google trying its best again to manipulate people

>>742132254
If they did this to blacks there would be such an uproar.

>>742132254
"European History"

>>742132254
I use dukduckgo so i don't have to put up with google's bullshit.

that's pretty surprising actually. Can't believe they're that blatent.

>>742132254
something smells jewy

lost

>>742132254
the world is a fucked place man, I hate living in a corporate world

File: J9B7rK8.jpg (167KB, 598x944px) Image search: [Google]

167KB, 598x944px

haha omg this was under happy american couple and its one of the first images

yup there is a subversive white genocide because we are the final bastion in front of Israels total world domination

>>742132957
A woman with her pet nigger

>>742133104
wth are you talking about? I love israel and they hate sand niggers

File: 7cf01bbe64306dbf68c9285bb6ac8532--palestine-human-rights.jpg (15KB, 236x256px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 236x256px

>>742133203
Why has ISIS never attacked Israel?

>>742132254
fucking niggers

File: Screenshot_4.jpg (258KB, 1268x679px) Image search: [Google]

258KB, 1268x679px

I am actualy amazed. The world is going nuts, i swear

File: simpsons lisa19.jpg (10KB, 246x228px)

10KB, 246x228px

>>742132254
the fuck? their AI is supposed to be good

File: asd.jpg (426KB, 1469x791px) Image search: [Google]

426KB, 1469x791px

>>742135497
being more specific doesn't help either

their algorithm is flawed

>>742135829
its not the a.i.. this was done on purpose

File: bing.jpg (368KB, 1472x791px) Image search: [Google]

368KB, 1472x791px

>>742136063
bing isn't much better (maybe uses google beneath in secret)

funny enough they required me to turn off safe search

type "thebarchive tits"

what do u see anon

File: 0074.jpg (10KB, 129x155px)

10KB, 129x155px

>>742136063
see >>742136131

File: duck.jpg (368KB, 1473x786px) Image search: [Google]

368KB, 1473x786px

>>742136212
duck duck go, pretty much the same

>>742136131
everybody are returning the same results. the pages that host them must be tricking the algorithms somehow

>>742136212
duckduckgo seems to be fine

File: yahoo.jpg (344KB, 1472x797px) Image search: [Google]

344KB, 1472x797px

>>742136412
finally yahoo

seems like a pretty open-and-shut case

>>742136471
i just checked white man and that seemed to be fine and stopped at that

>>742136471
no, maybe a little less but bad they too

Google has been slowly aggregating reasons to stop using them. Sad as I have been using since 1999 and it used to be so great. I'll still ocasionally use it, but it will be the FoxNews or CNN of search tools. Somewhat useful but full of lies.

What are the best options for search engines and image searches now?

File: 33361c9cead08d3f0b49db3828bd4229aa95592a.png (1MB, 1123x845px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1123x845px

EXTERMINATE.
ANNIHILATE.
DESTROY.

>>742136624
google

i tried using others but always fall back to google to actually find anything

File: Yahoo search for "black women and black children".jpg (301KB, 1161x774px) Image search: [Google]

301KB, 1161x774px

>>742132254
>>742132638
It's not just Google. Bing, Yahoo, and even DDG do it too - even with the extra qualifier "white women and white children."

But note what gets returned if one asks for "black women and black children." (All 4 engines return similar results.)

The assault on the white race by the Zionist oligarchy - to create a single race of brown slaves, to be ruled over by their Zionist masters - is very real.

File: 458584458589.png (21KB, 751x648px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 751x648px

>>>/pol/137534422
>>>/pol/137534422
>>>/pol/137534422

>>742137704
Become Alex Jones red pilled please.

File: shrekmate.jpg (43KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 400x400px

>>742137841
Alphabet changed their motto from "Don't be evil" to "Do the right thing" ages ago.

Oh they know.

Also remember that Google is Alphabet. They changed names to Alphabet and started a daughter company named Google.

Proof is what Alphabet is listed under on the stock market.

File: 9s5BK7e.jpg (57KB, 560x370px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 560x370px

It would seem the more logical explanation is the companies that take these stock photos are more prone to have "diverse" families, rather than a conspiracy theory involving completely independent search engines try to manipulate people.

File: Bing search for "hispanic women and hispanic children".jpg (307KB, 1114x793px) Image search: [Google]

307KB, 1114x793px

>>742137704
Just did other races/ethnicities for completeness (4 engines, 4 searches: white, black, asian, hispanic) and the only ones that have problems are the white ones.

>>742137910
I should buy a water filter?

You guys are idiots. Consider this: a large majority of the internet and its culture/lingo/population is developed by white people. Additionally white culture accounts for the "norm" of Western Society. Therefore if one wants white people, they have no need to specify "white". On the contrary, when one specifies white, they are doing so to differentiate in some manner, from the norm. Hence you see white women with others who aren't white.

