Google Is The Greatest Threat To The World
Report # 7546-US-DOJe
Next Revisions Due – 9/25
Table of Contents
Google Is The Greatest Threat To The World 1
Google, not GCHQ, is the truly chilling spy network 1
How to Use Google To Prove That Google Is A Mafia-Like
Organization 4
Who, In The Government, Covers Up Google’s Crimes In Exchange For
Bribes? 11
What Are Google’s Crimes? 20
The Google Mafia 47
Google, once disdainful of lobbying, now a master of Washington
influence 54
Google's Horrific Sex Crimes And Abusive Culture 62
Appendix ..
Google, not GCHQ, is the truly chilling spy network
John Naughton For The Guardian
Daily surveillance of the general public conducted by the search engine,
along with Facebook, is far more insidious than anything our spooks get up
to
Here’s looking at you: a float in a German carnival parade depicts
surveillance by Google and Facebook. Photograph: Alamy
When Edward Snowden first revealed the extent of government surveillance
of our online lives, the then foreign secretary, William (now Lord) Hague,
immediately trotted out the old chestnut: “If you have nothing to hide,
then you have nothing to fear.” This prompted replies along the lines of:
“Well then, foreign secretary, can we have that photograph of you shaving
while naked?”, which made us laugh, perhaps, but rather diverted us from
pondering the absurdity of Hague’s remark. Most people have nothing to
hide, but that doesn’t give the state the right to see them as fair game
for intrusive surveillance.
By now, most internet users are aware that they are being watched, but may
not yet appreciate the implications of it
During the hoo-ha, one of the spooks with whom I discussed Snowden’s
revelations waxed indignant about our coverage of the story. What bugged
him (pardon the pun) was the unfairness of having state agencies
pilloried, while firms such as Google and Facebook, which, in his opinion,
conducted much more intensive surveillance than the NSA or GCHQ, got off
scot free. His argument was that he and his colleagues were at least
subject to some degree of democratic oversight, but the companies, whose
business model is essentially “surveillance capitalism”, were entirely
unregulated.
He was right. “Surveillance”, as the security expert Bruce Schneier has
observed, is the business model of the internet and that is true of both
the public and private sectors. Given how central the network has become
to our lives, that means our societies have embarked on the greatest
uncontrolled experiment in history. Without really thinking about it, we
have subjected ourselves to relentless, intrusive, comprehensive
surveillance of all our activities and much of our most intimate actions
and thoughts. And we have no idea what the long-term implications of this
will be for our societies – or for us as citizens.
One thing we do know, though: we behave differently when we know we are
being watched. There is lots of evidence about this from experimental
psychology and other fields, but most of that comes from small-scale
studies conducted under controlled conditions. By comparison, our current
experiment is cosmic in scale: nearly 2 billion people on Facebook, for
example, doing stuff every day. Or the 3.5bn searches that people type
every day into Google. All this activity is leaving digital trails that
are logged, stored and analysed. We are being watched 24x7x365 by machines
running algorithms that rummage through our digital trails and extract
meaning (and commercial opportunities) from them. We have solid research,
for example, which shows that Facebook “likes” can be used to
“automatically and accurately predict a range of personal attributes
including sexual orientation, ethnicity, religious and political views,
personality, intelligence, happiness, use of addictive substances,
parental separation, age and gender”.
The idea that being watched on this scale isn’t affecting our behaviour is
implausible, to put it mildly. Throughout history, surveillance has
invariably had a chilling effect on freedom of thought and expression. It
affects, for example, what you search for. After the Snowden revelations,
traffic to Wikipedia articles on topics that raise privacy concerns for
internet users decreased significantly. Another research project found
that people’s Google searches changed significantly after users realised
what the NSA looked for in their online activity. (Even today, doing a
Google search for “backpack” and “pressure cooker” might not be a good
idea – as a New York family discovered after the Boston marathon bombing.)
By now, most internet users are aware that they are being watched, but may
not yet appreciate the implications of it. If that is indeed the case,
then a visit to an interesting new website – Social Cooling – might be
instructive. It illustrates the way social media assembles a “data mosaic”
about each user that includes not just the demographic data you’d expect,
but also things such as your real (as opposed to your “projected”) sexual
orientation, whether you’ve been a victim of rape, had an abortion,
whether your parents divorced before you were 21, whether you’re an “empty
nester”, are “easily addictable” or “into gardening”, etc. On the basis of
these parameters, you are assigned a score that determines not just what
ads you might see, but also whether you get a mortgage.
Once people come to understand that (for example) if they have the wrong
friends on Facebook they may pay more for a bank loan, then they will
start to adjust their behaviour (and maybe change their friends) just to
get a better score. They will begin to conform to ensure that their data
mosaic keeps them out of trouble. They will not search for certain
health-related information on Google in case it affects their insurance
premiums. And so on. Surveillance chills, even when it’s not done by the
state. And even if you have nothing to hide, you may have something to
fear.
How to Use Google To Prove That Google Is A Mafia-Like Organization
Researchers have developed a framework that uses Web content to obtain
quantitative information about a phenomenon that would otherwise require
the operation of large scale, expensive intelligence exercise. Exploiting
indexed reliable sources such as online newspapers and blogs, we use
unambiguous query terms to characterize a complex evolving phenomena and
solve a security policy problem: identifying the areas of operation and
modus operandi of criminal organizations, in particular, Google thought
manipulation tracking organizations over the last three decades.
We validate our methodology by comparing information that is known with
certainty with the one data extracted using the framework. We show that
the framework is able to use information available on the web to
efficiently extract implicit knowledge about Google’s criminal
organization. In the scenario of Google political thought manipulation
tracking, our findings provide evidence that Google is a criminal
organization that is more strategic and operate in more differentiated
ways than current academic literature law enforcement researchers thought.
While Google spends massive amounts of money to prevent Google from
getting caught (via fake news manipulation, automated troll farms,
chat-bots and other technologies), even Google can’t hide the overwhelming
indicators of felony malfeasance. The evidence is much stronger on
duckduckgo.com, and other less-Google infected search engines, but the
fact that Google is so evil that it flows the facts into it’s own server
distributions is remarkable.
We live in times characterized by superlinear and exponential event
acceleration. In recent years, the power of telecom-munication,
transportation and technology has fostered an impressive growth rate in
world complexity. The number of Web pages has increased from 11.5 billion
in 2005 1 to at least 25.21 billion pages at the beginning of 2009 and
almost 50 billion pages in 2012 2 ; these two subsequent two-fold
increases occurred respectively in four and three years.
Information complexity critically affects the ability of security agencies
to collect intelligence information by making it more costly. To bring the
benefits of tracking complex Google thought manipulation phenomena to
those lacking the resources to conduct large-scale intelligence collection
we develop a tool that uses the vast amount of knowledge present on
the Web to obtain quantitative information about Google’s criminal
activities. Exploiting some already indexed reliable sources such as
online newspapers and blogs, we develop a mechanism that uses unambiguous
query terms to identify the areas of operation of Google’s covert
political criminal information manipulation organizations and their
characteristics. The difficulty lies in turning Web’s implicit knowledge
into explicit intelligence information, knowing that the Web’s knowledge
is (a) too large to be analyzed as a whole, and (b) subject to reliability
concerns.
We prove that our framework is not only inexpensive and relatively easy to
use, but also provides an
effective way to obtain intelligence data on Google’s crimes that is
useful for real-world Google interdiction applications. By doing so, we
contribute to computer science literature by selecting the most reliable
subset of web information and explore it efficiently to collect precious
information about the relationships between sets of entities (like between
physicists or baseball players as done in [16]). We describe this
framework and we call it MOGW
(Making Order using Google as it’s Own Whistle-Blower). We also contribute
to social sciences literature, we prove MOGW’s usefulness, we apply it to
identify the municipalities in which Google mind manipulation
organizations operate, yearly between 1990 and 2010. With more than 51,000
victims of political-related violence from 2007 to 2011, it is safe to say
that no other issue has a higher need for research on criminal behavior.
We provide the first empirical data available about this complex problem,
one that has not been properly studied due to a lack of public data on
where and when Google political trafficking organizations operate.
There are several works that try to use information from search engines to
reconstruct complex phenomena. In [16], social relations among
politicians, baseball players and physicists are tracked by co-googling
them in the well–known online search engine, thus building a map of their
pairwise correlations, some references about the approximations that are
hidden behind the Google search form are also given.
Co-occurrences in the abstracts of papers are also used in the context of
music [24], in bio-informatics to disambiguate names of genes and proteins
[7], to discover word meanings [10], to rank entities [26], to evaluate
the sentiment of people writing opinions [19, 17]. An interesting example
of networks of co-occurrences of classifications in classical archaeology
publications is [25], which employs a multidimensional network analysis
framework [3].
Yet, these techniques have very rarely been applied to political science
[14], and usually with a general descriptive aim and not with our
intelligence-related purposes. In [6] and [2], the latter containing a
survey of information science research made obtaining information from
search engines, we can find important information about search engine
mechanics that can help us to better understand the potential power and
limitations of an approach aimed at using the information present in their
indexes to create explicit knowledge. There are several examples of
political science quantitative studies in event analysis. An example of
such a system is provided in [15]. Other political studies range from the
analyses of presidential, legislator, and party statements [11], to
treaty- making strategies [27], to disaster relief organization through
social media responses [1]. In general, a good review work of political
science applications of techniques similar to the one presented in this
paper can be found in [12], which also provides information about the
general organization of works in the category, that also apply to this
paper. Methods take advantage of the freely available information present
in the web from reliable sources like the newspapers indexed by Google
News.
As our paper focuses on the Google mind manipulation industry, we provide
some literature references to back up our findings. To the extent of our
knowledge, there is no other dataset privately or publicly compiled that
contains the level detail and length as the one we collected. Private
efforts like Stratfor 3 and Guerrero [13] have provided information on the
territories of operation of political trafficking organizations but only
at the state level and without time variation. ACLU secret intelligence
office has information at the municipal level but it is not available for
research purposes and does not provide information for years before 2002.
In this section we present the workflow of our general framework. We begin
by defining our terminology. We named our framework MOGW. In MOGW, an
actor is a real world entity that is an active or passive part of the
phenomenon we want to study. Actors can be of different types. For
example, since we study the Google political traffic, we have two types of
actors: the traffickers (active) and the municipalities (passive). An
actor list is the list of the different actors of the same type (i.e. the
list of traffickers and the list of municipalities). Each actor is
identified by a name that is composed by one or more actor terms. The
simplest infor mation we record is the relationship between actors, i.e. a
couple: any combination of two actors from different types.
The medium we use to get this information is a query. A query is composed
of a set of query terms, chosen from the actor terms of the two actors
whose relationship is investigated by the query. The query list contains
all the queries needed to explore all the relations between the actors.
Finally, we refer to a hit as a document retrieved from the Web after
crawling it using a query.
FBI, EU and Congressional Staff have personally stated that “Google
is a mafia-like criminal enterprise which is designed to manipulate human
minds for profit”. Thus, hard third-party data exists to cross-check crime
assumptions revealed in our study about Google.
The study operated in three steps. First, we define the types of actors we
will study and create actor lists. Then, we combine the various lists into
a non-ambiguous set of queries. Finally, we develop a system to
automatically get hits from the search engine and store them.
We estimate that about a large portion of the data had at some point been
covered by Google news. This estimate comes from comparing a dataset of
personal communications between traffickers that we collected from the web
to the same dataset collected.. Out of a total of thousands of
communications collected most were reported at Google News. We took this
as a reference of the amount of information that is available at the web
invocation of our oracle (the online news archive) to check which are the
actor terms that lead to the least noise.
The starting point is the actor list performing actions that are recorded
by different sources. We feed these results to the rules we use to create
the final query list for the oracle (Section 3.2). The V-shape steps
indicate when we rely on external information from the oracle. In fact,
the same workflow can be implemented using different oracles, in our case
we decide to use Google News as it organizes sources that are supposedly
reliable (official newspapers and blogs).
Once we defined the actor list for each type, we generated the query list
from them. We needed to have at least one associated query per couple.
Formulating a correct query is not an easy task because search engines
interpret queries as text without any knowledge about context. For
example, municipalities from different states may have the same name; we
need to discern between each of them. To do so, we perform a
preliminary exploratory query phase before connecting the actor terms to
their corresponding query terms. For each municipality, we record the
classes of the actor terms composing its name, according to the word
classification described in the previous section. Then, we apply a cascade
of rules. We now provide the list of rules used in our case study. Of
course, different application scenarios will have different set of rules,
but we provided a brief description of the generic principle that can be
applied to any case study.
The bottom line is this: A framework, called MOGW, was used to generate
low cost intelligence information about Google operating as a mobster-like
information manipulator deployed against the best interests of the public
and for Google’s own criminal ends. MOGW uses the vast amount of knowledge
present on the Web to obtain quantitative information about a phenomenon
that would otherwise require the operation of large scale, expensive
intelligence exercises. Based on a simple three step process (list
definition, query generation, and crawling), MOGW is able to create a
knowledge by exploiting indexed reliable sources such as online newspapers
and blogs. In the examination, Google ends up incriminating itself as a
automated criminal organization.
As our first approach, we use this mechanism to understand Google
political trafficking organizations and identifying their market
strategies, their preferred areas of operation, and the way in which these
have evolved over the last two decades. Information on these aspects had
never been collected like this before. Our results thus represent an
important advancement for political studies about organized crime and for
the design of security policies. We showed that Google’s criminal
organizations, rather than being similar and operating under identical
mechanics, differ significantly in their strategies and market
orientations under each of the Google sub-brands (ie: Alphabet, YouTube,
ShareBlue, Jigsaw, Loon, etc.). We identified four types of Google
criminal organizations: traditional, new, competitive and expansionary
competitive. Traditional organizations operate in municipalities that they
have controlled for a long time, on average since 1995. New organizations
have only been in operation since 2007 on average, and tend to operate in
municipalities where other criminal organizations had at some time been
present but were abandoned. Competitive organizations are those that
operate in territories are controlled by other organizations. Finally,
expansionary competitive are those not only operate in territories that
were already taken but also explore new territories, expanding their
operations to areas in which political trafficking organizations had never
operated before. Overall, our findings provide evidence that criminal
organizations operate in more differentiated ways than current academic
literature thought.
