How to Destroy Someone’s Reputation with Google

google

By the time you finish reading this post, you’ll be able to ruin your enemies’ lives, end their careers and leave them utterly destitute. And all you need is a computer and a blog.

I’m talking about manipulating Google to push negative articles about them to the first page.

Roosh has discussed doing this in the context of fighting feminists and leftists, but his advice doesn’t go far enough. He did a wonderful job tarring Gawker witch-burner Nitasha Tiku with accusations of racism, but in order to really do harm to people, you need to hit them with charges that most everyone—HR flacks in particular—will find offensive.

This article will show you precisely how to do that.

Please note that I’m not a legal expert and everything in this article (hell, everything you read on the Internet period) should be taken with a grain of salt. Also, this article is written from an American perspective; if you live in Canada, the U.K. or another country with stricter libel laws, you have less wiggle room for these kinds of operations. Also, bigups to my friend Zampano, who helped me perfect my techniques.

The best example I have is my article on Sarah Figalora, the intern who interviewed me for the aborted ABC News hatchet job on the manosphere a few months back. My piece on her is currently the number one Google result for her name, while the number three result is a link to the article from my Facebook page. My article on Alyssa Pry and Alexa Valiente, the interns who wrote the 20/20 hit piece, is also highly ranked (number one for Pry’s name, number two for Valiente’s), but because just about everyone in the ‘sphere went after them, I’m going to focus on my article about Figalora.

Here’s why my mission to tar Figalora’s name was a success, and how you can replicate my methods.

1. Write the article in as balanced a tone as possible.

An article full of swear words and far-fetched accusations is useless. Remember, you’re trying to convince neutral third parties that the person you’re writing about is a scumbag, not preaching to the choir. As a result, you should use polite, measured language and avoid anything that makes you look angry or uncouth. Additionally, don’t forget to put the target’s name in the article title.

2. Avoid direct accusations against your target.

You’ll note that while the article is titled “Is Sarah Figalora Guilty of Journalistic Fraud?”, nowhere in the piece do I outright accuse her of journalistic fraud, instead presenting my findings in questions and qualified comments about her honesty. This is to protect myself from a possible libel lawsuit. By titling the article with a question, I implant the desired idea in the reader’s head (Sarah Figalora is a journalistic fraud) without actually saying it. Despite the best efforts of our legal system, people are natively inclined to assume that criminals are guilty until proven innocent; manipulating this instinct is key to writing these kinds of articles.

Keep in mind that there are limits to this technique. Anything sexual, for example, will likely land you in hot water regardless of how you phrase it. For example, don’t write a blog post titled “Is Joe Schmo a Child Molester?” even if you have timestamped photos of Mr. Schmo touching little boys in their private areas.

Remember, don’t be a dumbass: you’ll live longer.

3. Keep the article short.

In our age of 140-character Tweets and text-free Buzzfeed listicles, the average moron’s attention span has dwindled to nil. If your article is too long, your prospective audience will lose interest long before you get to the money shot. Keep your blog post in the neighborhood of 500 words and don’t waste the reader’s time: make your points and shaddup.

4. Hyperlink the first instance of the person’s name with the URL of the blog post.

You’ll notice that in the first sentences of my articles on Figalora and Pry/Valiente, I’ve linked their names with the URL of the article itself. What’s the point of linking to a blog post that you’re already looking at? SEO. Hyperlinking the first instance of the target’s name makes it as clear as possible to Google’s spiders what the subject of the article is, giving your post a shot in the arm. Ideally, you want to put the first occurrence of their name in the first sentence, as the higher the link is in the HTML, the more SEO juice is provides.

5. Network with other bloggers to get the article ranked on Google.

Depending on how obscure your target is and/or how unique their name is, you might not need to take this step, but it helps. If you have a network of websites, bloggers and Twitter feeds who are aligned with you ideologically, try and get them to link to your article to boost it in Google’s search results. With the articles on Figalora and ABC, this was easy; the manosphere has essentially become modern-day samizdat, a tightly-bound collective where memes and information are spread at the speed of light. If you write something of quality in the manosphere and promote it just a little, you’ll have people flocking to read it and share it in no time.

Thanks to my articles (as well as everyone else’s work) and the might of the manosphere, Sarah Figalora and her compatriots’ careers are over. From now on, any time they apply for a job that pays more than minimum wage, the HR ladies are going to see my articles and immediately pass them over for the position. And since none of them have the intelligence to develop real skills, write books or go into business for themselves, I sure hope they love making lattes.