>>742139098
And in the same way >>742138868 all others return their labels because they labels are necessary in the "norm".

File: Bing search for "women and children".jpg (323KB, 1116x801px) Image search: [Google]

323KB, 1116x801px

>>742139098
So specifying "white people" is the reason the search results explicitly *don't* return white people?

And you're calling *us* idiots?

p.s. Here's what happens when the engines get asked for your supposed "norm."

File: Screenshot_20170815-024328.png (704KB, 720x1280px)

704KB, 720x1280px

>>742139441
Oh shit what counter evidence

File: Screenshot_20170815-024442.png (359KB, 720x1280px) Image search: [Google]

359KB, 720x1280px

>>742139441
>>742139717
Oh fuck wait here's more. Thanks for playing the cherry picking game, Alex Jones

File: Screenshot_20170815-024600.png (636KB, 720x1280px) Image search: [Google]

636KB, 720x1280px

>>742139441
I CAN DO THIS ALL DAY

File: DuckDuckGo search for "white children".jpg (292KB, 1122x790px) Image search: [Google]

292KB, 1122x790px

>>742139717
>>742139808
Compelling counter-"argument" you have there.

Here's the result for "white children."

File: Screenshot_20170815-004912.png (2MB, 1440x2560px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1440x2560px

Ahahahahaha

>>742140182
Are you fucking retarded? Did you read what I said above?

>>742139098
>>742139098

You specified "WHITE children" you therefore got pictures of white children with children of other races because that is when white must be applied. Alex, please tone it back.

File: Screenshot_20170815-025444.png (775KB, 720x1280px) Image search: [Google]

775KB, 720x1280px

>>742140182
>>742140597

Point being
.... that's right most of them are white.

File: Google search for "white people".jpg (277KB, 1117x762px) Image search: [Google]

277KB, 1117x762px

>>742140597
Yes, I suffered through your attempt at an explanation.

It accounts neither for the racial consistency when asking for other races, nor the color consistency when asking for "white <object>" when <object> is something other than people.

Searches for "children" "women" "men" and "people" all return diverse results, the non-white racial modifiers all return uniform results, the only ones that don't are with the modifier "white."

The suggestion that it's impossible to find white people because they're so privileged is both ludicrous and perverse.

Here's Google's results for "white people." I thought the "SCREW WHITE PEOPLE" was a nice touch.

>>742140691
What exactly is your point? What do you think Google is trying to push here? I'm honestly confused.

Looked up "family pictures." I count

N total = 29 pictures
N with discernible reace = 25

Unambiguously white = 14
Latino/White = 7
Black = 1
Black/white = 1
Asian = 2

None = 4

So whites account for 56%, Latino/Whites for 28%, Blacks and Black/Whites for 4%, Asians for 8%. Sounds pretty normal to me.

File: Google search for "asian children".jpg (285KB, 1119x751px) Image search: [Google]

285KB, 1119x751px

>>742141462
In contrast, here are the very racially uniform results for "asian children." The results for "black children" and "hispanic children" are equally homogenous.

Compare this uniformity to the earlier results for "white children." >>742140182

File: family pictures.png (2MB, 1519x770px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1519x770px

>>742141475
Forgot picture.

But seriously, what is the narrative here? You realize that Google returns results based on the web site right? Like >>742139098 says, because most of the internet that Western English-speaking people browse concurrently with our searches (i.e. Americans for the most part) is white or assumes whiteness, the only reason an article would specify whiteness in the webpage the picture was found on would be to address the whiteness itself, whether to make a jab at whiteness or to comment on the non-whiteness of the subjects (e.g. mixed families).

Listen, Google freaks me out as much as the next guy but I don't get how any of this thread makes sense.

>>742141851
Cool, here's the results for "cute children." 100% white, all across the board. Huh, Google must be trying to push the "white children are cute" narrative! Those devils!

>>742132254
You bunch of fag burgers
Search without white, and there you are.
White is still superior

File: cute children.png (2MB, 1531x673px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1531x673px

>>742142142
>>742141851

Fuck, I forgot the fucking picture again.

>>742132254
Hahaha. That's funny as hell.

>>742132443
ayyyyyyyyyyy

>>742141475
>>742141886
What? I was claiming that there wasn't any 'Narrative' jack ass. It is exactly that: normal. I was disagreeing with the Zionist spy bullshit that started this thread.

>>742142764
Lmao my bad man, I may have gotten you and the eprson you were responded to confused. Well it looks like we're in agreemen then.

File: 2017-08-15_00-18-12.jpg (191KB, 1254x646px) Image search: [Google]

191KB, 1254x646px

why is this what i got with duckduckgo? i had to blur out a cp result

>>742138653
stfu, jew

ITT: 4chan autists learning what it means to be triggered

File: good children.jpg (144KB, 1335x635px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 1335x635px

zionist agenda

File: Replacement migration.jpg (52KB, 514x352px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 514x352px

>>742141886
Google (other engines too) perform lots of natural language processing on the search query.

