Tag: Elon Musk

The Tesla Motors Story

The Tesla Motors Story

The crimes and corruption of Elon Musk and Tesla Motors

We worked with Elon Musk and saw these crimes first-hand. We thought you should know so that you could decide if you want to be associated with Musk’s narcissistic, self-aggrandizing, corrupt, criminal schemes. Musk likes to talk about futuristic bullshit but his workers (that have sued him for fraud, safety issues, racism, off-shoring domestic jobs, sexual harassment and more…) can talk about his prehistoric social deviancies at great length.

Elon Musk and his executives are criminals. They will lie, cheat, bribe, steal, sabotage others, rig the stock market, create fake financial data at the drop of a hat and cover-up their huge numbers of safety defects. They got hundreds of millions of dollars of YOUR taxpayer resources and used it to rig elections, manipulate stock markets and sabotage competitors. They bribe public officials to run cover for them at your expense. Elon Musk is a sick pervert who requires constant media attention and has depraved bi-sexual control needs. Look at his multiple divorces and the text of the abuse lawsuits from his wives, former partners, investors, employees, customers and others. While Musk spends your tax money buying cover-ups in the main-stream media, he can never cover-up the fact that he is simply a mobster who sweet-talked Google’s owners into financing his scheme. Musk stole Tesla from the founders of Tesla in a hostile take-over. Musk has invented NOTHING!

Elon Musk did not “win” any state or federal funding. He had all of his taxpayer cash hard-wired to him in a series of back-room crony payola deals. In a fair fight, Musk would have LOST (horribly) all of his funding if you compared his metrics, performance data and customer orders to every other applicant at the time. In other words, in a side-by-side shoot-out, comparing Musk’s applications with those of every other applicant for the same funds: Musk had the worst possible metrics of ANY other applicant. In spite of this, California State officials and Department of Energy staff were “ordered”, by their superiors, to hand Musk the illicit taxpayer money, and deny funds to his competitors, in order to stage the slush-funds created by the Department of Energy and The California State Controllers offices.

** If you saw the REAL financial records for Tesla/Solyndra/SpaceX you would see that Musk’s operations are smoke-and-mirrors. Musk cooks the books and manipulates financial data.

** One of Musk’s top SpaceX engineers just sued Musk and revealed that Musk lies about the dangers at SpaceX.

** You may think Musk has many fans on the internet but those “fans” are actually young Asian girls in overseas factories who have rows of phones set-up in front of them to pretend to be different people on the web. They are called “shills” and “trolls” and the factories they work in are called “Click-Farms” and “Troll-Farms”. Musk pays their bosses to have them create fake media hype about him on the internet because he is a sociopath who demands the public eye.

** You would get physically ill if you knew how many Tesla owners had been burned alive in their cars, had their Tesla’s suddenly swerve off the road and go over a cliff or into a tree and had set their buildings on fire. The main stream media covers up all of these problems because the 7 men who control the main stream media are Tesla investors. You have never heard about all of the deaths, injuries and disasters that Tesla has caused but we have and we have them all documented. Tesla is still around because of one of the biggest cover-ups you ever saw.

** Guess who else covers up the criminal corruption of Tesla Motors: California Senators Feinstein and Pelosi, Nevada Senator Reed, all of the New York Senators and California Governor Jerry Brown. Why? Because they are investors and campaign finance recipients of Elon Musk’s technology mobster Cartel! That’s right! These scumbag politicians are covering up crimes and life-threatening dangers in order to line their pockets! We told all of this to the FBI’s James Comey but then, you know, he got himself fired and charged with running political protection operations just like we are talking about here!

** Let us tell you about a beautiful young college graduate named Casey Speckman, her whole life was ahead of her. She would still be alive today if her crash had not been in a Tesla. She burned alive because Tesla knew it’s batteries would explode in a crash and Tesla chose profits over safety after being warned about the lithium ion battery dangers.

** The Middle East bad guys are now using lithium ion batteries to blow up airliners because Elon Musk’s lithium ion batteries are so easy to explode. Musk has known this since 2006! We have the papers that prove it!

** Peter Thiel, Google owner Larry Page and other homosexual billionaires help cover-up Musk’s crimes because Musk is sometimes their “special friend”. Do not let billionaires hide the truth from you. Demand a public investigation.

** If you have an ounce of morality, then you will not want to help Musk & Tesla profit from the crony political corruption that created them. Musk exists because he bribes politicians & acts as an illegal campaign financing conduit.

** Why have so many Tesla’s suddenly swerved off the road, over cliffs and into innocent bystanders? Because the CIA software that can take-over a Tesla has been leaked to every 14 year old hacker on Earth! Tesla drivers are dead because Tesla cars can be instantly and easily hacked, taken over and turned into listening devices by any kid with an Android phone.

** When bad news emerges about Musk or Tesla; Google, Kleiner Perkins, Draper Fisher and Goldman Sachs suddenly buy some Tesla stock so the little line on the stock market graph goes up for a few days. At the same time they use their MSM media control to release a BS press release. This is called “pumping the stock” and “covering the hole”. It is a stock market fraud tactic which seeks to hide the fact that Musk’s companies are in a constant state of failure.

** DOT/NHTSA has covered up years of reports about an acceleration surge issue that can suddenly crash your Tesla into walls and drive it off cliffs. It is either a known hacking attack or the effect of WiFi on Tesla electronics. Either can kill you.

** Musk & Tesla are pure evil & exist because of hyper-corruption. You don’t want to contribute to their evil or be part of it in any way. You are funding evil & supporting criminal corruption by buying a Tesla or any Elon Musk owned product like Solar City, Tesla, Space X, Hyperloop, etc.!

** Elon Musk spent more money, than any other car company in history, to do the exact same things that any other car has done, or could do, for 20 times less money. Musk’s Tesla was $100,000.00 over budget, per car, at the time that Musk was handed his crony Dept. of Energy froms by Steven Chu. Musk has no clue how to operate a car company.

** In one lawsuit it is noted that: “…Plaintiff and Tesla both applied for funds at the same time, in the same funding cycle in the same program. Tesla had the historically epic number of horrific issues listed below, which were known to DOE at the time of application, and Plaintiffs had NONE of these issues. How can any court, or rational person, believe that Plaintiffs were not intentionally bypassed, targeted and damaged for political reasons while Tesla was simultaneously approved for political reasons, when the comparative metrics between the two applicants prove the largest merit disparity in the entire recorded history of the U.S. Department of Energy….the singular, and only, review criteria used by Department of Energy officials was: WHICH ONE BRIBED THE CAMPAIGN FINANCE GROUP FOR BARACK OBAMA?!”; Thus proving that Tesla exists because of organized-crime level political corruption.

** Elon Musk’s self-driving “autopilot” feature, which keeps crashing and failing, is his attempt to scam taxpayer cash from Dept. of Transportation and Dept. of Energy public funds. He is only trying to do it to get more free federal cash.

** The inventor of lithium ion batteries has confessed that lithium ion batteries blow up eventually. He says that deadly dendrites plague lithium-ion battery technology. The dendrites accumulate as part of the standard charging and recharging cycle and eventually cause a short circuit that often results in a smoldering or burning battery. These dendrites are destined to eventually blow up most Tesla cars and many electronic devices using lithium ion!

** The CIA’s software designed to take over any Tesla on Earth and kill the driver, passengers and bystanders has been released in the wild and every hacker on Earth can now easily get a copy of it and kill you in your Tesla!

** Ex-employees have leaked faked financial records, evidence of massive click-farm fake social media manipulation and evidence of unreported deaths and accidents. They say that most Tesla’s have one kind of defect or another.

** If you read about the dirty deeds and cocaine dealings with the In-Q-Tel airplanes called “Cocaine 1” & “Cocaine 2”, & the corruption behind the company called In-Q-Tel & Musk’s software programmer who ran “The Silk Road” drug & murder service then you must be concerned that many In-Q-Tel people work for Musk. Why does Musk need dirty druggies & spies on his payroll unless he is running covert drug and business spying activities?

** Ex-employees, Gawker writers and gay lawyers from Covington & Burling have leaked stories that Elon Musk, Reid Hoffman, Larry Page, Peter Thiel and others are “butt buddies” and may be involved in “Pizzagate”.

** Musk is anti-American and Anti-Worker Rights and has been caught flying in H1-B cheap offshore labor and exploiting immigrants for his deadly profits. Musk hates unions and worker rights efforts.

** Elon Musk gets the Cobalt chemical to make his lithium ion batteries from slave trade and blood-money corruption in the Congo!

** Tesla Cars are just gay as hell and show the driver to be either a closet homosexual or an arrogant prick.

** The lithium ion batteries that Musk uses also blow up when they naturally encounter Low Energy Nuclear (LENR) effects in the ambient environment. Millions of chemicals don’t blow up from LENR’d but lithium ion does!

** If you are a Democrat then know that Elon Musk cost you the Hillary Clinton campaign because of his payola schemes. If you are a Republican, know that Elon Musk is the epitome of the worst form of DNC crony corruption you ever saw!

** Musk bribed California politicians to give him hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer dollars & resources he never earned or worked for. He only got those crony payola perks handed to him because he operated as an illicit front for corrupt campaign financing for Dianne Feinstein, Jerry Brown, Harry Reid, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

** Multiple parties have filed “Demands For The Arrest of Elon Musk” with the FBI, DOJ, AG, FTC, SEC and other law enforcement agencies. It is not likely that Musk, or his companies will survive a full investigation.

** Tesla and Solyndra sit on the same land in Fremont, CA. Solyndra was raided by the FBI for corruption. Tesla SHOULD be raided by the FBI for corruption. Both companies had kick-back crony payola schemes with Senator Dianne Feinstein. She owned the land, lease, HR, construction company and supplier interests and stock for both companies in one of the most massive conflict-of-interest crony financing schemes in U.S. history. Elon Musk and the Feinsteins are corruption partners.

