Sundar Pichai

Sundar Pichai Biography: Google CEO Lied to Congress

Sundararajan Pichai is a 49 year old native of India who currently resides in Los Altos, California. In this biography we will cover his academic and professional careers as well has personal life with an emphasis on demonstrated bias against free speech and proof that he lied to Congress under oath. We will then conclude with the results of a comprehensive criminal background check.

Academic Career

According to India Times, Pichai obtained an undergraduate degree in metallurgical engineering from IIT Kharagpur in the early 1990s. He did so well that Stanford University offered him a scholarship which he used to obtain a M.S. in engineering and materials science in 1995. That timeline places his at Stanford at the same time as Google founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin. For that reason we suspect Google censorship under his leadership to be part of a decades long conspiracy between himself, Page, Brin, and others intent on seizing control of our access to information and then abusing that access to control what we see.

Pichai went on to obtain a MBA from the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania in 2002 after working briefly for Applied Materials. Applied Materials is a manufacturer of computer chips, electronics, and solar products. The kinds of things that would be a good fit for an engineer with advanced knowledge of metallurgy.

Professional Career

We believe that Pichai worked in management consulting briefly after graduating from Penn. According to Wikipedia, he worked for McKinsey & Company at one point, but the exact date is not listed. McKinsey and Company is a worldwide management consulting firm. It is the type of place that hires recent MBA graduates from Ivy League schools like Penn. We believe that he began working there shortly after his 2002 graduation until being hired by Google.


Google hired Pichai in 2004 as a product manager who oversaw development of Google Toolbar. Google Toolbar was used to give Internet Explorer and Firefox users quick access to the Google search engine. He later presided over the development of Google Chrome and Chrome OS. He also played a role in the development of Google Drive. Other products he had a hand in include Gmail, Google Maps, and Android.

In 2015, he became Google’s CEO after Alphabet Inc. was founded and his predecessor became CEO of Alphabet.

Assault on Free Speech

In 2017, Pichai made it clear that free speech would not be tolerated on his watch by firing James Damore. Damore had written a paper called “Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber” in which he exposed the left leaning bias at Google that gave rise to the censorship that has inspired us to fight back. Damore had been working as an engineer in the search department.

Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber

Damore’s paper made many interesting accurate observations about Google begging with the following:

  • Google’s political bias has equated the freedom from offense with psychological safety, but shaming into silence is the antithesis of psychological safety.
  • This silencing has created an ideological echo chamber where some ideas are too sacred to be honestly discussed.
  • The lack of discussion fosters the most extreme and authoritarian elements of this ideology. Extreme: all disparities in representation are due to oppression. Authoritarian: we should discriminate to correct for this oppression
  • Differences in distributions of traits between men and women may in part explain why we don’t have 50% representation of women in tech and leadership.
  • Discrimination to reach equal representation is unfair, divisive, and bad for business.
  • Google has several biases and honest discussion about these biases is being silenced by the dominant ideology.

Damore then added a table featuring various left and right wing biases before concluding that the truth is somewhere in the middle. That is a very dangerous position to take with liberals because as we explained in our manifesto, they think how they feel. By that we mean that they think they are correct due to a strong emotional connection that drives their faith in the correctness of their beliefs. Conservatives on the other hand tend to be less emotional, more objective, and open to at least hear out opposing views before deciding to stick to their guns. Liberals on the other hand are more likely to abruptly end the conversation with an angry outburst and do all they can to avoid talking about the issue or to you ever again. Google employees and certainly Mr. Pichai seem to fall into this category of liberals. We on the other hand fall somewhere in between which can be a lonely place because we bounce back and forth pleasing one side one day before pissing them off the next.

Damore found himself caught in the middle between left and right kind of like we are. He has some views that are too far right for liberals and some that are too far left for conservatives. As such he made some interesting observations about both sides such as:

A company too far to the right may be slow to react, overly hierarchical, and untrusting of others. In contrast, a company too far to the left will constantly be changing (deprecating much loved services), over diversify its interests (ignoring or being ashamed of its core business), and overly trust its employees and competitors.

– James Damore

His description of a company too far to the left echo’s the description of Google from our manifesto. Especially the part about becoming ashamed of their core business and depreciating much loved services. Our final straw with Google was their depreciation of search. They depreciated search because they became ashamed of their core business after The New York Times did a series documenting the impact of negative accusations against private citizens. A company more to the right would not become so ashamed of their core business to depreciate a service like that. Google has essentially made their core product (search) a mere sanitized shadow of its former self because “Google’s political bias has equated the freedom from offense with psychological safety.”