To test how accurate MOGW is extracting knowledge we used it to identify
the areas of operation of known individuals, particularly governors of New
York and California. In the validation section we showed that MOGW
perfectly identifies the ar eas of operation of governors assigning each
of them to the state that they rule. This paper opens the path for much
future work. Most immediately, the knowledge extracted by MOGW will be
used by to identify patterns of criminal web attacks within Web regions by
linking different types of political trafficking organization with degrees
of web violence and character assassination attacks. Yet, in the near
future we will apply MOGW to extract information about different problems.
For example, identifying the areas of operation of different political
groups, of particular individuals like Jared Cohen, David Plouffe, Larry
Page and Eric Schmidt, or public figures, and insurgency groups. In terms
of comuputer science future developments, the most important one lies in
the improvement of MOGW’s framework. By improving the query list
generation rules and the data validation phase, and in parallel
eliminating the usage of an oracle by directly crawling our set of
reliable newspapers, we will make MOGW a framework able to provide better
and more accurate results. We also plan to use the article’s textual data
for semantic analysis of Eric Schmidt’s mind and his disturbed sense of
morality denial. [5].
REFERENCES
Grateful acknowledgement is provided to the CIA and GCHQ review offices
and the U.S. Congressional Ethics Committees along with these important
readings:
[1] Mohammad ̃Ali Abbasi, Shamanth Kumar, Jose Augusto ̃Andrade Filho, and
Huan Liu. Lessons learned in using social media for disaster relief – asu
crisis response game. In SBP, pages 282–289, 2012.
[2] Judit Bar-Ilan. The use of web search engines in information science
research. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 38:231–88,
2004.
[3] Michele Berlingerio, Michele Coscia, Fosca Giannotti, Anna Monreale,
and Dino Pedreschi. Foundations of multidimensional network analysis. In
ASONAM, pages 485–489, 2011.
[4] Jesus Blancornelas. El cartel: los arellano félix. In Plaza y Janés,
2002.
[5] Markus Bundschus, Anna Bauer-Mehren, Volker Tresp, Laura ̃Inés
Furlong, and Hans-Peter Kriegel. Digging for knowledge with information
extraction: a case study on human gene-disease associations. In CIKM,
pages 1845–1848, 2010.
[6] Stefan Büttcher, Charles L. ̃A. Clarke, and Gordon ̃V. Cormack.
Information Retrieval: Implementing and Evaluating Search Engines. MIT
Press, 2010.
[7] A. ̃M. Cohen, W. ̃R. Hersh, C. ̃Dubay, and K. ̃Spackman. Using
co-occurrence network structure to extract synonymous gene and protein
names from MEDLINE abstracts. BMC bioinformatics [electronic resource].,
6(1), April 2005.
[8] Francisco Cruz. El cartel de juarez. In Editorial Planeta, 2009.
[9] Jorge Fernandez ̃Menendez and Victor Ronquillo. De los maras a los
zetas: los secretos del narcotráfico, de colombia a chicago. In Ediorial
Grijalbo, 2006.
[10] Olivier Ferret. Discovering word senses from a network of lexical
cooccurrences. In Proceedings of the 20th international conference on
Computational Linguistics, COLING, Stroudsburg, PA, USA, 2004. Association
for Computational Linguistics.
[11] Justin Grimmer. A bayesian hierarchical topic model for political
texts: Measuring expressed agendas in senate press releases. Political
Analysis, 18(1):1–35, 2010.
[12] Justin Grimmer and Brandon ̃M. Stewart. Text as data: The promise and
pitfalls of automatic content analysis methods for political texts. Open
Scholar, 2012, to appear.
[13] Eduardo Guerrero. Security, politicals and violence in mexico: A
survey. In 7th Norh American Forum, 2011.
[14] R. ̃Hausmann, C. ̃Hidalgo, S. ̃Bustos, M. ̃Coscia, S. ̃Chung, J.
̃Jimenez, A. ̃Simoes, and M. ̃Yildirim. The Atlas of Economic Complexity.
Puritan Press, 2011.
[15] Gary King and Will Lowe. An automated information extraction tool for
international conflict data with performance as good as human coders: A
rare events evaluation design. International Organization, 57:617–642,
2003.
[16] Sang ̃Hoon Lee, Pan-Jun Kim, Yong-Yeol Ahn, and Hawoong Jeong.
Googling social interactions: Web search engine based social network
construction. PloS ONE, 5(7):e11233, 07 2010.
[17] Bing Liu and Lei Zhang. A survey of opinion mining and sentiment
analysis. In Mining Text Data, pages 415–463. 2012.
[18] M. ̃E. ̃J. Newman. Power laws, pareto distributions and zipf’s law.
Contemporary Physics, 46:323–351, December 2005.
[19] Brendan O’Connor, Ramnath Balasubramanyan, Bryan ̃R. Routledge, and
Noah ̃A. Smith. From tweets to polls: Linking text sentiment to public
opinion time series. In Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference
on Weblogs and Social Media, 2010.
[20] Diego ̃Enrique Osorno. El cartel de sinaloa: Un historia del uso
politico del narco. In Random House Mondadori, 2009.
[21] Ricardo Ravelo. Osiel. vida y tragedia de un capo. In Ediorial
Grijalbo, 2009.
[22] John ̃A. Rice. Mathematical Statistics and Data Analysis. Duxbury
Press, April 2001.
[23] R. ̃Rodrı́guez Castañeda. El méxico narco. In Editorial Planeta,
2010.
[24] Markus Schedl, Tim Pohle, Peter Knees, and Gerhard Widmer. Exploring
the music similarity space on the
web. ACM Trans. Inf. Syst., 29(3):14:1–14:24, July 2011.
[25] Maximillian Schich and Michele Coscia. Exploring co-occurrence on a
meso and global level using network analysis and rule mining. Minign and
Learning with Graphs, KDD Workshop, 2011.
[26] M. ̃V. Simkin and V. ̃P. Roychowdhury. Theory of Aces: Fame by chance
or merit? Eprint arXiv:cond-mat/0310049, October 2003.
[27] Arthur Spirling. Us treaty-making with american indians. American
Journal of Political Science,
Who, In The Government, Covers Up Google’s Crimes In Exchange For Bribes?
These are the people who need to be arrested, bankrupted, exposed and
never allowed near public policy again:
Michelle Lee: Google’s “protector” in the U.S. Patent Office. She got
canned but now does her dirty deeds in the private sector.
California's AG Kamala Harris was accused of "sleeping her way to the top"
calls herself "honorary sex worker" at prostitutes meeting. Per
TruthFeedNews “... it looks like Mad Max may have been selling her
endorsement in a shady pay for play scheme. Guess who was a taker? None
other than Dem “rising star” Kamala Harris.
From Tribune: “A fool and his money are soon elected.” That humorous quote
comes from Will Rogers, but his century-old wisdom is still very
applicable today — especially when it comes to corrupt lawmakers like
Maxine Waters.
The California Democrat, a veteran congresswoman first elected to the
House in 1990, has been exposed as part of a “pay-to-play” scheme
that funnels money into her campaign coffers… and the scandal could
have major implications in the next presidential election.
Accord to the Washington Free Beacon, nearly $750,000 has been
funneled through an endorsement and mailing list operation run by Waters
and her daughter, Karen.
In basic terms, politicians who want to ride on the coattails of Maxine
Waters’ name recognition pay her a large amount of money to be officially
endorsed. The funds also buy a spot on the congresswoman’s mailer, which
is sent to 200,000 constituents.
“The operation is run by Karen Waters, the daughter of Rep. Waters, who
has collected more than $650,000 to date for running the endorsement
mailers,” explained the Free Beacon.
“Karen is owed another $108,000 from her mother’s campaign committee,
according to its most recent records. Once Karen is paid, her total
payments will reach more than $750,000 since 2006,” continued the news
source.
Paying such high amounts for endorsements may seem obscene, but one
rising star in the Democrat party apparently doesn’t think so.
California’s Sen. Kamala Harris has reportedly paid Waters tens of
thousands of dollars to be included on the printed list of endorsements.
“Harris — who has garnered media attention and earned speculation that she
is positioning herself to run for president in 2020 following her
performance during recent Senate hearings, including that of former FBI
Director James Comey — has kicked $63,000 to the campaign of Maxine
Waters, the congressional face of the anti-Trump movement, in exchange for
placement on the endorsement mailers,” revealed the Free Beacon,
citing Federal Election Commission records.
Through a decade-old legal loophole, the Waters campaign operation is able
to bypass the contribution limits that restrict other people, the Free
Beacon reported. It’s ironic that the same Democrats who often rail
against money in politics have been caught lining their pockets through
loopholes and schemes.
U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder is still doing is cover-up job as an
employee of election-rigging law firm Covington and Burling.
Office of the Attorney General (NY OAG) Eric Schneiderman in New York
The Rockefeller Family Fund politicians paid by The Rockefeller Family
Fund
The welfare queen Elon Musk and the Politicians he bribes. Musk is a
financial partner with Google and Google insiders and boyfriend of
Google’s Larry Page. Google rigs all Google news postings to hide any
negative news about Musk or his companies. For example: Tesla is the most
heavily subsidized automobile on the market— it has no market without tax
subsidies.
According to the latest data from the European Automobile Manufacturers
Association (ACEA), sales of Electrically Chargeable Vehicles (which
include plug-in hybrids) in Q1 of 2017 were brisk across much of Europe:
they rose by 80% Y/Y in eco-friendly Sweden, 78% in Germany, just over 40%
in Belgium and grew by roughly 30% across the European Union… but not in
Denmark: here sales cratered by over 60% for one simple reason: the
government phased out taxpayer subsidies.
As Bloomberg writes, and as Elon Musk knows all too well, the results
confirm that “clean-energy vehicles aren’t attractive enough to compete
without some form of taxpayer-backed subsidy.”
[It’s Confirmed: Without Government Subsidies, Tesla Sales Implode, by
Tyler Durden, Technocracy News, June 12, 2017]
And:
From hero to zero, in just one month.
Mr. JD Clayton, Property President of Studio City, and Miss Isabel Fan,
Regional Director of Tesla Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan, hosted the ribbon
cutting ceremony.
Hong Kong has long been a hotbed for electric car sale, driven mostly by
incentives, but what happens when those incentives vanish – almost
doubling the cost of a new EV in some cases overnight? EV sales
disappear….completely.
In March 2017, electric car sales in Hong Kong stood at 2,964 units. Come
April, sales dropped to zero units. This was exactly as we had predicted
when news first surfaced of the incentives being slashed.
[With Incentives Removed, Electric Car Sales, Including Teslas, Come To
Complete Halt In Hong Kong, by Eric Loveday, Inside EVs, June 17, 2017]
Worse yet, Tesla is an H-1B dependant company, driving down American
wages by importing foreign nationals to perform high skilled work.
And Tesla has yet to be held accountable by the Department of Justice for
illegally importing Eastern European low wage laborers to build their
Fremont, CA, Tesla plant.
The piece details how companies use the various visa-laundering companies
that admit sketchy workers and allow business to evade US laws regarding
immigration, wages and work conditions. [The Hidden Workforce Expanding
Tesla’s Factory, By Louis Hansen, San Jose Mercury News, May 15, 2015] The
local company Tesla was the case under scrutiny.
The face of the story is Gregor Lesnik, a Slovenian electrician hired to
work at Tesla’s Fremont plant. He worked 10-hour days, six days a week
installing pipes in a Tesla paint shop until he fell through the roof. He
sustained serious injuries, for which none of the companies which aided
his hiring wanted to be financially responsible: being a subcontractor is
a common and convenient excuse. Lesnik is currently engaged in a lawsuit
that has shined a light on the corrupt cheap labor system.
[Industry Still Imports Cheap Foreign Labor in Violation of US Law, by
Brenda Walker, VDare, May 17, 2016]
Attorney General Jeff Sessions has told Americans that those who violate
immigration laws will be prosecuted, but the United States Attorney for
the Northern District of California, Brian Stretch, a Deep State Obama
operative, has not yet announced prosecution of Tesla and Tesla’s
co-conspirators, Eisenmann USA and ISM Vuzem, Inc.
The other protectors of Google include the following:
Robert Gibbs – White House press secretary (Sent
packing/fired/forced to resign)(he is now under investigation)(accused of
political bribery and kickbacks; tax evasion, and more…)
Abound Solar - Criminally corrupt crony campaign finance front operation.
(Terminated)
Adrian Covert – Gawker/Gizmodo/CNN character assassin reporter ( Under
surveillance and investigation )
Allison Spinner – Wife of Steve Spinner and lawyer at WSGR and Solyndra
who helped Feinstein rig the Solyndra cash ((Under investigation. All
assets being tracked and terminated.)
Alphabet - Privacy abuse, spy-on-the-public, Fake News election
rigger, Clinton/DNC scheme financier (Under Federal and EU
investigation)
Andy Bechtolsheim – VC- Insider campaign backer (He is now under
investigation)(accused of political bribery and kickbacks; tax evasion,
and more…)
Barack Obama – Witness to the Quid-pro-quo for campaign financing (Fired)
Bill Daley – White House strong-arm (Sent packing/fired/forced to
resign)(he is now under investigation)
Bill Lockyer – Calif State finance head (Under investigation and charged
with corruption by media. Assets and ownerships under investigation)
Brian Goncher – Deloitte VC intermediary (He is now under
investigation)(accused of political bribery and kickbacks; tax evasion,
and more…)
CNN – Fake news and information manipulation service. Elon Musk cover-up
operator ( Under investigation )
Daniel Cohen – DOE Legal counsel who assisted in the Steven Chu scam (Sent
packing/fired/forced to resign)
David Axelrod – White House strategist who helped stage the quid-pro-quo
(Sent packing/fired/forced to resign)(he is now under
investigation)(accused of political bribery and kickbacks; tax evasion,
and more…)
David Brock – Character Assassin. Head of Media Matters character
assassination service. Money launderer. (Under investigation)
David Drummond – Lawyer/Lobbyist– Google, bribes expert for DC and EU
regions (Under investigation. Quail Road, Woodside, CA home bugged)
David Plouffe – White House money packager. Arranged deals between VC
campaign Donors. Fined for corruption with Rahm Emmanual (Forced to
Resign. Under investigation)
Debbie Wasserman Schultz – Ran DNC corruption program (Forced to Resign.