** People who see you in a Tesla think of you as a “Tone Deaf Douchebag”, “Tesla Tool!”, “Arrogant Prick”, “Ostentatious Obama Oaf”, “Sheep”, “Mindless Yuppie Scum”, “Misogynistic Silicon Valley Clone”, “Self-promoting Elitist Douche”, “Fake News Reading Main Stream Boob”, “Naive Idiot” or other bad things.

** Elon Musk is one of the main financiers behind Barack Obama & Hillary Clinton, both of whom have been charged with corruption. Musk endlessly tweets lies & “…No I didn’t do those bad things” BS but nobody else supports him.

** Tesla financial records are “cooked” in a fraudulent manner to make the stock market valuation of Tesla a falsely manipulated factor. Musk uses “pre-orders”, by his own investors, to fake sales and wrote emails to customers asking them to put small deposits down so he could book them as fully paid sales in one of a large number of stock and loan valuation frauds. Musk and his investors practice stock market skims, pump-and-dumps and Flash Boy manipulations.

** Lithium ion batteries are blowing up, starting fires &, generally, destroying people’s homes, cars, electronics & physical health. Boeing was ordered to stop flying the 787 Dreamliner because it’s Lithium ion batteries are catching fire spontaneously. A group of silicon valley venture capitalists forced/leveraged the government to buy & pay for these specific batteries, that they have stock in, in order to benefit their profit margins. Other batteries don’t have these problems. They knew about the dangers from day one, but put greed ahead of safety. There are thousands & thousands of reports of spontaneous lithium ion fires but the VC’s who back lithium ion pay to keep this information hushed up. Millions of these batteries have been recalled for fire risk. The VC’s tried to push as many as they could before they got caught. Now they are caught. These VC’s & the Senators they bribed own stock in lithium mining companies too. HERE IS THE PROOF: HTTP://LITHIUMBATTERYCOVERUP.COM

** Tesla Motors has filed a patent which states the following , THESE ARE TESLA MOTORS WORDS warning about a crisis, the level of which they never disclosed to the consumer: “Thermal runaway is of major concern since a single incident can lead to significant property damage &, in some circumstances, bodily harm or loss of life. When a battery undergoes thermal runaway, it typically emits a large quantity of smoke, jets of flaming liquid electrolyte, & sufficient heat to lead to the combustion & destruction of materials in close proximity to the cell. If the cell undergoing thermal runaway is surrounded by one or more additional cells as is typical in a battery pack, then a single thermal runaway event can quickly lead to the thermal runaway of multiple cells which, in turn, can lead to much more extensive collateral damage. Regardless of whether a single cell or multiple cells are undergoing this phenomenon, if the initial fire is not extinguished immediately, subsequent fires may be caused that dramatically expand the degree of property damage. For example, the thermal runaway of a battery within an unattended laptop will likely result in not only the destruction of the laptop, but also at least partial destruction of its surroundings, e.g., home, office, car, laboratory, etc. If the laptop is on-board an aircraft, for example within the cargo hold or a luggage compartment, the ensuing smoke & fire may lead to an emergency landing or, under more dire conditions, a crash landing. Similarly, the thermal runaway of one or more batteries within the battery pack of a hybrid or electric vehicle may destroy not only the car, but may lead to a car wreck if the car is being driven or the destruction of its surroundings if the car is parked”. See http://whoiselonmusk.com for more…

** Tesla’s own staff, & every fire department, have now admitted that once a lithium ion fire gets started in a Tesla, that it is impossible to extinguish burning lithium ion material. This is Telsa’s own words in THEIR patent filing, (You can look it up online) saying that the risk is monumental. Tesla has 6800 lithium ion batteries, any one of which can “go thermal”, start a chain reaction and blow up all of the rest of the 6800+ deadly batteries! Tesla drivers have been burned alive in thermal globs of flaming lithium ion, plastics & metal. Bystanders have heard their horrific screams of unutterable pain & terror as they were burned alive! Tesla fires can’t be extinguished & the bodies are burned into “unrecognizable lumps of charred flesh”, according to fireman.

** Lithium Ion batteries “go thermal” in peoples pockets, in your notebook, especially in a Tesla & Fisker car. There are tens of thousands of articles documenting this & there is a cover-up by the VC’s that fund these things to keep this fact out-of-sight. Making Lithium Ion batteries poisons the workers who make them. It is a dangerous product that is covered-up by the Obama Administration. Panasonic knows that these batteries are deadly.

** Tesla only exists to exploit Elon Musk’s briberies. The lithium ion batteries blow up when they get: wet, hot, bumped, over-charged, struck by energy fields, exposed to air or squashed. Lithium ion batteries poison the Earth & that they poison & kill the workers that make them. Lithium ion batteries come from war profiteering in Afghan & Bolivian corruption.

** Panasonic is Elon Musk’s partner. Panasonic is one of the most corrupt companies in the world. Panasonic has been charged, on multiple continents with: Product dumping, bribery, collusion, price fixing, anti-trust law violations, racketeering, worker abuse, toxic poisoning of workers, & other crimes. It is no wonder that Elon Musk & Panasonic are partners. Tata Motors executive Karl Slym was killed for exposing this fact.

** Your tax dollars were stolen in order to make Tesla Motors, as part of a political financing kick-back scam. In other words, part of your paycheck was taken away from you in order to buy hookers, rent-boys & private jets for Musk & company.

** Tesla’s are forged in criminal corruption, so anybody who drives a Tesla must be either ignorant, a weasel or one of the corrupt. The whole world now knows all of the facts in this list so you can never plead ignorance to these crimes.

** Telsa’s have a huge amount of highly documented defects. The defects are so extensive that Tesla made buyers sign confidentiality agreements to try to hide how messed up their cars are.

** Tesla’s have killed more people than the main-stream news has reported. The full Tesla death-list is covered up.

** Musk lied about why he wanted to make electric cars, when, in fact, he actually poisons the environment because Tesla investors wanted to exploit toxic minerals & materials which can’t be recycled in a clean manner

** No other electric car has been so mundane, & yet had so many problems with it, since the electric car was first sold in the 1800’s. There is nothing “novel” or “amazing” about the Tesla aside from dime store parlor tricks for PR hype.

** More drunks have crashed Tesla’s, than any other per capita car in the world, per volume of cars made

** Elon Musk’s co-founders, investors, partners, wives, investors, suppliers & employees have sued him for being a fraud &, essentially, called him an “asshole” in court records.

** Elon Musk lied on this Department of Energy funding application and the Obama Administration refuses to allow any federal employees or witnesses to testify to these facts in public due to the devastating potential results of these facts.

** More owners of Tesla’s have been found to cheat on their taxes, & be involved in abuse-based divorces, than almost any other car brand owner. Tesla owners are bad people who rationalize their poor life choices. Owning a Tesla is a red-flag for a tax audit!

** Elon Musk will lie, cheat & steal in order to self-aggrandize & glorify his egotistical mania. Musk has been documented engaging in over 100 lies which were later proven to be false. He has spent tens of millions of dollars to buy fake news about himself on Twitter, Facebook & Google because he is such a mentally disturbed ego-maniac.

** None of Elon Musk’s companies would exist if not for taxpayer funded handouts given to him by corrupt politicians in exchange for illegal campaign finance deals with him & his investors.

** Google, & Tesla, who are financial & political partners, have both been caught spying on consumers & manipulating Internet data in order to cover-up their complicity in huge political corruption & kick-back deals

** Musk took U.S. taxpayer dollars from the government & then hired cheap off-shore labor & fired U.S. Union workers & domestic workers. He lied to & screwed the NUMMI workers that were working at the Fremont plant.

** Musk has put over 18 surveillance devices in the Tesla. Anybody can hack those devices & monitor you. WORSE YET, foreign agents have hacked the Tesla & taken over the controls & driven Tesla’s into bystanders & over cliffs.

** When Erick Strickland was head of the NHTSA he was confronted about DOT safety cover-ups of the Tesla to protect Obama. He quit 48 hours later. The DOT safety cover-ups to protect the Obama campaign finance payola scheme continue to this day. Obama’s Gibbs, Emanual, Plouffe, Axelrod and Carney quit within a week of being threatened with exposure.

** Tesla’s have had a large number of recalls but Elon Musk refuses to call them “recalls”. Tesla’s have had multiple recalls for SEVERE safety dangers. DOT has been told this, in writing, for years, but wont take action in order to protect Obama.

** Elon Musk is a bullshit artist who has no original ideas & wears black-turtle neck shirts (like Elizabeth Homes) to try to create a “cult” around himself & convince the world that he is a “Jesus-like” figure when, in fact, he is a clinical sociopath.

** Tesla is a severe public safety hazard that has been systematically covered up by corrupt politicians.

** Large numbers of Ex-CIA staff and In-Q-Tel spy staff work for Musk. Why does he need spies to build cars?

** Tesla Motors batteries were promoted by those who wished to exploit the Afghanistan War for personal profit by controlling the Afghan lithium mining fields. Kleiner Perkins and Draper Fisher hyped the “…trillions of $ of lithium in Afganistan.”

** Tesla Motors batteries blow up on their own.

** Tesla Motors batteries blow up when they get wet.

** Tesla Motors batteries fires cannot be put out by any common fire-fighting resources.

** Tesla Motors batteries set themselves on fire.

** Per Federal MSDS disclosure documents, Tesla Motors batteries emit cancer-causing vapors when they burn.

** Tesla Motors Vehicles toxicity poison bystanders, nearby vehicular passengers, airline passengers in planes carrying said batteries in their holds, & environments where such incidents occur.

** Tesla Motors batteries blow up when bumped by the same level of car incident that would, otherwise, only dent a normal car bumper.

** In an accident, when a Tesla rolls over, molten metal & plastic can drip on & burn the occupants alive.

** Tesla has multiple sexual harassment and unsafe work-place lawsuits against the company.

** Per MSDS documents, Tesla Motors batteries emit brain damaging chemicals when they burn.

** Tesla is a stock pumping scam to profiteering on stock market peak manipulation at the expense of taxpayers.

** Per MSDS documents, Tesla Motors batteries emit chemicals, burning, or not, that can damage an unborn fetus.

** Per MSDS documents, Tesla Motors batteries emit chemicals that can cause lung damage.

** Per MSDS documents, Tesla Motors batteries emit chemicals that can cause liver damage.

** Per published lawsuits & news reports, the factories that make Tesla Motors batteries have been charged with the deaths, & potentially fatal illness, of over 1000 workers & the poisoning of nearby towns.