Pichai responded to Damore’s paper by throwing up a smoke screen calling it an “anti-diversity memo” and firing Damore. Today the memo is commonly referred to in such a way which typically prevents a lot of people (especially liberals) from examining the issues further. Pichai justified firing Damore in a blog post which included:

First, let me say that we strongly support the right of Googlers to express themselves, and much of what was in that memo is fair to debate, regardless of whether a vast majority of Googlers disagree with it. However, portions of the memo violate our Code of Conduct and cross the line by advancing harmful gender stereotypes in our workplace… To suggest a group of our colleagues have traits that make them less biologically suited to that work is offensive and not OK.

The memo has clearly impacted our co-workers, some of whom are hurting and feel judged based on their gender. Our co-workers shouldn’t have to worry that each time they open their mouths to speak in a meeting, they have to prove that they are not like the memo states, being “agreeable” rather than “assertive,” showing a “lower stress tolerance,” or being “neurotic.”

At the same time, there are co-workers who are questioning whether they can safely express their views in the workplace (especially those with a minority viewpoint). They too feel under threat, and that is also not OK. People must feel free to express dissent. So to be clear again, many points raised in the memo—such as the portions criticizing Google’s trainings, questioning the role of ideology in the workplace, and debating whether programs for women and underserved groups are sufficiently open to all—are important topics. The author had a right to express their views on those topics—we encourage an environment in which people can do this and it remains our policy to not take action against anyone for prompting these discussions.

– Sundar Pichai

Shouldn’t everyone regardless of gender “worry that each time they open their mouths to speak in a meeting, they have to prove they are not like the memo states, being ‘agreeable’ rather than ‘assertive,’ showing a ‘lower stress tolerance,’ or being ‘neurotic.'”? Of course they should. Making sure that you are not being agreeable rather than assertive, showing a lower stress tolerance, or being neurotic can only make you better. Pichai proved by firing Damore that no Google employee is safe to express their views in the workplace unless they share the same views as most Google employees.

Lying to Congress

In 2018, Pichai was called to testify before the House Judiciary Committee where he was questioned about political bias. During his testimony he said that his company “provides users with the best experience and the most relevant information.” As explained in our manifesto, that is not true. Google’s algorithm is designed to suppress relevant information in some cases, specifically in cases involving search results from websites that allow users to remove information for a fee or have a history of doing so. is a perfect example. If you search Google images for people whose mugshots have been published you won’t see the results from unless you restrict your search to just that site. This is true even when there are no other relevant images in Google. For instance, if I search for a person who only has 3 pictures of themselves online and one of those is from it will only show the images unless you type the “” before entering the person’s name. If you don’t do that you will probably see the other two images show up right away followed by pictures of other people and inanimate objects instead of the mugshots. Mugshots are useful to users because they are relevant to what they are searching for. does a great job of coding the landing pages so that the search engine can clearly tell whose mugshot it is, so there is no confusion just a decision by Google to manually manipulate those results. The decision to suppress content they know to be both truthful, accurate, relevant, and useful directly contradicts their mission statement as well as Pichai’s testimony.

Pichai also told Congress that Google employees do not manipulate search results. That was another lie. At 52:23 in the video below Pichai told Congressman Lamar Smith “it is not possible for an individual employee or groups of employees to manipulate our search results, we have a robust framework including many steps in the process.” Pichai’s statement goes beyond simply denying that Google employees manipulate search (which they do) by also making the outlandish claim that such manipulation is impossible.

As we established in our manifesto, individual employees have admitted manipulating search results from our websites to The New York Times and in a blog post. In that blog post, Google VP of Search Pandu Nayak wrote:

We design our ranking systems to surface high quality results for as many queries as possible, but some types of queries are more susceptible to bad actors and require specialized solutions. One such example is websites that employ exploitative removals practices. These are sites that require payment to remove content, and since 2018 we’ve had a policy that enables people to request removal of pages with information about them from our results.

Beyond removing these pages from appearing in Google Search, we also used these removals as a demotion signal in Search, so that sites that have these exploitative practices rank lower in results. This solution leads the industry, and is effective in helping people who are victims of harassment from these sites…

To help people who are dealing with extraordinary cases of repeated harassment, we’re implementing an improvement to our approach to further protect known victims. Now, once someone has requested a removal from one site with predatory practices, we will automatically apply ranking protections to help prevent content from other similar low quality sites appearing in search results for people’s names. We’re also looking to expand these protections further, as part of our ongoing work in this space.