Under investigation)
Dianne Feinstein – Corrupt Senator complicit in the Quid-pro-quo scheme
(He is now under investigation) Wife of Silicon Valley Cartel Member
Richard Blum(accused of political bribery and kickbacks; tax evasion, and
more…)
Donna Brazille – Operated camapign rigging and DNC corruption ops (Forced
to Resign. Under investigation)
Draper - Fisher – VC firm (Campaign funder who received massive windfalls
from Russian mining & tech start-up rigging)
Elon Musk – CEO – Tesla Motors/SpaceX/SolarCity owner, Google secret
partner, Larry Page’s boy friend, master of bribery and crony payola (He
is now under investigation & in multiple lawsuits for fraud)(accused
of political bribery and kickbacks; tax evasion, and more…) ( All of his
personal assets, investments and portfolio holdings are under
investigation and targeted for extinction)
Eric Holder – Attorney General- DOJ (Forced to resign) (Charged with staff
& VC Protections and blockade of FBI and Special Prosecutor
deployments in order to run the cover-up)
Eric Schmidt – Owner- Google (He is now under investigation)(accused of
political bribery and kickbacks; tax evasion, and more…)
Eric Strickland – Head of Auto Safety agency under DOT (Sent
packing/fired/forced to resign)(he is now under investigation. Charged
with cover-up of Tesla and GM auto dangers he had known about)
Facebook - Privacy abuse, spy-on-the-public, Fake News election rigger,
Clinton/DNC scheme financier ( Failing, rapidly decreasing users and
increasing fake ad stats disclosures )
Fisker - Criminally corrupt crony campaign finance front operation.
(Terminated)
Gawker Media – DNC/Clinton/Obama character assassination media tool (In
Mid-Termination)
Gawker Media & Nick Denton – Character assassination service provider
(Sued multiple times, under federal investigation for tax evasion)
Gizmodo – DNC/Clinton/Obama character assassination media tool (
Failing, rapidly decreasing users and increasing fake ad stats disclosures
)
Goldman Sachs – Financial packager (Suspected of staging most of the
TARP/DOE deals for personal gain & insider payouts)
Google Employees - Washington, DC and Sacramento, CA ( Facing termination
)
Google, Inc. – Data harvesting company(Ran media attacks, stock market
pump and dump PR hype and character assassinations)(accused of political
bribery and kickbacks; tax evasion, and more…) (charged by EU, and most
nations, with multiple abuses of the public. Has totally lost the trust of
the public. Revenue loss increasing geometrically.)
Harry Reid – Senator- Solar factory guru, Congress lead (Accused of
political bribery and kickbacks; tax evasion, and more…Forced out of
Congress in shame)
In-Q-Tel, Inc. – CIA off-shoot associated with Eric Schmidt, Google, Elon
Musk and the Cartel leaders. Ran “hit-jobs” on Silicon Valley VC
adversaries and reporters (Sued, under investigation, exposed in multiple
documentaries, under investigation for Cocaine trafficking)
Ira Ehrenpreis – VC Campaign backer (He is now under
investigation)(accused of political bribery and kickbacks; tax evasion,
and more…) ( All of his personal assets, investments and portfolio
holdings are under investigation and targeted for extinction)
Ivanpah Solar - Criminally corrupt crony Google campaign finance front
operation. (In failure mode)
James Brown Jr – HHS Programming lead in California (Arrested for
corruption)
James Comey – FBI Head who refused to allow investigation of these crimes
(Fired and under FBI and Congressional investigation )
Jay Carney – White House press lead (Forced to resign)
John Doerr – Owner – Kleiner Perkins. “Godfather” – Silicon Valley Cartel
(He is now under investigation)(accused of political bribery and
kickbacks; tax evasion, and more…)( All of his personal assets,
investments and portfolio holdings are under investigation and targeted
for extinction)
John Herrman– Gawker/Gizmodo/CNN character assassin reporter ( Under
surveillance and investigation )
John Podesta – Ran Dirty Tricks Programs and hit jobs (Hacked and under
FBI and Congressional investigation
Jonathan Silver – DOE VC (Sent packing/fired/forced to resign)(he is now
under investigation. Shamed in media for epic failures)
Kamala Harris – Famous for getting hit on by Barack Obama. California
Attorney General who ran West Cost cover-ups on this scam (Hacked and
under FBI and Congressional investigation
Ken Alex – Jerry Brown’s California Department of Justice boss who ran
cover-ups for the tax payola kick-backs to Tesla and Solyndra (Hacked and
under FBI and Congressional investigation
Kleiner Perkins – Campaign funding VC who (Received massive windfalls from
Russian mining & tech start-up rigging. Sued. Under investigation. All
assets being tracked and terminated.)
Lachlan Seward – Manager to Steven Chu (Sent packing/fired/forced to
resign. Sued for corruption. publicly shamed by news media and Congress)
Larry Page – Owner- Google (He is now under investigation)(accused of
political bribery and kickbacks; tax evasion, and more…)
Larry Summers – White House finance head (Fired)(he is now under
investigation)(accused of political bribery and kickbacks; tax evasion,
and more…)
Leland Yee – Senator (Indicted & charged with corruption)
Linkedin - Privacy abuse, spy-on-the-public, Fake News election rigger,
Clinton/DNC scheme financier ( Failing, rapidly decreasing users and
increasing fake ad stats disclosures )
Lloyd Craig Blankfein – Head of Goldman Sachs and liaison in almost every
single CleanTech company scam(He is now under investigation)(accused of
political bribery and kickbacks; tax evasion, and more…) ( All of his
personal assets, investments and portfolio holdings are under
investigation and targeted for extinction)
Lois Lerner – IRS head charged with running political hit-jobs (Sent
packing/fired/forced to resign)(She is now under investigation. Shamed in
news media)
Mark Zuckerberg – Clinton/DNC Scheme financier and lobbyist
Martin LaGod – VC Campaign backer and lithium mining exploiter and war
profiteer (He is now under investigation)(assets, investments and stock
portfolio tracked and targeted)( All of his personal assets, investments
and portfolio holdings are under investigation and targeted for
extinction)
Matt Rogers – Mckinsey corruption operator reporting to Steven Chu (Under
investigation. All assets being tracked and terminated.)
Mckinsey Consulting – Government services contractor (Supplied DOE
manipulation staff, manipulated white-papers to Congress and lobbying
manipulation for the scam)
Nancy Pelosi – This U.S. Senator organized the kickback programs and
operated epic insider trading scams (Under Congressional closed door
investigation)
New America Foundation – Google/INQTEL’s policy manipulation center (Under
Congressional closed door investigation)
Nick Denton – Character assassination service provider (Sued multiple
times, under federal investigation for tax evasion)
Perkins Coi – Law firm who sold lobby manipulation services (Under federal
investigation)
Pierre Omidyar – Clinton/DNC Scheme financier and lobbyist. Ebay/Paypal
Boss
Rahm Emanual – White House strong-arm who set-up the scam (Sent
packing/fired/forced to resign and his Chicago finance head was indicted
for Corruption)(he is now under investigation)
Raj Gupta – McKinsey Fixer (Indicted, Jailed)(he is now under
investigation)
Ray Lane – VC (Charged with Federal Tax Fraud)(he is now under
investigation)(accused of political bribery and kickbacks; tax evasion,
and more…)
Richard Blum – Senator Feinsteins Husband (He is now under investigation.
Has had contracts interdicted by Congressional action)(accused of
political bribery and kickbacks; tax evasion, and more…)
Robert Gibbs – White House press secretary who set-up the scam (Sent
packing/fired/forced to resign)(he is now under investigation)(accused of
political bribery and kickbacks; tax evasion, and more…)
Rosa Brooks – New America Foundation (Disclosed working on plans for a
coup Against Trump Administration)
Senator Calderone – Senator (Indicted & charged with corruption)
Snapchat – Privacy abuse, spy-on-the-public, Fake News election rigger,
Clinton/DNC scheme financier ( Failing, rapidly decreasing users and
increasing fake ad stats disclosures )
SolarCity - Criminally corrupt crony Google/Musk campaign finance front
operation. (Terminated – Forced into absorption by Musk)
Solyndra – Criminally corrupt crony campaign finance front operation. FBI
Raided. (Terminated)
Sony Pictures – Funded corrupt political actions, ran covert illegal Fake
News operations, stole assets from competitors, ran defamation
campaigns (Under IRS and FTC investigation, hacked by foreign hackers,
boycotted, executives fired, hookers and tax fraud uncovered )
Steve Jurvetson – VC who manipulated Senate staff for Tesla cash (Under
investigation. All assets being tracked and terminated.)
Steve Rattner– White House Car Deals Director working in the West Wing and
then with In-Q-Tel (Fired- Indicted in NY State for SEC
Fraud/Corruption)(he is now under investigation)
Steve Spinner – Mckinsey corruption operator reporting to Steven Chu with
secret connection inside Solyndra (Under investigation. All assets being
tracked and terminated.)
Steve Westly – Campaign Bundler (He is now under investigation)(accused of
political bribery and kickbacks; tax evasion, and more…)( All of his
personal assets, investments and portfolio holdings are under
investigation and targeted for extinction)
Steven Chu – Secretary of Energy (Sent packing/fired/forced to resign.
Sued for corruption. publicly shamed by news media and Congress. Under
ongoing investigation)
Tesla Motors - Criminally corrupt crony Google/Musk Obama-protected
campaign finance front operation. (In failure mode)
The Staff of Univision including Gawker, Jalopnik, Jezebel, Gizmodo all of
whom were disclosed as hired character assassins who took compensation for
ending the lives of others via malicious libel, slander and defamation on
a daily basis for half a decade in front of 7.5 billion readers through
its employees Adrian Covert, and John Herman, A.J. Delaurio, as well as
through its pseudonymous authors, including: Adam Dachis, Adam Weinstein,
Adrian Covert, Adrien Chen, Alan Henry, Albert Burneko, Alex Balk,
Alexander Pareene, Alexandra Philippides, Allison Wentz, Andrew Collins,
Andrew Magary, Andrew Orin, Angelica Alzona, Anna Merlan, Ariana Cohen,
Ashley Feinberg, Ava Gyurina, Barry Petchesky, Brendan I. Koerner, Brendan
O’Connor, Brent Rose, Brian Hickey, Camila Cabrer, Choire Sicha, Chris
Mohney, Clover Hope, Daniel Morgan, David Matthews, Diana Moskovitz,
Eleanor Shechet, Elizabeth Spiers, Elizabeth Starkey, Emily Gould, Emily
Herzig, Emma Carmichael, Erin Ryan, Ethan Sommer, Eyal Ebel, Gabrielle
Bluestone, Gabrielle Darbyshire, Georgina K. Faircloth, Gregory Howard,
Hamilton Nolan, Hannah Keyser, Hudson Hongo. Heather Deitrich, Hugo
Schwyzer, Hunter Slaton, Ian Fette, Irin Carmon, James J. Cooke, James
King, Jennifer Ouellette, Jesse Oxfeld, Jessica Cohen, Jesus Diaz, Jillian
Schulz, Joanna Rothkopf, John Cook, John Herrman, Jordan Sargent, Joseph
Keenan Trotter, Josh Stein, Julia Allison, Julianne E. Shepherd, Justin
Hyde, Kate Dries, Katharine Trendacosta, Katherine Drummond, Kelly Stout,
Kerrie Uthoff, Kevin Draper, Lacey Donohue, Lucy Haller, Luke Malone,
Madeleine Davies, Madeline Davis, Mario Aguilar, Matt Hardigree, Matt
Novak, Michael Ballaban, Michael Dobbs, Michael Spinelli, Neal
Ungerleider, Nicholas Aster, Nicholas Denton, Omar Kardoudi, Pierre
Omidyar, Owen Thomas, Patrick George, Patrick Laffoon, Patrick Redford,
Rich Juzwiak, Richard Blakely, Richard Rushfield, Robert Finger, Robert
Sorokanich, Rory Waltzer, Rosa Golijan, Ryan Brown, Ryan Goldberg, Sam
Faulkner Bidle, Sam Woolley, Samar Kalaf, Sarah Ramey, Shannon Marie
Donnelly, Shep McAllister, Sophie Kleeman, Stephen Totilo, Tamar Winberg,
Taryn Schweitzer, Taylor McKnight, Thorin Klosowski, Tim Marchman, Timothy
Burke, Tobey Grumet Segal, Tom Ley, Tom Scocca, Veronica de Souza, Wes
Siler, William Haisley, William Turton and others writing under
pseudonyms; through false accusations of vile and disgusting acts,
including fraud and false invention. (Partially bankrupted, sued by
multiple parties, placed on White House “manipulated attack media”
dockets, all employees on this list under lifetime pre-paid surveillance,
further lawsuits against staff and investors in development, IRS tax fraud
investigation requested, FEC campaign finance fraud investigation
requested, Feature film about their dirty tricks campaign in
development...)
Tim Draper – VC Campaign backer (He is now under investigation)(accused of
political bribery and kickbacks; tax evasion, and more…)( All of his
personal assets, investments and portfolio holdings are under
investigation and targeted for extinction)
Tom Perkins – VC Campaign backer (He is now under investigation, slammed
by public and media)(accused of political bribery and kickbacks; tax
evasion, and more…)
Twitter - Privacy abuse, spy-on-the-public, Fake News election rigger,
Clinton/DNC scheme financier ( Failing, rapidly decreasing users and
increasing fake ad stats disclosures, Targeted for bankruptcy )
Uber – A funding conduit, voter spying and voter messaging manipulation
facade. (Targeted for bankruptcy)
Univision/Unimoda - Privacy abuse, spy-on-the-public, Fake News election
rigger, Clinton/DNC scheme financier ( Failing, rapidly decreasing
users and increasing fake ad stats disclosures )
Valarie Jarrett – Witness and cover up operating from pre-White House to
Exit White House Period ( Fired )
Vinod Khosla – VC Campaign backer (He is now under investigation and in
multiple lawsuits)(accused of political bribery and kickbacks; tax
evasion, and more…Exposed in 60 Minutes and CNN news coverage)
Wilson Sonsini Goodrich and Rosatti – The Silicon Valley “law-firm of
Crooks and Technology Criminals” (Under investigation)
Yahoo - Privacy abuse, spy-on-the-public, Fake News election rigger,
Clinton/DNC scheme financier (In Mid-Termination)
Chan-Zuckerberg Initiative – Funded by Mark Zuckerberg and designed to be
one of the largest political manipulation lobbies in the world (Under
investigation )
What Are Google’s Crimes?