If Google is able to return a mostly-sensible result for something as complex as "How many games do the Mets play the Yankees" then it seems disingenuous to suggest Google can't discern the intention of the search "white children."

It's impossible to get white children even by forcing the search phrase.

So the general narrative is it seems particularly curious that the only race to experience this mixing-dilution is also the dominant race in the parts of the world under racial attack (in the sense that migration is being used as a weapon to replace white cultures with non-white ones - as the UN itself stated was the goal back in 2000).

That doesn't guarantee that's the cause of this observed result. But that there are other times when the effect isn't so obvious also doesn't prove that it's not race-cultural gaslighting.

The SEO arguments are especially irrelevant when considering children who want to find examples of what it means to be their race, whatever that one is, aren't going to GAF about how to qualify their searches and what the crawl really does. Google results are their mirror, and when they want to know what it is to be "white children" their mirror shows them a very different result than the children of other races. Whatever the reason, this is a significant problem.

Maybe the search engines are displaying non-white people because it knows people like you get triggered over it, which leads to more internet use.

>>742143606
Thank you for your response. I'm not sure you're correct but I don't think I'm informed enough on either Google's search algorithm or any perceived political/cultural agenda against whiteness. You've given me something to think about at least.

File: DDG search for "white women".jpg (171KB, 847x650px) Image search: [Google]

171KB, 847x650px

>>742143047
You should probably turn on Safe Search.

This is the DDG search for "white women."

File: Google censors for Hillary.jpg (182KB, 1400x760px) Image search: [Google]

182KB, 1400x760px

>>742144075
Thanks very much for being open to thinking about it.

I think in either case there's a problem. If it's just a weird result of a crawl, then it ought to get fixed. If it's a result of something more pernicious, then that is something deeply serious we *all* need to fix.

Remember that Google has a history of explicitly altering search results to fit its agenda for society. Here are the search results from the 4 engines back when Hillary Clinton was rumored to be very sick, but the Clinton camp was insisting she was fine (right before her Parkinsonian lockup on 9/11).

That Google will skew search results to fit its cultural agenda, along with the recent "Google Manifesto" debacle (which Google may consider a success), suggests it's not at all unreasonable to consider search results are being managed to achieve a cultural result.

>>742144664
Oops, in my haste I called those the search results, that's a comparison of the suggested auto-completes.

That's more important when trying to hide the existence of something.

>>742136063
It's more like you don't know how to search properly. Use quotations for terms or phrases you want searched. Then it searches for "white woman" instead of "white" and ""woman".

I swear some of you faggots get stupider by the day then blame everything on some big bullshit conspiracy.

>>742144664
>>742144866
I have no doubt in my mind that Google manipulates search results/autofills, and it wouldn't surprise me if they were pushing some sort of agenda. I guess I just don't know what that agenda entails exactly, and whether or not it has something to do with some sort of racial/cultural warfare. Race is a very hot cultural topic right now and I do see things headed to a boiling point in some ways. I get the feeling things are going to swing one way or another in the next couple of years. It's possile that Google, as a major mover of culture, has some stake in this but I have no real evidence to suggest this.

I would like to know who owns Google? What are their connections within the political sphere? How might they benefit from the sort of narrative you speak of? Is it a voter thing? A consumer thing? I just don't know enough about this at the moment.

>>742145144
Samefag here... And on another note most of you seem to be too stupid to realize that the reason it isnt just white people is because the most popular stories on Google end up with the top spots in the images often (if the tags add up)

There is nothing interesting about a story of a white woman who gives birth to white children, but if a white woman gives birth to a dark ass African kid then it would make headlines. If a white family adopts a African kid and it's a tragic story it will make headlines. There is nothing interesting about a plain white family.

>>742146047
That's just an expression of the values taught to you. That White is boring. This is on purpose. Just like White Pride being baited into being a hate group. Gay pride isn't a hate group or an 'Organization' or Radicals. Why? They can be radical. They can cause violence. Whites are being pushed out socially by intelligent liberals in the media via subtle wordplay.

File: Yahoo search for "white women" (with quotes).jpg (227KB, 1142x720px) Image search: [Google]

227KB, 1142x720px

>>742146047
>you seem to be too stupid
Ahh, another attack the messenger fail.

Here are the Yahoo results from the quoted search term "white women." It returns white women, and white women with black men. No other races, and no white women with white men.

>>742143597
Thanks Jesus

>>742146809
>That's just an expression of the values taught to you. That White is boring. This is on purpose
Moving now beyond white is boring to white is bad.

>>742146809
Still doesn't matter because it's not the point at all. To get to the top of Google images you need to be a top story on Google. What reason does the keyword "white women + white children" have to be a top story on Google for a non-negative connotations. Truth is there really is no reason because no one cares.

