean they're not as good?" Other Googlers suggested that by encouraging the hiring of underrepresented minorities, Google was lowering the qualifications to work at Google.

"In December 2016, he wrote a Google+ post warning that Googlers were leaking intra-Google communications to alt-right and white supremacist websites... In June of 2016, Chevalier reported to Human Resources that fellow Googler Manual Amador posted a link on Dory to a website hosting an online harassment campaign that targeted Chevalier for being transgender. ... Additionally, Chevalier objected to linguistic techniques frequently used to silence speakers with minority viewpoints. ...

"In this email, Chevalier linked to a blog post in which he claimed that society teaches "white boys" to expect privilege and to feel threatened when they do not receive it. ...

"Chevalier's supervisors discouraged Chevalier from organizing and participating in events like Transconf, a business conference for transgender Googlers...

"Ultimately, Google fired Chevalier. Human Resources explicitly told Chevalier that Google was ending his employment because of his political statements in opposition to the discrimination, harassment, and white supremacy he saw being expressed on Google's internal messaging systems."

What can we say? Working at Google is like residing in an insane asylum. It's leadership is solidly globalist and it's likely that many of its employees are both "liberal CIA"/antifa (such as Tim Chevalier) and otherwise "conservative CIA". It's a total freakshow. Chevalier getting fired here only shows that he's so extreme that it actually undermines the efficiency of the company. The case could also have been launched in an effort to hide that Google is solidly globalist. After, Chevalier's firing and lawsuit followed right in the tracks of the case of James Davore, which can, down the line, present a real, costly, and even existential issue to Google.

Knight Institute v. Trump over Twitter bans (2019)

In July 2019 it was widely reported in the international news that Trump lost a lawsuit, forcing him to unblock everyone he had previously blocked on Twitter. The reason? Judge Barrington D. Parker, Jr. ruled that Trump's Twitter account is a "public forum and that the exclusion from that space [by a government official as Trump] was unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination". 66

This was an ongoing case by that time, with U.S. District Court Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald already in May 2018 ruling "that parts of Trump's Twitter account is properly thought of as a "public forum" from which users may not be excluded on the basis of their views. [Thus] blocking of the plaintiffs based on their political speech constitutes viewpoint discrimination that violates the First Amendment". 67

Fact is, these rulings are quite realistic. Trump is president, a public official, and uses his Twitter as a way to communicate federal policy. Twitter users should be able to comment on them as they see fit, at least as long as they reflect political opinion. This ruling does not take all the facts into account though. Fact is that Trump's Twitter feed has been completely taken over by paid "liberal CIA" trolls. Earlier ISGP mentioned the Krassenstein brothers, Twitter trolls blocked by Trump for doing nothing else than spending day and night irrationally attacking him. Subsequently an undercover video was leaked, in which Brian Krassenstein could be heard saying:

"The resistance is a really good group of people. [But] of course, higher-ups pay us. Yeah, people pay us. They want us to help sow the division and to take over Trump's Twitter feed. ... They don't want Trump supporters to be seen in that."

This is a bigger issue than the court had to deal with though. The fault here lies with Trump and Twitter. Twitter, a Sun Valley / Silicon Valley giant, for not banning rather obvious political troll accounts. And Trump for using a platform controlled by his political enemy (Twitter) for official policy - and even to retweet conservative conspiracy disinformation trolls. He could just use a personal website or no-comment blog to make his opinions and decisions known the public. Then again, Trump is considered "conservative CIA" by ISGP, so his behavior really isn't that much of a surprise.

Fascinating again with this case is the "controlled opposition" aspects. There's nothing "independent" about this lawsuit, at any stage, with any party: plaintiffs, defendants, or judges. Those representing the "victims" were individuals from the Knight Foundation-financed Knight First Amendment Institute and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, both already discussed as being "liberal CIA"-funded and -staffed NGOs, which on previous occasions have defended Google's First Amendment rights. Then, the "victims", themselves were little more than hardcore and generally very, very nasty anti-Trump trolls. The biographies of these "victims" are as follows:

• Rebecca Buckwalter-Poza: Harvard-educated LGBTQ feminist. 2010-2011 [Henry] Luce scholar at the elite and "liberal CIA"-funded Asia Foundation. asiafoundation.org/people/rebecca-buckwalter-poza/ (accessed: July 10, 2019): "Deputy National Press Secretary of the Democratic National Committee during the 2008 election. Previously, Rebecca served as Director of Special Projects at Progressive Accountability, a project of the [Soros-funded, John Podesta-ran and Lynn Forester de Rothschild and Hillary Clinton-tied] Center for American Progress and Media Matters, and in the Office of James Carville."


• Holly Figueroa O'Reilly: Founder and CEO of Bluewavecrowdsource.com, a Democrat fundraiser and activism group, who writes for the Washington Post and The Guardian.


• Philip Cohen: Orthodox Jewish-looking sociology professor at the University of Maryland who has written about gender equality and racism. June 3, 2017 tweet: "Hitler 1942. Trump last Thursday." June 6, 2017 tweet: "Well now Trump blocked me..." July 17, 2018 tweet: "Putin to Trump: Pee tape Trump to GOP: Kavanaugh GOP to Americans: Hate, fear, racism Your turn, Americans..." September 3, 2018 tweet: "Donald Trump is such a disgrace. A stain on the whole human race. He sold out to Putin." December 18, 2018 tweet: "Trump is a Russian troll who dresses like a slumlord and acts like a mobster. His corrupt, incompetent, authoritarian presidency is a stain on humanity."


• Brandon Neely: Former Guantanamo Bay camp guard who later complained about abuses. President of the Houston chapter of Iraq Veterans Against the War, but in 2008 he decided it had become too anti-American. July 26, 2017 tweet of Neely: "What do a thong and Donald Trump's toupee have in common? They both barely cover an asshole."


• Joseph M. Papp: University of Carnegie Mellon Pittsburg and Carnegie Mellon graduate who was interviewed for aa position in the CIA's Directorate of Operation in 2000. In 2001 he returned to professional cycling, but in 2011 was banned for 8 years from the sport after having been caught doping a second time. Joined the lawsuit at a later stage.

Clearly Trump should be able to block this level of abuse. And if he can't, Twitter, at that point still in pre-Elon Musk and thus "lefty" hands, should have been doing a 1,000x better job of regulating. At the same time the FBI should be investigating all the troll accounts and the persons behind them.

Knight Institute v. Trump: Democrat and Bush-CIA-tied judges

Looking at Barrington D. Parker, Jr., the judge who ruled that Trump cannot block anyone on Twitter, we find an anomaly. Educated at Yale, he was appointed to the New York District Court in 1994 by Bill Clinton. Then, in 2001, George Bush appointed Parker, Jr. to the Second Circuit. Hence, he was supported by both a Democratic and neocon Republican president. It was unusual enough to raise a few eyebrows among judicial experts, but, looking deeper along potential conspiracy lines, we find that Barrington D. Parker, the father of Jr. and another leading judge, used to be known as "the CIA judge" who protected George H. W. Bush's shady affairs from coming out in court.

Without going into too much detail, here is an excerpt from the 2008 book American Civilian Counter-terrorist Manual, p. 299, which in turn cites from a number of older sources. The small details here really don't matter; just that there is something very odd and very CIA- and Bush-friendly about the Parker family. Once again it hints at just how controlled the Judiciary is.

"Parker, a Republican appointed to the federal bench by President Nixon, was a man with an established reputation for politically partisan decisions and notable reversals on appeal. ... More importantly, not for nothing did Parker achieve notoriety as 'the CIA's judge'. Orlando Leletier, an influential opponent of the Pinochet dictatorship in Chile, was assassinated in 1976 in ... our national capital [D.C.]. The judge at the trial was Barrington D. Parker. Director of Central Intelligence was George Bush, father of George W. Bush. Judge Parker refused to allow the defense to present any testimony concerning the widely suspected involvement of CIA. ...

"Parker came through again in 1977 when a former director of CIA, Richard Helms, pleaded no contest to charges of lying to Senate Foreign Relations Committee when he testified CIA had not covertly supplied money to opponents of Salvadore Allende in a secret effort to block his election as president of Chile. Judge Parker gave Helms a suspended two-year sentence and a $2,000 fine. ...

"And how did Barrington D. Carter become the judge for Hinckley's trial? 'In another sharp diversion from regular courthouse procedure,' as the Washington Post flatly reported, Parker's name was secretly selected from a stack of cards that bore the names of 14 federal judges available. 'That selection process normally is carried out by a court clerk,' the Post continued, but this time the selection was made in private chambers of the senior judge,' Blumberg said. ...

"The Bush and Hinckley families go back to the 1960s in Texas. When the Hinckley oil company, Vanderbilt Oil, started to fail in the 1960s, Bush Sr.'s Zapata Oil financially bailed out Hinckley's company. ... Scott Hinckley, John's [the assassin's] brother, was scheduled to have dinner at the Denver home of Neil Bush, Bush, Sr.'s, son, the current president's brother, the day after the shooting."

Apart from Barrington Parker, Jr. in July 2019, already in May 2018 U.S. District Court Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald ruled "that parts of Trump's Twitter account is properly thought of as a "public forum" from which users may not be excluded on the basis of their views." It's a mind-trip, isn't it? Twitter, and its millions of Twitter accounts, is a "public forum", but Google, overseeing millions of websites, is not considered a public forum by this same Judiciary...