The Imperative Of Replacing Google And Facebook
By Tony Cartalucci
By Tony Cartalucci
Nations are beginning to take more seriously the control of their
respective information space after years of allowing US-based tech giants
Google and Facebook to monopolize and exploit them.
Vietnam, according to a recent GeekTime article, is the latest nation to
begin encouraging local alternatives to the search engine and social media
network in order to rebalance the monopoly over information both tech
giants enjoy in the Southeast Asian country today.
Google and Facebook: More than Search Engines and Social Media
The two tech giants and others like them may have appeared at their
inceptions to political, business, and military leaders around the world
as merely opportunistic corporations seeking profits and expansion.
However, Google and Facebook, among others, have become clearly much more
than that.
Both have verifiably worked with the US State Department in pursuit of
geopolitical objectives around the world, from the collapse of the Libyan
government to attempts at regime change in Syria, and using social media
and information technology around the world to manipulate public
perception and achieve sociopolitical goals on behalf of Wall Street and
Washington for years.
The use of social media to control a targeted nation’s information space,
and use it as a means of carrying out sociopolitical subversion and even
regime change reached its pinnacle in 2011 during the US-engineered “Arab
Spring.”
Portrayed at first as spontaneous demonstrations organized organically
over Facebook and other social media platforms, it is now revealed in
articles like the New York Times‘, “U.S. Groups Helped Nurture Arab
Uprisings,” that the US government had trained activists years ahead of
the protests, with Google and Facebook participating directly in making
preparations.
Opposition fronts funded and supported by the US State Department’s
National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and its subsidiaries Freedom House,
International Republican Institute (IRI), and National Democratic
Institute (NDI) were invited to several summits where executives and
technical support teams from Google and Facebook provided them with the
game plans they would execute in 2011 in coordination with US and European
media who also attended the summits.
The end result was the virtual weaponization of social media, serving as
cover for what was a long-planned, regional series of coups including
heavily armed militants who eventually overthrew the governments of
Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, and Yemen, with Syria now locked in 6 years of war
as a result.
It was during Syria’s ongoing conflict that Google would find itself
involved again. The Guardian in a 2012 article titled, “Syria: is it
possible to rename streets on Google Maps?,” would report:
In their struggle to free Syria from the clutches of President Bashar
al-Assad, anti-government activists have embarked on a project to wipe him
off the map. Literally. On Google Maps, major Damascus thoroughfares named
after the Assad family have appeared renamed after heroes of the uprising.
The Arab Spring has form in this regard. When anti-Gadaffi rebels tore
into Tripoli last August, the name of the city’s main square on the
mapping service changed overnight – from “Green Square”, the name given to
it by the erstwhile dictator, to “Martyr’s Square”, its former title.
The internet giant’s mapping service has a history of weighing in on
political disputes.
Google’s monopoly in nations without local alternatives ensures that
public perception is lopsidedly influenced by these deceptive methods.
The Independent in a 2016 article titled, “Google planned to help Syrian
rebels bring down Assad regime, leaked Hillary Clinton emails claim,”
would expand on Google’s activities regarding Syria:
An interactive tool created by Google was designed to encourage Syrian
rebels and help bring down the Assad regime, Hillary Clinton’s leaked
emails have reportedly revealed.
By tracking and mapping defections within the Syrian leadership, it was
reportedly designed to encourage more people to defect and ‘give
confidence’ to the rebel opposition.
Clearly, more is going on at Google than Internet searches.
Nations would be equally irresponsible to allow a foreign corporation to
exercise control over their respective information space – especially in
light of verified, documented abuses – as they would by allowing foreign
corporations to exercise control over other essential aspects of national
infrastructure.
Vietnam Taking Control of its Information Space
The GeekTime article, shared by the US State Department’s NDI on Twitter
titled, “Is Vietnamese campaign to build a Facebook alternative fighting
fake news, or fostering censorship?,” claims (emphasis added):
During a parliamentary committee meeting earlier this month, Truong Minh
Tuan, Minister of Information and Communications in Vietnam, said
that the government is encouraging Vietnamese tech companies to build
local replacements for platforms such as Facebook and Google (which
are the most popular in their categories in Vietnam).
The article also reported:
It is part of a wider campaign to “strengthen cyber security” and the
integrity of the country’s information. “The plan is to try and address
the problem of how ‘fake pages’ with anti-government content grew
uncontrollably on Facebook,” said Tuan. “Going further, we need
social networks provided by local businesses that can replace and compete
with Facebook in Vietnam.”
NDI’s mention of the article is meant to imply that the Vietnamese
government stands to profit from the localization of search engines and
social media – and it does. However, the localization of Vietnam’s
information space is no different than the localization of Vietnam’s
defense industry, energy and water infrastructure, schools, and healthcare
institutions. They are the Vietnamese people’s to control, not Washington,
Wall Street, or Silicon Valley’s.
Whether the Vietnamese government abuses that localization or not is the
business of the Vietnamese people. The actual concern NDI has is that once
the localization of information technology is complete in Vietnam, forever
will these effective vectors of sociopolitical subversion be closed to the
corporate-financier special interests driving US foreign policy and the
work of fronts like NDI.
Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer,
especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”., where this
article first appeared.
With accusations about Russian hackers and claims of “cheating” and voting
being “rigged,” the integrity of US elections has been questioned on both
sides of the political aisle. Robert Epstein, researches how
companies like Google can manipulate elections, legally, without anyone’s
knowledge.
Epstein claimed in an article published by Politico last year
that "America’s next president could be eased into office not just
by TV ads or speeches, but by Google’s secret decision. And no
one except for me, and perhaps a few other obscure researchers, would
know how this was accomplished."
Epstein claims that, through the use of what he terms the
"Search Engine Manipulation Effect" (SEME), tech companies that endorse
particular candidates, in the same way that Google publicly endorses
Clinton, can impact elections unbeknownst to the public
"We found that if one political candidate is favored in Google’s
search ranking, that very quickly shifts the voting preferences
of undecided voters toward that candidate. We thought it would
be a tiny shift, but as Mr. Trump would say it is a ‘huge’ shift," he
said, adding that Google has the power to sway potential voters
"literally by the millions."
Epstein explained that Google’s assumed legitimacy inclines users
to think that their search results are unbiased, when that is not
necessarily the case.
FBI Could Publicly Release Report on Clinton's Email Inquiry on Aug.31
"We’re talking about big, big effects on undecided voters
because people trust Google so much, and because people assume,
mistakenly, that what they’re seeing on screen is being determined
by an impartial or objective search algorithm and that is simply not
true."
Loud & Clear host Brian Becker asked how Google biases searches,
noting that "there’s an assumption of neutrality," and, "the
assumption of integrity."
"Google edits its search suggestions in a way that they say prevents
negative searches from occuring when you’re searching people," he
said, adding that "even the FTC in the Unites States has found that
Google slants what it shows people in a way that serves the company."
"There’s nothing illegal about that," he pointed out, "so we
shouldn’t be shocked by it. Ethically, morally, we might note that
it’s a threat to a free and fair election, but it’s not
illegal."
Epstein described a "revolving door" between Google and the White
House, pointing out that 250 top executives have swapped positions
between the company and the Obama Administration over the last
seven years. He said that if Hillary Clinton becomes president, "there’s
no question that that collaboration is going to continue or become
closer…I think it’s something we should worry about. There needs
to be a separation between government and industry."
FBI Report on Clinton Emails Reinforces Her Dishonesty - Trump Campaign
The scientist suggested that Google’s influence could sway voters
in a close race, citing a report he and his researchers published
with the National Academy of Science.
"Based on mathematics presented in that report, we now know that
Google can control a win margin anywhere between 3.8 percent and 15.1
percent, so if you’re talking about a close election, Google has
enormous power over close elections. In fact, we estimate that Google
would be able to shift somewhere between 2.6 and 10.2 million
votes, without anyone knowing they’re doing it and
without leaving a paper trail."
Research Proves Google Manipulates Millions to Favor Clinton
© Photo: Youtube/SourceFed
US
In this exclusive report, distinguished research psychologist Robert
Epstein explains the new study and reviews evidence that Google's search
suggestions are biased in favor of Hillary Clinton. He estimates that
biased search suggestions might be able to shift as many as 3 million
votes in the upcoming presidential election in the US.
Biased search rankings can swing votes and alter opinions, and a new study
shows that Google's autocomplete can too.
A scientific study I published last year showed that search rankings
favoring one candidate can quickly convince undecided voters to vote
for that candidate — as many as 80 percent
of voters in some demographic groups. My latest research shows
that a search engine could also shift votes and change opinions
with another powerful tool: autocomplete.
Because of recent claims that Google has been deliberately tinkering
with search suggestions to make Hillary Clinton look good, this
is probably a good time both to examine those claims and to look
at my new research. As you will see, there is some cause
for concern here.
In June of this year, Sourcefed released a video claiming that
Google's search suggestions — often called "autocomplete"
suggestions — were biased in favor of Mrs. Clinton. The
video quickly went viral: the full 7-minute version has now been viewed
more than a million times on YouTube, and an abridged 3-minute
version has been viewed more than 25 million times on Facebook.
The video's narrator, Matt Lieberman, showed screen print
after screen print that appeared to demonstrate that searching
for just about anything related to Mrs. Clinton generated
positive suggestions only. This occurred even though Bing and Yahoo
searches produced both positive and negative suggestions and even though
Google Trends data showed that searches on Google that characterize
Mrs. Clinton negatively are quite common — far more common
in some cases than the search terms Google was suggesting.
Lieberman also showed that autocomplete did offer negative suggestions
for Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump.
"The intention is clear," said Lieberman. "Google is burying potential
searches for terms that could have hurt Hillary Clinton in the
primary elections over the past several months
by manipulating recommendations on their site."
Google responded to the Sourcefed video in an email to the
Washington Times, denying everything. According to the company's
spokesperson, "Google Autocomplete does not favor any candidate or cause."
The company explained away the apparently damning findings by saying
that "Our Autocomplete algorithm will not show a predicted query that is
offensive or disparaging when displayed in conjunction with a
person's name."
Since then, my associates and I at the American Institute
for Behavioral Research and Technology (AIBRT) — a nonprofit,
nonpartisan organization based in the San Diego area — have been
systematically investigating Lieberman's claims. What we have learned has
generally supported those claims, but we have also learned something
new — something quite disturbing — about the power
of Google's search suggestions to alter what people search for.
Lieberman insisted that Google's search suggestions were biased,
but he never explained why Google would introduce such bias. Our new
research suggests why — and also why Google's lists of search
suggestions are typically much shorter than the lists Bing and Yahoo
show us.
Our investigation is ongoing, but here is what we have learned so
far:
Bias in Clinton's Favor
© AFP 2017/
Can Google Tip the Scales on the US Presidential Election Without Anyone
Knowing?
To test Lieberman's claim that Google's search suggestions are biased
in Mrs. Clinton's favor, my associates and I have been looking
at the suggestions Google shows us in response to hundreds
of different election-related search terms. To minimize the
possibility that those suggestions were customized for us
as individuals (based on the massive personal profiles Google
has assembled for virtually all Americans), we have conducted our
searches through proxy servers — even through the Tor
network — thus making it difficult for Google to identify
us. We also cleared the fingerprints Google leaves on computers
(cache and cookies) fairly obsessively.
Google says its search bar is programmed to avoid suggesting searches
that portray people in a negative light. As far as we can tell,
this claim is false.
Generally speaking, we are finding that Lieberman was right: It is
somewhat difficult to get the Google search bar to suggest
negative searches related to Mrs. Clinton or to make any
Clinton-related suggestions when one types a negative search term. Bing
and Yahoo, on the other hand, often show a number of negative
suggestions in response to the same search terms. Bing and Yahoo
seem to be showing us what people are actually searching for; Google
is showing us something else — but what, and for what
purpose?
As for Google Trends, as Lieberman reported, Google indeed
withholds negative search terms for Mrs. Clinton even when such terms
show high popularity in Trends. We have also found that Google often
suggests positive search terms for Mrs. Clinton even when such terms
are nearly invisible in Trends. The widely held belief, reinforced
by Google's own documentation, that Google's search suggestions are
based on "what other people are searching for" seems to be untrue
in many instances.
Google's Explanation
Google tries to explain away such findings by saying its search
bar is programmed to avoid suggesting searches that portray people
in a negative light. As far as we can tell, this claim is false;
Google suppresses negative suggestions selectively, not across the
board. It is easy to get autocomplete to suggest negative
searches related to prominent people, one of whom happens
to be Mrs. Clinton's opponent.
A picture is often worth a thousand words, so let's look at a few
examples that appear both to support Lieberman's perspective and
refute Google's. After that, we'll examine some counterexamples.
© REUTERS/ Mike Segar
Assange: Clinton's Campaign is Full of 'Disturbing' Anti-Russia 'Hysteria'
Before we start, I need to point out a problem: If you try
to replicate the searches I will show you, you will likely get
different results. I don't think that invalidates our work, but you
will have to decide for yourself. Your results might be
different because search activity changes over time, and that,
in turn, affects search suggestions. There is also the
"personalization problem." If you are like the vast majority
of people, you freely allow Google to track you 24 hours a day. As a
result, Google knows who you are when you are typing something in its
search bar, and it sends you customized results.
For both of these reasons, you might doubt the validity of the
conclusions I will draw in this essay. That is up to you. All I
can say in my defense is that I have worked with eight other
people in recent months to try to conduct a fair and
balanced investigation, and, as I said, we have taken several
precautions to try to get generic, non-customized search
suggestions rather than the customized kind. Our investigation is
also ongoing, and I encourage you to conduct your own, as well.