** Tesla Motors batteries become even more dangerous over time, particularly when tasked by electric transportation systems like Hover-boards & Tesla’s. The chemistry in a lithium ion battery changes to become more unstable over time.

** Tesla Motors batteries were never designed to be used in automobiles. Tesla used non-automotive batteries in one of the most dangerous configurations possible.

** Tesla Motors occupants experience higher EMF radiation exposure than gasoline vehicle occupants.

** Elon Musk’s Space X vehicles & Tesla Motors vehicles have both had a higher-than-average number of explosions. This has caused outside experts to doubt Musk’s ability to place safety considerations over his need for hyped-up PR.

** Leaked Sandia National Labs & FAA research videos dramatically demonstrate the unstoppable, horrific, “re-percussive accelerating domino-effect” explosive fire effect of the Tesla Motors batteries.

** Tesla’s own “Superchargers” & home 3-prong chargers have set Tesla’s, homes & businesses on fire.

** Consumer rights groups contacted Erick Strickland, the head of the NHTSA, & charged him with a cover-up. He quit days later. The NHTSA then issued a safety investigation request to Tesla Motors, which would have more publicly exposed these dangers, but the safety investigation was never under-taken due to White House requests & lobbyist bribes, from Tesla, which got the investigation shut down.

** NEPA regulations for the Tesla NUMMI factory in California & the Nevada Tesla “Gigafactory” have been violated relative to environmental safety standards. See http://xyzcase.xyz for details.

** Tesla Motors vehicles are not “Factory Built” “like Ford” builds cars, as Tesla professes. They are hand built in small volumes & subjected to numerous defects. Blogs have documented hundreds of defects, as listed by Tesla owners. Tesla has lost at least one LEMON CAR LAWSUIT for defective manufacturing.

** Tesla’s “showrooms” are often “pop-up” retail storefronts that are in tight-proximity retail centers, putting it’s neighbors at risk of total loss from fire damage.

** Tesla Motors vehicles have been hacked & taken over. Their doors, steering, listening devices & navigation have been taken over by outside parties. Multiple Tesla have suddenly swerved off the road, over cliffs & into other vehicles, killing bystanders & Tesla drivers.

** Three Tesla top engineers & two competing senior executives, all of whom had whistle-blown on Tesla, who were in perfect health one day, suddenly died mysteriously the next day.

** Multiple employees, founders, investors, marital partners, suppliers & others have sued Tesla Motors, &/or it’s senior executives for fraud. Musk had nothing to do with creating Tesla. He ran a hostile take-over of Tesla from the founders.

** In addition to suing him, many of his former staff & partners have described Musk as an “Arrogant Prick”.

** Main-Stream Media (MSM) have agreed not to provide news coverage of the deadly defects of the Tesla because the MSM are owned by the same politicians who own Tesla Motors. It is now legal to sue The New York Times for hiding these deadly defects, though, particularly if your family member was injured or killed because they covered-up the danger for political reasons.

** If you think the above bullet-points are bad there are over a 1000 more. Find the book “Is Elon Musk A Fraud” online or visit https://stopelonfromfailingagain.com/ or thousands of other sites that expose the truth about Musk & Tesla!

If you think these things are bad, send this document to the FBI, The FTC, The GAO, The SEC, The FCC, U.S. Congress (they work for you and get paid, from your tax dollars, to help you). Also send this to all of the independent news outlets and ask them for a written response to your question of: “What are you going to do about this?”. Demand an answer and share your answer from them on social media!

Topics

Tesla , Elon Musk , Automotive industry ,Manufacturing sector ,Silicon Valley ,features

Elon Musk, Larry Page, Vinod Khosla Are “Psychopaths” say SXSW Experts

Crazy at the wheel: psychopathic CEOs are rife in Silicon Valley, experts say

Attributes of a psychopath can be good for running a business, says SXSW panel, but weak HR departments and investors can enable bad behavior
Studies show a high prevalence of psychopaths among high-level executives in a corporate environment, compared to the general population.
Studies show a high prevalence of psychopaths among high-level executives in a corporate environment, compared to the general population. Photograph: Allstar/LIONS GATE/Sportsphoto Ltd./Allstar

There is a high proportion of psychopathic CEOs in Silicon Valley, enabled by protective investors and weak human resources departments, according to a panel of experts at SXSW festival.

Although the term “psychopath” typically has negative connotations, some of the attributes associated with the disorder can be advantageous in a business setting.

“A true psychopath is someone that has a blend of emotional, interpersonal, lifestyle and behavioral deficits but an uncanny ability to mask them. They come across as very charming, very gregarious. But underneath there’s a profound lack of remorse, callousness and a lack of empathy,” said forensic and clinical psychologist Michael Woodworth, who has worked with psychopathic murderers in high security prisons, on Tuesday.

“They have certain characteristics like fearless dominance, boldness and a lack of emotion. Many successful presidents have scored highly [on the psychopathy scale],” said Woodworth.

According to recent studies there’s a high prevalence of psychopathy among high-level executives in a corporate environment: 4-8% compared with 1% in the general population.

This makes sense, according to Silicon Valley venture capitalist Bryan Stolle because “it’s an irrational act to start a company”.

“You have to have a tremendous amount of ego [and] self-deception to embark on that journey,” he said. “You have to make sacrifices and give up things, including sometimes a marriage, family and friends. And you have to convince other people. So they are mostly very charismatic, charming and make you suspend the disbelief that something can’t be done.”

However, the positive attributes are accompanied by manipulation.

“One of the main things that makes them extremely difficult to organisations is their willingness to manipulate through deception,” said Jeff Hancock, a Stanford social scientist who studies psychopathy.

“Psychopaths will handpick people they can use as lackeys or supporters, such as someone in HR they can have in their wheelhouse,” said Woodworth.

However, when a psychopath isn’t getting his or her way, they lose their veneer of charm. “When things aren’t happening the way they thought they were going to happen, they tend to completely flip and resort to bullying,” said Stolle.

At that point, according to Hancock, their “mask of sanity falls off”.

“Because they are the founders and leaders they tend to get protected by HR,” added Strolle. “This reinforces the behaviour.”

He cited Uber and the allegations of sexual harassment made by former employee Susan Fowler as an example of a company with an HR department that’s “gone in the wrong direction”.

It’s not just HR departments that enable psychopaths, but investors.

“When you’ve made an investment in an entrepreneur, you protect them. Everything is riding on that person. You are tied to them and now you have to keep ignoring the behaviour unless it gets so terrible you can’t,” said Stolle.

Having a psychopath within a company can lead to poor employee retention, said Hancock, referencing FBI research that found that departments managed by psychopaths decreases productivity and morale in the team.

“Eight to 14 people could be lost because of one psychopath. That’s the real cost of having something like that in your organization, especially if there’s an HR coverup,” he added.

Hancock has developed software to analyse the social media posts of public figures to see how they rate on the psychopathy scale thanks to identifiers in written language. “There tends to be an emotion deficit, they tend to use few words related to anxiety but a lot of hostile language,” he said, adding that they write in a way that’s disfluent and difficult to understand.

Psychopaths also find it difficult to modulate their language for different settings for example a private message versus a public post. Because they are more interested in themselves than others, they tend to refer to other people a lot less than non psychopaths.

This means that text-based communication is a much better way to communicate with someone you suspect is a psychopath, since it strips away their non-verbal distractors, such as charm and confidence.

“Text based communications improve your chances of not being manipulated as they are verbally not very skilled,” said Hancock. “You can smoke them out in an online context.”

ELON MUSK’S FRAT BOY SEXUAL ABUSE CULTURE LEADS TO LAWSUIT!

ELON MUSK’S FRAT BOY SEXUAL ABUSE CULTURE LEADS TO LAWSUIT!

 

Female engineer sues Tesla, describing a culture of ‘pervasive harassment’

 

Exclusive: AJ Vandermeyden paints picture of a hostile work environment that promoted less-qualified men and retaliated against her for raising concerns

 

 

AJ Vandermeyden sits in her Tesla outside her family’s home in San Carlos, California. ‘Unless someone stands up, nothing will change.’ Photograph: Ramin Talaie for the Guardian

 

 

Sam Levin in San Carlos, California

 

@SamTLevin

 

 

A female engineer at Tesla has accused Elon Musk’s car company of ignoring her complaints of “pervasive harassment”, paying her a lower salary than men doing the same work, promoting less qualified men over her and retaliating against her for raising concerns.

 

The allegations of AJ Vandermeyden, who still works at the celebrated electric car manufacturer, paint a picture of a hostile work environment dominated by men where inappropriate sexual behavior is tolerated and women face numerous barriers to advance their careers.

 

Uber launches ‘urgent investigation’ into sexual harassment claims

 

 

Vandermeyden, 33, shared her story with the Guardian at a time when Silicon Valley is reeling from the explosive allegations of former Uber engineer Susan Fowler. In a viral blogpost, she alleged that management and HR dismissed her complaints about documented sexual harassment and sexism, protected a repeat offender because he was a “high performer” and suggested that women in the company were not as skilled as men.

 

Offering a rare public account of discrimination from a tech worker who remains employed at her company, Vandermeyden said her dedication to Tesla motivated her to advocate for fair treatment and reforms – despite the serious risks she knows she faces for going public.

 

“Until somebody stands up, nothing is going to change,” she said in a recent interview, her first comments about a discrimination lawsuit she filed last year. “I’m an advocate of Tesla. I really do believe they are doing great things. That said, I can’t turn a blind eye if there’s something fundamentally wrong going on.”

 

Vandermeyden began at Tesla in 2013 and was eventually promoted to a manufacturing engineering position in the general assembly department, which consisted mostly of men and where she was paid less than male engineers whose work she directly took over, according to her complaint.