People care about interesting out of the normal things. Like many of those pictures probably had tags off "white woman" "white children" "African children" because some white family probably rescued some african child from sexual slavery by adopting them. The addition of the African children tag Trumps the original search fr just white woman and white children because the story was just that popular and they also are included in the search.

>>742147182
>To get to the top of Google images you need to be a top story on Google
Jesus, now you're not even trying.

>>742146863
17/17 pictures had white woman in it.
3/17 had white woman and black man.

If you use the minus sign and "black man" and it still shows them then I will admit they are pulling some sketchy shit.

>>742147366
Click on the images you dumbass. They are all news stories...

If you google "Caucasian" instead of "white" couple only white couples show up. I guess they just favor political correctness over anything else

File: Five aces.jpg (783KB, 2032x1532px) Image search: [Google]

783KB, 2032x1532px

>>742147376
Pulling some stupid shit, you mean. Fucking with search results is like embezzling - it's not supposed to be noticed.

Any search engine would force the wrong results even when they have been explicitly requested to be filtered would give away the scam. It would be like being accused of cheating at poker, then "winning" the next big pot with five aces.

To subvert a society *the subversion needs to appear like it's normal*.

Thus when people look for "white women," the results are subtly skewed so that "normal" means "white women, along with black men." This shifts society's expectation of what it means to be a "white woman."

The same thing applies to the phrase "white women and white children," where the image dictionary of what it means to be a white woman with white children is to have a black husband and mixed race children.

The subtle social conditioning of image search (all search, really) results is they tell people what's "normal." It's like a dictionary, or a mirror. And for white people, what the mirror shows is very, very skewed...and ominously, to exactly what the results would be if one wanted to destroy the white race.

p.s. Since the push for race mixing is from the top down, of course there will also be news stories, entertainment fluff, all sorts of other things about race mixing. It's visible at the search engines, but that the problem is even more widespread just means it's that much *worse*.

>>742132254
/b/ turns /pol/

at least Canada has so many white people that it cancels some of it out. look up Canadian person and there is like one black person in the whole list of images

>>742148186
You could be right, but 9/10 times the simple logical explanation is more likely true rather than the conspiracy theory that someone is trying to brainwash and manipulate society through Google images. No doubt they manipulate some aspects for the fact that extra tags are in a specific search, I just am doubtful it's important enough that someone made it their job to brainwash white people into thinking the ideal marriage is with a black man through Google images...

File: First search result for "white woman".jpg (55KB, 692x693px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 692x693px

>>742147435
Oh, right. Here's the "news story" that's the #1 search result for "white woman" (with quotes):

"White woman with black man in love stock photo"

If you're making the argument that search results are a reflection of what's being written in the media, then I'd say that says the problem of the intentional destruction of the white race is *wildly worse*.

I tend to agree that the race war is being conducted across all media, so it's not simply the search engines skewing results, it's the entire media skewing the content, which then can be claimed to "naturally" affect the search results. The search results just expose this.

(That doesn't mean the search engines aren't also skewing the results, like they intentionally suppress alternative news sites.)

File: IMG_0768.gif (498KB, 200x183px) Image search: [Google]

498KB, 200x183px

>>742132254
You forgot
>white American family
>American inventors or white Americans inventors

>>742149198
Weirdly, everyone got the same results in their top 50 images except you. You must've had to scroll pretty far down or specifically search for stock images to pull this one out of your ass.

File: Screenshot_20170815-191022.png (2MB, 1080x2220px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1080x2220px

Europe wins

"american scientists"
you white pigs

File: Google results for canadian woman.jpg (101KB, 952x421px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 952x421px

>>742148865
Google seems to have a broader idea of what it means to be a Candian woman....

>>742147376
black couple:
49/50 results were a black man and a black woman

white couple:
25/50 results were a white man with a white woman

>>742136528
What's with the spooky skeleton on the left?

>>742132638
>>742132254
>>742137704
it's almost as if the sites which are redirected towards phrases and words, are paid to have their sites/images at the forefront of anyone searching those phrases/words

nahh, google is open and free and their entire business model isn't to sell links to the highest bidder for keeping their sites at the forefront of whatever word/catchphrase that's being searched..

you fags should be looking at the cucks with money who are paying to have this cancer on the front page

rather than the middleman who's just relaying his services for profits

>>742136063
>>742136212
>>742136412
>start mass uploading a black background with white colored font
>white writing says "Nothing"
>picture name "Black/African American accomplishments"
>????
>Profit

Extra giggles: Reveal how offended you are about this to tumblr and similar, watch it snowball.