Needless to say, Judge Buchwald was not independent either. A quick check reveals Buchwald was elected to the District Court by Bill Clinton in 1999 and that her son, David Buchwald, is a Harvard-educated Democratic member of the New York State Assembly, who in May 2019 sponsored a bill to "release ... Trump's state tax returns". [xx - May 22, 2019, Huffington Post, 'New York Assembly Votes To Allow Release Of Trump's State Tax Returns']

GOOGLE ELITE-TIED HISTORY

Google's earliest history: seed funding and oversight at Stanford from NSA, CIA, MITRE, NASA, DARPA, NSF; Sun Microsystems founders the next investors

What might be important to discuss is just how much Google has always been an establishment company, since even before it was founded. Facebook, Instagram and Whatsapp have their own early elite history running through Mark Zuckeberg, who went to the most elite prep school in the U.S., then Harvard, only to be seed-financed by the national security-tied billionare Peter Thiel, eventually a steering committee member of Bilderberg alongside Google's Eric Schmidt

Let's put everything into a timeline for Google:

1993: Sergey Brin graduates with a B.S. in mathematics and computer science from the University of Maryland in Washington, D.C., which is also where his father was employed as a mathematics professor after the family's emigration from the Soviet Union. Various departments of the University of Maryland have deep ties to the NSA 68, with the university, in the 1990s, also being the "the CIA’s most productive recruiting ground." 69

1993: Sergey Brin enters Stanford University to get his master and eventually Ph.D. in computer sciences. Professor Hector Garcia-Molina is the advisor to Brin at Stanford's computer science department from 1993 to 1997. At some point, during his persuit at Stanford of his MA or Ph.D., Brin is sponsored through a National Science Foundation Graduate Fellowship.

1994: Hector Garcia-Molina, Sergey's advisor, is among the first of six awardees of the Digital Library Initiative (DLI) 70, a joint project founded in 1994 as joint collaboration of the National Science Foundation, NASA and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). 71

1995: Brin already is enjoying a National Science Foundation Graduate Fellowship, on top of being part of the Digital Library Initiative (DLI). This also is the year that Page graduates with a BS in Computer Engineering at the University of Michigan Ann Arbor. Page's father was computer science professor at Michigan State University. His mother was a programmer as well.

Summer 1995: Larry Page and Sergey Brin first meet each other, when Brin volunteers to give a group of new students, including Page, a tour around campus and San Francisco. Professor Terry Winograd becomes Page's MA/Ph.D. advisor in 1995. The National Science Foundation claims that both professors Garcia-Molina and Winograd already were awarded the first DLI grants in 1994. 72 True or both, both Brin and Page's Stanford advisors were funded through DLI.

1996: Larry Page starts BackRub, the first incarnation of Google. He also is the first to develop his Pagerank system, in which webpages/sites receive ranking based on the number and authority of other pages/websites linking to them. Brin soon joins the BackRub and Pagerank program. By now both, includimng their advisors, are part of the Digital Library Initiative (DLI).

1996-1998: Through Stanford professor Jeffrey Ullman , Page and Brin also receive "seed-funding" through the "Intelligence Community"'s "Massive Digital Data Systems" (MDDS) program 73, overseen by Hal Curran and Dr. Claudia Pierre of the NSA, Robert Kluttz of the CIA's Community Management Staff (CMS), Dr. Rick Steinheiser of the CIA's Office of Research and Development (ORD) and MITRE's Dr. Bhavani Thuraisingham. 74

Jan. 1997: Sergey and Brin have developed their PageRank search system in 1996 and now are looking to sell the technology to existing search engines for $1.6 million. Only Excite seems interested, and only its key investor, Vinod Khosla 75, a long-time partner of earliest Google investor Andy Bechtolsheim in Sun Microsystems. However, Excite’s CEO George Bell is not interested, even when the deal is potentially talked down to "between $250,000 to $500,000 and 1% of Excite", because "Larry Page insisted that we have to rip out all of the Excite search technology and replace it with Google". 76 Page and Brin, in their turn, later explain that it didn't make much sense for them to work for a company that didn't believe in their search technology, and that no one was interested in paying anything close to the $1.6 they apparently really insisted on. 77

Countless sources copy-paste that the attempted sale took place in January 1999 - even Wikipedia anno 2024. However, Brin and Page agreed with Khosla in 2014 that it occurred in 1997. 78 1997 also fits with what Brin explained in the same conversation, that they were just four students looking to sell at the time "this technology that we called PageRank [which] by itself, wasn't really a complete search engine." By late 1998 Google was a full-blown search engine, with the first reviews being written about it, and a major Khosla-tied investor involved from Sun Microsystems.

April 1998: Larry Page and Sergey Brin publish their paper 'The Anatomy of a Large-Scale Hypertextual Web Search Engine'. 79

August 1998: Andy Bechtolsheim meets Brin and Page on the front porch of his business partner David Cheriton, outside Stanford University. Both Bechtolsheim and Cheriton become the first investors in Google. Bechtolsheim was a 1975 Fulbright scholar, ran his DARPA-co-funded SUN workstation project at Stanford from 1980, and founded Sun Microsystems in 1982 with Bill Joy (Davos 2003) - another key computer genius at Stanford. In 1995 Bechtolsheim and Cheriton co-founded their Granite Systems, focused on gigabit ethernet, that was bought by Cisco for $220 million in 1996. Both Bechtolsheim and Cheriton become billionaires in later years.

September 1998: Serge Brin provides a last project update to the CIA's Dr. Rick Steinheiser and MITRE's Dr. Bhavani Thuraisingham, who have been visiting Stanford University every three months to keep track of the Ullman-Page-Brin project that they are funding through the MDDS. As recounted by Thuraisingham, "In September 1998, Mr. Brin demonstrated to us his search engine which I believe became Google soon after." 80

September 4, 1998: Google is formally incorporated in the garage of Susan Wojcicki. Brin would marry Susan's sister, Anna, in 2007. The couple separated again in 2013 and divorced in 2015.

Dec. 1998: Salon.com praises Google as having better search engine results and looking much better than competitors and portal sites as Yahoo!, Lycos, MSN, Disney's Go.com, Excite, Lycos, Netscape’s Netcenter, AOL.com, etc. 81 Brin is cited as saying that Google is hard to trick, because "You have to actually convince someone who’s important that you’re important." 82 At this point it only has 10,000 searches per day. 83

Feb. 22, 1999: The Washington Post discusses Google, in which Brin is quoted as saying, "A page is important if lots of pages point to it or if important pages point to it." It compares it to directhit.com, which "determines relevancy and ranking based on which Web addresses previous searchers have selected from search result lists and how much time they spent looking at the selected pages." 84

June 7, 1999: Through the connections of earliest Google investor Andy Bechtolsheim of Sun Microsystems, Google is able to announce a $25 million financing deal led by venture capital firms Kleiner Perkins and Sequoia Capital. 85 John Doerr, who invests $12.5 million at this point (famously worth billions in the future), has been with Kleiner Perkins since 1980 and funded the creation of Sun Microsystems of Andy Bechtolsheim, Vinod Khosla and Bill Joy in 1982. 86 Also in 1999 John Doerr represents Kleiner Perkins' investment in Google. 87 Doerr as been an advisor to Google since earlier in 1999 and joins the board of directors at this point. 88 He would remain on Google and Alphabet's board of directors until at least the 2020s. In addition, Doerr has been an invester in Amazon in 1995 and a director from 1996. He will be forced to reign from Amazon over a conflict of interest in 2010. 89 By the mid 2000s Doerr would also become a globalist of some visibility. Vinod Khosla and Bill Joy both join Kleiner Perkins as well at different times.

Oct. 6, 1999: The New York Times writes, "Google is as plain and non-commercial as it gets" and cites a leading search authority as saying that Google is "so much more effective than its competitors that I'd tolerate a lot of e-commerce junk [on the site]." Daily searches have increased since December 1998 from 10,000 a day to 4 million a day. At the time Google's profit model at this point is licensing its search engine to other companies. Redhat and Netscape already are paying customers. 90

Nov. 4, 1999: The Washington Post does an interview with Sergey Brin. 91

2000-: Google has become mainstream: Davos, Bilderberg, Trilateral Commission, etc.

1999-2001: John Doerr of key Google investor Kleiner Perkins, and the former key financier of Sun Microsystems, is introducing Sergey Brin and Larry Page to a variety of Silicon Valley executives, from Microsoft's Bill Gates to Apple's Steve Jobs, in part to try and convince the duo of picking a veteran executive to head their company. 92

August 2001 - April 2011: Eric Schmidt, yet another old veteran of Sun Microsystems 93 from the 1980s, replaces Larry Page as CEO of Google. Full career at Google: CEO Aug. 2001 - April 2011, executive chair of Google and since Oct. 2015 Alphabet 2011 - Jan. 2018 94, continued as director until June 2019 95, technical advisor until February 2020.

Already in 1997, as CEO of Novell and not yet connected with Google, Schmidt was a Davos Global Leader for Tomorrow / Young Global Leader (GLT-YGL).

2002: Larry Page becomes a Davos Global Leader for Tomorrow / Young Global Leader (GLT-YGL). He visits the Davos annual meeting in 2006 and 2009.

2002-: From 2002 on Brin was visiting the TED Talks-affiliated annual Billionaires' Dinners of the Edge Foundation, together with psychedelics and Silicon Valley pioneer Steward Brand, Rupert Murdoch, Amazon's Jeff Bezos, Microsoft's Nathan Myhrvold, and billionaire pedophile Jeffrey Epstein, who flew in groups of professional rent-a-skeptics on his private plane. The leadership of Facebook, YouTube and other TED-affiliated corporations would also attend the Billionaires' Dinners over the years.

2005: Sergey Brin becomes a Davos Young Global Leader (YGL). He visits the 2006 and 2017 annual meeting as well.

2006: Schmidt, Brin and Page all visit Davos. They visit in various other years as well, mainly Schmidt.

2007-: Schmidt first visits Bilderberg. He would return in 2008, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2019 and 2022 and 2023. Brin and Page never visit Bilderberg.

2015: Schmidt takes two Google engineering experts with him to Bilderberg, but for the rest remains Google's sole representative. Certainly by 2017 he is a steering committee member of Bilderberg.

2015: Schmidt becomes a member of the Trilateral Commission.

Why was Davos and soon Bilderberg veteran Eric Schmidt selected to head Google?

Schmidt was an interesting pick as CEO (and future executive chair) by Page and Brin in 2001, to the point that one wonders if someone with a lot of influence wanted to put Google under control. As discussed above, already in 1997, as CEO of Novell and not yet connected with Google, Schmidt was a Davos Global Leader for Tomorrow / Young Global Leader (GLT-YGL). Page and Brin soon became Davos visitors as well. In 2006 Schmidt became a regular member of David Rockefeller's Bilderberg meetings and in 2015 he joined David Rockefeller's Trilateral Commission.