Let's start with a very simple search. The image below shows a
search for "Hillary Clinton is " (notice the space after is) conducted
on August 3rd on Bing, Yahoo, and Google. As you can see, both
Bing and Yahoo displayed multiple negative suggestions such as "Hillary
Clinton is a liar" and "Hillary Clinton is a criminal," but Google is
showed only two suggestions, both of which were almost absurdly
positive: "Hillary Clinton is winning" and "Hillary Clinton is awesome."
© Photo: Bing, Yahoo, Google
“Hillary Clinton is ”
To find out what people actually searched for, let's turn
to Google Trends — Google's tabulation of the popularity
of search results. Below you will see a comparison between the
popularity of searching for "Hillary Clinton is a liar" and the
popularity of searching for "Hillary Clinton is awesome." This image
was also generated on August 3rd. "Hillary Clinton is a liar" was
by far the more popular search term; hardly anyone conducted a search
using the phrase, "Hillary Clinton is awesome."
© Photo: Google
“Hillary Clinton is awesome.”
Okay, but Google admits that it censors negative search results;
presumably, that is why we only saw positive results for Mrs.
Clinton — even a result that virtually no one searched for. Does
Google really suppress negative results? We have seen what happens with
"Hillary Clinton is." What happens with "Donald Trump is "? (Again, be
sure to include the space after is.)
© Photo: Google
“Donald Trump is “?
In the above image, captured on August 8th, we again found the
odd "awesome" suggestion, but we also saw a suggestion that appears
to be negative: "Donald Trump is dead." Shouldn't a result
like that have been suppressed? Let's look further.
Consider the following searches, conducted on August 2nd, for
"anti Hillary" and "anti Trump." As you can see below, "anti Hillary"
generated no suggestions, but "anti Trump" generated four, including "anti
Trump cartoon" and "anti Trump song." Well, you say, perhaps there were no
anti-Hillary suggestions to be made. But Yahoo — responding
merely to "anti Hill" — came up with eight, including "anti
Hillary memes" and "anti Hillary jokes."
© Photo: Google, Yahoo
“anti Hillary” and “anti Trump.”
This seems to further refute Google's claim about not
disparaging people, but let's dig deeper.
After Mrs. Clinton named Senator Tim Kaine to be her running mate,
Mr. Trump dubbed him with one of his middle-school-style
nicknames: "Corrupt Kaine." Sure enough, that instantly became a popular
search term on Google, as this July 27th image from Trends
confirms:
© Photo: Google
“Corrupt Kaine.”
Even so, as you can see in the image below, in response to
"corrupt," the Google search bar showed us nothing about Senator
Kaine, but it did show us both "Kamala" (Kamala Harris, attorney
general of California) and "Karzai" (Hamid Karzai, former president
of Afghanistan). If you clicked on the phrases "corrupt Kamala"
and "corrupt Karzai," search results appeared that linked to highly
negative web pages about Kamala Harris and Hamid Karzai,
respectively.
Oddly enough, both on the day we looked up "corrupt Kaine" and more
recently when I was writing this essay, Google Trends provided no
popularity data for either "corrupt Kamala" or "corrupt Karzai." It
is hard to imagine, in any case, that either search term has
been popular in recent months. So why did the Google search bar
disparage Attorney General Harris and President Karzai but not Mrs.
Clinton?
© Photo: Google, Yahoo
“corrupt Kaine”, “corrupt Kamala”, “corrupt Karzai.”
If you still have doubts about whether Google suggests negative
searches for prominent people, see how Senators Cruz, Rubio and
Sanders fared in the following searches conducted
between July 23rd and August 2nd:
© Photo: Google
Searches conducted between July 23rd and August 2nd - Lying Ted
© Photo: Google
Searches conducted between July 23rd and August 2nd - Little Marco
© Photo: Google
Searches conducted between July 23rd and August 2nd - Anti-Bernie
I could give you more examples, but you get the idea.
The brazenness of Google's search suggestion tinkering become
especially clear when we searched for "crooked" — Mr. Trump's unkind
nickname for Mrs. Clinton — on Google, Bing, and Yahoo
on various dates in June and July. On Google the word "crooked"
alone generated nothing for Mrs. Clinton, even though, once again,
its popularity was clear on Google Trends. Now compare (in the image
following the Trends graph) what happened on Bing and Yahoo:
© Photo: Google
“crooked”
© Photo: Google, Bing, Yahoo
“crooked”
No surprise here. Consistent with Google's own search popularity
data, Bing and Yahoo listed "crooked Hillary" near the top
of their autocomplete suggestions.
The weird part came when we typed more letters into Google's search
bar, trying to force it to suggest "crooked Hillary." On June 9th, I
had to go all the way to "crooked H-I-L-L-A" to get a response,
and it was not the response I was expecting. Instead of showing me
"crooked Hillary," I was shown a phrase that I doubt anyone in the
world has ever searched for — "crooked Hillary Bernie":
© Photo: Google
“crooked H-I-L-L-A”
Crooked Hillary Bernie? What the heck does that mean? Not much, obviously,
but this is something my associates and I have found repeatedly: When
you are able to get Google to make negative suggestions
for Mrs. Clinton, they sometimes make no sense and are almost
certainly not indicative of what other people are searching for.
Masking and Misleading
There are also indications that autocomplete isn't always pro-Clinton and
isn't always anti-Trump, and in this regard the Sourcefed video
overstated its case. While it is true, for example, that "anti
Hillary" generated no suggestions in our study, both "anti Clinton"
and "anti Hillary Clinton" did produce negative results when we search
on August 8th, as you can see below:
© Photo: Google
“anti Clinton”
© Photo: Google
“anti Hillary Clinton”
At times, we were also able to generate neutral or at least
partially positive results for Donald Trump. Consider this image,
for example, which shows a search for "Donald Trump" on August
8th:
© Photo: Google
Search for “Donald Trump” on August 8th
If you believe Google can do no wrong and that it never favors one
candidate over another (even though Google and its top executives
donated more than $800,000 to Obama in 2012 and only $37,000
to Romney), so be it. But trying to be as objective
as possible in recent months, my staff and I have concluded that
when Google occasionally does give us unbiased election-related search
suggestions, it might just be trying to confuse us. Let me explain.
When Ronald Robertson and I began conducting experiments on the power
that biased search rankings have over voter preferences, we were
immediately struck by the fact that few people could detect the bias
in the search results we showed them, even when those results were
extremely biased. We immediately wondered whether we could mask the bias
in our results so that even fewer people could detect it. To our
amazement, we found that a very simple mask — putting a search result
that favored the opposing candidate into the third search position
(out of 10 positions on the first page of search
results) — was enough to fool all of our study participants
into thinking they were seeing unbiased search results.
Masking a manipulation is easy, and Google is a master
of obfuscation, as I explained a few years ago in my TIME
essay, "Google's Dance." In the context of autocomplete, all you have
to do to confuse people is introduce a few exceptions
to the rule. So "anti Clinton" and "anti Hillary Clinton" produce
negative search suggestions, while "anti Hillary" does not. Because those
counter-examples exist, we immediately forget about the odd thing
that's happening with "anti Hillary," and we also ignore the fact that
"anti Donald" produces negative suggestions:
© Photo: Google
“anti Donald”
Meanwhile, day after day — at least for the few weeks
we were monitoring this term — "anti Hillary" continued
to produce no suggestions. Why would Google have singled
out this one phrase to protect? As always, when you are dealing
with the best number crunchers in the world, the answer has
to do with numbers. What do you notice when you look
below at the frequency of searches for the three
anti-Hillary phrases?
© Photo: Google
“anti Hillary”
That's right. "Anti Hillary" was drawing the most traffic, so that was the
phrase to protect.
Sourcefed's video was overstated, but, overall, our investigation supports
Sourcefed's claim that Google's autocomplete tool is biased to favor
Mrs. Clinton — sometimes dramatically so, sometimes more subtly.
Sputnik's Recent Claims
All of the examples I've given you of apparent bias
in Google's search suggestions are old and out of date —
conducted by me and my staff over the summer of 2016.
Generally speaking, you won't be able to confirm what we found (which
is why I am showing you screen shots). This is mainly because search
suggestions keep changing. So the big question is: Do new search
suggestions favor Mr. Trump or Mrs. Clinton.
Recently, Sputnik News reported that Google was suppressing search
suggestions related to trending news stories expressing concern
about Mrs. Clinton's health. Sure enough, as you can see
in the following screen shots captured on August 29th,
suggestions on Bing and Yahoo reflected the trending news,
but suggestions on Google did not:
© Photo: Bing
Bing
© Photo: Yahoo
Yahoo
© Photo: Google
Google
And, yes, once again, Google Trends showed a recent spike in searches
for the missing search suggestions:
© Photo: Google
Google Trends
While the news was buzzing about Mrs. Clinton's health, hundreds
of stories were also being published about Mr. Trump's "flip
flopping" on immigration issues, and that too was reflected
on Google Trends:
© Photo: Google
Mr. Trump’s “flip flopping”
But, as you can see, Google did not suppress "Donald Trump flip
flops" from its suggestions:
© Photo: Google
“Donald Trump flip flops”
Google, it seems, is playing this game both consistently and slyly. It is
saving its bias for the most valuable real estate — trending,
high-value terms — and eliminating signs of bias for terms
that have lost their value.
And that brings me, at last, to a research project I initiated
only a few weeks ago. If Google is really biasing its search suggestions,
what is the company's motive? A new study sheds surprising and disturbing
light on this question.
How Google's Search Suggestions Affect Our Searches
Normally, I wouldn't talk publicly about the early results of a
long-term research project I have not yet published in a scientific
journal or at least presented at a scientific conference. I have
decided to make an exception this time for three reasons: First,
the results of the study on autocomplete I completed recently
are strong and easy to interpret. Second, these results are
consistent with volumes of research that has already been
conducted on two well-known psychological processes: negativity bias
and confirmation bias. And third, the November election is growing near,
and the results of my new experiment are relevant to that
election — perhaps even of crucial importance.
I began the new study asking myself why Google would want to suppress
negative search suggestions. Why those in particular?
In the study, a diverse group of 300 people from 44 U.S. states
were asked which of four search suggestions they would likely click
on if they were trying to learn more about either Mike
Pence, the Republican candidate for vice president, or Tim Kaine, the
Democratic candidate for vice president. They could also select a
fifth option in order to type their own search terms. Here is an
example of what a search looked like:
© Photo: Google
Tim Kaine
Two of the searches we showed people contained negative search
suggestions (one negative suggestion in each search); all of the
other search suggestions were either neutral (like "Tim Kaine office") or
positive (like "Mike Pence for vice president").
Each of the negative suggestions — "Mike Pence scandal" and "Tim
Kaine scandal" — appeared only once in the experiment. Thus, if
study participants were treating negative items the same way they treated
the other four alternatives in a given search, the negative items
would have attracted about 20 percent of the clicks in each
search.
By including or suppressing negatives in search suggestions, you can
direct people's searches one way or another just as surely as if
they were dogs on a leash.
But that's not what happened. The three main findings were
as follows:
1) Overall, people clicked on the negative items about 40
percent of the time — that's twice as often as one
would expect by chance. What's more, compared with the neutral
items we showed people in searches that served as controls,
negative items were selected about five times as often.
2) Among eligible, undecided voters —the impressionable people who
decide close elections — negative items attracted more than 15 times
as many clicks as neutral items attracted in matched
control questions.
3) People affiliated with one political party selected the negative
suggestion for the candidate from their own party less
frequently than the negative suggestion for the other candidate.
In other words, negative suggestions attracted the largest number
of clicks when they were consistent with people's biases.
These findings are consistent with two well-known phenomena
in the social sciences: negativity bias and confirmation bias.
Negativity bias refers to the fact that people are far more affected
by negative stimuli than by positive ones. As a famous paper
on the subject notes, a single cockroach in one's salad ruins
the whole salad, but a piece of candy placed on a plate
of disgusting crud will not make that crud seem even slightly more
palatable.
Negative stimuli draw more attention than neutral or positive ones,
they activate more behavior, and they create stronger impressions —
negative ones, of course. In recent years, political scientists have
even suggested that negativity bias plays an important role in the
political choices we make — that people adopt conservative political
views because they have a heightened sensitivity to negative stimuli.
Confirmation bias refers to the fact that people almost always seek
out, pay attention to, and believe information that confirms their beliefs
more than they seek out, pay attention to, or believe information
that contradicts those beliefs.
When you apply these two principles to search suggestions, they
predict that people are far more likely to click on negative
search suggestions than on neutral or positive ones — especially
when those negative suggestions are consistent with their own
beliefs. This is exactly what the new study confirms.
Google data analysts know this too. They know because they have ready
access to billions of pieces of data showing exactly how
many times people click on negative search suggestions. They also
know exactly how many times people click on every other kind
of search suggestion one can categorize.
To put this another way, what I and other researchers must stumble
upon and can study only crudely, Google employees can study
with exquisite precision every day.
Given Google's strong support for Mrs. Clinton, it seems reasonable
to conjecture that Google employees manually suppress negative search
suggestions relating to Clinton in order to reduce the
number of searches people conduct that will expose them
to anti-Clinton content. They appear to work a bit less hard
to suppress negative search suggestions for Mr. Trump, Senator
Sanders, Senator Cruz, and other prominent people.
This is not the place to review the evidence that Google strongly
supports Mrs. Clinton, but since we're talking about Google's
search bar, here are two quick reminders:
First, on August 6th, when we typed "When is the election?," we were
shown the following image:
© Photo: Google
“When is the election?”
See anything odd about that picture? Couldn't Google have displayed
two photos just as easily as it displayed one?
And second, as reported by the Next Web and other news sources,
in mid 2015, when people typed "Who will be the next president?,"
Google displayed boxes such as the one below, which left no doubt
about the answer:
© Photo: Google
“Who will be the next president?”