>>742136765
ok, wanted to make sure I wasn't the only one who saw that...

google "inventor of peanut butter" and what do you see? George Washington Carver. Even though George Washington Carver was a worthless nigger and the actually inventor of peanut butter was some unknown Aztec person. Google even sites a huffingtonpost article that admits it. It even details the modern iteration of peanut butter can be given to other inventors. Still only George Washington Carver is highlighted by google.

File: DuckDuckGo results for european couple.jpg (129KB, 700x482px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 700x482px

Sorry Europe, looks like it's too late for you.

(Again, the search results aren't just a sign of things being manipulated at the engines. They're a sign of a widespread effort by media, which includes search engines, to racially manipulate society.)

>>742150396
>only real couple that aren't models
>white
what's the problem?

>>742132254
If you take out the racial signifier you get mostly white people. Stop being a faggot.

File: Black accomplishments.jpg (31KB, 1294x745px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 1294x745px

>>742150162

Pic and filename related.
Watch the algorithm get quickly fixed for this.

>>742150301
I'll give engines a pass on GWC, since the widespread belief (though wrong) is GWC invented peanut butter.

But if we're going to give Google a pass because they only reflect the "widespread belief" (leaving unanswered the important question of who counts in that "widespread"), then that the widespread belief is white women and children are to be paired with black men suggests a much more pervasive and dangerous problem.

>>742150554
That one was more of a joke to the earlier anon who talked about Europe, but that the idea of what it means to be a "European couple" has already been shifted to a Muslim man and a white woman shows the extent to which racial change - and I'd argue, intentional racial manipulation - is occurring.

I'd say it's probably not the case that most Europeans think of what it means to be a "European couple" is a white woman with a Muslim man. So that search engines, stock photo companies, and other dictionary-arbiters of what it means to be a certain thing present a different answer, that's a big tell and a huge problem.

Or a huge success, for the people trying to homogenize races and culture under the flag of "diversity."

>>742144664

That would be WAY more effective of a comparison if you typed the exact same thing into each search

>>742150948
>the idea of what it means to be a "European couple" has already been shifted to a Muslim man
nigger no one thinks like this, wtf are you going on about?
P.S muslim isn't a race, it's a religion.

>racial manipulation
again what? who the fuck comes up with this bullshit, and for what purpose

File: Hillary and Schmidt.jpg (23KB, 650x366px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 650x366px

>>742151032
The search strings are different (I was the one who did them) because those were the minimum strings necessary to get the various engines to suggest completions.

So it's even worse than it looks, since at DuckDuckGo and Yahoo simply typing "Hillary" would bring up a long list of references to her being sick, while at Google even going all the way to "Hillary Clinton health" - clearly an indication the person wanted to know whether Clinton was sick - Google refused to give any indication that their preferred candidate was seriously ill.

Shorter strings, like "Hillary Clinton h" gave suggestions like "Hillary Clinton hair" and "Hillary Clinton husband."

ffs google

>>742132254
wtf

File: Google search for "white couple".jpg (216KB, 1063x728px) Image search: [Google]

216KB, 1063x728px

>>742149935
"white couple"

Wow, this one is *really* fucked - far more mixed race couples (always dark men with white women) than both white.

And the first white-white couple is gay - with a black baby!

>>742152472
soo.. who is paying google to fuck up the accuracy of their search results, to normalize white women+black men or two gay dudes?
what do those people have to gain?

Try typing in "couple blanc"(white couple in french) and you'll get slightly more accurate results, i think this has to do with the anglo world's fetishization of mixed race couples.

File: 50s American family.jpg (35KB, 376x436px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 376x436px

There was a time when society's image of "white family" - not even family, specifically white family - was this.

(This was also the actual demographics of the population, so the stereotype reflected reality.)

But blacks are only 1/7 of the population even today. So even if every single black man in America had himself a white woman, the demographics still wouldn't support the kind of results returned. And stereotypes lag the underlying reality, not lead it.

That search engines are indexing and returning, and the sites to which they give favor are claiming, that the definition of "white couple" is a white woman with a black man - or two gay white males adopting a non-white child - strongly suggests those with the power to direct society are intentionally directing society away from families that would create and raise white children.

And that's white genocide.

File: 1396277956028.jpg (59KB, 537x608px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 537x608px

>>742132254
I think it's just because articles that specifically talks about white people are often about racism and race differences / inequalities. So of course they'll have pics of white people with colored people. These pics come with the keywords about white people and you find yourself with weird results like these

>>742139098
This is a lot more relevant then people realize. It all comes down to how the majority of people search for things and what words they use. It all comes down to trends and search terms used. Put the tin foil hats away kids.

>>742152908
While I wouldn't put it past Google to explicitly assist in this, as I just wrote here >>742153178
I think these results are evidence of a much larger push from the global oligarchy to end the white race (partly to make the future humanity more compliant, partly to make the remaining independent nations - which are still primarily white - easier to subvert).