Even if they somehow manage to make a life for themselves, I’ll have caused them enough sleepless nights and stomach-churning stress to make them think twice about their actions.

I can already hear the objections from the peanut gallery:

1. “You’re a misogynist racist asshat and anyone who knows even a LITTLE bit about you will see through your articles!”

This assumes that most people actually do their homework when they read stuff on the Internet. Spoiler alert: they don’t. The vast majority of employers who Google the names of prospective hires won’t bother to research the credibility of the site smearing them; they don’t have the time.

My statistics bear this out: of all the people who’ve arrived on my blog searching for “sarah figalora,” over 90 percent of them did nothing but look at the article in question, then leave.

Not only that, a substantial minority of searchers won’t even bother to click on the article at all. As soon as they see the headline “Is Sarah Figalora Guilty of Journalistic Fraud?”, they’ll close the tab and toss her resume in the trash.

2. “But what if Google changes their search algorithms to remove your articles? Huh Matt, what then?”

If you think that Google, even as creepy and subservient to the Cathedral as they are, is going to upend their algorithms to protect a bunch of unpaid interns and low-wage Gawker trolls, you’re delusional.

It’s precisely because of this that attacking targets like Figalora is worthwhile.

The producers, the editors, the people on the higher rungs at ABC, Gawker and the like are safe; they have enough money, power and name recognition to ward off threats from people like us. It’s the entry-level drones like Figalora and Tiku, who dream of becoming the commissars of tomorrow, who are the weak spot in the MSM’s defenses. Imagine if every time an unpaid intern or minimum wage-slave with six figures of student loan debt attacked the manosphere, they had a negative, SEO-optimized article about them online within a day.

Destroy enough of these wannabe apparatchiks and eventually they’ll think twice about taking us on.

3. “Why are you attacking these poor girls? They’re just idiots doing what they’re told! You should be going after the people in charge instead!”

This line of logic, applied to other epochs in history:

1776: “Why is George Washington wasting time fighting those Hessian mercenaries? He should be sailing across the Atlantic to assassinate King George!”

1865: “Why is Lincoln fighting those poor Confederate soldiers? They don’t know any better! He should be going after Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee!”

1944: “Why are the Allies killing those German soldiers? They’re just following orders! They should be concentrating on Hitler!”

Newsflash: journalists who support evil regimes are as morally culpable as the regimes themselves, even if they don’t directly participate in their evil acts. This was established by the Nuremberg Trials: journalists who egged on German war crimes were hanged alongside the Nazi officials who actually carried them out. I don’t care if Figalora and her comrades aren’t getting paid to smear me, how low on the totem pole they are or any of that crap: the mere fact that they’re working for the MSM makes them my adversaries. Does a soldier on the battlefield concern himself with the fact that the enemies he’s shooting at might be nice guys who are just following orders?

No: he nuts up, does his duty and pulls the trigger.

The manosphere’s ability to inflict real harm on its adversaries is growing by the day. Just look at what happened to Kevin Conboy, the flabby-faced WordPress employee who threatened to wipe Chateau Heartiste and Return of Kings off the Internet. Not only did the little chickenshit immediately lock his Twitter account and blog when he started getting backlash, the Return of Kings article on him shot up to number two on Google in less than a day of being online.

That’s the message we want to send to leftists and feminists: if you smear us, you’ll end up just like Conboy or Figalora.

You can’t run and you can’t hide. You put one of ours in the hospital, we put one of yours in the morgue. We will drag your name through the mud, get you fired from your job and reduce you to poverty. For every Pax Dickinson who is torn apart by a pitchfork-wielding mob, we will send a dozen feminist interns to the unemployment line. And if one of us falls, ten more will take his place.

We have the power. It’s time to start using it.

And Sarah, if I’m ever in your neck of the woods, I’ll take my coffee straight black, please.

Read Next: The Rabbits Go to War; or, How Your Haters Will Try to Destroy You

***

If you liked this post then you’ll like Confessions of an Online Hustler, my 140-page book that teaches you how to create a blog that will make you money. It contains writing and web design tips, strategies for getting readers, and debunks myths perpetuated by online scammers. Click here to learn more.

Opt In Image
Get My Free E-Book

Learn how to start a blog and make money from day one with this short guide. Also receive twice-monthly updates highlighting my best articles as well as news and special offers you won't find anywhere else.