 

It’s shocking in this day and age that this is still a fight we have to have

 

AJ Vandermeyden, Tesla engineer

 

It was common for her to be the only woman in meetings with 40 to 50 men, she said on a recent morning, seated in the living room of her family’s house in San Carlos, the city where Tesla was founded, located across the bay from its current factory in Fremont.

 

Currently, all chief executive positions are held by men at Tesla, and out of more than 30 vice-presidents, only two are women, she added.

 

“It’s shocking in this day and age that this is still a fight we have to have.”

 

Vandermeyden said that when complaints arise at Tesla about workplace issues or inequality, the response is often: “‘We’re focused on making cars. We don’t have time to deal with all this other stuff.’”

 

Tesla, founded in 2003, has gained international recognition for its battery-powered vehicles and “autonomous” driving technology, promoted by Musk, the ambitious entrepreneur who makes headlines for bold pledges about space travel, artificial intelligence, underground tunnels and driverless cars.

 

But Vandermeyden’s complaint, filed last fall, alleges that there were inadequacies in the quality testing of cars, and that she raised issues about the flaws she observed, which supervisors and male engineers had missed.

 

Although she came up with a solution, men were granted positions above her, her lawyers wrote. She and other female engineers were denied promotions even though they were “equally or more qualified” than the men, according to the complaint.

 

 

Facebook Twitter Pinterest

 

AJ Vandermeyden at her family’s home. She says her complaints to Tesla about her treatment at work were often sidelined. Photograph: Ramin Talaie for the Guardian

 

At the same time, she also experienced “unwelcome and pervasive harassment by men on the factory floor including but not limited to inappropriate language, whistling, and catcalls”, the lawsuit said.

 

Vandermeyden recounted to the Guardian an incident in 2015 when she said a group of roughly 20 men standing on a platform above her and a female colleague began taunting as they walked past.

 

“They all started hooting and hollering and whistling,” she said. “That can’t happen without somebody noticing … It’s disturbing.”

 

But her objections about sexual harassment and unequal pay only caused her more trouble, according to her complaint. The lawsuit alleges that after she raised concerns in the fall of 2015, management told her that in order to advance her position, she needed to achieve a performance standard in the factory that was unattainable and not expected of male engineers.

 

Despite positive performance evaluations, she felt she had to transfer out of general assembly to the purchasing department where she continues to work today, according to her suit.

 

The lawsuit said Tesla also denied her overtime pay, rest breaks and meal periods when she worked in sales, and retaliated against her for being a “whistleblower” when she raised concerns about cars “sold in a defective state”.

 

Some of her claims of mistreatment echo those that have recently emerged from Tesla factory workers, who allege that they have to work long hours for low wages in unsafe conditions. Musk has vigorously denied those claims and criticized an effort by workers to unionize.

 

Tesla initially declined to respond to the Guardian’s questions about Vandermeyden’s claims, but after publication of this report, released a statement on Tuesday defending its actions and refuting her allegations.

 

A spokesperson said that Tesla had hired a “neutral third party” last year to investigate her accusations and that an “exhaustive review of the facts” concluded her “claims of gender discrimination, harassment, and retaliation have not been substantiated”.

 

The company added in its statement: “Tesla is committed to creating a positive workplace environment that is free of discrimination for all our employees.”

 

Therese Lawless, Vandermeyden’s lawyer, criticized the investigation, saying, “We did not believe that it was a comprehensive report … We vehemently disagree with their finding.”

 

Vandermeyden’s suit said she has suffered “mental distress” and “humiliation”.

 

In an interview, she said it takes a toll on her knowing that her work is undervalued.

 

“Equal pay is something that is essentially in the back of your mind every single day,” she said. “You have all these data points showing how you’ve exceeded some of the predecessors and improved on the system. It wears on you.”

 

It’s very difficult for women to come forward. They’re concerned that their career is going to be jeopardized

 

Therese Lawless, lawyer for AJ Vandermeyden

 

Many women in similar positions choose not to speak up,Lawless said. “It’s very difficult for women to come forward. They’re concerned that their career is going to be hindered or jeopardized.”

 

For those who do raise complaints, dealing with HR can be a painful struggle, added Lawless, who represented former Reddit CEO Ellen Pao in her high-profile discrimination lawsuit against venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers.

 

“Most of my clients come in and say, ‘human resources isn’t helping me. They’re just protecting the company.’”

 

Vandermeyden recently took out a hefty loan to buy the cheapest version of the Model S Tesla car and has a reservation for the upcoming Model 3. She is hopeful her lawsuit and public comments won’t end her career at a company she loves: “I think they’re a revolutionary and innovative company.”

 

But she admitted she has doubts about her future.

 

“Half the time when I walk into work, I wonder if my badge is going to work.”

 

 

 

<

p style=”margin-bottom:0;line-height:100%;”> 

 

California doesn’t hate Trump! Silicon Valley Billionaires hate Trump and spend all their money producing Anti-Trump Fake News!

California doesn’t hate Trump! Silicon Valley Billionaires hate Trump and spend all their money producing Anti-Trump Fake News!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

By Danny L.

 

 

Palo Alto, California – I just came from a lunch on University Avenue in Palo Alto. The lunch was a large table in the back area of a well-reviewed restaurant. The participants were the top staffers of the Venture Capital companies of Silicon Valley. I got invited as the date of someone who was on the inside and nobody ever asked where I worked. I realized, soon after I arrived, that everyone was thought to be from the Stanford Silicon Valley Venture Capital offices up on Sandhill Road. I was an, unintentionally, covert fly on the wall.

 

 

Now I know how the Trump Vs. California thing happened and why it is the most misnamed war in history.

 

 

The battle should be called “The Billionaires Vs. The Billionaires” or “The Underdog Vs. The Cartel”.

 

 

A group of men in Silicon Valley and Hollywood, California hired a group of lobbyists around 2005, or so, because they had decided they needed to “play in Washington a bit more”. The lobbyists hooked these two pools of money together and came up with a scheme to manipulate media broadcasting in movies, TV and social media to run a certain political campaign in exchange for quid-pro-quo State and Federal crony payola.

 

 

The Hollywood and Silicon Valley billionaires made their kick-back deals with Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. They got trillions of dollars. With Trump in office, their schemes crumble and they are going berserk about it.

 

 

They are now using their media broadcasting in movies, TV and social media to try to get the voters to vote for their Hollywood-backed candidates, in the mid-term elections, to try to win some of their payola back. They plan to accomplish this by trying to cause Trump-targeted “buyers remorse” with the voting public. They are going to use every media outlet that they control in order to make the public question Trump’s Administration and think that Trump is some sort of Lizard Person bad guy.

 

 

If you go door-to-door in California you will find that many Californians are delighted by the fact that Trump is doing exactly what he said he would do. The world would be shocked to learn that quite a huge bunch of Californians like the job that Trump is doing. It is just that Trumpsters don’t get hired by the traditionally left-leaning media companies so they have no voice in the broadcast media that is raising all of the Anti-Trump hell.

 

 

The ruckus is all operated by about 180 rich old white guys in Hollywood and Silicon Valley that are causing all of this trouble for Trump. Guys like Larry Page, Micheal Lynton, Eric Schmidt, Mark Zuckerberg, John Doerr, Steve Jurvetson, Elon Musk, Bryan Singer, Jeffrey Katzenberg, Peter Chernin, Harvey Weinstein, Robert Iger, Steve Westly, JJ Abrams. They sit around, or send their staffers around to lunches like this one, and operate actual plots and coups.

 

 

Some of their top staffers were sitting right in front of me at this lunch and they were talking “strategic disruption”. They have a set of written manuals, that the big shots have produced, that detail how to create riots in the media, town halls and public events.

 

 

Not a single person at this lunch talked about, or seemed to care about, Blacks, Syrians, Mexicans or women. It seems that these 180 guys also hire few blacks, Syrians, Mexicans or women according to the population of the lunch.

 

 

The upshot of the whole thing is that Obama gave these guys exclusive kick-back deals on their solar panels, electric cars, spy agency data harvesting and cheap labor offshore hiring stuff. A large part of the regular folks in America got screwed because of these insider deals but the tech billionaires got more billionaire’d. Now these California based weasels can’t do their kind of corruption any more and they are throwing a hissy fit designed to make it sound like all of California is in a tizzy.

 

 

Al of California is NOT in a tizzy about Trump!

 

 

There was lots of discussion about “limit splinters”. This was the most interesting part. It seems that there are still a couple laws that the politicos are afraid of. One is called “The Campaign Contribution Limits Per Source”. It means that, if you don’t use sneaky tactics, you can actually get caught for bribery. These guys figured out a work-around called “splintering”. If they want to give Hillary $5 million in exchange for a Uranium Mine contract they have staffers who make a “Waterfall Chart”, that breaks up the $5 million between enough people so that no single person, or company, will exceed the legal limit but the bribe still flows as easy as water. It is just creative accounting and semantics.

 

 

It is all pretty sneaky stuff.

 

 

They have a gal in Los Angeles who creates “Twitter Wars”. She has technology that can make a million people look like they are arguing on Twitter about a thing. In fact, those millions of people on Twitter are just Debbie and her automated server racks in The Ukraine faking a whole social uproar. It is all a dance of robotic data moving the appearance of something through the digital cloud.

 

 

<

p style=”margin-bottom:0;line-height:100%;”>These guys have enough media fire-power to churn a cigarette into a social forest fire. They are egotistical frat house boys who refuse to accept the will of the voters. One has to wonder what Steve Bannon is cooking up for them.

 

GAWKER, GIZMODO, JALOPNIK AND UNIVISION FACE INTERNATIONAL LAW ENFORCEMENT SCRUTINY!