Nobody has to pay Google to participate in this effort. The people who own and control Google are part of that small global club (which sometimes shows itself at places like Bilderberg and Davos, which Schmidt, Brin, Page etc regularly attend).

The larger goal of these efforts is global control and institution of a single world government - ruled by a tiny group of the insanely wealthy, and the rest of humanity left as a mass of easily manipulated slaves.

Yes it's close to that now, but it's not there yet - which is why there's such a hard push to eliminate the white part of humanity before that plan is exposed and humanity can fight back.

This isn't just about preserving the white race. This is about saving humanity from global slavery. That the white part of humanity is incredibly good at defending its homeland in war (when it realizes there *is* a war) is why those who would enslave humanity want to use race-mixing to leave humanity unable to defend itself.

Things like these makes me happy that i live in a racist country and saw 2 niggers in my whole life and only one kebab

>>742132254
What the absolute fuck? Almost every picture has non-white people. This is intentional.

File: ChA01cxWgAI88Am.jpg (29KB, 480x365px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 480x365px

>>742152472
On first page of results. What are the Jews trying to say with this one?

File: black-woman-white-man.jpg (218KB, 900x600px) Image search: [Google]

218KB, 900x600px

how old is this maymay?
I don't remember this ever being a thing until now.
https://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=172491021 shows up when you type "happy american couple" and it's dated 9/13/2016.
Can anyone find earlier examples of this tomfoolery?

>>742153751
>mullatos are easily tamed like whites, but still stupid as africans!
top kek, you can't actually believe this can you?
just look at arab/muslim countries, they're descendants of mullatos and race mixing.

they're not at all complacent

>>742149561
"caucasian family" works even better

I think >>742153374 is correct. "White couple" is a racially charged term and gets articles about racism dredged up from the internet.

"Caucasian" is a lot less racially charged than "White"

>>742153000
>i think this has to do with the anglo world's fetishization of mixed race couples
Or more accurately, the *portrayal* that mixed race couples are a so desirable they should be fetishized.

People should be allowed to like or dislike whoever they do. But if you ask a bunch of white women (not read what some media outlet says, ask real people) which race they prefer, it's overwhelmingly white.

So as I've said earlier I agree much of the search results could be explained by a broader writing about those ideas. But that those ideas are suddenly being written about (and weighted in some secret sauce way by Google, most likely giving preference to the global-order-friendly ones) asks the question *why* there's this explosion of "oh, it's great, everyone is doing it!"

For a good documentary about how these kinds of planetary-scale cultural shifts are subversively accomplished by business and media, watch "The Diamond Empire." It details how the notion of diamonds - a common rock, most of the earth is carbon - as a "girl's best friend" and now a fundamental part of human pair bonding was simply an advertising campaign through the compliant media by the DeBeers (the diamond monopoly).

Frontline: The Diamond Empire
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pr760mRwek4

And if they can do it with diamonds, they can do it with race.

>>742132254
People still use Google and not DuckDuckGo or Dogpile? Talk about a captive audiance...

>>742133104
This

>>742154349
>they're not at all complacent
They don't need to be complacent, they need to be unable to successfully defend themselves against being conquered.

Those are almost totally different.

>>742154365
This right here you idiots. Know how searching works before getting your tits in a knot.

>>742154477
And the chinks too. That why jews want you to hate chinks.

>>742154598
>being conquered
idk how or where you got this notion that white people are the only ones capable of successfully revolting.

are you un aware of recent south american history?

>>742154794
thats' why the chinks keep spamming cuck porn throughout the internet?

>>742153933
>This is intentional
And the even more frightening idea is that it's intentional *on the part of all the sites Google in its secret way weights most heavily*.

If people only blame the search engines - and don't see this is a top-down effort to change the racial makeup of humanity - they'll miss the real danger.

File: caucasian-couple-one-week-old-boy-young-over-black-31991439.jpg (109KB, 1300x957px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 1300x957px

ITT: Retards who didnt finish 8th grade

"white" isn't a race you fucking morons.

white is a colour.

asian, indian, african, pacific islander are all geography-specific.

repeat OP's experiment with "caucasian" instead of "white" and it's problem solved.

There's no Google conspiracy, you're all just retarded like people who call a laptop computer a "macbook" because they don't have the real word in their vocabulary.

>pic related, first result for "Caucasian couple". You even get free titty.

>>742154811
Are you unaware of the last 500 years of South American history?

>>742154887
That's retarded.
Black isn't a race either. It's a colour. It still gets you what you'd expect.

Moreover, "Caucasian" is a broad term that includes some people from Africa and asia.
"White" simply referes to peple who have what we call white skin.