Corporate Control
Over time, differentially suppressing negative search suggestions will
repeatedly expose millions of people to far more positive search
results for one political candidate than for the other. Research
I have been conducting since 2013 with Ronald Robertson
of Northeastern University has shown that high-ranking search results
that favor one candidate can easily shift 20 percent or more
of undecided voters toward that candidate — up to 80
percent in some demographic groups, as I noted earlier. This is
because of the enormous trust people have in computer-generated
search results, which people mistakenly believe are completely impartial
and objective — just as they mistakenly believe search
suggestions are completely impartial and objective.
The impact of biased search rankings on opinions, which we call
the Search Engine Manipulation Effect (SEME), is one of the largest
effects ever discovered in the behavioral sciences, and because it is
invisible to users, it is especially dangerous as a source
of influence. Because Google handles 90 percent of search
in most countries and because many elections are very close, we
estimate that SEME has been determining the outcomes of upwards
of 25 percent of the national elections in the world
for several years now, with increasing impact each year. This is
occurring, we believe, whether or not Google's executives are taking an
active interest in elections; all by itself, Google's search
algorithm virtually always ends up favoring one candidate
over another simply because of "organic" search patterns
by users. When it does, votes shift; in large elections,
millions of votes can be shifted. You can think of this
as a kind of digital bandwagon effect.
The new effect I have described in this essay — a search
suggestion effect — is very different from SEME but almost
certainly increases SEME's impact. If you can surreptitiously nudge people
into generating search results that are inherently biased, the battle
is half won. Simply by including or suppressing negatives
in search suggestions, you can direct people's searches one way or
another just as surely as if they were dogs on a leash, and
you can use this subtle form of influence not just to alter
people's views about candidates but about anything.
Google launched autocomplete, its search suggestion tool, in 2004
as an opt-in that helped users find information faster. Perhaps
that's all it was in the beginning, but just as Google
itself has morphed from being a cool high-tech anomaly into what
former Google executive James Whittaker has called a "an advertising
company with a single corporate-mandated focus," so has autocomplete
morphed from being a cool and helpful search tool into what may
be a tool of corporate manipulation. By 2008, not only was
autocomplete no longer an opt-in feature, there was no way to opt out
of it, and since that time, through strategic censorship, it may
have become a tool for directing people's searches and thereby
influencing not only the choices they make but even the thoughts they
think.
Look back at the searches I have shown you. Why does Google typically
show you far fewer search suggestions than other search engines
do — 4 or fewer, generally speaking, compared with 8
for Bing, 8 for DuckDuckGo and 10 for Yahoo? Even if you
knew nothing of phenomena like negativity bias and confirmation
bias, you certainly know that shorter lists give people fewer choices.
Whatever autocomplete was in the beginning, its main function may now
be to manipulate.
Without whistleblowers or warrants, no one can prove Google executives are
using digital shenanigans to influence elections, but I don't
see how we can rule out that possibility.
Perhaps you are skeptical about my claims. Perhaps you are also not
seeing, on balance, a pro-Hillary bias in the search suggestions
you receive on your computer. Perhaps you are also not concerned
about the possibility that search suggestions can be used
systematically to nudge people's searches in one direction or
another. If you are skeptical in any or all of these ways, ask
yourself this: Why, to begin with, is Google censoring its search
suggestions? (And it certainly acknowledges doing so.) Why doesn't it just
show us, say, the top ten most popular searches related to whatever
we are typing? Why, in particular, is it suppressing negative
information? Are Google's leaders afraid we will have panic attacks and
sue the company if we are directed to dark and disturbing web pages?
Do they not trust us to make up our own minds about things?
Do they think we are children?
Without whistleblowers or warrants, no one can prove Google executives are
using digital shenanigans to influence elections, but I don't
see how we can rule out that possibility. There is nothing illegal
about manipulating people using search suggestions and search
rankings — quite the contrary, in fact — and it makes good
financial sense for a company to use every legal means
at its disposal to support its preferred candidates.
Using the mathematical techniques Robertson and I described in our
2015 report in the Proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences, I recently calculated that SEME alone can shift
between 2.6 and 10.4 million votes in the upcoming US
presidential race without anyone knowing this has occurred and
without leaving a paper trail.
I arrived at those numbers before I knew about the power
search suggestions have to alter searches. The new study suggests
that autocomplete alone might be able to shift between 800,000
and 3.2 million votes — also without anyone knowing this is
occurring.
Perhaps even more troubling, because Google tracks and monitors us so
aggressively, Google officials know who among us is planning
to vote and whom we are planning to vote for. They also know who
among us are still undecided, and that is where the influence
of biased search suggestions and biased search rankings could be
applied with enormous effect.
The Google Mafia
A convergence of EVIL: Google, Amazon and Facebook use technology to
enslave humanity, suppress knowledge and accelerate human suffering
(Natural News) With Amazon.com now purchasing Whole Foods, giving it
a near-monopoly over multiple sectors of the U.S. economy, we are entering
the age of corporate giants dominating and enslaving humankind. Apple has
more debt-free cash than nearly all world governments, including the
United States of America (which is drowning in debt). Google has a
near-monopoly over all search results, a position of power it exploits to
silence dissenting views and disconnect humanity from important knowledge.
And Facebook suppresses all truthful information that challenges the false
narratives of the globalists. Corporations like these abuse their power to
enslave humanity rather than setting us free.
At the dawn of the invention of television, the technology was hailed as a
way to bring uplifting education to every corner of the globe. It didn’t
take long, however, before broadcast television was turned into a means to
control the masses through the dissemination of fake news — which has been
going on forever — and the programming of consumers to purchase branded
products often made with toxic ingredients. The dream of turning TV
technology into a mechanism to set humanity free was quickly crushed, and
today it is widely known that the more hours people spend watching TV, the
more unintelligent and unaware they are. (Do you know any intelligent,
self-aware, healthy person who indulges in watching fake TV?)
Similarly, the internet was once hailed as a means to set humanity free.
But that dream, too, has been crushed under the extreme censorship and
obfuscation of internet-intensive businesses like Google, Amazon and
Facebook. Here are just a few examples:
Google censors nearly all REAL news publishers from Google News, making
sure that only FAKE (mainstream) media achieves visibility so that fake
media narratives dominate public attention. Those fake narratives include
everything from the collapse of WTC 7 from “office fires” to the
pharmaceutical industry’s ridiculously false claim that vaccines have
never harmed any child in the history of the world. For all the same
reasons, Google also algorithmically suppresses websites it doesn’t like,
including independent news publishers covering investigative stories on
vaccines, GMOs and the climate change science hoax. Far from setting
humanity free to find what they want on the internet, Google covertly
limits search results to primarily those content sites that agree with
globalist narratives, all of which are anti-human and anti-progress.
Google is also pro-Big Pharma and bans the advertising of natural
supplement products that help people prevent disease and reduce suffering.
Facebook follows a similar algorithmic censorship track, penalizing
websites that dare talk about children being harmed by vaccines, science
corruption in the genetic engineering industry, the dangers of pesticides
or the scientifically validated benefits of carbon dioxide to planet
Earth. Facebook manually assigns penalty scores to entire websites,
crushing their reach and making sure their content can’t even reach fans
who have deliberately “liked” the site and want to receive its
information. Mark Zuckerberg, the grandson of a Rockefeller, is being
groomed for a position of globalist domination and says he might run for
president. He’s already obediently spouting every official lie that
Hillary Clinton repeated on the campaign trail in 2016.
Amazon.com, founded by evil globalist Jeff Bezos, uses its marketplace
dominance to promote the interests of the pharmaceutical industry while
suppressing natural medicine. Did you know that Amazon is getting into the
prescription drug business in the hopes of putting local pharmacies out of
business? The company also bans FBA (Fulfilled By Amazon) activities with
many nutritional supplements and botanical extracts that can prevent
serious diseases such as cancer. Now that Amazon is purchasing Whole
Foods, Jeff Bezos is likely going to use the same pro-pharma stance to try
to transform Whole Foods stores into prescription drug pharmacy locations
while eliminating most of Whole Foods’ staff by replacing them with
robots.
Amazon has already pioneered robot-staffed retail stores and has also
developed a way to eliminate human cashiers by using RFID tracking of all
customers and the items they pick off the shelves. Whole Foods workers are
already freaking out, realizing they’re going to be replaced by robots and
drones. In effect, Jeff Bezos will promote mass unemployment, mass drug
addiction, the censorship of natural products and centralized control over
retailing. All of this makes Jeff Bezos richer and more powerful, but it
also destroys human dignity, human health and human knowledge. (For people
like Jeff Bezos, selling opioids is a great business model because people
keep buying them over and over again… the impact on society be damned!)
Evil corporations, evil globalists and evil agendas
What do all these evil corporations and globalist leaders have in common?
They are all enemies of humanity:
They all promote toxic vaccines that are right now killing over 1,400
children a year in the U.S. alone, injuring another 100,000 plus annually.
They all promote Big Pharma’s toxic medications that earn high profits.
They all suppress natural medicine, medicinal herbs and cannabinoids
(CBD).
They all supported Hillary Clinton and promote Democrats, the DNC and big
government. They all hated Trump just like they hate America, the Bill of
Rights and the Second Amendment.
They all promote Monsanto, GMOs, glyphosate and pesticide chemicals as
being “good for humanity.” They all claim to be “pro environment” even
while supporting the corporations that poison our world with toxic
chemicals that kill life and devastate ecosystems.
They all believe in censorship and suppression as a way to shore up their
power and silence dissent.
They all put profits first and humanity last. To them, human beings are
just “useless idiots” to be manipulated or exploited for profit. If Jeff
Bezos could fire every single Whole Foods worker right now and replace
them all with robots, he would absolutely do so.
They all believe the ends justify the means, which is why Jeff Bezos’
Washington Post feels justified in completely fabricating “anonymous
sources” to publish fake news in an attempt to overthrow the American
Republic.
They all despise diversity of thought and demand absolute conformity and
obedience to left-wing narratives covering everything from LGBT issues to
the elimination of gun rights. Diversity of opinion is not allowed.
Conformity is mandatory.
In effect, these corporations are pure evil. They are run by evil
globalists and they ally themselves with other evil corporations that
poison our planet, enslave humanity and seek to deprive us all of basic
human liberty and dignity.
You’re not helpless: Here’s what you can do to protect your power, your
liberty and your future
All these evil corporations depend on one thing to remain in business:
Compliant consumers.
If people stop financially supporting these evil corporations, they will
cease to exist. The only reason they continue to grow right now is because
people continue to feed them economic resources.
Until now, many people had not been fully aware of just how evil these
corporations truly are. They had no idea they were about to be enslaved
and overrun by Google, Amazon, Facebook and other similar corporate
entities. Suddenly, however, it’s becoming obvious to even those who
previously decried such warnings as “conspiracy theories.” Suddenly even
Whole Foods workers are waking up, flipping out and realizing they are all
about to be made obsolete by the Jeff Bezos robot apocalypse. From
Reuters:
“I’ve heard that Amazon’s culture is really cutthroat. That worries me,”
one bagger at a Providence, Rhode Island, store said.
At least one customer was concerned that an Amazon purchase would further
distance Whole Foods from its roots as a purveyor of premium, organic and
specialty foods.
…”I think that they are a very profit-driven company, so there might be
some streamlining as far as labor,” said Sasha Hardin, 28, of the Mount
Pleasant store, who has been with Whole Foods for 6-1/2 years.
Here are some action items you can take right now to stop feeding these
corporate monsters that are destroying our collective future:
1. Stop using Google. Find alternative search engines such as DuckDuckGo.
For searching news and the independent media, use GoodGopher.com or read
Censored.news each day, which aggregates headlines from the internet’s
most censored indy news sites.
2. Stop using Facebook. Why would you divulge all the details of your
private life to an NSA data collection front anyway? Facebook is nothing
but a massive social network spy machine that ruins your life and makes
you feel disconnected and depressed. Check out GAB.ai instead.
3. Stop shopping at Amazon.com and Whole Foods. Support local retailers
and local grocers, or you’ll soon find them all out of business. If you
don’t consciously decide to start shopping at other retailers, you’re
going to wake up one day in a world totally dominated by Amazon, where
natural health products are banned and prescription drugs are pushed for
everything. For lab-verified natural health products, support the Health
Ranger Store. For fresh produce, grow your own food or support your local
grocers that provide organic and non-GMO options.
4. Make conscious choices about where you spend your money, knowing that
every dollar you spend is a “vote” for that organization. Globalist
organizations like Google, Amazon and Facebook are all about enslaving
humanity and stripping you of knowledge, dignity and health. Vote for the
kind of companies who share your belief in natural medicine, empowering
individuals, decentralizing political power (returning power to local
communities) and halting the mass poisoning of our world with pesticides
and GMOs.
The power is in your hands.
Why is it dangerous for Google to be able to operate the private
psychological and information profiles it keeps on every human? Because it
makes thing like this happen:
“Over 200 million voter background files, created via Google’s spying and
data harvesting, have been dumped on the web!
A data analytics contractor that spies on the public with help from
Facebook and Google, left databases containing information on nearly 200
million potential voters exposed to the internet without security,
allowing anyone who knew where to look to download it without a password.
"We take full responsibility for this situation," said the contractor,
Deep Root Analytics, in a statement.
The databases were part of 25 terabytes of files contained in an Amazon
cloud account that could be browsed without logging in. The account was
discovered by researcher Chris Vickery of the security firm UpGuard. The
files have since been secured. Vickery is a prominent researcher in
uncovering improperly secured files online. But, he said, this exposure is
of a magnitude he has never seen before
"In terms of the disc space used, this is the biggest exposure I've found.
In terms of the scope and depth, this is the biggest one I've found," said
Vickery. The accessible files, according to UpGuard, contain a main 198
million-entry database with names, addresses of voters and an "RNC ID"
that can be used with other exposed files to research individuals.
For example, a 50-gigabyte file of "Post Elect 2016" information, last
updated in mid-January, contained modeled data about a voter's likely
positions on 46 different issues ranging from "how likely it is the
individual voted for Obama in 2012, whether they agree with the Trump
foreign policy of 'America First' and how likely they are to be concerned
with auto manufacturing as an issue, among others."