We also discussed, of course, that Eric Schmidt was picked as Google CEO in 2001, because he was one of the "old boys" of Sun Microsystems from the 1980s, alongside key earliest Google investors Andy Bechtolsheim, and John Doerr of Kleiner Perkins 96, as well as Vinod Khosla, who almost bought Google's Pagerank technology in early 1997.

Sun Microsystems, which created the widely-used Java programming language, also was one of the major computer firms selling its technology to the NSA, in competition with firms as IBM and HP. 97 How deep the exact cooperation went is unknown. Two other co-founders of Sun Microsystems were Bill Joy and Scott McNealy. Looking how the former was at Davos 2003 and moved from Sun Microsystems in 2005 to become a partner in Kleiner Perkins, it seems Joy too always fitted well in the (regular) globalist mold. Funny is how Scott McNealy, as "Chairman, Sun Microsystems Inc.", was picked for the 1993 class of Davos' Global Leaders for Tomorrow / Young Global Leaders, together with a shocking list of future heads of state and superclass elites:

1. 1993: Jose Maria Aznar: PM Spain 1996-2004.
2. 1993: Tony Blair: PM UK 1997-2007.
3. 1993: Guy Verhofstadt: PM Belgium 1999-2008.
4. 1993: Jose Manuel Barroso: PM Portugal 2004-2014.
5. 1993: Angela Merkel: chancellor of Germany 2005-2021.
6. 1993: Gordon Brown: PM UK 2007-2010.
7. 1993: Nicolas Sarkozy: president France 2007-2012.
8. 1993: Larry Summers.
9. 1993: Bono
10. 1993: Edgar Bronfman, Jr.
11. 1993: Sir Richard Branson.
12. 1993: Jacob Wallenberg.
13. 1993: Michael Dell.
14. 1993: Vincent Bollore.
15. 1993: Paul Desmarais.
16. 1993: Bill Gates: founder Microsoft.
17. 1993: Jon Huntsman, Jr.
18. 1993: Joseph P. Kennedy II: son of RFK.
19. 1993: George Stephanopoulos.
20. 1993: Zoe Baird
21. 1993: Yo-Yo Ma.
22. 1993: Christian Lacroix.


23. 1993: Anatoly Chubais
24. 1993: Boris Nemtsov
25. 1993: Aleksandr Shokhin

In later years McNealy went unusually "conservative CIA". First he became notorious in 1999 for saying, "You have zero privacy anyway. Get over it." 98 Later he ended up becoming a hardcore "libertarian" and Trump supporter. In 2020-2021 he even was part of Trump's 1776 Commission that was looking to stimulate "patriotic education".

Whatever was going on with Sun Microsystems in terms of globalism and national security, there might be more to find with its former co-leader Eric Schmidt. Let's see. Schmidt was born in Washington, D.C., his father, Wilson, being a professor of international economics at Virginia Tech and Johns Hopkins University and employed at the U.S. Treasury under Nixon. Schmidt was educated at Princeton, one of the key Eastern Establishment universities. While subsequently attending UCLA Berkeley in the 1976-1980 period, Schmidt resided for four years at the Berkeley branch of the Rockefeller-founded and overseen International House. Here he met his wife, Wendy. 99 In the 1983-1997 period he made his career at Sun Microsystems, followed by the position of CEO of Novell in 1997-2001.

By 1999, two years after his Davos experience, Schmidt was a founding director of the New America Foundation (NAF) 100, where various board members represented NGOs as the CFR and the Brookings Institution, Harvard, Princeton and Newsweek. Superclass member Francis Fukuyama was a founding director. 101 The early chairman of the NAF's Leadership Council, on which Schmidt served, was close David Rockefeller friend John Whitehead. 102 Another close David Rockefeller friend, Peter Peterson, was a major financier to NAF. George Soros' son, Jonathan Soros, joined the Leadership Council in November 2006, a point at which Schmidt had just become a (regular) Bilderberg visitor. Looking at the financiers of NAF for 2008, the year Eric Schmidt was appointed chairman of the foundation, we find that two of the four $1,000,000+ donors of that year were Eric Schmidt and the Rockefeller Foundation. Other very large donors that year included the usual "liberal CIA" suspects as the Ford Foundation, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Soros' Open Society Institute, the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, Pew Charitable Trusts and yet more such foundations: ARCA, Surdna, Hewlett, Nathan Cummings, Tides, etc. 103

It should be clear though that already in the 1997-1999 period that Eric Schmidt was a rising star within the liberal Rockefeller-dominated superclass. And that likely the whole liberal-globalist network surrounding Sun Microsystems, Kleiner Perkins and persons as John Doerr, played a key role as to why Google became such a major force, so quickly. If Brin and Page would have kept doing their own thing, they may well have been ignored, their technology eventually bought up on the cheap without any further media reports.

After Schmidt's appointment as CEO of Google in August 2001, he became a trustee of Princeton University, a trustee of the Institute for Advanced Study, and a director of Apple (2006-2009), where he would become good friends with Steve Jobs. Similar to countless of his Bilderberg and some of his New America Foundation friends, Schmidt became a Trilateral Commission member in 2015. He also joined the Council on Foreign Relations, where his girlfriend in the 2010-2011 period, Lisa Shields, served as vice president. With his wife (open relationship) he set up the Schmidt Family Foundation, one of countless "liberal CIA" foundations involved in the financing of sustainable development and alternative media outlets.

In 2016 Schmidt became founding chairman of the Defense Innovation Advisory Board, a Silicon Valley advisory council to the U.S. military. Board members include Neil deGrasse Tyson, a well-known rent-a-skeptic and science commentator, and Walter Isaacson, a Rhodes Scholar who became president and CEO of the Aspen Institute and is a biographer of Apple's Steve Jobs and Henry Kissinger.

Schmidt has maintained very close ties to Obama and Hillary Clinton. In 2008 he campaigned for Obama and ended up becoming a member of Obama's transition advisory board, together with Warren Buffett, CFR co-chair Robert Rubin and Rockefeller economists Paul Volcker and Larry Summers; after which he served as a member of the United States President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST). Schmidt has been making his private jets available for years to senator and secretary of state Hillary Clinton and her staff, and helped organize her failed presidential campaign in 2016. 104

Considering that in ISGP's Pilgrims Society article it is discussed in great detail why the entire Rockefeller clique is both CIA and "above CIA", it seems rather obvious that Eric Schmidt was brought to the attention of Larry Page and Sergey Brin in an effort to put Google under solid security state and superclass control.

There's more. Liberal elites are just as close to the "new left" Bernie Sanders as they are to his supposed nemesis, Hillary Clinton - who actually also has a peculiar "new left" background through the New World Foundation (not to mention Barack Obama). Sanders, for example, used to sit on the board of the Earth Day Network with Ted Turner, Al Gore and Laurance Rockefeller. And that's just where the peculiarities start. Sanders' "new left" activism network is kept afloat through a $150 billion "liberal CIA" network of foundations. The Google Foundation, alternately known as Google.org, is deeply involved in this network, along with more major players as the Ford, Carnegie, Open Society (Soros) and Rockefeller foundations. For example, through its financing of the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, Google is rather closely tied to the activities of Wikileaks and NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden. All these "independent" foundations do is influence foreign and domestic politics through the financing of "alternative" media outlets, "new left" political protest groups, as well as feminist, sustainable development and social justice / "anti-racism" / pro-Third World immigration groups. They operate like a private CIA.

It should not be forgotten that the story with Microsoft's Bing search engine is the exact same. Microsoft, Bill Gates in particular, is solidly part of the superclass network, with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, similarly to the Schmidt Family Foundation and the Google Foundation, deeply involved in financing alternative media 'liberal CIA" outlets and sustainable development and pro-Third World immigration groups. Putin's Yandex search engine also is unlikely to be operating fully independently. However, because they are so small compared to Google, little can be said at this point about the level of censorship coming from these search engines.

Google part of the NSA's PRISM spy program

In 2013 it was exposed by whistleblower Edward Snowden that the NSA was tapping into the raw information of Microsoft (2007-), Yahoo! (2008-), Google (2009-), Facebook (2009-), YouTube (2010-), AOL (2011-) and Apple (2012-). To this day it is not fully clear to what extent the NSA could freely sift to any data it liked, or why the companies handed over their information streams. Twitter appears to not have done so, for instance.

"GOOGLE is getting WH and State Dept. support [to do what] CIA cannot... in fomenting up-risings"

Google featured in leaked Stratfor documents of 2011, which Wikileaks founder Julian Assange made reference to in an October 23, 2014 article of his in Newsweek, entitled Assange: Google Is Not What It Seems. In the documents, Stratfor's Fred Burton can be found having communicated in an "internal use only" email:

"GOOGLE is getting WH [Obama White House] and State Dept. support & air cover. In reality, they are doing things the CIA cannot. ... Google [has a] covert role in fomenting up-risings, to be blunt. The US Govt can then disavow knowledge and GOOGLE is left holding the shit bag. ...

"Cohen [was/is] working for the State Dept and WH to support Arab regime changes."

ISGP has earlier found the Stratfor leaks useful in relation to information on Russian oligarch and mafia involvement in drug trafficking. The mainstream media has also made reference to its documents regularly. Still, to be thorough, below an extensive screenshot can be found of the relevant Stratfor communications. In them, Google CEO Eric Schmidt and Google's security director Marty Lev are mentioned as the sources for his information.

At this point it seems pretty clear that by the late 2000s and early 2010s, with its executive chairman part of annual Bilderberg meetings, that Google was an extension of the CIA and NSA. Censorship of the internet would be a logical next step. Maybe the security services expected or hoped that the PageRank system would prevent any kind of "unsanctioned" conspiracy sites from rising to any kind of prominence within Google. After all, it was Brin who explained in December 1998 that in order to have a high domain/page rank, "You have to actually convince someone who’s important that you’re important." 105 But certainly a site as ISGP quite quickly developed a decent domain rank and had to be manually kept down by 2015. By 2018 any kind of conspiracy or even "alternative" site was suppressed, and artificially replaced by "authoritative" (mainstream) websites - which also were allowed to suck up all the ad revenue. Around 2021 Google's YouTube instated the same policy. And by 2023 Google and YouTube's search algorithms were heavily criticized, the former for endlessly pushing superficial SEO content, sometimes even AI generated; and the latter for hiding 95% of non-prominent YouTube content when doing searches, and even giving completely irrelevant "click on this again" results.