>>742154887
>asian, indian, african, pacific islander are all geography-specific.
so europeans who conquered the world and held a distinct skull/bone structure and skin colour, isn't worthy of having a title?
this is the same racism white people are fighting world wide.
whites have a history, and are a race.
get over it you butthurt niggerfaggot jew hethen muslim cracker chink

>>742155087
there is no such thing as race
grow the fuck up

>>742155014
the fuck do you think i meant when i said recent history?
surely not decades.
the native tribes were constantly revolting on pretty much a generation basis

>>742154887
Ah yes, that's why the media is ablaze and the US nearly at race war over "caucasian supremacists."

>>742154887
Youre wrong. There are still too many whote girls with a chimp on the search result. Jews want to make you know thats the norm for today. I dont fall for it.

>>742155155
there is no jewish conspiracy.

>>742132254
>google white couple
Ironically, the pictures of non-white couples are from a reddit thread discussing Google searches for white couples as mix raced......... which is pretty goddamn funny if you ask me

ITT white nationalists who don't understand the white default of western culture.

Try googling the word couple, or family you dickwads.

>>742155115
>grow the fuck up
why when triggering you is so easy?

but honestly you have to be exceedingly stupid not to acknowledge that homosapiens have branched out into different sub categories.

you can see this in skull shapes, skin, eye, hair colour.

i'm not saying anyone is superior or inferior, but you have to be blind and stupid to think humans have some albeit minor differences among the races. we are all sentient beings afterall though, and should be respected as such regardless of race

>>742155125
And they didn't defend themselves against the Spanish all that well, did they?

Or perhaps South America speaks Spanish today because they decided it was a language clearly superior to their own native tongues.

Its easy guys. Jews want you to mix with niggers so you dont question their(jews) actions. Because youre too stupid as a mulatto. Once you get too dumb you will get exploited like taking a lifetime medication.

>>742155336
you sure wrote a lot.

This seems unreal.

>>742155336
>you have to be exceedingly stupid
Don't forget "or intentionally deceptive."

>>742155240

Also try CEO, power, respect, dignity, or love.

>>742155336
Hell if i would. Just look at that shithole Africa. And no it was not the white mans fault. They had lots of time to evolve but look at that shit now. Niggers are inferior

File: thejuice.jpg (14KB, 198x255px)

14KB, 198x255px

>>742132254
First pic googleing happy american couple

>>742132254
holy kek

>>742155569

Superhero, or here's a fancy one ducking Google the word person.

Fact niggers be niggers inferior and destructive. Kill it with fire. Jews manipulate and use the nigger as a bio weapon. A mulatto would never reach to this point he will just watch MTV and buy jew stuff while he has been required to take lifetime medication. Easy bucks for the jews $$$

>>742132254
Holy fucking shit this is NOT how search engines work. This type of shit cannot be allowed.

>>742155343
>And they didn't defend themselves against the Spanish all that well, did they?
they were eventually pushed out.
point was they revolt, constantly even today.

>>742155777
You're actually retarded.

Google the word person, just do it.

>>742155632
Look where the image comes from. Use your damn mind.

>>742155579
>And no it was not the white mans fault
no not as a whole, that's stupid

but when a capitalist nation has all the funding and natural resources gutted from said nation, it's kind of hard to kickstart things back up into a productive and decent nation.

see nigeria.

and then see slavic nations like ukraine today

notice how two seperate races, have the same results after similar situations?

It's crucial to notice it's *white women* who are being targeted.

Women were the ones targeted in the diamond monopoly's effort to insert their product into the genetics of the culture. They were targeted because women were more easily influenced, and once the women were swayed, the men would have to follow.

This is why the broader searches like "person" are not as affected. That's not the target. The target is specifically *white women* - because the goal is to breed the white race out of existence, and women are more easily swayed than men.

File: gettyimages-487141422.jpg (604KB, 1280x800px) Image search: [Google]

604KB, 1280x800px

LOL... european women, second photo

>>742156093
Exactly

>>742155826
Gahh, this is the last I'll say about South America.

The white Europeans (mostly Spanish, Spanish neighbor Portuguese in Brazil) fucking laid waste to South America, and ruled the native people there with an iron fist in a bloody glove for centuries. The Aztecs, the Incas, the Mayans - all gone.

The only reason the South Americans were ever able to push out the Europeans was a combination of the collapse of the European empires, and in influx of European genes in the South American population.

I don't believe anyone's model for self-defense and free society is the Aztecs, Incas, and Mayans under the Spanish.

>>742156585
>I don't believe anyone's model for self-defense and free society
i thought we were discussing genetics?

>>742156738
Genetics highly influences a people's abilities - including their ability to defend themselves, thus determining whether they can have a free society or live as slaves.

File: Diamonds and women.jpg (169KB, 1004x766px) Image search: [Google]

169KB, 1004x766px

A good way to see what's going on with white women being brainwashed into thinking they need and want black men is to look at how women were brainwashed into believing they need and want diamonds.