So many agencies including The FBI, SEC, IRS, INTERPOL, EU, FSB, Scotland Yard, CIA, DIA, FTC, NSA, and other numerous cross-national regulatory, law enforcement and tax authorities have been requested to investigate and detail-examine Gawker Media, Nick Denton, Greenmount Creek, Jalopnik, Kinja, Gizmodo, Univision, Unimoda and all Gizmodo staff; that it is now impossible for any of those parties to engage in money laundering, tax evasion, under-the-table payments, drug purchases, or any other crimes. “Requests for Investigation” have been filed with all relevant investigation agencies by many Plaintiffs, State and Federal officials and former employees. The ACLU and privacy rights groups have been asked to investigate privacy issues in the uses of Gawker Media databases and user information by Univision.

 

Forbes and Fortune Magazines implied that the entire Gawker operation was a scam to hide cash and promote Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton under the “guise” of a “Fake News facade of Gawker Front Companies operated by Nick Denton…”. Now, it is impossible for any of them to get away with that, because scrutiny has been turned up to “11”. Thank you Peter Thiel!

 


 


 

 

 


 

 

 

Topics: Hillary Clinton, Elon Musk, Gawker Bankruptcy Court, Case # 16-11700, Gawker Media, Gizmodo, Donald Trump, Nick Denton, The Cleantech Crash

 

Is Hillary Clinton The Secret Face Behind Gizmodo and Univision?

Gawker NY Court Tries To Put Nazi-like Squeeze on Plaintiffs in order to protect Obama & Clinton Buddies. Court Ends Up Bringing Congressional Investigation and White House Review on itself.

 

 

 

By Peter Sano – For The LA Times

 

 

 

New York– It turns out that Hillary Clinton’s best friends and financiers are running the Gawker, Gizmodo, Univision bankruptcy case ( # 16-11700 in Southern District Court). Even the Judge in the case is Hillary’s good friend, according to The New York Post. It turns out that Elon Musk is one of Hillary Clinton’s biggest political financiers. Elon Musk today used Gizmodo to attack the UAW auto workers and has previously used Gizmodo to attack multiple Plaintiffs in the Gawker Defamation, fraud and abuse cases. It turns out that in a day and age when Donald Trump’s phone calls are being hacked; poor Elon Musk has to accept the fact that phone calls and emails between Musk and Gawker giving “kill orders” against Plaintiffs are also being held by Plaintiffs.

 

 

Judge Bernstein filed some kind of notice that orders Plaintiffs to relinquish their First Amendment rights and never speak about the case, never help other Plaintiffs and never seek restitution for the horrific acts done to them. Judge Bernstein and his staff have refused to ever allow Plaintiffs to appear in, or speak in, Court because their evidence blows an epic political corruption scheme sky high. Plaintiffs distributed their evidence to every reporter in the world, in order to prevent such freedom of speech abuse, and now the Court has no option but to deal with the fall-out.

 

 

The Federal Government and the ACLU have a different message for the New York Bankruptcy Court in the Southern District of New York and the staff therein: “F*CK YOU!” Says Congress, The White House, The GAO and the top human rights organizations in the world! “…You don’t get to censor the public and abuse Human Rights, Judge Bernstein!”

 

 

XP Vehicles, one of the Plaintiffs has filed a federal Complaint against the New York Courts for Constitutional Rights Violations and has personally communicated with the White House and the FBI that the Court in New York is operating a cover-up for federal campaign finance fraud crimes and violating multiple Constitutional laws.

 

 

XP Vehicles has a very large retail fan club and when those fans started sharing newspaper and Congressional investigation documents with other Plaintiffs and the Court, documents which proved that the criminal charges Plaintiffs were making were true, the Court tried to issue a Hitlerian media black-out and Fake News cover-up order to stop the information from reaching the MSM. This is against the law! No Court can order the news to be censored and no Court can order a Plaintiff removed from a case in order to protect crooked friends of the Court.

 

 

The facts are that XP Vehicles staff dated Hillary Clinton’s staff and knows Washington DC intimately. New York State is one of the only States Hillary “won” in. Elon Musk gives orders and Money to Clinton, Gawker, Gizmodo and Obama and they give Musk and his “Silicon Valley Cartel” government goodies worth hundreds of billions of dollars. Elon Musk took XP’s money and used it to make his cars. XP cars beat Tesla cars on every metric, cost 80% less, go vastly further and are massively safer than Elon Musk’s cars. Musk hates XP for this. Most of the New York Southern District Court Gawker Case opposition and Court staff are friends and financiers of Hillary Clinton. XP has stated that they have proof of an epic crime and have asked the White House for 6 hand-picked FBI agents to help deliver the evidence to Congress and various ongoing investigations. Today XP and associates testified to this before the U.S. Congress. Trillions of dollars of Obama and Clinton kick-backs are involved in this case. The 60 Minutes Episode: The Cleantech Crash, exposes a small part of the story. Elon Musk was promised huge kick-backs by Hillary Clinton.

 

 

Say XP Plaintiffs: “This is a felony-class cover-up to try to shut up public discourse and media disclosure in an epic crime. The New York Southern District Court should be ashamed of itself and the American public should let the court know what voters think of this kind of protection scheme operated by Court officials to protect dirty politicians and bribery programs!”

 

 

The Court wants to make New York a SANCTUARY CITY for Gawker, Gizmodo and Univision’s criminal corruption endeavors. The White House and Congress think that is a bad idea!

 

 

 

XP is awaiting a response from various subcommittees and the FBI. XP plans to file additional complaints.

 

SEE MORE AT http://xyzcase.xyz

 

 

 

<

p style=”margin-bottom:0;line-height:100%;”>Topics: Hillary Clinton, Elon Musk, Gawker Bankruptcy Court, Case # 16-11700, Gawker Media, Gizmodo, Donald Trump, Nick Denton, The Cleantech Crash

 

“Payback is a bitch” the world tells Silicon Valley!

Payback is a bitch” the world tells Silicon Valley!

 

 

 

By Antonin Brown

 

 

 

As one of the victims told The Silicon Mafia bosses: Vinod Khosla, Eric Schmidt, Elon Musk, Larry Page and John Doerr: You took billions of dollars of our money and put it in your pocketsusing corruption, bribes, thievery and worse. When we reported you to law enforcement you then ran a multi-million dollar reprisal vendetta attack to take our homes, brands, income and lives in retribution. Now you must pay for your crimes in a manner equal to the scope of the criminal acts you engaged in. We have joined with all of those whom you abused, law enforcement agencies, The U.S. Congress, voters and the media to, legally, eradicate you and your criminal empire”.

 

 

In fact the Tech titans are buying “billionaire bunkers” to hide in. Nobody wants products from Silicon Valley because they are rife with CIA and privacy abuse spy-ware. Silicon Valley is no longer “cool”. Ad sales are dropping like a rock. All of the Silicon Valley political schemes are exposed. Every Silicon Mafia boss has had all of their servers hacked and Wikileaks is having a field day. The Cartel’s corrupt “cleantech” companies were crashed by Congressional hit jobs. Charges have been filed with the FBI, FTC, GAO, SEC and other agencies naming Vinod Khosla, Eric Schmidt, Elon Musk, Larry Page, John Doerr and others as mobsters and racketeers. A new President of the United States and a new federal government was put in power to drop the hammer on the Silicon Mafia. Lawsuits are being filed against the Cartel. There were never darker days for Khosla, Schmidt, Musk, Page and Doerr butthe clouds are about to get much darker for them.

 

 

While most people may think that “hit-jobs” are the realm of Hollywood movie plots, these kinds of corporate assassination attempts do take place regularly in politics.

 

 

The Silicon Mafia chose to “…CHEAT RATHER THAN COMPETE!”. When they got caught, the Tech Oligarchs attacked everyone on their hit-list.

 

 

The attacks were carried out by California State employees and U.S. Government officials who had received stock, perks, and other quid-pro-quo payment from these billionaires.

 

 

Department of Energy Executives and their campaign billionaire handlers engaged in these attacks in order to control the solar and “green car” markets in violation of anti-trust laws. The billionaires did not care about “green” issues, they only cared about green cash and they bribed the Obama Administration in order to get the Department of Energy to become an exclusive slush-fund just for them.

 

 

Federal and state employees ran retribution campaigns for The Silicon Mafia against applicants who competed with inside deals they had set up to line their own pockets at taxpayer expense.

 

 

These corrupt politicians thought they could take over a promised “six trillion dollar “Cleantech” industry that was being created to profiteer on fabricated insider exploitation opportunities around global warming and Middle East disruption. After an epic number of Solyndra-esque failures, all owned by the Department of Energy Executives and their campaign financiers, the scheme fell apart. The non crony applicants suffered the worst fates. As CBS News reporter Cheryl Atkisson has reported, the willingness to engage in media “hitjobs” was only exceeded by the audacity with which Department of Energy officials employed such tactics.

 

 

Now, in a number of notorious trials and email leaks, including the Hulk Hogan lawsuit and the DNC and Panama Papers leaks, the public has gotten to see the depths to which public officials are willing to stoop to cheat rather than compete in the open market.

 

 

Department of Energy employees and State of California employees engaged in the following documented attacks against applicants who were competing with their billionaire backers personal stock holdings. Plaintiffs and the other applicants including Bright Automotive, Aptera, ZAP and many more, suffered these attacks.

 

 

– Social Security, SSI, SDI, Disability and other earned benefits were stone-walled. Applications were “lost”. Files in the application process “disappeared”. Lois Lerner hard drive “incidents” took place.

 

 

– Defendants had lawyers employed by Defendants contact Plaintiffs and offer to “help” Plaintiffs when, in fact, those lawyers worked for Defendants and were sent in as moles to try to delay the filing of a case in order to try o run out the time bar.

 

 

– State and federal employees played an endless game of Catch-22 by arbitrarily determining that deadlines had passed that they, the government officials, had stonewalled and obfuscated applications for, in order to force these deadlines that they set, to appear to be missed.

 

 

– Some applicants found themselves strangely poisoned, not unlike the Alexander Litvenko and Rodgers cases. Heavy metals and toxic materials were found right after their work with the Department of Energy weapons and energy facilities. Many wonder if these “targets” were intentionally exposed to toxins in retribution for their testimony. The federal MSDS documents clearly show that a number of these people were exposed to deadly compounds and radiations without being provided with proper HazMat suits which DOE officials knew were required.