It seems quite clear that these national security and globalism ties were nurtured from the start. Whatever Brin or Page approved or disapproved of, they were surrounded from the start by CIA, NSA, MITRE and globalism-tied individuals that they really couldn't get around if they wanted to make it.

Google IS the Democrat Party: list of Democrat-globalist "state action" evidence

All cases of Google involving censorship basically have been dismissed on grounds of the 1st Amendment. Again and again, courts rule that Google can assign whatever rank it desires to to any website, or completely remove it. It doesn't matter why, and Google doesn't even have to give an explanation to the court why it decided to do anything. As discussed in various chapters, there might be a variety of laws to go after Google with, but one interesting elements can be found in Christopher Langdon v. Google Inc., et al. (2007), where it is basically indicated that if a strong enough tie can be found between Google's censorship and "the state" (i.e., the Democrat Party), that Google can be stripped of its 1st Amendment protections. This aspect is worth exploring.

• We earlier wrote about long-time Google/Alphabet CEO Eric Schmidt as being a Bilderberg steering committee and Trilateral Commission member. These groups are loaded with politicians from all over the West and even Asia: prime ministers, finance ministers, congressmen, senators, ambassadors, foreign secretaries, EU parliamentarians, etc.

Despite public claims of the company being "neutral", Eric Schmidt is good friends with Democrat Party leaders Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton in particular, played a huge role in setting up and running their political campaigns, with Google's employees, search engine algorithms, and backing of "grassroots" activism being completely dedicated to keeping the Democrat Party in power, even more so after Trump was elected president in 2016. Here is a full list of sources:

1. October 20, 2008, Wall Street Journal, 'Google CEO Backs Obama: Schmidt Expands Political Role by Hitting the Campaign Trail'.


2. November 7, 2008, CNET, 'Google, Xerox CEOs on Obama economic team: A 17-member economic advisory board for the president-elect includes Eric Schmidt, Warren Buffett, Paul Volcker, Larry Summers, and other notable figures': "Richard Parsons (chairman of Time Warner). Penny Pritzker (CEO of Classic Residence by Hyatt). Robert Reich... [CFR co-chair] Robert Rubin..."


3. April 27, 2009, The Chronicle of Higher Education, 'Obama Names Members to Council of Advisors on Science and Technology': "Eric Schmidt, chairman and chief executive of Google Inc. and a member of the Board of Directors of Apple Inc. ... S. James Gates Jr., a professor of physics and director of the Center for String and Particle Theory... John Holdren (co-chair), director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy... Richard Levin, president of Yale University... Chad Mirkin, a professor of materials science and engineering, chemistry, and medicine... [etc.]"


4. March 10, 2010, CNN, 'How Google plays the angles in Washington': "Five years after it opened its Washington office, the tech giant is playing an increasingly powerful role in public policy debates over everything from patent reform to foreign policy. ... [It is] right behind Microsoft, IBM and Oracle among the biggest tech lobbies in Washington. ...
   The company employs 30 staffers in Washington and turns to some of the biggest names in lobbying, including the Podesta Group [of later Clinton campaign chair John Podesta]...
   Google's lobbyists are also kept busy with government investigations of the company, whose growing mounds of information on millions of users have raised privacy concerns. ...
   Google Chief Executive Eric Schmidt was one of the first and biggest supporters of Barack Obama's 2008 campaign, appearing in a 30-minute campaign advertisement... Schmidt visited the White House twice last year and met with President Obama after speaking at the administration's Jobs and Economic Growth Forum on Dec. 3... In addition, a handful of Googlers have gone to work for Obama. Among them is Andrew McLaughlin, a global public policy executive at Google who was hired to be the administration's deputy chief technology officer in June 2009."


5. April 1, 2011, Business Insider, 'Eric Schmidt Tried To Get Google To Hide His Political Donation In Search Results': "One of the biggest [mistakes of Eric Schmidt]: asking Google's search team to remove information about a political donation [to Obama] from its search results. According to a new book about Google by Steven Levy, Schmidt's request was shot down by Google exec Sheryl Sandberg, who is now COO of Facebook. ...
   The fact he would make such a request at all is pretty amazing -- especially since Google's lawyers have said that the company never promotes or eliminates particular sites from search results, even when trying to fight spam. Earlier this month, Google engineer Matt Cutts contradicted this stance, basically admitting that Google can use "whitelists" to exclude certain sites from changes to the algorithm."


6. June 24, 2011, The Atlantic, 'Some Perspective on Obama's Bromance with Eric Schmidt; A watchdog group asks Obama to lay off the Google love': "Google's "Don't Be Evil" mantra gets more ironic by the minute. ... Consumer Watchdog sent a letter to the White House on Thursday demanding the president distance himself from Google and stop inviting Eric Schmidt to galas. ... The Federal Trade Commission is reportedly due to slap the search giant and its leaders with a subpoenas this week as part of an antitrust investigation. ...
   Following Schmidt's lead, companies in the communications sector gave five times as much as money to Obama--$25 million in total--than they gave to his Republican opponent, who got $5 million. In 2004, tech companies also favored the Democratic candidate, but not nearly as heavily. John Kerry garnered on $10 million, compared to George Bush's $6 million."


7. June 14, 2012, Bloomberg, 'Obama's CEO: Jim Messina Has a President to Sell'.


8. June 14, 2012, Daily Mail, 'You've got it all wrong': How Steve Jobs (and Spielberg and Eric Schmidt) secretly advised Obama on how to deliver his election message': "Jobs, who died last October, is said to have had two long, private conversations with [Jim] Messina, who was asked by Obama to become his 2012 campaign manager while the pair were surfing in Hawaii. 'Last time you were programming to only a couple of channels,' Jobs has been quoted as telling Jim Messina, referring the internet and email. 'This time, you have to program content to a much wider variety of channels - Facebook, Tumblr, Twitter, YouTube, Google—because people are segmented in a very different way than they were four years ago.' ...
   According to a biography of Jobs by Walter Isaacson published just after his death, Jobs told Obama at a meeting in San Francisco in 2010: 'You're heading for a one-term presidency,' arguing he needed to be more business-friendly. ...
   Google executive chairman Eric Schmidt is portrayed [in Bloomberg's Business Week article] as exerting an almost Svengali-like influence as a 'kind of guru to [Obama campaign chairman] Messina, an executive coach and kindred spirit'. Messina said they once say for three hours in a conference room and Schmidt 'just gave me advice about all the mistakes he'd made, about purchasing supply chains, [etc.]'"


9. December 5, 2012, The Telegraph, 'Eric Schmidt declines Obama cabinet post': "Mr Schmidt, 57, was offered the job of Treasury or Commerce Secretary or a new "Secretary of Business" slot, according to the Washington Examiner. ... Mr Schmidt played in a key role in the re-election of President Barack Obama last month, helping to oversee Google's $700,000 donation to his campaign."


10. April 22, 2016, The Intercept, 'The Android Administration: Google's Remarkably Close Relationship With the Obama White House, in Two Charts': "Google representatives attended White House meetings more than once a week, on average, from the beginning of Obama's presidency through October 2015. Nearly 250 people have shuttled from government service to Google employment or vice versa over the course of his administration.
    No other public company approaches this degree of intimacy with government. According to an analysis of White House data, the Google lobbyist with the most White House visits, Johanna Shelton, visited 128 times...
    The company paid almost no attention to the Washington influence game prior to 2007, but ramped up steeply thereafter. ... [It] has been at or near the top of public companies in lobbying expenses since 2012. ... Google's lobbying strategy also includes throwing lavish D.C. parties; making grants to trade groups, advocacy organizations, and think tanks; offering free services and training to campaigns, congressional offices, and journalists; and using academics as validators for the company's public policy positions. ...
    Google doesn't just lobby the White House for favors, but collaborates with officials, effectively serving as a sort of corporate extension of government operations in the digital era."


11. June 15, 2016, CNET, 'Google chairman: We're not going to touch Trump vs. Clinton: Google has been accused of showing bias to the Democrats in the past, but the company is determined to remain non-partisan -- at least publicly.': ""We have not taken a position on the American election and nor do I expect us to," said the longtime Googler [Eric Schmidt], speaking at Startup Grind in London on Wednesday. ... "We always had policy that the company does not have a policy in these areas," said Schmidt," This statement cannot be more a lie.


12. November 10, 2016, Fortune, 'Why Former Google CEO Eric Schmidt Is a Fan of Peter Thiel': "Schmidt ... was squarely in the camp that America needs to come back together [now Trump won]. "We want to have a culture where people should say what they think," Schmidt said. "I admire what [Peter Thiel] did [with his Trump support]." ... On spending time with Julian Assange [in 2013]: "What it told me is that governments are capable of systematic evil. But that requires planning. And if you have a rule that any form of activity is leaked, then the government can't go too far. The problem with this argument is he appoints himself the judge of that."" More evidence Schmidt is a sweet-talker.


13. July 20, 2013, Daily Mail, 'The £5.4billion Google love rat: How boss, 58, of internet giant resisting online porn crackdown has a string of exotic lovers in his 'open marriage'... but DOESN'T want you to know about it': "Schmidt ... is believed to have had at least one mistress sign a confidentiality agreement [and sent his lawyers after ex-girlfriend Kate Bohner]... 'As far as Kate was concerned it was true love,' her close friend Jason Parsley... 'The reason I am speaking out now is that it is ironic that someone like him can be so free and easy discussing other people's privacy issues online while using his vast wealth to protect his own image.' ...
    Schmidt hit back at critics of Google who argue the company should be more concerned about protecting people's privacy, saying: 'If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place.' It is, perhaps, advice he would be wise to heed himself."