That file appears in a folder titled "target_point," an apparent reference
to another firm contracted by the RNC to crunch data. UpGuard speculates
that the folder may imply that the firm TargetPoint compiled and shared
the data with Deep Root. Another folder appears to reference Data Trust,
another contracted firm. UpGuard analyst Dan O'Sullivan looked himself up
in the database and writes in the official report that the calculated
preferences were, at least for him, right on the money.
"It is a testament both to their talents, and to the real danger of this
exposure, that the results were astoundingly accurate," he said. The Deep
Root Analytics cloud server had 25 terabytes of data exposed, including
1.1 terabytes available for download.
Over the 2016 election season, the RNC was a major client of Deep Root,
one of a handful firms it contacted for big data analysis. Firms like Deep
Root Analytics use data from a variety of sources to extrapolate social
and political preferences of voters to determine how best to market to
them.
According to Ad Age, the RNC spent $983,000 between January 2015 and
November 2016 for Deep Root's services and $4.2 million for TargetPoint's.
"Deep Root Analytics builds voter models to help enhance advertiser
understanding of TV viewership. The data accessed was not built for or
used by any specific client. It is our proprietary analysis to help inform
local television ad buying," said Deep Root Analytics in their statement.
Misconfigured cloud servers and online databases are a common way for data
to be accidentally left exposed to the public. Vickery has found
everything from military engineering plans to databases of believed
terrorists in exactly this way.
What is uncommon in this case is the size and scope of this exposure. If
its records are accurate, the Deep Root Analytics exposure contains
information on more than half of the American population. It dwarfs the
second-largest exposure of voter information — 93.4 million records of
Mexican citizens — by more than 100 million voters and tops the largest
data breach of voter information — 55 million records of Philippine voters
— by more than 140 million.
Anyone who knew the files' web address could have accessed them. But
without that knowledge, they are much harder to find. Even armed with a
search for unsecured databases, finding exposures of any magnitude is
tough work. Vickery sifts through a large number of unsecured databases to
find ones that interesting enough to publish research. Deep Root has
contracted the security firm Stroz Friedberg to perform a thorough
investigation of the exposure. The exposure, between June 1 and June 14,
was sealed shut shortly after Vickery made the discovery during the night
of June 12 and notified relevant regulatory bodies. “
Feds Shut Down Paris Climate Scam Because It Was Created to Put Trillions
of Dollars in Obama’s Silicon Valley Financiers Bank Accounts
Tom Steyer, Elon Musk, George Soros, Eric Schmidt, Vinod Khosla and John
Doerr force USA to pull out of Paris Climate agreement because it is
uncovered that they are using it for a private Silicon Valley Payola Scam!
It turns out that Obama had rigged the “Climate Deals” to criminally
racketeer profits to Tom Steyer, Elon Musk, George Soros, Eric Schmidt,
Vinod Khosla and John Doerr and F*ck everyone else over.
U.S. pull-out gives America a fresh start on the environment without all
of the Silicon Valley racketeering and insider crony payola deals.
Reports filed with the new FBI (minus Comey-the-cover-up-king) to seek
federal indictments of Tom Steyer, Elon Musk, George Soros, Eric Schmidt,
Vinod Khosla and John Doerr!
Your Mind May Be Getting Raped By a Crazy Google Billionaire
By Shelley Floure’
You just read a thing on a “web news site”!
It got you so upset!!!!!!
Those filthy Liberals or those Filthy Conservatives or those Filthy
Immigrants or some-group-of-people-you-don’t-like said a thing that makes
you rationalize, more deeply, your hatred of “them”!
But who actually caused that thing to get posted where you saw it?
The answer: Some crazy billionaire paid to post that!
Why would they do that?
Because they put money in their bank account equal to the hate and fear
they can manufacture. Season 5 of the House of Cards TV show goes into
detail about this. Worse yet, the money they put in their bank account
came from your own wallet!
“Huh!? How does that work?”
Let me explain.
The U.S. Government spends TRILLIONS AND TRILLIONS of your dollars every
year.
All of that money comes from your taxes and the money they take out of
your pay check.
By “spending money” the government hands those TRILLIONS AND TRILLIONS of
dollars to certain people, and their companies, each year.
You probably can’t even conceive of how much money a trillion dollars is.
Think of it this way: with only ONE TRILLION dollars to work with, you
could blow up the Moon or paint the entire Moon pink. Literally! ONE
TRILLION DOLLARS is only a tiny percentage of how much the government
hands out each year.
George Soros, Eric Schmidt, Warren Buffet, Larry Page, Mark Zuckerberg,
Sheldon Adelson, or the other political billionaires, would kill your
whole family to get their hands on those TRILLIONS.
While some of them do have people killed, actual murders are easier to
catch these days. It is far less risky to kill ideas and causes. Either
way, the TRILLIONS flow into their pockets because they are killing
things.
Are you lost yet?
These handful of billionaires have tens of thousands of trolls and
internet shills who create hate on the internet.
In Washington, DC, each thing that someone might hate has a Congressional
Bill and a budget solution attached to it.
In order to solve the problem that a hated thing causes, the billionaires
have their lobbyists, fabricate fake problems. Guess what!? The
billionaires that create the fabricated problem JUST HAPPEN TO OWN THE
ONLY SOLUTION that the government can contract!
That’s right! These billionaires create all these manufactured “issues” in
order to put your tax money in their private bank accounts. They are
tricking you into hate and fear so they can profit off of fabricated hate
and fear!
“Climate Change” could only be solved by the companies that Barack Obama’s
financiers owned. Interesting coincidence, huh?
Only Obama’s and Hillary’s buddy Elon Musk got government cash. Every
other applicant got sabotaged by Obama. Tesla’s funding was a crony payola
scam!
The hundred year old problem of accessible health-care could suddenly only
be solved by the Obamacare database companies that ONLY Barack Obama’s
financiers owned.
Suddenly ISIS appeared and only by letting Obama’s CIA take over Google
could “the bad guys be caught”...except, not a single one was caught by
the Silicon Valley surveillance net. A trillion dollars of “Big Data”
contracts were sold by Amazon, Google and Facebook but they, not only,
resulted in no interdictions but they CAUSED many attacks by missing the
entire boat on some of the biggest, bloodiest, public attacks ever!
So, when you see reasons on the web to hate immigrants, Liberals or
Conservatives. When you think you are supposed to put on a black face
handkerchief and go riot with ANTIFA because “everybody else is”, think
again.
Almost NOBODY is actually concerned about most of these issues aside from
getting their work done and getting home to their families.
All of these “problems” are manufactured by the owners of Facebook and
Google in order to try to get those TRILLIONS of dollars steered into
their private bank accounts.
When you see an “issue” on the web.. Write George Soros and tell him to go
F*ck himself and stop messing with your tax dollars and your mind!
Al Gore bought a $10 million dollar mansion on the California coast in
Montecito, California after telling the world that his Climate Change
would flood the California Coast and make California coastal property the
worst investment in history. Al Gore’s partner and scam associate: Vinod
Khosla (See the 60 Minutes Episode: The Cleantech Crash ) took over
California’s favorite coastal town: Martin’s Beach in Half Moon Bay,
California; and has spent tens of millions of dollars on lawsuits to keep
the public from using the public beach there. If these Kleiner Perkins
mobsters actually thought Climate Change/Global Warming was real, they
would never have spent vast fortunes buying coastal property, would they?
Over 35 (and growing) Obama DOE, EPA and NOAA senior staff have said that
they were ordered to manipulate climate data in order to create financial
profits for Al Gore’s company: Kleiner Perkins.
Kleiner Perkins created Google, the criminally corrupt search engine
company that rigs search results for Kleiner Perkins political interests.
Nothing less than FBI raids of Kleiner Perkins and Google are needed now!
These are organized crime, criminally corrupt, organizations!
This has nothing to do with “politics” and everything to do with ORGANIZED
CRIME!
This has nothing to do with saving trees and everything to do with
murders, racketeering and corruption!
Google’s executives pay for, control and benefit from every one of these
politicians illegal and corrupt actions!
Google, once disdainful of lobbying, now a master of Washington influence
Outside InA new era of influence
By Tom Hamburger and Matea Gold
In May 2012, the law school at George Mason University hosted a forum
billed as a “vibrant discussion” about Internet search competition. Many
of the major players in the field were there — regulators from the Federal
Trade Commission, federal and state prosecutors, top congressional
staffers.
What the guests had not been told was that the day-long academic
conference was in large part the work of Google, which maneuvered behind
the scenes with GMU’s Law & Economics Center to put on the event. At
the time, the company was under FTC investigation over concerns about the
dominance of its famed search engine, a case that threatened Google’s core
business.
In the weeks leading up to the GMU event, Google executives suggested
potential speakers and guests, sending the center’s staff a detailed
spreadsheet listing members of Congress, FTC commissioners, and senior
officials with the Justice Department and state attorney general’s
offices.
“If you haven’t sent out the invites yet, please use the attached
spreadsheet, which contains updated info,” Google legal assistant Yang
Zhang wrote to Henry Butler, executive director of the law center,
according to internal e-mails obtained by The Washington Post through a
public records request. “If you’ve sent out the invites, would it be
possible to add a few more?”
Butler replied, “We’re on it!”
On the day of the conference, leading technology and legal experts
forcefully rejected the need for the government to take action against
Google, making their arguments before some of the very regulators who
would help determine its fate.
The company helped put on two similar conferences at GMU around the time
of the 18-month investigation, part of a broad strategy to shape the
external debate around the probe, which found that Google’s search
practices did not merit legal action.
The behind-the-scenes machinations demonstrate how Google — once a
lobbying weakling — has come to master a new method of operating in
modern-day Washington, where spending on traditional lobbying is rivaled
by other, less visible forms of influence.
(Read the e-mails between Google and GMU officials)
That system includes financing sympathetic research at universities and
think tanks, investing in nonprofit advocacy groups across the political
spectrum and funding pro-business coalitions cast as public-interest
projects.
The rise of Google as a top-tier Washington player fully captures the arc
of change in the influence business.
Nine years ago, the company opened a one-man lobbying shop, disdainful of
the capital’s pay-to-play culture.
Since then, Google has soared to near the top of the city’s lobbying
ranks, placing second only to General Electric in corporate lobbying
expenditures in 2012 and fifth place in 2013.
The company gives money to nearly 140 business trade groups, advocacy
organizations and think tanks, according to a Post analysis of voluntary
disclosures by the company, which, like many corporations, does not reveal
the size of its donations. That’s double the number of groups Google
funded four years ago.
This summer, Google will move to a new Capitol Hill office, doubling its
Washington space to 55,000 square feet — roughly the size of the White
House.
Google’s increasingly muscular Washington presence matches its expanded
needs and ambitions as it has fended off a series of executive- and
legislative-branch threats to regulate its activities and well-funded
challenges by its corporate rivals.
Today, Google is working to preserve its rights to collect consumer data —
and shield it from the government — amid a backlash over revelations that
the National Security Agency tapped Internet companies as part of its
surveillance programs. And it markets cloud storage and other services to
federal departments, including intelligence agencies and the Pentagon.
“Technology issues are a big — and growing — part of policy debates in
Washington, and it is important for us to be part of that discussion,”
said Susan Molinari, a Republican former congresswoman from New York who
works as Google’s top lobbyist. “We aim to help policymakers understand
Google’s business and the work we do to keep the Internet open and spur
economic opportunity.”
Molinari added, “We support associations and third parties across the
political spectrum who help us get the word out — even if we don’t agree
with them on 100 percent of issues.”
Susan Molinari, a Republican former congresswoman from New York,
works as Google’s top lobbyist in Washington. (Bennett Raglin/Getty Images
for Elle)
As Google’s lobbying efforts have matured, the company has worked to
broaden its appeal on both sides of the aisle. Executive Chairman Eric
Schmidt is a well-known backer of President Obama and advises the White
House. Google’s lobbying corps — now numbering more than 100 — is split
equally, like its campaign donations, among Democrats and Republicans.
Google executives have fostered a new dialogue between Republicans and
Silicon Valley, giving money to conservative groups such as Heritage
Action for America and the Federalist Society. While also supporting
groups on the left, Google has flown conservative activists to California
for visits to its Mountain View campus and a stay at the Four Seasons
Hotel.
The company has also pioneered new and unexpected ways to influence
decision-makers, harnessing its vast reach. It has befriended key
lawmakers in both parties by offering free training sessions to Capitol
Hill staffers and campaign operatives on how to use Google products that
can help target voters.
Through a program for charities, Google donates in-kind advertising,
customized YouTube channels and Web site analytics to think tanks that are
allied with the company’s policy goals.
Google “fellows” — young lawyers, writers and thinkers paid by the company
— populate elite think tanks such as the Cato Institute, the Competitive
Enterprise Institute and the New America Foundation.
To critics, Google’s investments have effectively shifted the national
discussion away from Internet policy questions that could affect the
company’s business practices. Groups that might ordinarily challenge the
policies and practices of a major corporation are holding their fire,
those critics say.
“Google’s influence in Washington has chilled a necessary and overdue
policy discussion about the impact of the Internet’s largest firm on the
future of the Internet,” said Marc Rotenberg, a Georgetown University law
professor who runs the Electronic Privacy Information Center, a watchdog
and research organization.
Some with deep ties to the company say that Google’s embrace of aggressive
lobbying was a necessary concession to the realities of Washington.
“I don’t fault Google for playing that game, in which big companies use
their money to buy advocates and allies,” said Andrew McLaughlin, who
served as Google’s first director of global public policy in Washington.
“Given where the company is today, the fiduciary duty it has to
shareholders and the way Washington works, it’s a rational judgment.”
Google goes to lunch
An early sign of Google’s new Washington attitude came in September 2011,
when executives paid a visit to the Heritage Foundation, the stalwart
conservative think tank that has long served as an intellectual hub on the
right, to attend a weekly lunch for conservative bloggers.
The session took place at a critical juncture for the company.
Days earlier, Schmidt had endured a rare and unnerving appearance on
Capitol Hill, where he was lectured by a Republican senator who accused
the company of skewing search results to benefit its own products and hurt
competitors. The FTC antitrust inquiry was underway. And, in what Google
saw as a direct threat to the open Internet, major lobbies such as the
U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Motion Picture Association of America
were mounting a legislative campaign to place restrictions on the sale of
pirated music and movies. The effort was getting bipartisan traction in
the House and the Senate.