 

 

– Applicants employers were called, and faxed, and ordered to fire applicants from their places of employment, in the middle of the day, with no notice, as a retribution tactic.

 

 

– Applicants HR and employment records, on recruiting and hiring databases, were embedded with negative keywords in order to prevent them from gaining future employment.

 

 

– One Gary D. Conley and one Rajeev Motwani, both whistle-blowers in this matter, turned up dead under strange circumstances. They are not alone in a series of bizarre deaths related to this case. The Silicon Mafia appears to live up to its name with actual murders.

 

 

– Disability and VA complaint hearings and benefits were frozen, delayed, denied or subjected to lost records and “missing hard drives” as in the Lois Lerner case.

 

 

– Every possible source of income and online store-front had its income capability hacked or terminated.

 

 

– Paypal and other on-line payments for on-line sales were delayed, hidden, or re-directed in order to terminate income potential for applicants who competed with DOE interests and holdings.

 

 

– DNS redirection, website spoofing which sent applicants websites to dead ends and other Internet activity manipulations were conducted.

 

 

– Campaign finance dirty tricks contractors IN-Q-Tel, Think Progress, Media Matters, Gawker Media, Syd Blumenthal, etc., were hired by DOE Executives and their campaign financiers to attack applicants who competed with DOE executives stocks and personal assets.

 

 

– Covert DOE partner: Google, transfered large sums of cash to dirty tricks contractors and then manually locked the media portion of the attacks into the top lines of the top pages of all Google searches globally, for years, with hidden embedded codes in the links and web-pages which multiplied the attacks on applicants by many magnitudes.

 

 

– Honeytraps and moles from person’s employed by Defendants or living on, or with, Defendants were employed by the attackers. In this tactic, people who covertly worked for the attackers were employed to approach the “target” and offer business or sexual services in order to spy on and misdirect the subject.

 

 

– Mortgage and rental applications had red flags added to them in databases to prevent the targets from getting homes or apartments.

 

 

– McCarthy-Era “Black-lists” were created and employed against applicants who competed with DOE executives and their campaign financiers to prevent them from funding and future employment. The Silicon Valley Cartel (AKA the “PayPal Mafia” or the “Silicon Valley Mafia”) placed Plaintiffs on their “Black-List”.

 

 

– Targets were very carefully placed in a position of not being able to get jobs, unemployment benefits, disability benefits or acquire any possible sources of income. The retribution tactics were audacious, overt..and quite illegal.

 

 

While law enforcement, regulators and journalists are now clamping down on each, and every, one of the attackers, one-by-one, the process is slow. The victims have been forced to turn to the filing of lawsuits in order to seek justice. The Mississippi Attorney General’s office, who is prosecuting Cartel Member Google, advised Plaintiffs to pursue their case in civil court while the Post Election FBI expands its resources.”

 

The attacks have not ceased against the witnesses and members of the public who the Silicon Valley mob have targeted. Everyday a State and/or Federal official is fired because of this case. The FBI and a number of organizations have deep investigations ongoing.

 

 

Will the victims and the voters ever see justice? 2017 may be the year that all of the parts of this case reach their final nexus.

<

p style=”margin-top:.07in;margin-bottom:.07in;background:#ffffff;font-style:normal;line-height:100%;” align=”justify”>

 

Is Silicon Valley’s Immigration freak-out actually about cutting off the supply of young Asian boys for the tech pervert CEO’s?

Is Silicon Valley’s Immigration freak-out actually about cutting off the supply of young Asian boys for the tech pervert CEO’s?

 

 

 

By Ashely Fin

 

 

 

Silicon Valley and San Francisco tech oligarchs have a Gay Tech Industry Mafia.

 

 

When you pack all of those elite white boys into snot-nose frat houses some buggery is certain to occur. Those rich family frat houses are where all of the Silicon Valley venture capitalists and big tech CEO’s come from. They were not just close in their little boys clubs, some of them were VERY CLOSE.

 

 

Only Peter Thiel was brave enough to come out. There are over a hundred famous technology oligarchs that are as queer as they come but they hire fake wives and hold public facades in order to avoid scrutiny. There is even a boutique PR firm in Silicon Valley that hires straight female escorts to go to dinner in public places with gay technology bosses.

 

You would be jaw-dropped, shocked and wide eyed if you knew which famous Silicon Valley self-promoting big shots were taking it up the back-side from each other. We won’t name names here, at the request of Peter Thiel and a certain party at Facebook. You can figure it out. The issue is not about who is gay or not, it is about who is gay and evil. There should be a motto for Silicon Valley Billionaires: “Don’t be Evil”…errr… wait…

 

 

The rub comes when billionaires spend billions of dollars that they got from taxpayer corruption to bribe politicians to make all of the bathrooms bisexual and to give sex change operations to all of the prisoners who watched “Orange is the new black”. Agenda-pushing? A bit.

 

 

The gay mafia in Silicon Valley loves little Asian boys.

 

 

At Google, Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat and the other Silicon Valley Cartel shops, the federal government has discovered that those companies avoid hiring any women, blacks or older and wiser people. Their companies are almost all young Asian boys because Asian culture trains boys to be docile to authority, responsive to orders and kinky. In China they kill girl babies so it has created a glut of queer Chinese boys. In India, male rape is a huge thing. The “ladyboys” of SouthEast Asia are one of largest types of porn viewed in San Francisco and Silicon Valley tech circles. Coercing and pounding the butt-hole out of young boys was a big deal for the media mouthpiece of Silicon Valley: Nick Denton, who widely proclaimed his interest in young rectal flesh.

 

 

There have been a massive number of Silicon Valley sex scandals that you have heard about. There are many hundreds more that you have not heard about because they involve the abuse of the horde of young Asian boys that Google, Facebook, SnapChat and Twitter have squirreled away in the GooglePlex.

 

The government and news investigations prove that these companies are some of the ONLY ones in America that specifically hire young Asian boys in huge volumes for no apparent reason when there are vast volumes of non-young-Asian boys right near by who can do all of the same work.

 

 

What’s up with that?

 

 

Silicon Valley needs to come out of the closet and be less John Travolta and more Peter Thiel.

 

 

Silicon Valley needs to ends it’s Pedo-PizzaGate rapes and coercion of young Asian male imports.

 

 

Silicon Valley needs a good Spanking!

 

 

 

Is there a gay mafia in Silicon Valley? – Quora

 

we’re just not that organized … Gay Mafia? Who are the most powerful gay women in Silicon Valley? … I think they go more by Transgendered “mafia”. Gay …

 

cached proxied

 

https://www.quora.com/Is-there-a-gay-mafia-in-Silicon-Valley

 

 

 

I’d there a gay mafia Silicon Valley network? : C_S_T – Reddit

 

Similar to the Hollywood version? On the VC level….and please we all know the whole ‘good ideas are all that matter’ trope. Let’s get further…

 

cached proxied

 

https://www.reddit.com/r/C_S_T/comment%5B…%5Dre_a_gay_mafia_silicon_valley_network/

 

Why 2016 Is The Best Time to Be Gay in Silicon Valley – The Hustle

 

Silicon Valley is 40 miles from San Francisco and is full of straight white dudes. But it’s still the best time ever to be gay in tech.

 

google cached proxied

 

http://thehustle.co/the-best-time-to-be-gay-in-silicon-valley

 

Meet The PayPal Mafia, The Richest Group Of Men In Silicon Valley …

 

The startup known as PayPal launched a team of millionaires and billionaires.

 

cached proxied

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/meet-th%5B…%5D-group-of-men-in-silicon-valley-2014-9

 

Bill Maher says ‘Gay Mafia’ forced out Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich …

 

Bill Maher has sparked controversy with his ‘Gay Mafia’ remarks … and groups made a few waves across the Bay Area and Silicon Valley.

 

cached proxied

 

http://www.techtimes.com/articles/5316%5B…%5Dorced-out-mozilla-ceo-brendan-eich.htm

 

Mozilla, mo’ problems: Ritual sacrifice over gay rights in Silicon Valley

 

Mozilla, mo’ problems: Ritual sacrifice over gay rights in Silicon Valley … The key realization is that the howling mob which Thomas has ginned …

 

cached proxied

 

http://hotair.com/headlines/archives/2%5B…%5Dice-over-gay-rights-in-silicon-valley/

 

 

 

How the ‘PayPal Mafia’ redefined success in Silicon Valley …

 

A decade ago, the PayPal Mafia played a major role in revitalizing the tech … We were farther removed from the core of Silicon Valley as you could be …… mine early on his following startup, all of us are Mexican (I’m also gay).

 

cached proxied

 

http://www.techrepublic.com/article/ho%5B…%5Da-redefined-success-in-silicon-valley/

 

 

 

 

 

 

<

p style=”margin-bottom:0;font-weight:normal;line-height:100%;”>More: ladyboys, gay mafia, silicon valley gay mafia, nick denton, queer mafia, Silicon Valley Cartel, Silicon Valley Billionaires, Trump vs. Silicon Valley, Google, Facebook, Reid Hoffman, Larry Page, Elon Musk,

 

Leaked documents in Gawker Media Case expose election manipulation by Gawker and Google working as a “Cartel”

The Gawker Media Bankruptcy case has drawn Google and political election manipulation evidence into public view. Gawker really should have paid off those that they owed money to instead of letting things ferment. Take a look at one of the leaked documents:

 

 

 

 

 

Evidence Set, per BRANCHES public
law center http://www.globalscoop.net Case # 2788-D

 

 

 

In pro per Claimant and Plaintiff group requesting Court
Appointed legal counsel or the provision of contingency litigators
or deferral fee litigators

 

 

 

 

 

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

 

——————————————————x

 

:

 

In re : Chapter 11

 

:

 

Gawker Media LLC, et al., 1 : Case No. 16-11700 (SMB)

 

:

 

Debtors. : (Jointly Administered)

 

:

 

——————————————————x

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THIRD AMENDED RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ) DEMAND FOR CO-OPERATIVE FILING OF RICO CHARGES WITH ASSISTED AND ASSOCIATED CHARGES COMBINING THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND PLAINTIFFS AS PLAINTIFF GROUP

 

WHEREAS, Defendants Gawker Media, GMGI, Gawker Hungary (f/k/a Blogwire Hungary Szellemi Alkotast Hasznosito Kft.), Gawker Entertainment LLC, Gawker Technology, LLC, Gawker Sales, LLC, Nicholas G. A. Denton, Irin Carmon, Univision Communications, Univision America, Adrian Covert, Jon Herrman, Gaby Darbyshire, UniModa LLC, Elon Musk, John Doerr and DOES I through 220, including each employee of Gawker Media, did engage in RICO statute violations in their attempts to damage Plaintiffs.