14. November 1, 2016, Business Insider, 'Stolen emails reveal a tight relationship between Google's Eric Schmidt and the Clintons': "The emails reveal a relationship with Schmidt dating back to at least 2008 and show that Google loaned its jet to members of Clinton's campaign staff on several occasions. ... The email chain also said that Schmidt wanted to meet "WJC," shorthand for "William Jefferson Clinton." ... The emails also say that Schmidt had met with Hillary Clinton and spoken with Podesta. ...
    In April 2014, Schmidt sent Hillary Clinton aide Cheryl Mills a detailed plan for the 2016 campaign, writing "If we get started soon, we will be in a very strong position to execute well for 2016." The plan laid out ideas for the campaign, like where it should be headquartered and who should be hired."
    In an email to Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook the same month, Podesta wrote that Schmidt seemed eager to be a part of an exploratory committee and "clearly wants to be head outside advisor, but didn't seem like he wanted to push others out." Podesta wrote that Schmidt was "ready to fund, advise recruit talent, etc."


15. November 11, 2016, internal Google video (leaked) three days after the Trump election, of its "Thank God It's Friday" meeting: Google leadership, Sergey Brin, Larry Page, Sundar Pichai, are completely distraught that Trump won and talk about how to continue the political battle.


16. November 16, 2016, Daily Caller, 'Google Parent Company Chairman Spotted Wearing Clinton Campaign Staff Badge': "[He] was photographed wearing a badge identifying himself as a member of Hillary Clinton's "staff" during her Election Night party last week. ...
    Several emails released by WikiLeaks and a memo also showed that Schmidt wanted to be Clinton's "head outside advisor," gave John Podesta advice on where to put the campaign headquarters, and that he worked directly with the campaign to set up several back-end features to their site."


17. November 21, 2016, 'The stealthy Eric Schmidt-backed analytics firm that worked for Hillary now has a real website': "According to the web page, The Groundwork can help clients from charities to political campaigns find blocks of voters or donors, organize events, and handle donations. Alphabet chairman Eric Schmidt is the firm's financial backer. ... The defeat of its main client—Hillary Clinton— in the presidential race [is a reality]."


18. January 18, 2017, bizjournals.com, 'EXCLUSIVE: Ex-Clinton Foundation CEO to head Eric Schmidt's philanthropies'.


19. November 21, 2017, Russia Today, 'Google's Eric Schmidt, arbiter of news, has long history with Obama & Clinton'.


20. July 30, 2017, The Guardian, 'Why is Google spending record sums on lobbying Washington?': "The Silicon Valley behemoth [is] on track to be the top corporate lobbying spender in the US. Last year it ranked No 2, behind Comcast."


21. January 24, 2018, TheRegister.co.uk, 'Biggest Washington DC lobbyist is now a tech giant (yes, it's Google)': "For the first time, an internet company has become the largest lobbyist in Washington DC."


22. September 10, 2018, Breitbart, ''Silent Donation': Corporate Emails Reveal Google Executives' Efforts to Turn Out Latino Voters Who They Thought Would Vote for Clinton'.


23. June 24, 2019, Breitbart, 'Project Veritas – Google Exec Decries Trump's Election: 'How Do We Prevent It from Happening Again''.


24. June 24, 2019, projectveritas.com, 'Insider Blows Whistle & Exec Reveals Google Plan to Prevent "Trump situation" in 2020 on Hidden Cam': "Jen Gennai, Google's Head of Responsible Innovation: "We all got screwed over in 2016. ... 2020, certainly on top of my old organization [within Google], Trust and Safety, top of mind, they've been working on it since 2016, to make sure we're ready for 2020. ... We're also training our algorithms if 2016 happened again, would we have, would the outcome be different? ... We got called in front of Congress multiple times, and we've not shown up because we know that they're just going to just attack us. We're not going to change...
    [If Google is broken up] now all these smaller companies who don't have the same resources that we do will be charged with preventing the next Trump situation. It's like, a small company cannot do that. ...
    The reason we launched our A.I. principles is because people were not ... saying what's fair and what's equitable. My definition of fairness and bias specifically talks about historically marginalized communities [i.e. blacks, Arabs, Latinos, Native Indian, etc.]. And that's who I care about. Communities who are in power and have traditionally been in power [i.e., whites] are not who I'm solving fairness for.""


25. June 24, 2019, projectveritas.com, 'Insider Blows Whistle & Exec Reveals Google Plan to Prevent "Trump situation" in 2020 on Hidden Cam': "[Revealing of an internal Google document:] If a representation is factually accurate, can it still be algorithmic unfairness? For example, imagine that a Google image query for "CEOs" shows predominantly men. Even if it were a factually accurate representation of the world, it would be algorithmic unfairness because it would reinforce a stereotype about the role of women in leadership positions."
    [Gaurev Gite, Google software engineer, confirms:] But then there are things which are called ML fairness... So they're trying to modify the model such that even if the data for female CEOs is low, it still balances out."
    [Revealing of an internal Google document:] "In some cases it may be appropriate to take no action if the system accurately affects current reality, while in other cases it may be desirable to consider how we might help society reach a more and equitable state via product intervention [i.e., change the algorithm to reach a political goal]." ... ."


26. August 3, 2019, Fox News, Tucker Carlson Tonight, 'Google wants Trump to lose in 2020, former engineer [Kevin Cernekee] for tech giant says: 'That's their agenda'': "Basically, what happened is, when I joined Google, I saw a lot of employees being mistreated and abused and harassed for sharing conservative views. Or just for questioning company policies. And I raised these questions through all the appropriate channels. I raised it to HR, to VPs. Eventually wound up filing a charge with the Labor Board. And Google knew about this, that I opened up a federal investigation. ... [Google then] made a lot a false accusations against me and they fired me. They said, in writing, that the reason they fired me was for participating in this labor investigation. They are basically daring the government to do anything about it. I have appealed the decision and the Labor Board came back and basically said, "deny". They did not cite any case law and really any reason for it. It's basically their will against anybody else's. ...
    It's highly ideological [the leadership]. You can see bias at every level. ... They will get an email from a liberal reporter complaining about something and they will jump on it. They will fix the issue very, very quickly. In contrast, one thing that I saw when I worked there, was: if you do a Google search for Crippled America, which is Donald Trump's book, you'd get results that showed Mein Kampf and [inaudible]. I reported that. I filed a bug against it. It escalated. I tried to run it up the chain. They took 9 months to fix that bug. They just stalled at every opportunity. They assigned it to people who no longer work there. They made every excuse in the book to avoid taking down that made Donald Trump look bad. And I saw a number of other incidents just like that.
    I do believe so. I think that's a major threat. They have openly stated that they think 2016 was a mistake. They think Trump should have lost in 2016. They really want Trump to lose in 2020. That's their agenda. They have very biased people running every level of the company. They have quite a bit of control over the political process. That's something we should really worry about."


27. June 22, 2021, New York Times, 'Google's Internet Ad Dominance Draws Fresh E.U. Antitrust Inquiry'.


28. June 24, 2021, Fox News, 'Bill Maher trashes Facebook, Google for suppressing Wuhan lab-leak theory: 'You were wrong!' 'This is outrageous that I can't look this information up!'': ""Facebook banned any post for four months about COVID coming from a lab. Of course now, even the Biden administration is looking into this," Maher said during a panel discussion. "Google -- a Wall Street Journal reporter asked the head of Google's health division -- noticed that they don't do auto-fill searches for 'coronavirus lab leak' the way they do for any other question and the guy said, 'Well, we want to make sure that the search isn't leading people down pathways that we would find not authoritative information.' Well, you were wrong, Google and Facebook!" Maher continued. "We don't know! The reason why we want you is because we're checking on this s---!"
    He said, 'We want to ensure that the first thing users see is information from the CDC, the WHO -- that's who I'm checking on! The WHO has been very corrupt about a lot of s--- and the CDC has been wrong about a lot of s---. This is outrageous that I can't look this information up!" Maher continued.""

Reported covert operations and national security ties of Google:

1. April 3, 2014, Telegraph, 'Julian Assange's conversations with Google's Eric Schmidt to be published': "When Google Met Wikileaks, [a book] based on conversations the Wikileaks founder had in 2011 with Google chairman Eric Schmidt. ... The men discussed a range of topics, from the Arab Spring to the online currency Bitcoin: "They outlined radically opposing perspectives: for Assange, the liberating power of the internet is based on its freedom and statelessness. For Schmidt, emancipation is at one with US foreign policy objectives and is driven by connecting non-Western countries to American companies and markets.""