I guarantee 100% privacy. Your information will not be shared.

  • Alex

    Excellent piece Matt. Men need to man up and stop rationalizing their cowardice in garb of convoluted morality. We live in a la la land where we actually believe that justice can be served without attacking people who do us harm, it is a very perverse sort of belief that I believe comes from the Christianity.

  • Paul Cromper

    Men need to get over this lunatic misapprehension that if they play extra nice against people who consider them subhuman, they’ll get some kind of karmic payoff, or somebody who matters will admire their moral purity, or whatever nonsense they’re clinging to. Like the MRAs, they honestly delude themselves into thinking there’s value in being the wronged party. Nope. There is value in power. If you or your allies have power, the wronged-party narrative is a nice touch, but any sympathy you get is contingent on the power.

    Don’t be a niceguy. There’s nothing in it. It’s amazing how many of us still haven’t taken the “red pill” on board.

  • http://realitydoug.wordpress.com ‘Reality’ Doug

    Great post. I’d like to point out that there is a greater philosophy here to guide us. We are in a woman’s social world, and adaptation to it until we can get rid of it is essential to victory. Game is to sexual empowerment as blog hit pieces are to political empowerment. I stress that we must play on the field of female perspective without losing sight of our masculine superiority and desired ultimate social expression. We are logical. We can beat women at their own game and challenge the hidden patriarchy that currently rules.

  • http://joselromero.com jose

    Matt! Now that’s “Gangsta!” :)

    Great post bro!

  • http://realitydoug.wordpress.com ‘Reality’ Doug

    @Alex I like the way you think. So many people are afraid to critique Abrahamic religion for any dark side, but the Dark Enlightenment does not cower before ugly possibilities. I did such a critique under the rubric “Devilish Piety.” It is one of my least popular posts. Sad that self-proclaimed red-pill men are such programmatic cowards, which is why I had so say kudos on your comment. Such rational enquiry is very uncommon in people at large, even in this Sphere.

  • http://realitydoug.wordpress.com ‘Reality’ Doug

    At the risk of leaving too many comments,
    @Paul That’s another excellent comment. Nice to read sanity when I can. lol

  • Spanking Emmeline

    And now, all manner of nutjob feminists will know how to do this as well.

    Does the enemy on the battlefield concern herself with the fact that the men she’s shooting at might be the good guys who are just following orders?

    Not your wisest post, I suspect.

  • http://realitydoug.wordpress.com ‘Reality’ Doug

    @Spanking. Nice troll job. Women are already doing what they do naturally because they are liberated and encouraged. We men have no choice but to fight fire with fire. Since we can do it with conscious intent, once aware we have the advantage. Nutjob feminists are logical only in their organically hardwired instincts. They do not adapt. There is no loss of tactical advantage here, only gain. Geeez.

  • Spanking Emmeline

    Doug. Not too good with reality, huh? This is not a battlefield of honorable strategists and skilled tacticians. It’s a game of whack-a-mole where the mole is not always a man with the skills to protect himself, and the hammer is wielded by child-women with no scruples, no sense, no morals, no honor, and no compunction about crushing the skull of an unprepared male. Why give the screeching meemee a bigger hammer?

  • http://calaisroad.blogspot.ca/ Edwin Calais

    You’re an evil man, Mr. Forney.

    Evil!

    Mwuh hah hah!

    Mwuh huh hah hah!

    Now carry on about your evil business and do good with it.

  • http://theantifeminist.com schopenbecq (@schopenbecq)

    @Spanking Emmeline – Most people in the manosphere/men’s rights movement who are public with their identity, such as Roosh and Matt, already realise that their employment prospects with most organizations are going to be curtailed.
    Speaking out publicly against feminism already automatically entails this. They are basically giving individual feminists a taste of their own medicine.

    @Matt I disagree to some extent with the advice regarding keeping it non-sexual. At least in certain cases. For example, what if the person you are attacking has accused you of sexual misbehaviour, or perversion, or the advocacy of perversion?

    For example, my attacks on David Futrelle have been pretty successful I think you’d agree, but I haven’t actually gone beyond what he has claimed about me upon the same amount of evidence.

    I have not lied in any way about him, and I have exaggerated less than he has about me and less than his daily taking quotes out of context ect with various other manosphere individuals every day on his blog.