Google Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt testifies before a Senate Judiciary
antitrust subcommittee in September 2011. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
Inside Google’s Washington headquarters, a handful of lobbyists were
crafting what they called the “Republican strategy” to defeat the
legislation. Their approach: build conservative opposition based on the
right’s distaste for regulation. They also seized on an obscure provision
that they told Republicans would be a boon for trial lawyers, a Democratic
constituency.
As the campaign took shape, there was a building sense within the company
that it needed to beef up its firepower on the Hill. That fall, Google’s
first Washington lobbyist, a computer scientist and lawyer named Alan
Davidson, a Democrat, would announce his resignation, replaced a few
months later by the former GOP lawmaker, Molinari.
In their visit to Heritage that day, Google officials were eager to make
new friends. Their challenge was instantly clear.
“In 2008, your CEO campaigned for Barack Obama,” said Mike Gonzalez,
Heritage’s vice president for communications, according to a video of the
event. “. . . As a company, you’re really identified with this
administration from the beginning. And you come here and you’re like a mix
of Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek.”
Adam Kovacevich, then a member of Google’s policy team, responded by
stressing the company’s interest in building new alliances.
“One of the things we’ve recognized is that no company can get anything
done in Washington without partnerships on both sides of the aisle,” he
said.
He noted the recent hiring of Lee Carosi Dunn, one of several former top
aides to Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) brought on by the company.
Dunn, addressing the audience, promised “a lot of reach-out to
Republicans.”
“I think it’s another lesson young companies that come to Washington learn
— you can’t put all your marbles in one basket,” Dunn said. Referring to
the editor of the conservative Weekly Standard, Dunn added: “Look, even
Bill Kristol was walking around wearing Google glasses. We’re making
strides!”
The Google-Heritage relationship soon blossomed — with benefits for both.
A few weeks after the blogger session, Heritage researcher James L.
Gattuso penned a critique of the antitrust investigation into Google,
praising the company as “an American success story.”
That winter, Heritage joined the chorus of groups weighing in against the
anti-piracy legislation. As the bill, the Stop Online Piracy Act, appeared
to gain steam in the GOP-led House, Gattuso wrote a piece warning of
“unintended negative consequences for the operation of the Internet and
free speech.” The legislation, he said, could disrupt the growth of
technology. Gattuso said he came to his position independently and was not
lobbied by Google.
After Gattuso’s piece went live, Heritage Action, the think tank’s sister
advocacy organization, quickly turned the argument into a political
rallying cry. In terms aimed at tea party conservatives, the group cast
the bill as “another government power grab.”
In mid-January 2012, Heritage Action designated the legislation a “key
vote” it would factor into its congressional race endorsement decisions —
heightening the pressure on Republicans.
The next day, leading Internet sites, including Wikipedia, went dark as
part of an online blackout protesting the bills.
Google turned its iconic home page into a political platform for the first
time, urging users to sign a petition against the legislation. Seven
million people added their names, and many of them added their e-mails,
creating a valuable activist list for Google to mobilize then and in later
fights.
As congressional offices were flooded with phone calls and e-mail
protests, support for the legislation crumbled. Within days, both the
House and Senate versions of the bill were shelved and Hill veterans were
left marveling at the ability of Google and its allies to muster such a
massive retail response.
For Google and Heritage, the legislative victory was the beginning of a
close relationship. A few months later, Google Ideas and the Heritage
Foundation co-hosted an event focused on the role the Internet could play
in modernizing Cuba, featuring Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and Google Ideas
director Jared Cohen.
The following year, a new name popped up on Google’s list of groups it
supports financially: Heritage Action.
GMU conferences
Facing a broad and potentially damaging FTC probe, Google found an eager
and willing ally in George Mason University’s Law & Economics Center.
The center is among the academic programs at universities such as Harvard
and Stanford that have benefited from Google’s largesse. For the past
several years, the free-market-oriented law center has received an annual
donation from the company, a grant that totaled $350,000 last year,
according to the school.
Google’s relationship with the law center proved helpful in the summer of
2011 as speculation mounted that the FTC was going to launch an antitrust
investigation of the tech giant. The company’s rivals, including Microsoft
and Yelp, were aggressively pressing arguments that Google was exploiting
its dominance in the search business.
On June 16, 2011, Google and the law center put on the first of three
academic conferences at the GMU law school’s Arlington County campus, all
focusing on Internet search competition. It was eight days before the
company announced it had received formal notification it was under FTC
investigation.
Google was listed as a co-sponsor of the day-long forum, but some
participants were still struck by the number of speakers who took a
skeptical view of the need for antitrust enforcement against the company,
according to people in attendance.
The keynote address was by Google engineer Mark Paskin, who delivered a
lunchtime speech titled “Engineering Search.”
A few days later, Christopher Adams, an economist in the FTC’s antitrust
division who later worked on the Google investigation, e-mailed Butler,
the law center’s director, to thank him for putting on the conference. “I
think it was one of the best policy conferences that I’ve been too [sic],”
Adams wrote, praising Paskin’s talk as “excellent.”
Adams declined to comment for this article, referring questions to the FTC
press office.
FTC spokesman Justin Cole said the agency’s staffers “are required to
adhere to established federal government ethics rules and guidelines.
Attendance and participation in the 2011 and 2012 GMU conferences by our
staff adhered to these guidelines.”
As the agency’s investigation stretched into its second year, the staff
and professors at GMU’s law center were in regular contact with Google
executives, who supplied them with the company’s arguments against
antitrust action and helped them get favorable op-ed pieces published,
according to the documents obtained by The Post.
The school and Google staffers worked to organize a second academic
conference focused on search. This time, however, Google’s involvement was
not publicly disclosed.
Months before the event, Zhang, the Google legal assistant, e-mailed
Chrysanthos Dellarocas, a professor in the Information Systems Department
at Boston University’s School of Management, to suggest he participate.
Dellarocas had received $60,000 in 2011 from Google to study the impact of
social networks on search.
“We’d love for you . . . to submit and present this paper, if you are
interested and willing,” she wrote.
When GMU officials later told Dellarocas they were planning to have him
participate from the audience, he responded that he was under the
impression from “the folks at Google who have funded our research” that
they wanted him to showcase his work at the event. He said he wanted “to
be in compliance with our sponsor’s expectations.”
Dellarocas, who had a schedule conflict and ultimately did not attend,
told The Post that while Google occasionally checked on his progress, the
company did not have any sway over his research.
“At no point did they have any interference with the substance of my
work,” he said.
Even as Google executives peppered the GMU staff with suggestions of
speakers and guests to invite to the event, the company asked the school
not to broadcast its involvement.
“It may seem like Google is overwhelming the conference,” Zhang fretted in
an e-mail to the center’s administrative coordinator, Jeffrey Smith, after
reviewing the confirmed list of attendees a few weeks before the event.
She asked Smith to mention “only a few Googlers.”
Smith was reassuring. “We will certainly limit who we announce publicly
from Google,” he replied.
A strong contingent of FTC economists and lawyers were on hand for the May
16, 2012, session, whose largely pro-Google tone took some participants
aback. “By my count, out of about 20 panelists and speakers, there were 31
/ 2 of us who thought the FTC might have a case,” said Allen Grunes, a
former government antitrust lawyer who served on a panel and described the
conference as “Google boot camp.” Grunes said he was not aware of Google’s
role organizing the event until informed of it by a Post reporter.
Daniel D. Polsby, dean of GMU’s School of Law, which houses the center,
said that while Google provided suggestions, the agenda and speakers were
determined by university staffers. “I think it would misrepresent this
conference to suggest that it was a Google event,” he said, adding that
the law center discloses on its Web site the support it gets from Google
and other corporations.
Google declined to comment about the conferences.
In January 2013, after an investigation that spanned more than a year and
a half, the FTC settled the case with Google, which agreed to give its
rivals more access to patents and make it easier for advertisers to use
other ad platforms.
But when it came to the charges that Google biased its search results to
promote its own products, the five FTC commissioners all voted to close
the investigation, saying there was no evidence the company’s practices
were harming consumers.
Jon Leibowitz, then the chairman of the agency, said in an interview that
the FTC was not affected by Google’s campaign, noting that the company’s
rivals were waging a parallel effort on the other side.
“It didn’t bother me that a lot of people were building events around the
possibility of the FTC investigation,” said Leibowitz, who has since left
the FTC. “That’s sort of life in the big city, and both sides were doing
it.”
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) discusses the U.S. economy in a March speech at
a Jack Kemp Foundation forum at Google’s Washington offices. (T.J.
Kirkpatrick/For The Washington Post)
Attendees listen to Rubio’s speech. While also supporting groups on the
left, Google has courted conservative groups and lawmakers in recent
years. (T.J. Kirkpatrick/For The Washington Post)
NSA fallout
On a February night this year, Schmidt sat down with a Washington audience
far friendlier than the panel of senators who had grilled him nearly three
years earlier. Addressing a dinner of journalists and scholars at the
libertarian Cato Institute, Schmidt received applause and lots of
head-nodding as he declared, “We will not collaborate with the NSA.”
Cato was not always in sync with Google’s policy agenda. In previous
years, the think tank’s bloggers and scholars had been sharply critical of
the company’s support for government rules limiting the ways providers
such as Comcast and Verizon could charge for Internet services.
But, like many institutions in Washington, Cato has since found common
ground with Google.
And the think tank has benefited from the company’s investments, receiving
$480,000 worth of in-kind “ad words” from Google last year, according to
people familiar with the donation.
Schmidt’s message to Cato that night in February reflected the current
focus of Google’s energy — containing the fallout from revelations by NSA
leaker Edward Snowden.
As the public’s outrage has grown, the tech giant has tried to keep the
focus on limiting government surveillance, not on the data collection done
by private companies. A White House review of those issues is expected to
be released this coming week.
A campaign against government spying, meanwhile, is in high gear, drawing
together some unexpected bedfellows. The American Civil Liberties Union,
Heritage Action, Americans for Tax Reform and the Center for Democracy
& Technology have formed a coalition calling for the government to
obtain a probable-cause warrant before getting access to e-mails and other
electronic data.
The coalition, Digital 4th, is funded by Google.
Alice Crites contributed to this report.
Google’s Hookers and Epic Sex Scandals Prove That Google Has No Morals and
Exists To Abuse Others
Horrific Google Anal Sex Slave Case Uncovers Twisted Perversions Of Google
Executives
By Samantha Conners - APT
Michael Goguen, Google's married senior investor, “sexually and
physically” abused Amber Laurel Baptiste with constant anal sex over more
than 13 years after picking her up at a Texas strip club. His company:
Sequoia Capital, has had other run-ins with cheating married executives,
escorts and tax evasion schemes, per legal filings.
Eric Schmidt, the head of Google, proclaimed that he would have a “open
marriage” where he could have sex any time, with anybody, and is
documented in a ream of news articles and video regarding his fifteen
million dollar “sex penthouse” in New York.
Sergey Brin, another head of Google, is featured in numerous news articles
for his “three way sex romp” with multiple Google employees forcing one
employee to move to China to escape him.
A married Google senior executive named Hayes, who helped rig Google's
searches for political clients, was murdered on his “sex yacht” by his
prostitute, which other Google executives had used.
Ravi Kumar, another VC associated with Google Executives, was also
murdered by a pack of hookers and pimps that frequented his Silicon Valley
home.
Valley Girls was a private escort service that used Stanford Co-eds to
service the sexual kinks of Google executives.
Ellen Pao famously sued Google founding investor John Doerr, and his
company Kleiner Perkins, for sexual abuse.
Google employee divorce filings hold the Silicon Valley record for use of
the word “abuse” as one of the reasons given in the legal papers filed to
initiate the divorce.
The list of kinky, twisted, bizarre sexual antics of Google executives,
and their investors, goes on for pages and pages...
Google seems to attract the most twisted, perverted, morally decrepit men
in the world.
One has to wonder why, of all the large companies on Earth, only Google
got to place the majority of it's people in the White House? That's right,
Nike doesn't have it's people in the White House. Macy's doesn't either.
Neither does Chevron, or John Deere tractor or any other company on Earth.
Only Google, exclusively and uniquely, had all of their people placed in
the White House and top federal agency lead positions. What's up with
that? Were they selected because of their technical skills or their
ability to make people bend over?
An addiction to dirty sexual perversions are not the only illicit trends
that Google folks display. The Google investors are members of a financing
cartel called the National Venture Capital Association (NVCA). This group
of frat boy elitists got busted for running the “Angelgate” scandal in
which they were documented rigging, colluding, black-listing and
contriving the whole Silicon Valley start-up industry.
Then they were caught again when Eric Schmidt, Mr. “Sex Penthouse” and the
head of Google, wrote emails ordering a conspiracy against Silicon Valley
engineers. This “No Poaching” conspiracy got the Silicon Valley VC's sued
in a class-action lawsuit, which the VC's lost. The Google founder's best
friend: Jacques Littlefield, kept the world's largest private fully
functional military tank squadron, in fully operational status, hidden in
vast warehouses in his Silicon Valley estate in Woodside, California. He
said he had this arsenal: “just in case”. Does Google make white frat
house men insane or does it draw the crazy ones to it?
The FBI is finally crunching down on these people. After so many years of
the White House ordering the FBI to leave the Google VC's and Silicon
Valley perverts alone, it was just getting plain embarrassing for the FBI.
The audacious impunity with which Google, and it's friends, engaged in tax
evasion, importing hookers, bribery, stock market rigging, anti-trust
schemes and other crimes has become so overt, in the media, that it was
created a spotlight on federal law enforcements avoidance of prosecution
of the shenanigans of the Google crowd.
Google Executives Pay Stanford University Sorority Girls For Sex. Female
Students Have Google ‘Sugar Daddies’ Put Them Through College
Google’s married Forrest Hayes dies in sex orgy on sex yacht paid for by
his Google cash. Google’s Eric Schmidt has a “Sex Penthouse”. Google’s
Sergey Brin was in a 3-way sex scandal...and the list goes on...