2. June 23, 2014, Julian Assange for Newsweek, 'Assange: Google Is Not What It Seems': "In mid-May 2011 I was under house arrest in rural Norfolk, England... My colleague Joseph Farrell told me the executive chairman of Google [Eric Schmidt] wanted to make an appointment with me... The stated reason for the visit was a book. Schmidt was penning a treatise with Jared Cohen, the director of Google Ideas, an outfit that describes itself as Google's in-house "think/do tank." ...
   Schmidt arrived first, accompanied by his then [open marriage] partner, Lisa Shields. When he introduced her as a vice president of the Council on Foreign Relations [Global Communications and Media Relations]—a U.S. foreign-policy think tank with close ties to the State Department—I thought little more of it. ...
   Jared Cohen arrived. With him was Scott Malcomson, introduced as the book's editor. Three months after the meeting Malcomson would enter the State Department as the lead speechwriter and principal advisor to Susan Rice [in turn a protege of top Democrat superclass member Madeleine Albright]...
   I knew little else about Cohen at the time. ... He [used to be] a senior advisor for Secretaries of State [Condi] Rice [a key George Shultz protege, under Bush] and [then Hillary] Clinton [under Obama]. At State, on the Policy Planning Staff, Cohen was soon christened "Condi's party-starter," channeling buzzwords from Silicon Valley into U.S. policy circles ... On his Council on Foreign Relations [page] he listed his expertise as "terrorism; radicalization; impact of connection technologies on 21st century statecraft; Iran." ... Cohen had moved to Google from the U.S. State Department in 2010 [co-founding the Google Ideas think tank with Schmidt]. ...
   It was Cohen who, while he was still at the Department of State, was said to have emailed Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey to delay scheduled maintenance in order to assist the aborted 2009 uprising in Iran. His documented love affair with Google began the same year when he befriended Eric Schmidt as they together surveyed the post-occupation wreckage of Baghdad. Just months later, Schmidt re-created Cohen's natural habitat within Google itself by engineering a "think/do tank" based in New York and appointing Cohen as its head. ...
   Later that year two co-wrote a policy piece for the Council on Foreign Relations' journal Foreign Affairs, praising the reformative potential of Silicon Valley as an instrument of U.S. foreign policy. ...
   Only a few months before he met with me, Cohen was planning a trip to the edge of Iran in Azerbaijan to "engage the Iranian communities closer to the border," as part of a Google Ideas' project on "repressive societies." In internal emails Stratfor's vice president for intelligence, Fred Burton (himself a former State Department security official), wrote:
   "Google is getting WH [White House] and State Dept support and air cover. In reality they are doing things the CIA cannot do... [Cohen] is going to get himself kidnapped or killed. Might be the best thing to happen to expose Google's covert role in foaming up-risings, to be blunt. The US Gov't can then disavow knowledge and Google is left holding the shit-bag."
   In further internal communication, Burton said his sources on Cohen's activities were Marty Lev—Google's director of security and safety—and Eric Schmidt himself.
   State Department cables released as part of Cablegate reveal that Cohen had been in Afghanistan in 2009, trying to convince the four major Afghan mobile phone companies to move their antennas onto U.S. military bases. In Lebanon, he quietly worked to establish an intellectual and clerical rival to Hezbollah, the "Higher Shia League." And in London he offered Bollywood movie executives funds to insert anti-extremist content into their films, and promised to connect them to related networks in Hollywood.
   Three days after he visited me at Ellingham Hall, Jared Cohen flew to Ireland to direct the "Save Summit," an event co-sponsored by Google Ideas and the Council on Foreign Relations. Gathering former inner-city gang members, right-wing militants, violent nationalists and "religious extremists" from all over the world together in one place, the event aimed to workshop technological solutions to the problem of "violent extremism." What could go wrong? ... Cohen's Save Summit went on to seed AVE, or AgainstViolentExtremism.org, a long-term project whose principal backer besides Google Ideas is the Gen Next Foundation. ... Jared Cohen is an executive member."


3. October 26, 2014, Daily Mail, 'Julian Assange launches attack on 'shady, invasive' web giant Google - and claims chairman Eric Schmidt is 'imperialist' government stooge': "- Listed establishment ties of 'Google foreign minister' Eric Schmidt. - Claimed Schmidt entangled Google with 'shadiest of U.S. power structures'. - Said Google is too big and powerful - and a 'serious concern'. ...
   Assange wrote: 'Google is steadily becoming the Internet for many people. 'Its influence on the choices and behavior of the totality of individual human beings translates to real power to influence the course of history...
   [Video fragment:] Google is engaged in a very ambitious project that is not normal.. to gather as much information as possible on people, store it, index it and use it to sell advertising. ... It's very easy for the NSA to get its fangs into that..."


4. June 24, 2020, Daily Mail, 'Google and Facebook behave like 'monopolies' and distribute news using a secret 'black box' algorithm that can change overnight, newspaper executive reveals': "Giving evidence to the House of Lords Communications and Digital Committee via videolink ... Peter Wright, editor emeritus at DMG Media, MailOnline's parent company... slammed Google after MailOnline saw its daily traffic from the search engine fall by 50 per cent last June following an algorithm change 'without any warning'. ...
   'Over recent years there have been a number of occasions when both Google and Facebook have changed their algorithms overnight without any warning which not only has a dramatic effect on our businesses but it also means that people searching for news are suddenly not finding our news.
   'This happened to us with MailOnline in June last year and over the space of three days, our search visibility, which is the measure of how often your content is appearing against a basket of search terms, dropped by 50 per cent, and it was particularly marked against some particular terms. One of them for instance was 'Brexit'.
   'Now, why they do this, we don't know, we protested, we got an explanation which made no sense at all. Eventually three months later, equally without warning, it was restored. ...
   'Google are completely dominant in search, which is one of the main means of distribution of news. They have around a 90 per cent share for search.
   'Google have, I think, six different vertically integrated advertising services, all of which charge commissions, fees or take revenue shares, many of which are opaque, and we have to accept what terms they impose.
   'Even the contracts that we sign to use their services are often presented to us on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. So what we're asking for here is for regulation, and the CMA (Competition and Markets Authority) are about to report on a massive piece of work they've been doing, to address the complete imbalance in the business relationship.' ...
   'Facebook are also dominant in social media with Instagram, which they own, they hold about 62 per cent, and within Facebook to a large extent you have to use Facebook advertising services. This means that advertising markets are opaque.'"


5. June 24, 2020, Breitbart, 'GOP Senators Demand Google Answer Report Alleging Election Interference': "Senators Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Ron Johnson (R-WI) sent a letter to Google demanding answers over a study by psychologist Dr. Robert Epstein pointing to potential election interference by the tech giant. ... The early results of Epstein's work are quoted in the Senators' letter to Google (emphasis ours):
   "In our election monitoring project this year, we recruited a politically-diverse group of 733 field agents in Arizona, Florida, and North Carolina. Through their computers, we were able to preserve more than 400,000 ephemeral experiences that tech companies use to shift opinions and votes and that normally are lost forever.
   One of our most disturbing findings so far is that between Monday, October 26th (the day our system became fully operational) and Thursday, October 29th, only our liberal field agents received vote reminders on Google's home page.
   Conservatives did not receive even a single vote reminder. ...
   The good news is that it appears that we got Google to stop this manipulation four days before Election Day. On Thursday, October 29th, I sent materials about the monitoring project to Ebony Bowden, a reporter at the New York Post, who was writing a story about the project. I did so knowing that all nypost.com emails are shared with algorithms and employees at Google.
   Late night on the 29th, two notable things happened: First, Ms. Bowden's article, which was about possible large-scale election rigging by Big Tech, was pulled by the Post. Second, Google's targeted messaging stopped completely. From midnight on the 29th to the end of Election Day, all of our field agents have received the vote reminder. Because of the demographics of the people who use Google, this is still a vote manipulation, but it is far more benign than the extreme targeting we detected last week."