This change was inspired by a similar approach we’ve taken with victims of non-consensual explicit content, commonly known as revenge porn. While no solution is perfect, our evaluations show that these changes meaningfully improve the quality of our results.

– Pandu Nayak

Those evaluations contain an admission that “notions of relevance and trustworthiness are ultimately human judgments, so to measure whether our systems are in fact understanding these correctly, we need to gather insights from people. To do this, we have a group of more than 10,000 people all over the world we call ‘search quality raters.'” By admitting the existence of “search quality raters” being employed by Google, Google proved that a group of Google employees called “search quality raters” are manually manipulating search results. The only possible defense Google could raise to that charge would be that perhaps these “raters” are in fact independent contractors or volunteers and technically not Google employees. The problem with that defense is that Pichai told Congress “it is not possible for an individual employee or groups of employees to manipulate our search results.” Clearly the existence of “search quality raters” proves that it is possible for employees to manipulate their results.

“Quality raters” aside, Nayak’s blog post describes a pattern of Google employees evaluating complaints received via a Google form from people requesting content about them be removed on the grounds that the site hosting it has an “exploitative removal practice.” If an employee agrees then they manually remove the link from search, add the person’s name to a list of “known victims” and suppress similar content from ranking high on Google for their names. Nayak admitted to doing the same thing to “victims” of revenge porn for many years predating Pichai’s testimony. That practice proves that it is possible for Google employees to manipulate search results because they do it every day. This elevates their conduct beyond simply removing stuff to directly manipulating the rankings themselves for some individuals.

Google first announced that they would be cracking down on revenge porn in 2015 by removing it upon request. This request based removal system was the predecessor to similar removal systems they implemented for other types of content such as content from sites with so called “exploitative removal policies.” That change predated Pichai’s first batch of testimony by three years. We are not sure exactly when Google began allowing employees to manipulate search results via this process. Judging by the wording of Nayak’s post we believe that the “known victims” program was applied to revenge porn long before it was applied to other types of content, specifically the part that says, “This change was inspired by a similar approach we’ve taken with victims of non-consensual explicit content.” This shows that Google has a history of concealing manual manipulations by their employees unless they think admitting to it makes them look good and even then not until long after the fact.

Under 18 U.S.C. 1621 whoever “(1) having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the United States authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony, declaration, deposition, or certificate by him subscribed, is true, willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true; or (2) in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code, willfully subscribes as true any material matter which he does not believe to be true; is guilty of perjury and shall, except as otherwise expressly provided by law, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. This section is applicable whether the statement or subscription is made within or without the United States.” Pichai’s statements clearly constitute a felony in violation of this statute, but he remains uncharged and at large.

The only possible defense Pichai could raise in response to this would be that “known victims” did not exist in 2018 when he testified and therefore such manipulation was not possible. Such a defense fails to account for the possibility of Google employees implementing such a thing, especially since “known victims” traces its roots back to a 2013 algorithm change designed to suppress child pornography. Former Google CEO Eric Schmidt explained that algorithm change in his own words in an op-ed for the Daily Mail:

We’ve fine tuned Google Search to prevent links to child sexual abuse material from appearing in our results… There’s no quick technical fix when it comes to detecting child sexual abuse imagery. This is because computers can’t reliably distinguish between innocent pictures of kids at bathtime and genuine abuse. So we always need to have a person review the images. Once that is done – and we know the pictures are illegal – each image is given a unique digital fingerprint.

– Eric Schmidt

Schmidt described a mechanism in which Google employees manually flagged images and tweaked their algorithm not to display those images in search results. That alone shows that it was possible for Google employees to manipulate search long before Pichai said it was not. We will not take the position that Google should not do all it can to eliminate child porn from search results, but we are going to take the position that when asked if Google employees manipulate search results directly that the correct answer is “yes.”

It is not far fetched to suggest that “known victims” is the same sort of mechanism that Google could use to suppress other types of websites from ranking well in search results for other terms. They simply need to create a new category of websites that they want to suppress (ex: right wing media) and a new list of search terms that they don’t want them to rank well for (ex: Donald Trump).


In 2019, Pichai became CEO of Google’s parent company Alphabet Inc. while at the same time remaining CEO of Google. While CEO of Alphabet, Pichai lied to the Senate and now faces new challenges from Congress that have likely motivated his company’s new censorship efforts.

Lying to the Senate

In 2020, Pichai testified before a Senate committee. You can watch his testimony in the video below. At about 3:11 he says “let me be clear, we approach our work without political bias, full stop. To do otherwise would be contrary to both our business interests and our mission.”