 

WHEREAS, public officials and investigators have provided proof of RICO violations to all journalism, Congressional and law enforcement parties with jurisdiction in these charges.

 

WHEREAS, public news media and IT forums have now confirmed that due to Gawker Media’s attempted media manipulations in the 2008 and 2016 Presidential elections and the cross-national exchange of funds and interests between multiple questionable entities on multiple continents that each and every member of the above-stated defendants group has been under electronic surveillance on every electronic device with an IMEI address or network functionality by multiple law enforcement, defense, civil investigation, intelligence entities and the placement of under-cover journalists with Defendants group; and that the results of that surveillance, since 2007 is subpoena-accessible in this matter. Further, each of those legitimate entities that engaged in such surveillance that had even a single Cisco or Juniper Networks back-door embedded device touching their network has been revealed by U.S. DHS public reports to have had their servers breached by hackers. Any such evidence discovered after-the-fact may also legally be used in this case as evidence

 

 

 

 

 

WHEREAS, over 10,000 articles such as https://sputniknews.com/us/201609121045214398-google-clinton-manipulation-election/ in over 100 languages detail the over 1000 technical tools that Gawker and Google have used to manipulate Primary and Mid-Term U.S. Elections and those documents. Robert Epstein is a senior research psychologist at the American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology in California. In the article https://aeon.co/essays/how-the-internet-flips-elections-and-alters-our-thoughts any person of high-school-level intelligence can clearly see that such manipulations of information by private companies violates the rights of every person in America. Epstein is the author of 15 books, and the former editor-in-chief of Psychology Today. Epstein’s research Team and Plaintiff’s non-affiliated 1000 server node test system have documented such internet rigging by Gawker, Google and their associates. Ex-employees from Gawker Media and Google have stated, and are willing to state to the Court, with adequate safety protections, that these information and internet manipulations were planned and did occur. The proof clearly exists that Google and Gawker used psychological warfare techniques and software in order to manipulate, or attempt to manipulate public opinion. Multiple U.S. Senators have now stated, via their staff, that they will testify to this fact before a Federal Special Prosecutor. There can be no doubt in the Court’s mind that 1.) Gawker Media and Google operate together in the manner of a Cartel; 2.) Gawker Media and Google seek to rig public opinion; 3.) Gawker Media and Google use their companies to attack those that they believe threaten their ideologies, government payola kick-back scams or to attack those who they have been hired to attack by campaign financiers or candidates.

 

 

 

 

 

WHEREAS the publication known as THE INTERCEPT is funded by Gawker Media’s backers and shares real-estate venues with Gawker Media, First Look, The Intercept and other coordinating publications and that publication has published the following overview which describes in detail the Stasi-like methods used by Defendants against Plaintiffs as part of their attack. The tactics described mirror, completely, the tactics used by Gawker and Google:

 

“One of the many pressing stories that remains to be told from the Snowden archive is how western intelligence agencies are attempting to manipulate and control online discourse with extreme tactics of deception and reputation-destruction. It’s time to tell a chunk of that story, complete with the relevant documents.

 

Over the last several weeks, I worked with NBC News to publish a series of articles about “dirty trick” tactics used by GCHQ’s previously secret unit, JTRIG (Joint Threat Research Intelligence Group). These were based on four classified GCHQ documents presented to the NSA and the other three partners in the English-speaking “Five Eyes” alliance. Today, we at the Intercept are publishing another new JTRIG document, in full, entitled “The Art of Deception: Training for Online Covert Operations.”

 

By publishing these stories one by one, our NBC reporting highlighted some of the key, discrete revelations: the monitoring of YouTube and Blogger, the targeting of Anonymous with the very same DDoS attacks they accuse “hacktivists” of using, the use of “honey traps” (luring people into compromising situations using sex) and destructive viruses. But, here, I want to focus and elaborate on the overarching point revealed by all of these documents: namely, that these agencies are attempting to control, infiltrate, manipulate, and warp online discourse, and in doing so, are compromising the integrity of the internet itself.

 

Among the core self-identified purposes of JTRIG are two tactics: (1) to inject all sorts of false material onto the internet in order to destroy the reputation of its targets; and (2) to use social sciences and other techniques to manipulate online discourse and activism to generate outcomes it considers desirable. To see how extremist these programs are, just consider the tactics they boast of using to achieve those ends: “false flag operations” (posting material to the internet and falsely attributing it to someone else), fake victim blog posts (pretending to be a victim of the individual whose reputation they want to destroy), and posting “negative information” on various forums. Here is one illustrative list of tactics from the latest GCHQ document we’re publishing today:

 

 

Other tactics aimed at individuals are listed here, under the revealing title “discredit a target”:

 

 

Then there are the tactics used to destroy companies the agency targets:

 

 

GCHQ describes the purpose of JTRIG in starkly clear terms: “using online techniques to make something happen in the real or cyber world,” including “information ops (influence or disruption).”

 

 

Critically, the “targets” for this deceit and reputation-destruction extend far beyond the customary roster of normal spycraft: hostile nations and their leaders, military agencies, and intelligence services. In fact, the discussion of many of these techniques occurs in the context of using them in lieu of “traditional law enforcement” against people suspected (but not charged or convicted) of ordinary crimes or, more broadly still, “hacktivism”, meaning those who use online protest activity for political ends.

 

The title page of one of these documents reflects the agency’s own awareness that it is “pushing the boundaries” by using “cyber offensive” techniques against people who have nothing to do with terrorism or national security threats, and indeed, centrally involves law enforcement agents who investigate ordinary crimes:

 

 

No matter your views on Anonymous, “hacktivists” or garden-variety criminals, it is not difficult to see how dangerous it is to have secret government agencies being able to target any individuals they want – who have never been charged with, let alone convicted of, any crimes – with these sorts of online, deception-based tactics of reputation destruction and disruption. There is a strong argument to make, as Jay Leiderman demonstrated in the Guardian in the context of the Paypal 14 hacktivist persecution, that the “denial of service” tactics used by hacktivists result in (at most) trivial damage (far less than the cyber-warfare tactics favored by the US and UK) and are far more akin to the type of political protest protected by the First Amendment.

 

The broader point is that, far beyond hacktivists, these surveillance agencies have vested themselves with the power to deliberately ruin people’s reputations and disrupt their online political activity even though they’ve been charged with no crimes, and even though their actions have no conceivable connection to terrorism or even national security threats. As Anonymous expert Gabriella Coleman of McGill University told me, “targeting Anonymous and hacktivists amounts to targeting citizens for expressing their political beliefs, resulting in the stifling of legitimate dissent.” Pointing to this study she published, Professor Coleman vehemently contested the assertion that “there is anything terrorist/violent in their actions.”

 

Government plans to monitor and influence internet communications, and covertly infiltrate online communities in order to sow dissension and disseminate false information, have long been the source of speculation. Harvard Law Professor Cass Sunstein, a close Obama adviser and the White House’s former head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, wrote a controversial paper in 2008 proposing that the US government employ teams of covert agents and pseudo-”independent” advocates to “cognitively infiltrate” online groups and websites, as well as other activist groups.

 

Sunstein also proposed sending covert agents into “chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups” which spread what he views as false and damaging “conspiracy theories” about the government. Ironically, the very same Sunstein was recently named by Obama to serve as a member of the NSA review panel created by the White House, one that – while disputing key NSA claims – proceeded to propose many cosmetic reforms to the agency’s powers (most of which were ignored by the President who appointed them).

 

But these GCHQ documents are the first to prove that a major western government is using some of the most controversial techniques to disseminate deception online and harm the reputations of targets. Under the tactics they use, the state is deliberately spreading lies on the internet about whichever individuals it targets, including the use of what GCHQ itself calls “false flag operations” and emails to people’s families and friends. Who would possibly trust a government to exercise these powers at all, let alone do so in secret, with virtually no oversight, and outside of any cognizable legal framework?

 

Then there is the use of psychology and other social sciences to not only understand, but shape and control, how online activism and discourse unfolds. Today’s newly published document touts the work of GCHQ’s “Human Science Operations Cell,” devoted to “online human intelligence” and “strategic influence and disruption”:

 

 

 

Under the title “Online Covert Action”, the document details a variety of means to engage in “influence and info ops” as well as “disruption and computer net attack,” while dissecting how human beings can be manipulated using “leaders,” “trust,” “obedience” and “compliance”:

 

 

 

 

 

The documents lay out theories of how humans interact with one another, particularly online, and then attempt to identify ways to influence the outcomes – or “game” it:

 

 

 

 

We submitted numerous questions to GCHQ, including: (1) Does GCHQ in fact engage in “false flag operations” where material is posted to the Internet and falsely attributed to someone else?; (2) Does GCHQ engage in efforts to influence or manipulate political discourse online?; and (3) Does GCHQ’s mandate include targeting common criminals (such as boiler room operators), or only foreign threats?

 

As usual, they ignored those questions and opted instead to send their vague and nonresponsive boilerplate: “It is a longstanding policy that we do not comment on intelligence matters. Furthermore, all of GCHQ’s work is carried out in accordance with a strict legal and policy framework which ensures that our activities are authorised, necessary and proportionate, and that there is rigorous oversight, including from the Secretary of State, the Interception and Intelligence Services Commissioners and the Parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee. All our operational processes rigorously support this position.”

