Friday, 14 September 2018

Google Caught Red-handed: Tried to Get Clinton Elected

Written by 

An expert recently warned that Internet tech giants have the capacity to shift “upwards of 12 million votes” in an election. Now it has been revealed that Google did in fact engage in such manipulation, seeking to vault Hillary Clinton to victory in 2016 by trying to boost Latino turnout. Moreover, the only thing a company executive found distressing and shocking about this election interference is that Donald Trump nonetheless won 29 percent of the Hispanic vote.

As Fox News reports:

A Google executive’s leaked email reveals efforts to increase Latino turnout prior to the 2016 U.S. presidential election and the executive’s “surprise” at Donald Trump’s performance among Latino voters.  

The 675-word email, first obtained exclusively by Fox News Channel’s “Tucker Carlson Tonight,” was written by the tech giant’s former head of multicultural marketing and details a range of efforts to increase Latino turnout, including the support of a partner organization that helped to drive voters to the polls.

“We worked very hard. Many people did. We pushed to get out the Latino vote with our features, our partners, and our voices. We kept our Googley efforts non-partisan and followed our company’s protocols for the elections strategy,” the email begins. “We emphasized our mission to give Latinos access to information so they can make an informed decision at the polls, and we feel very grateful for all the support to do this important work.”

At the end of the email, the author wrote that Latino Googler’s [sic] are “probably hurting right now” and that the election results are “tough to handle now that we know not all of us were against this” [Tucker Carlson’s original reporting on the matter below].

While much in the e-mail speaks for itself, let’s examine what doesn’t. First is the lie of being “non-partisan,” a status that in reality is as rare as the aye-aye born recently in the Denver Zoo. Qualifying as such (being non-partisan, not an aye-aye) only requires not saying “Vote for Democrats” or “Vote for Republicans,” which merely is wink-and-nod neutrality.

Note that Google didn’t attempt to increase turnout across the board, but only among a group that invariably votes 70-30 for Democrats. Moreover, while it’s a lesser point, the practice of increasing turnout itself aids Democrats because they do better in high-turnout environments (as disengaged voters, who are more likely to support leftists, typically constitute an inordinate percentage of the greater turnout).

In fact, it’s questionable whether being non-partisan in spirit is possible at all. To be “partisan” is to favor a party, cause, or person. And any party, cause, or person will espouse certain beliefs, certain dogmas. Yet as philosopher G.K. Chesterton pointed out, “In truth, there are only two kinds of people; those who accept dogma and know it, and those who accept dogma and don't know it.”

So since a person will have dogmas, he will always favor some party, cause, or person, even if only in a very unconscious or oblique way. For sure, it’s hard to imagine an individual or entity that cares enough to be involved in politics in any way being “non-partisan” all the way. It’s akin to the myth of a “value free” education.

Another misconception surrounding Google’s meddling is the notion, expressed by some conservatives, that the company “lost.” It’s unsurprising that leftists would be taken aback by some Hispanics bucking their stereotypes and not casting ballots the “right way” (perhaps, as with Saddam Hussein in 2002, they expect 100 percent of the vote). But with Clinton receiving 66 percent of Hispanics’ support and Trump only 29 percent, Google did increase the Democrat’s vote insofar as it increased Hispanic turnout.

Note also that Trump had no Hispanic breakthrough. John McCain won a higher percentage of the Latino vote in 2008 (31 percent) and Mitt Romney did almost as well in 2012 (27 percent). In fact, if Google keeps “losing” like this, we’ll lose the Republic.

This is, mind you, why leftists love (im)migration. Since the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965 took effect in ’68, 85 to 90 percent of our immigrants have hailed from the Third World — and 65 to 90 percent of that group votes for Democrat upon naturalization.

One of the only places greater leftist hegemony is found is among Google’s techies. Ninety-four percent of the company’s employees’ political donations went to Democrats in 2016. As for the rot at the top, Breitbart reported Monday, “During the 2016 presidential election, Eric Schmidt, who served as the executive chairman of Google parent Alphabet until December 2017, backed Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, and WikiLeaks editor Julian Assange claimed Google was ‘directly engaged’ in the Clinton campaign.”

None of this would matter were Google not the most powerful corporation in world history, with a virtual stranglehold over the English-speaking world’s information flow. Pundit Mark Steyn commented on Google’s capacity to “steal” elections — without anyone ever even knowing it — on the Monday edition of Tucker Carlson Tonight (video below).


Steyn’s claim is no exaggeration. As psychologist Robert Epstein told Carlson on August 24, his research indicates that Internet tech giants have the capacity to shift “upwards of 12 million votes” in the November 6 elections (video below).

Given this, one could ask: Is ours becoming a government of big tech, by big tech, and for big tech?

Photo at top: NicolasMcComber/iStock Unreleased/Getty Images

Please review our Comment Policy before posting a comment

Affiliates and Friends

Social Media