We couldn’t agree more. As we made clear in our manifesto, our problem with Google is that they are acting against their business interests and their mission. About 7:50 he said, “we don’t censor, we have moderation policies which we apply equally.” That of course amounts to an admission that they have “censor” policies that they call “moderation” policies and by using a different word to describe the same thing he admitted that he lied when he said, “we don’t censor.”

Congressional Heat

In 2021, Pichai testified before the House Committee on Energy and Commerce to weigh in on an unconstitutional online censorship bill currently being pushed by Rep. Jan Schakowsky. Schakowsky is one of many Democrats trying to abuse their new found majority and the election of Joe Biden to take away our ability to speak freely on the internet. The attempt to remove Congress itself on January 6th has made them look for ways to make sure that the American people will never be able to communicate in the ways necessary to organize an overthrow of the government. Looking for scapegoats they are attacking social media platforms with the hope of stopping people from saying things likely to motivate people to restore the republic. A better approach would be to undo centuries of unconstitutional laws and court decisions made by people looking for ways to circumvent the Bill of Rights, but of course they think an easier option would be to just shut people up before they become plant food and the tree of liberty is refreshed.

We think hearings like the one above explain why Pichai’s company has been acting against their own mission statement in recent years. They likely fear new laws that would make them responsible for statements made by others that are accessible via their platforms and are trying to make it look like they are doing enough to keep Congress off their back.

Personal Life

This section will cover a brief history of his family life, his hobbies, and where he lives.

Family History

Pichai is the son of a Regunatha and Lakshmi Pichai. His mother was a harmless stenographer, but his father had an employent history that peaked our interest. He was an electrical engineer with a British company called General Electric Company (GEC). This peaked our interest because historically Indians that collaborate with the British have not been good people. GEC established itself in India when the country was a British colony. The British ruled that colony with an iron fist with the help and much to the delight of companies like GEC. They eventually won their independence, but the British still maintain a presence there via the Commonwealth of Nations and the many British companies that continue to reap ill gotten gains from colonialism. Many Indians regard their countrymen that collaborated with the British as bootlickers the same way Americans view Benedict Arnold.

He is currently married to Anjali Pichai and has two children. We don’t know the names of his kids and don’t care to. His wife is high profile enough that we don’t mind including her name, but we normally don’t post names of people related to those we criticize. When we go after people we like to say that just being related to them should be punishment enough.


Pichai enjoys playing cricket and soccer. In 2017 he was photographed socializing with the FC Barcelona soccer team. In 2019, QZ wrote an article about his love for cricket saying “you can take the Indian out of India but you can’t take India out of the Indian” which supports our theory that a company which controls America’s access to information should not be run a foreigner. We already have a law requiring the President to be born in America because only a real American can be trusted to put America first.

Where He Lives

Pichai lives in a “shockingly modest” home located at 14155 Donelson Pl., Los Altos Hills, California 94022-2265. The home is so “shockingly modest” that we thought we had the wrong address until we read articles in the press which described his “shockingly modest” Los Altos Hills home with a tennis court at the end of a cul de sac which according to public records was purchased in 2009 for $3,400,000. Another indicator that this is the right place is that if you pan to the right you will see that his house is actually blurred. It is common for high profile people to get the Google Earth images of their homes blurred. They think it protects their privacy, but it really does more help confirm the presence of a high value target.

We have also linked Puchai to another Los Altos property at 73 View St, Los Altos, California 94022 which was purchased in 2014 for $2,450,000. However, phone records indicate that the residence might belong to a 1st generation relative and not Pichai himself.

Our public records search also tied Pichai or his wife to the phone numbers (650) 917-1015 and (408) 481-9466 with a confidence level of 5/5. Ironically, we found an email address for him, but it is not a Gmail account [email protected]. We also found ties to a company called PFT Investments LP and PFT Management LLC. His voter registration lists him as non-partisan despite his obvious leftism.

Criminal Background

Our criminal background check revealed a total of zero arrests and zero charges. We couldn’t find so much as a traffic ticket with his name on it. Ironic since our research has revealed Pichai to have committed multiple felonies in public. Usually people like that have a rap sheet, but Pichai just keeps getting away with it.


Sundar Pichai is a criminal whose demonstrated himself unfit to serve as the guardian of the world’s information.


Join the conversation

comment 2 comments
  • ObeyTheLaw


  • Someone

    Eye opening, I don’t know about the author, but he seems to have good sources.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Follow by Email