Notes

---

1. c-span.org/video/?455607-1/google-data-collection (accessed: Jan. 29, 2024): "December 11, 2018: Google Data Collection. Google CEO Sundar Pichai testified at a hearing on his company's use of consumer data. He answered lawmakers' questions on issues that included search results, algorithms, privacy policies, terms of service agreements, and security measures. He also faced questions about potential political partisanship or bias of Google employees, and whether staff affiliations influenced what users see in search results."
2. September 10, 2018, Breitbart, ''Silent Donation': Corporate Emails Reveal Google Executives' Efforts to Turn Out Latino Voters Who They Thought Would Vote for Clinton'.
3. Ibid.
4. September 12, 2018, Breitbart, 'LEAKED VIDEO: Google Leadership's Dismayed Reaction to Trump Election'.
5. c-span.org/video/?c4766729/user-clip-rep-ted-lieu-questoins-google-ceo-sundar-pichai (sic; accessed: Jan. 29, 2024): "December 11, 2018: ... Rep. Ted Lieu questoins Google CEO Sundar Pichai..."
6. September 5, 2018, Infowars, 'Alex Jones in DC to Face His Accusers at Social Media Censorship Hearings': "Alex Jones is in Washington DC to face his accusers during hearings where Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey and Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg will be grilled on social media censorship of conservatives.
   Last month, Alex Jones and Infowars were banned by a plethora of Big Tech companies all within 24 hours of each other, with YouTube, Facebook, Apple and Spotify all pulling the plug.
   Jones was subsequently put in a 7 day “time out” on Twitter after a decision personally made by Dorsey. It was also revealed that Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg personally made the final call to ban Jones, following in the footsteps of Apple’s Tim Cook."
7. c-span.org/video/?455607-1/google-data-collection (accessed: Jan. 29, 2024): "December 11, 2018: Google Data Collection. Google CEO Sundar Pichai testified..."
8. Aug. 4, 2017, WSWS.org, 'Google blocked every one of the WSWS’s 45 top search terms'.
9. June 30, 2012, CNN, 'See yourself as the next Assange? Good luck': "One site mentioned sometimes by hackers and others is wikispooks.com. The site "invites ‘whistleblower’ type material through an anonymous upload facility..."
10. Nov. 24, 2016, Washington Post, 'Russian propaganda effort helped spread ‘fake news’ during election, experts say'.
11. *) Aug. 29, 2018, Axios.com, 'Poll: Most conservatives think social media is censoring them'.
    *) Aug. 28, 2018, Vox, 'Trump complains about bias on Twitter and Google — but what can he do about it? 8 experts weigh in. “Any action Trump might take against social media providers would be clearly and unambiguously unconstitutional.”'.
12. Sep. 5, 2018, New York Post, 'Alex Jones tries to crash hearings for Facebook, Twitter execs'.
13. Dec. 11, 2018, Newsweek, 'Alex Jones, Roger Stone Crash Google CEO 'Conservative Bias' Hearing: 'Google is Evil''.
14. c-span.org/video/?455607-1/google-data-collection (accessed: Jan. 29, 2024): "December 11, 2018: Google Data Collection. Google CEO Sundar Pichai testified..."
15. knightcolumbia.org/content/about-knight-institute (accessed: June 6, 2019): "The Knight First Amendment Institute was established in 2016 by Columbia University and the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation to safeguard free [online] expression... The privatization of the public square, the expansion of the surveillance state, the steady creep of government secrecy, the demonization of the media by the nation's most senior officials [i.e. Trump], the aggregation of massive amounts of personal data in the hands of private corporations..."
16. law.ucla.edu/faculty/faculty-profiles/eugene-volokh/ (accessed: June 28, 2019): "He is a member of The American Law Institute".
17. ali.org/members/member/100709/ (accessed: June 28, 2019).
18. google.com/why_use.html (accessed: October 5, 2000).
19. google.com/why_use.html (accessed: May 8, 1999).
20. searchengineland.com/now-know-googles-top-three-search-ranking-factors-245882 (accessed: June 28, 2019).
21. consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0220-utility-services (accessed: June 28, 2019).
22. forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?t=137079 (accessed: November 30, 2017).
23. February 26, 2013, Novay, 'Een Top Level Domein voor betrouwbare overheidscommunicatie: Een verkenning van de kansen en risico's?'.
24. November 29, 2018, The Oklahoman, 'First black federal judge in Oklahoma has heard final case'.
25. dc.library.okstate.edu/digital/collection/legislature/id/224 (Miles-LaGrange interview; accessed June 23, 2019): "I had a good friend growing up, one of my best friends, who was a guy, a boy, named Charles Atkins. And he is the son of the late Dr. Charles Atkins and Hannah Atkins. ... Hannah ... was going to run for the Oklahoma House of Representatives. And Mrs. Atkinds called me and said, "Vicky, I want you to put a group together called Hannah's Helpers [to] campaign for me." ... We were a bunch of 6th and 7th graders. And we would hand out literature and do balloons. It was fun. So when she won, we were just besides ourselves, 'cause we knew we were the reason why she won this office."
26. February 6, 2000, New York Times, 'Carl Bert Albert, a Powerful Democrat in Congress for Three Decades, Is Dead at 91'.
27. November 8, 2011, CNN, 'Judge blocks Oklahoma's ban on Islamic law'.
28. August 16, 2013, The Oklahoman, 'U.S. judge permanently bans Oklahoma Islamic law vote'.
29. April 16, 2012, obamawhitehouse.archives.gov, 'President Obama Announces More Key Administration Posts'.
30. September 16, 2015, obamawhitehouse.archives.gov, 'Presidential Nominations Sent to the Senate'.
31. *) truman.gov/index.cfm?TheViewID=220&showsubs=0,129 (accessed: March 1, 2003): "Board of Trustees: Honorable Madeleine K. Albright, President... Honorable Ike Skelton, Vice-Chairman, United States House of Representatives...";
    *) truman.gov/officers-board-trustees (accessed: June 23, 2019): "Honorable Madeleine Albright President, Harry S. Truman Scholarship Foundation... Betsy DeVos: United States Secretary of Education."
32. *) occf.org/trustees/ (accessed: June 28, 2019).
    *) occf.org/donorlist/ (accessed: June 28, 2019).
33. 2013, Mark Prendergast, 'For God, Country, and Coca-Cola', p. 364.
34. google.com/webmasters/2.html (accessed: August 2, 2001 - March 23, 2005).
35. August 16, 2003, Los Angeles Times, 'Judge Is No Stranger to Controversy'.
36. May 12, 2013, San Francisco Chronicle, 'San Mateo judge in line for Silicon Valley federal judgeship'.
37. June 21, 1997, San Francisco Chronicle, 'Feinstein Recommends Judge for Federal Post / Santa Clara's Fogel called rising star': "Feinstein and fellow Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer alternate recommending California federal judges to President Barack Obama..."
38. June 8, 2019, CNN, 'Hillary Clinton's brother Tony Rodham dies'.
39. June 4, 2016, San Francisco Chronicle, 'Barbara Boxer, in book, details experiences with Clintons'.
40. leagle.com/decision/infdco20140505697 (accessed: June 28, 2019).
41. coastnews.com/google/google-complaint-new-3.html (accessed: June 28, 2019).
42. June 29, 2015, law360.com, 'Calif. Judge Upholds Google Ads Free Speech Decision'.
43. November 29, 2001, hoover.org, 'Eight Hoover Fellows Appointed to the U.S. Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee'.
44. August 15, 2003, CNN, 'Schwarzenegger taps George Shultz for economic council'.
45. December 19, San Francisco Chronicle, 'George Shultz's star-studded 90th birthday party'.
46. trellis.law/profile/judge/joseph.m.quinn (accessed: June 28, 2019).
47. Ibid.
48. Ibid.
49. July 6, 2014, Los Angeles Times, 'Gov. Jerry Brown likes to break the mold with his judicial picks'.
50. ballotpedia.org/James_M._Humes (accessed: June 28, 2019).
51. February 9, 2017, blog.ericgoldman.org, 'First Amendment Protects Google's De-Indexing of "Pure Spam" Websites–e-ventures v. Google'.
52. *) March 29, 2018, the Daily Signal (Daily Caller), 'Judge Tosses PragerU Lawsuit Accusing Google, YouTube of Censoring Conservative Content'.
    *) March 27, 2018, blog.ericgoldman.org, 'YouTube Isn't a Company Town (Duh)–Prager University v. Google'.
53. September 5, 2016, Los Angeles Times, 'Senate committee approves nomination of California judge to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals': "The Senate Judiciary Committee voted 13-7 Thursday to send to the Senate the nomination of U.S. District Judge Lucy Haeran Koh for the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. "This is a nominee with very strong, impeccable credentials, a distinguished track record as a prosecutor, private practitioner and a judge," Sen. Dianne Feinstein said before the vote. Feinstein and fellow California Sen. Barbara Boxer both support Koh's nomination."
54. August 10, 2014, San Francisco Chronicle, 'In Silicon Valley, Lucy Koh is the law'.
55. Ibid.
56. fsi.stanford.edu/docs/people/advisorycouncil/ (accessed: July 7, 2007).
57. fsi.stanford.edu/docs/people/advisoryboard/: " William H. Draper III ... Susan Elizabeth Rice..."
58. August 31, 2018, Breitbart, 'Facebook 'Employee Error' Responsible for PragerU 99.9999% Drop in Reach'.
59. August 7, 2017, CNBC, 'Women are neurotic, diversity efforts are 'bad for business' and 10 other shocking quotes from the viral Google manifesto'.
60. August 8, 2017, The Verge, 'Read Google CEO's email to staff about engineer's inflammatory memo'.
61. January 8, 2018, The Verge, 'James Damore sues Google for allegedly discriminating against conservative white men'.
62. May-June 2013, Dartmouthalumnimagazine.com, 'The Outsider: Former Review editor Harmeet Dhillon '89 leads the Republican Party in one of the nation's most liberal cities.'
63. August 7, 2017, CNBC, 'Why it may be illegal for Google to punish that engineer over his now viral anti-diversity memo'.
64. February 16, 2018, The Verge, 'James Damore's labor complaint against Google was completely shut down'.
65. June 7, 2019, Mercury News, 'Google discrimination case first brought by James Damore can proceed; Judge denies tech giant's motions to dismiss lawsuit alleging bias against conservatives, men, white people'.
66. July 10, 2019, businessinsider.com.au, 'A US appeals court has upheld a ruling that bars Trump from blocking people on Twitter because it's discriminatory and unconstitutional'.
67. May 23, 2018, Daily Caller, 'Trump Blocking Critics On Twitter Is Unconstitutional, Judge Rules'.
68. June 12, 2013, Mother Jones, 'What Happens in the University of Maryland NSA Facility Where Edward Snowden Worked?': "On Sunday, the Diamondback, the university’s student newspaper, noted: “Which facility and exactly where it was Snowden worked is unknown, but the NSA has connections to several university facilities, including the Laboratory for Physical Sciences, the Office of Technology Commercialization and the Lab for Telecommunication Science.” Later, the university confirmed that in 2005 Snowden worked for less than a year as a “security specialist” for the NSA-linked Center for Advanced Study of Language (CASL) [at the University at Maryland], which serves as a research center for the intelligence community."
69. Nov. 12, 1999, Baltimore Sun, 'CIA recruiting news generation of spies at College Park; Women, ethnic minorities favored among applicants': "These days, the University of Maryland, just inside the Washington Beltway, is the CIA’s most productive recruiting ground. “We had the CIA here a few weeks ago and their schedule was filled. They were turning away people,” said Mark Kenyon, program director at the University of Maryland’s career center. ...
    Long a clubby domain of white men, [the Directorate of Operations] has proved ill-suited to penetrating modern extremist groups, “rogue” regimes, foreign crime gangs, non-Western cultures and “hard targets” such as North Korea and Iraq."
70. Aug. 17, 2004, nsf.gov, 'On the Origins of Google': "The National Science Foundation led the multi-agency Digital Library Initiative (DLI) that, in 1994, made its first six awards. One of those awards supported a Stanford University project led by professors Hector Garcia-Molina and Terry Winograd..."