Diamonds are common rocks. They used to be "mined" by having lines of blacks with tin cans around their necks crawl across the ground and pick them up. And yet through a subversive and absolutely intentional media campaign women now associate these glorified pieces of gravel with romance and intimacy - and see them as an *expected* part of a reproductive relationship.

The tiny cult that controls most of the world's money is simply doing what was done with diamonds with black men.

And unless those forces are stopped one day soon white women will expect and want a reproductive relationship to be with a black man just as much as they want a diamond ring.

African genes are naturally inferior. This is be reflected in what the african man has achieved. Literally nothing - good job nigger defenders if you like to live with baboons why dont you live somewhere like Sierra Leone. Enjoy your life there you delusional libtard.

>>742156840
then why the fuck don't they just use british genes?
they're all a bunch of cucks enslaved by their faggot wives, they fit the bill far better than any stupid half breed. they're both smart, and incapable of revolting!

>>742157315
>African genes are naturally inferior
Depends on the task. At some tasks inferior, but for others superior.

In the crucial task of not being enslaved, African genetics are pretty poor.

>>742139063
Yes.

File: Screenshot_20170815-140041.png (194KB, 1080x1920px) Image search: [Google]

194KB, 1080x1920px

>>742132254

>>742157562
it's almost as if stormfront has been using google to cherrypick news articles to use as "proof" that there's an issue with race

File: E Pluribus Unum.jpg (629KB, 1366x769px) Image search: [Google]

629KB, 1366x769px

Believing that everyone is the same is just as much an objectification as believing everyone is different.

If I believe "we're all the same - you're just like me!" then I've just arrogantly splattered my own self-centered worldview all over you. And in doing so I've missed the truth of whoever you are.

Worse, in doing so I not only feel smarmily self-righteous in my kumbaya "tolerance," I blind myself to how I'm even worse than the people who are openly prejudiced - because they at least are honest about their prejudice, while I'm blind to mine.

We can't come together to live in a world of "diversity" (whatever that means) until we accept not just how similar we all are, but also how different.

>bloo bloo people think racism is bad
Take your three-incher and go home, son.

>>742157823
>but also how different.
if people become different enough to the point of having a distinct and observable difference between other races, then they will simply be labeled another species altogether rather than a different race.

as it stands any one person of any race can achieve the same feats as anyone else of any other race

What is that shit? Some people are wondering why white people are starting to get pissed at this everything that is white is bad pc bullshit. White people are getting tired of this shit.

File: Usain Bolt.jpg (146KB, 1100x619px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 1100x619px

>>742158008
>as it stands any one person of any race can achieve the same feats as anyone else of any other race
What naiveté.

>>742138653
That makes too much sense and doesn't fit my narrative!
I must resort to ad hominem attacks by calling you a jew or shill!


Nah in all seriousness there is tampering with YouTube results and image results but it seems only to serve trying to make people join the political left or manipulate them with leftist content.
Have you heard about the new algorithm which is basically a blacklist for channels that don't hold the right views

>>742158512
>was theorized decades ago that the fastest a person could run was 40 somethin mph
you know, when there were no black people in the olympics, this was theorized.
and some roided faggot is just barely under the top speed a bipodel human can run
go figure

>>742158512
Can you run as fast as a african super athlete? Now who is inferior ha! ha!

>>742158924
he's jamaican you dolt.

>>742159025
We are not talking about nations. Now who is the dolt ha! ha!

File: Cells.jpg (37KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 960x720px

>>742157315
>>742158924
What's "superior" and "inferior" is usually dependent on the situation.

For example, the blood cell characteristic of blacks that gives them a predisposition to the debilitating disease sickle cell anemia is the very same characteristic that gives them some malaria resistance. Not one or the other, both.

What I hope we're talking about ITT is looking at the collective capabilities of the human race. White people have some abilities (measured as a distribution over the population) that black people don't, and vice versa. We can't know what we all have, collectively, unless we can freely talk about what we can all do (or not do).

And if some of our collective abilities are subversively and without our consent bred out of humanity, then that's a loss to all of us - and a benefit only to those who would then enslave us.

>>742159423
So you mean the african man evolved enough to fight jungle diseases why the white man is or more likely was about to colonize our solar systems?

>>742159748
We've already said that colonizing - conquering others instead of being the conquered - is one characteristic where whites are comparatively better than other races.

I'm heading out (I wrote most of the more detailed posts), thanks for a good thread everyone.

If you take anything from our discussion, I hope it will be

1. The effort to eliminate the white race through breeding is very real, very widespread, and very intentional.
2. The need for black men is being programmed into white women (since women are more easily manipulated) just like the need for diamonds was.
3. The search results show this effort is bigger than just the search engines - it's a push from the top down across all media (thus reflected in the search results).
4. The largest question is of the collective capabilities of humanity, and whether we can speak freely, accept our difference and choose our future - or have the characteristics of our children chosen by others without our consent.

>>742160866
Praise the apestate nigger.