Google suppresses American Thinker results on its search engine

Big Tech's institutional bias against conservatives was once relegated to the realm of conspiracy theories.  Today, it's an immutable fact, and Big Tech doesn't even seem to be interested in hiding it anymore.

For example, as some have seen, try searching for "socialism and racism."  The results inexplicably include search results for "capitalism and racism."  Searchers will first see things like the below:

Some people try to explain this away as having been caused by some inexplicable algorithmic logic.  When Alex Berenson highlighted this curious search result on his Twitter feed, a detractor suggested that it's "an algorithm and it suggests other results that are frequently Googled with or like yours. Most of the time it's very helpful especially if you don't quite know how to spell something."

That theory collapses with minimal effort.  For example, if you search for "capitalism and racism" but happen to misspell capitalism, the "helpful" engine helps you get to your intended destination:

However, if you search for "socialism and capitalism" and happen to misspell "socialism," it takes you right back to search results for "capitalism and socialism" and the same articles:

Curious how that happens, huh?  It's almost as if the algorithm isn't designed to "help" me find what I'm looking for, so much as it is trying to "lead" me to find something that someone else wants me to find.

Google's public liaison, Danny Sullivan, feebly attempts to explain this oddity on Twitter:

By default, Google automatically looks for related words, often useful as creators might not use the same words as searchers. That's what's happening. The label is to explicitly alert searchers, in case they wish to restrict the expansion.

Well, what follows might be even harder to explain, because it seems evident beyond doubt that American Thinker has become a victim of Google's search engine bias.

Every so often, I'll search for an article of mine on American Thinker on my phone, and if it's fairly recent, I'll just try searching for the name of the article.  But I began to notice something curious in the results.

For example, I tried searching for a recent article of mine that was somewhat widely seen, titled "Social Distancing Is Snake Oil, Not Science."  A search came up with results, but the results were other sites that had reproduced the article, not the original publisher.

This is exceptionally curious because my Google search history is laden with things that might turn up American Thinker items.  Is the algorithm trying to help me or keep me from seeing a particular website?

So I tried with the DuckDuckGo app and made the search again, this time including even fewer words:

Well, what do you know?  The American Thinker article is the first one to pop up.

So I tried another, one from last week, which experienced a fairly sizable readership (thank you!), titled "Lockdowns Never Again: Sweden Was Right, and We Were Wrong":

Again, several websites that steal the original content appear, but not the original publisher, which undoubtedly would be recognized by any honest algorithmic program as the site most associated with that sequence of words.

Once again, using the DuckDuckGo app:

And magically, the original publisher, which has undoubtedly experienced far more hits than these other websites reproducing it, appears first. 

And, as I now write this, I noticed something I didn't notice when I took the screen cap of this particular search.  Do you notice what website appears second?  The pro-life and pro-family website LifeSiteNews.  Do you know what website also doesn't appear in the same search on Google?  LifeSiteNews.

I wonder why that is!

Big Tech has thrown away and burnt whatever mask it once had, pulling out all the stops to destroy the prospects of a Trump presidency by suppressing search results that it doesn't want you to see.  Any effort by Big Tech to feign political impartiality, at this point, should be met with the derision that anyone trying to peddle that lie deserves.

If you experience technical problems, please write to