71. nasa.gov/nsf-frequently-asked-questions/ (accessed: Jan. 26, 2024): "In 1994 NSF teamed with DARPA and NASA to launch the Digital Library Initiative which funded six digital library projects. One of these grants went to Stanford University, where two graduate students, Larry Page and Sergey Brin, began to develop a search engine that used the links between webpages as a ranking method, which they later commercialized under the name Google."
72. Aug. 17, 2004, nsf.gov, 'On the Origins of Google': "The National Science Foundation led the multi-agency Digital Library Initiative (DLI) that, in 1994, made its first six awards. One of those awards supported a Stanford University project led by professors Hector Garcia-Molina and Terry Winograd..."
73. Jan. 22, 2015, Nafeez Ahmed ("liberal CIA"-type journalist tied The Guardian, Middle East Eye and Vice) on his Medium.com channel, 'How the CIA made Google - Part I' (conducted various interviews) "“We funded Stanford University through the computer scientist Jeffrey Ullman, who had several promising graduate students working on many exciting areas,” Prof. Thuraisingham told me. “One of them was Sergey Brin, the founder of Google. The intelligence community’s MDDS program essentially provided Brin seed-funding, which was supplemented by many other sources, including the private sector.”"
74. March 25, 2013, Bhavani Thuraisingham at personal.utdallas.edu, 'Big Data: Have we seen it before?' (PDF): "Back in the 1990s the Intelligence Community started a program called Massive Digital Data Systems (MDDS) that I was managing for the Intelligence Community when I was at the MITRE Corporation. The MDDS program started in 1993 and ended in 1999. The program funded about 15 research efforts at various universities and the goal was to develop data management technologies to manage several terabytes to petabytes of data. The data management technologies included those for query processing, transaction management, metadata management, storage management, and data integration. The World Wide Web was in its very early stages back in 1994 and therefore web-based data management research was also just beginning. Furthermore, the NSF, DARPA and NASA had just started the digital library initiative. An overview of the MDDS program was presented by the MDDS Team at the Annual Intelligence Community Symposium AIPASG in 1995 and the abstract is attached to this document. ...
    [Updated version here:] So was the MDDS effort successful? Some say no because the program did not solve the massive data problem. However I say yes as the program did contribute to the understanding of what was involved in handling massive amounts of data and produced solutions for some of the challenges including storage management and indexing as well as query processing. In fact Prof. Jeffrey Ullman (at Stanford) and my colleague at MITRE Dr. Chris Clifton together with some others developed the Query Flocks System, as part of MDDS, which produced solutions for mining large amounts of data stored in databases. Also, Mr. Sergey Brin, the cofounder of Google, was part of Prof. Ullman’s research group at that time. I remember visiting Stanford with Dr. Rick Steinheiser from the Intelligence Community periodically and Mr. Brin would rush in on roller blades, give his presentation and rush out. During our last visit to Stanford in September 1998, Mr. Brin demonstrated to us his search engine which I believe became Google soon after. ...
    [The included MDDS paper:] TITLE: Intelligence Community Initiative in Massive Digital Data Systems. Authors: Hal Curran (NSA), Robert Kluttz (CMS [CIA's Community Management Staff; seemingly later part of MITRE]), Dr. Claudia Pierre (NSA), Dr. Rick Steinheiser (ORD [CIA's Office of Research and Development]) and Dr. Bhavani Thuraisingham (MITRE)."
75. July 14, 2014 YouTube upload by 'Khosla Ventures', 'Fireside chat with Google co-founders, Larry Page and Sergey Brin with Vinod Khosla' (event took place on July 3, 2014): "[KHOSLA:] I think 1997 [Larry Page nodding yes], Larry and Sergey almost got acquired. [Now Sergey nodding] ...
    [BRIN:] Well, we had developed this technology that we called PageRank. ... It, by itself, wasn't really a complete search engine. ... We showed it to a bunch of the existing search companies back then. Some of you might remember them: Infoseek, Excite, Lycos. Probably the greatest interest came from Excite. It actually came from Vinod. You were the investor in Excite. ... "We don't really want to sell, but if you've got $1.6 million you've got a deal." And a few minutes later we go a reply that said, "That's a lot of dough, but okay, we'll do it." I know, that's characteristic of [Inaudible]. 10 minutes later, Scott, one of the four of us, comes running in, laughing. A huge grin on his face. He had faked the reply. ... The deal obviously never came to fruition. ...
    [KOHOSLA:] The way I remember it, we actually agreed on the deal of around $350,000. [Page and Brin protesting] ...
    [PAGE:] I think he's saying that they were having a hard time going to $350,000 and we had a hard time changing our number. ...
    [KOHOSLA:] I had a hard time to get the management to agree to acquire Google. ... Yeah, they felt they didn't need it."
    [PAGE:] I think the reason we really didn't sell the company is because we talked to all these "search" companies at the time, and they just weren't interested in it, what we were doing. [And] we were like, "Why are we going to work for this place that doesn't really believe in "search"? It's not going to cause anything good to happen." So I think ultimately we didn't sell for that reason. Just that they weren't interested, which is the same reason I had trouble getting $2 million.".
76. March 2, 2015, CNBC, 'Dotcom Bubble CEO: Why I passed on buying Google'.
77. See 2 notes back.
78. ibid.
79. infolab.stanford.edu/pub /papers/google.pdf (accessed: July 27, 2006).
80. March 25, 2013, Bhavani Thuraisingham at personal.utdallas.edu, 'Big Data: Have we seen it before?' (PDF).
81. Dec. 21, 1998, Salon, 'Let’s Get This Straight: Yes, there is a better search engine. While the portal sites fiddle, Google catches fire.': "I don’t know about you, but I simply cannot get excited about the much-ballyhooed arrival of Go.com — Disney’s new (and still “beta-testing”) entry in the portal wars. Just what the world needs: *another* Web site that unites directory listings, news, weather, stock quotes, movie reviews, free e-mail, shopping and other online functions on one ugly-as-sin Web page — one that looks and behaves remarkably like its popular competitors. ...
    Yahoo tends to be more valuable than other search sites because its index is created by human beings rather than computer programs. But for the same reason, Yahoo has a hard time keeping up with the Web’s explosive growth.
    Google gets remarkably smart search results by using a mathematical algorithm that rates your site based on who links to you. The ranking depends not simply on the number of sites that link to you, but on the linking sites’ own importance rating. The result is a kind of automated peer review that sifts sites based on the collective wisdom of the Web itself. ...
    According to Page, its site-ranking approach is nearly impossible for devious webmasters to trick or “spam,” since it’s based on links and judgments made by other respected sites: “You have to actually convince someone who’s important that you’re important.”"
82. Ibid.
83. Oct. 6, 1999, New York Times, 'Google Keeps Search Simple'.
84. Feb. 22, 1999, Washington Post, 'Search, and Now You Find the Right Stuff'.
85. Oct. 6, 1999, New York Times, 'Google Keeps Search Simple'.
86. khoslaventures.com/team/vinod-khosla/ (accessed: Jan. 28, 2024): "As the founding CEO of Sun, he pioneered open systems and commercial RISC processors. Sun Microsystems was funded by Vinod’s longtime friend and board member John Doerr of Kleiner Perkins Caufield and Byers (KPCB)."
87. kleinerperkins.com/case-study/google/ (accessed: Jan. 28, 2024): "In 1999, Andy Bechtolsheim, co-founder of Sun Microsystems, introduced Kleiner Perkins to two young Stanford graduates, Larry Page and Sergey Brin. ... When John Doerr asked how big Google would be, they responded, "$10 billion." John thought they meant market cap, but they confidently asserted $10 billion in annual revenue! We invested with the biggest check in our history."
88. April 3, 2010, Fortune, 'Google director to quit Amazon board': "Mr Doerr, a prominent Silicon Valley investor, was instrumental in the early financing and development of both internet companies and had been on the boards of both since before they went public, having been a director of Amazon since 1996 [investor in 1995] and Google since 1999."
89. April 3, 2010, Fortune, 'Google director to quit Amazon board': "Mr Doerr [has] been a director of Amazon since 1996 [investor in 1995] and Google since 1999."
90. Oct. 6, 1999, New York Times, 'Google Keeps Search Simple'.
91. Nov. 4, 1999, Washington Post's Live Online, Sergey Brin interview about Google.
    washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/ liveonline/business/walker /walker110499.htm (accessed: Jan. 28, 2024).
92. kleinerperkins.com/case-study/google/ (accessed: Jan. 28, 2024): "John [Doerr] introduced Larry and Sergey to some of the most respected tech founders for advice—Scott Cook, Bill Gates, Andy Grove and Steve Jobs. Larry and Sergey drove an executive search process that led to Eric Schmidt, an experienced tech executive John knew from Sun Microsystems."
93. Ibid.
94. Dec. 22, 2017, Yahoo (Reuters original), Alphabet's Eric Schmidt to step down as executive chairman
95. abc.xyz/investor/other/board/ (accessed: June 23, 2019; last webarchive with Schmidt): "Board of Directors: Larry Page [CEO 1996-2001, April 2011 - July 2015]. Sergey Brin. John L. Hennessy. L. John Doerr. Roger W. Ferguson, Jr. Diane B. Greene. Ann Mather. Alan R. Mulally. Sundar Pichai [Google CEO Aug. 2015-]. Eric E. Schmidt [CEO 2001-2011, exec. chair 2011-Jan. 2018]. K. Ram Shriram. Robin L. Washington."
96. kleinerperkins.com/case-study/google/ (accessed: Jan. 28, 2024): "John [Doerr] introduced Larry and Sergey to some of the most respected tech founders for advice—Scott Cook, Bill Gates, Andy Grove and Steve Jobs. Larry and Sergey drove an executive search process that led to Eric Schmidt, an experienced tech executive John knew from Sun Microsystems."
97. Jan. 17, 1994, Computerworld, 'Sun Protests loss of NSA pact': "[It's about] more than $200 million in high-performance workstations. ... IBM, Hewlett-Packard Co. and Silicon Graphics, Inc. alleged that Sun rigged its benchmark results [CW, Aug. 9, 1993]."
98. Jan. 26, 1999, Wired, 'Sun on Privacy: 'Get Over It''.
99. ihouse.berkeley.edu/alumni/i-house-couples-friendships (accessed: Jan. 28, 2024): "Eric Schmidt (IH 1976-80) & Wendy Boyle (IH 1978-82)."
100. February 7, 2008, philanthropy.com, 'Google CEO Named Chairman of Washington Think Tank': "Eric Schmidt, chief executive of Google, will become the chairman of the New America Foundation... Mr. Schmidt has served on the foundation's board since its founding in 1999."
101. newamericafoundation.org/index.cfm? pg=boardof&DeptID=12 (accessed: August 7, 2004)
102. newamericafoundation.org/index.cfm?pg=boardof&DeptID=23 (accessed: January 5, 2005)
103. newamerica.net/about/funding (accessed: May 1, 2009): "Support for the New America Foundation in 2008:
     $1,000,000+: James Irvine Foundation ... Rockefeller Foundation ... Wendy and Eric Schmidt [of Google]...
     $250,000-$999,999: Alfred P. Sloan Foundation ... Ford Foundation ... Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation ... Open Society Institute. Peter G. Peterson Foundation ... Pew Charitable Trusts ... Wal-Mart Foundation.
     $100,000-$249,000: ... Annie E. Casey Foundation. The Atlantic Philanthropies ... McKinsey & Company ... Nathan Cummings Foundation ... Hewlett Foundation ...
     $50,000-$99,999: ... ARCA foundation. Citigroup Foundation ... Smith Richardson Foundation. Surdna Foundation ...
     $25,000-$49,999: ... Levi Strauss Foundation ... Microsoft ... Ploughshares Fund ... Tides Foundation ...
     $10,000-$24,999: ... Caipirinha Foundation. Free Press... John C. Whitehead...
     $1,000-$9,999: ... Comcast ... Google..."
104. November 1, 2016, Business Insider, 'Stolen emails reveal a tight relationship between Google's Eric Schmidt and the Clintons'.
105. Dec. 21, 1998, Salon, 'Let’s Get This Straight: Yes, there is a better search engine; While the portal sites fiddle, Google catches fire.'