    He really did write essays back in the 90’s that made quite shocking claims, such as that the age of consent raised above 12 was a result of the ‘prudish’ desire by feminists to ‘control the sexuality of young girls’. I have provided links to every one of these articles on my site (and all of his articles from the 90’s are still available online).

    You can’t libel someone by telling the truth and pointing to the evidence. Especially when that person has said the same things about you upon the basis of no greater evidence.

  • Apollo

    You put one of ours in the hospital, we put one of yours in the morgue.

    That’s the Chicago way!

  • Apollo

    @Spaking Emmeline

    Were you under the impression that men in the Manosphere who use their real names aren’t already being targeted like this? Or that this information wasn’t already out there? The Feminists who are motivated and bright enough to do this were not being held back by the lack of a Matt Forney HowTo on the subject.

    No, its people on our side of the fence who need this, not so much for the technical detail (although that helps), but more for the revelation that we should be playing by the sames rules as our opponents.

  • http://redpillgame.com Halfbreed

    I wonder if the reverse strategy would work.

    Bombing Google with tons of positive articles to enhance someone’s reputation, and crowding out any negative posts/info. Most people don’t look past page one or two of Google search results anyway.

    Might be a business opportunity there. Guerrilla Google Rep Management.

  • http://alex-ding.com/ Alex

    I have just one word …

    Powerful.

  • http://SwoopTheWorld Fisto

    Hell yes Matt. This article warms my heart!

  • Spanking Emmeline

    @Apollo

    Thanks for the slightly different perspective. Sounds like a bungee jump over the devil’s furnace. I don’t think anyone believes what you say is false but what if the cord breaks? Hell was not designed with an exit…

  • baguazhang

    The difference is, it doesn’t matter if feminists do this. They already consider us racist, sexist, whatever. These labels are only a problem to people who care, i.e. the left.

  • Apollo

    @Spanking

    Well, I dont see the other side backing off on this any time soon, and sitting back and acting as a non resisting target will only embolden them. May as well give them a taste of their own medicine.

  • KEM

    Oh, my god. This is horrifying.

  • http://gravatar.com/jwquiroz JQ

    If I were Conboy, I would have paid a reputation management firm to help me outrank the unwanted articles from Google. But it looks most people does not know yet how to deal with a tarnished reputation nowadays.

  • Pingback: HOW TO DESTROY SOMEONE (KIMBERLY LOUISE BATEMAN) AND THEIR FAMILY USING THE INTERNET & HOW TO MAKE THEM WISH THEY NEVER HAD FUCKED WITH YOU***GET REVENGE OR DIE TRYING***AND HOW TO MAKE THEM DESTROY THEMSELVES***PHYSICALLY, MENTALLY & FINANCIALLY*

  • Pingback: How To Survive A Modern Day Witch-hunt

  • https://plus.google.com/103180359226668471530 p kerit

    HOORAY!!

  • Pingback: THE ART OF INTERNET REVENGE WAR***HOW TO DESTROY USING THE INTERNET***PART ONE***FROM WWW.THELOBBYISTSOFFICESOFGRW.COM | tlgrwcorporate

  • pabo

    1865: “Why is Lincoln fighting those
    poor Confederate soldiers? They don’t know any better! He should be
    going after Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee!”

    Lincoln was a tyrant who was forcing the south to pay Federal taxes.
    He was NOT freeing the slaves. General Grant was a slave holder. Davis and Lee were anti-slavery.
    “If this war were about slavery, I would give my sword to the other side” – Ulysses Grant.

    Lincoln and the Feds should stay out of other people’s lands.

    1944: “Why are the Allies killing those German soldiers? They’re just following orders! They should be concentrating on Hitler!”

    The Feds had no business getting involved in Europe’s wars. We would NOT all be speaking German.
    Most Americans knowledge of WWII is limited to John Wayne movies.

    Read Marine Corps Major General Smedley’s “War is a Racket” about how corporations benefit from Federal wars. (It’s free online). This was the highly decorated head of the Marine Corps – not a pot-smoking hippie.

  • CCDRZ

    this is quite frankly the first evidence of what I’ve suspected for some time … people are quite self aware enough to recognize that their privilege, even if esoterically, is threatened and are quite eager and creative/proactive in their attempts to tamp down their perceived enemies

  • Alexi Frest

    Christian values and traditional gender values at their heights, showing that your kind is creepy and full of hatred. Is that all you have learned from Christians, how to hate and how to destroy others and “put them in the morgue”? Congratulations! You have amazing Christian values. Your kind is highly valued at IS.