 

These agencies’ refusal to “comment on intelligence matters” – meaning: talk at all about anything and everything they do – is precisely why whistleblowing is so urgent, the journalism that supports it so clearly in the public interest, and the increasingly unhinged attacks by these agencies so easy to understand. Claims that government agencies are infiltrating online communities and engaging in “false flag operations” to discredit targets are often dismissed as conspiracy theories, but these documents leave no doubt they are doing precisely that.

 

Whatever else is true, no government should be able to engage in these tactics: what justification is there for having government agencies target people – who have been charged with no crime – for reputation-destruction, infiltrate online political communities, and develop techniques for manipulating online discourse? But to allow those actions with no public knowledge or accountability is particularly unjustifiable.

 

Documents referenced in this article:

 

 

 

 

 

 

WHEREAS, the following tactics used by Defendants against Plaintiffs are illegal to use against U.S. Citizen American’s inside domestic borders for business or political retribution purposes by a private company; and

 

WHEREAS, if the court rules that the following tactics used by Defendants against Plaintiffs are not illegal to use against U.S. Citizen American’s inside domestic borders for business or political retribution purposes by a private company then such tactics should be used against each and every member of Gawker Media and their associates for the rest of their lives, per the following “How To Destroy Someone” manual which Gawker Whistle-blowers provided:

 

America’s next president could be eased into office not just by TV ads or speeches, but by Google’s secret decisions, and no one—except for me and perhaps a few other obscure researchers—would know how this was accomplished. Research I have been directing in recent years suggests that Google, Inc., has amassed far more power to control elections—indeed, to control a wide variety of opinions and beliefs—than any company in history has ever had. Google’s search algorithm can easily shift the voting preferences of undecided voters by 20 percent or more—up to 80 percent in some demographic groups—with virtually no one knowing they are being manipulated, according to experiments I conducted recently with Ronald E. Robertson. Given that many elections are won by small margins, this gives Google the power, right now, to flip upwards of 25 percent of the national elections worldwide. In the United States, half of our presidential elections have been won by margins under 7.6 percent, and the 2012 election was won by a margin of only 3.9 percent—well within Google’s control.

 

There are at least three very real scenarios whereby Google—perhaps even without its leaders’ knowledge—could shape or even decide the election next year. Whether or not Google executives see it this way, the employees who constantly adjust the search giant’s algorithms are manipulating people every minute of every day. The adjustments they make increasingly influence our thinking—including, it turns out, our voting preferences.

 

What we call in our research the Search Engine Manipulation Effect (SEME) turns out to be one of the largest behavioral effects ever discovered. Our comprehensive new study, just published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), includes the results of five experiments we conducted with more than 4,500 participants in two countries. Because SEME is virtually invisible as a form of social influence, because the effect is so large and because there are currently no specific regulations anywhere in the world that would prevent Google from using and abusing this technique, we believe SEME is a serious threat to the democratic system of government.

 

According to Google Trends, at this writing Donald Trump is currently trouncing all other candidates in search activity in 47 of 50 states. Could this activity push him higher in search rankings, and could higher rankings in turn bring him more support? Most definitely—depending, that is, on how Google employees choose to adjust numeric weightings in the search algorithm. Google acknowledges adjusting the algorithm 600 times a year, but the process is secret, so what effect Mr. Trump’s success will have on how he shows up in Google searches is presumably out of his hands.

 

Our new research leaves little doubt about whether Google has the ability to control voters. In laboratory and online experiments conducted in the United States, we were able to boost the proportion of people who favored any candidate by between 37 and 63 percent after just one search session. The impact of viewing biased rankings repeatedly over a period of weeks or months would undoubtedly be larger. In our basic experiment, participants were randomly assigned to one of three groups in which search rankings favored either Candidate A, Candidate B or neither candidate. Participants were given brief descriptions of each candidate and then asked how much they liked and trusted each candidate and whom they would vote for. Then they were allowed up to 15 minutes to conduct online research on the candidates using a Google-like search engine we created called Kadoodle.

 

Each group had access to the same 30 search results—all real search results linking to real web pages from a past election. Only the ordering of the results differed in the three groups. People could click freely on any result or shift between any of five different results pages, just as one can on Google’s search engine.When our participants were done searching, we asked them those questions again, and, voilà: On all measures, opinions shifted in the direction of the candidate who was favored in the rankings. Trust, liking and voting preferences all shifted predictably. More alarmingly, we also demonstrated this shift with real voters during an actual electoral campaign —in an experiment conducted with more than 2,000 eligible, undecided voters throughout India during the 2014 Lok Sabha election there—the largest democratic election in history, with more than 800 million eligible voters and 480 million votes ultimately cast. Even here, with real voters who were highly familiar with the candidates and who were being bombarded with campaign rhetoric every day, we showed that search rankings could boost the proportion of people favoring any candidate by more than 20 percent—more than 60 percent in some demographic groups.Given how powerful this effect is, it’s possible that Google decided the winner of the Indian election.

 

Google’s own daily data on election-related search activity (subsequently removed from the Internet, but not before my colleagues and I downloaded the pages) showed that Narendra Modi, the ultimate winner, outscored his rivals in search activity by more than 25 percent for sixty-one consecutive days before the final votes were cast. That high volume of search activity could easily have been generated by higher search rankings for Modi.Google’s official comment on SEME research is always the same: “Providing relevant answers has been the cornerstone of Google’s approach to search from the very beginning. It would undermine the people’s trust in our results and company if we were to change course.” Could any comment be more meaningless? How does providing “relevant answers” to election-related questions rule out the possibility of favoring one candidate over another in search rankings? Google’s statement seems far short of a blanket denial that it ever puts its finger on the scales. There are three credible scenarios under which Google could easily be flipping elections worldwide as you read this:

 

First, there is the Western Union Scenario: Google’s executives decide which candidate is best for us— and for the company, of course—and they fiddle with search rankings accordingly. There is precedent in the United States for this kind of backroom king-making. Rutherford B. Hayes, the 19th president of the United States, was put into office in part because of strong support by Western Union. In the late 1800s, Western Union had a monopoly on communications in America, and just before the election of 1876, the company did its best to assure that only positive news stories about Hayes appeared in newspapers nationwide. It also shared all the telegrams sent by his opponent’s campaign staff with Hayes’s staff. Perhaps the most effective way to wield political influence in today’s high-tech world is to donate money to a candidate and then to use technology to make sure he or she wins. The technology guarantees the win, and the donation- Robert Epstein is senior research psychologist at the American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology and the former editor-in-chief of Psychology Today.

 

Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/08/how-google-could-rig-the-2016-election

 

Google under investigation for manipulating stock market news in order to exclusively benefit it’sowners and damage competitors Why Google is a political matter – The Monthly https://www.themonthly.com.au/…/why-google-political-ma

 

Assange is sure Google is a political matter, yet right from the beginning of our … but the government owned no company shares and had limited control over its …How Facebook and Google’s Algorithms Are Affecting Our … www.huffingtonpost.com/…/how-facebook-and-goo

 

Oct 15, 2015 – How Facebook and Google’s Algorithms Are Affecting Our Political … Users have

 

some control, with Facebook rolling out curation tools that …Death, drones and driverless cars: how Google wants to … www.theguardian.com › Technology › Google

 

Sep 22, 2014 – Death, drones and driverless cars: how Google wants to control our lives … Since July, it has been home to Google’s expanding political …Google controls what we buy, the news we read — and … nypost.com/…/google-controls-what-we-buy-the-news-we…

 

Mar 28, 2015 – politically filtered information. Google says that in the future, its determinations ..Google’s latest product: Google Politics – POLITICO www.politico.eu/article/googles-latest-product-google-politics/

 

Jun 18, 2015 – Google still has a lot of … How Search Engine Rankings Affect Which Politicians …www.psmag.com/politics…/search-engines-affect-electio…

 

Aug 6, 2015 – How Search Engine Rankings Affect Which Politicians People Vote For. More evidence that Google controls my life. Avatar: Francie Diep …how to search the internet plus google’s evil politics and …www.whatnewsshouldbe.org/…/how-to-search-the-internet-plus-google’s…The

 

Google UI/UX Emotional Manipulation Team

 

UI = User Interface

 

UX = User Experience

 

Google has a vast team of engineers to constantly and covertly test users to tune the most minute psychological effects of every page, movie, news story and other element of Google’s information display process in order to achieve subliminal “pleasure responses”, “satisfactions”, “counter-intuitive guidance” and other hyper subtle means of moving the user in ways that Google wants the user moved and not in natural ways that the user might independently go if not manipulated.

 

Google’s Basic PsyOps Mass Manipulation Techniques

 

The White House Press office is, according to Presidential canidate Mitt Romney: “expert in Character Assassination Tactics”.

 

 

 

The key providers of such attacks include: Media Matters, Think Progress, Gawker Media, In-Q-Tel, New America Foundation, Sidney Blumenthal and the A.L.I.C.E. cartel of attack bloggers.

 

 

 

Those media entities, combined, though, pale in comparison to the resources of Google and the Google-powered, Troll Farms and Streisand Effect engines created to rain media hell on any adversary in the public.

 

 

 

The Streisand effect (AKA: The Kardashian Engine) is the phenomenon whereby an attempt to hide, remove, or censor a piece of information has the unintended consequence of publicizing the information more widely, usually facilitated by the Internet. It is an example of psychological reactance, wherein once people are aware something is being kept from them, their motivation to access and spread the information is increased.[1]

 

It is named after American entertainer Barbra Streisand, whose 2003 attempt to suppress photographs of her residence in Malibu, California, inadvertently drew further public attention to it. Similar attempts have been made, for example, in cease-and-desist letters to suppress numbers, files, and websites. Instead of being suppressed, the information receives extensive publicity and media extensions such as videos and spoof songs, often being widely mirrored across the Internet or distributed on file-sharing networks.[2][3]

 

The “Kardashian Engine” can make a non-issue into something, which the public believes is a big deal, by creating dialogue that does not actually exist. They use hired fake commenters, shill bloggers and the Google rigged web search engine.

 

 

 

Google’s hit job service is referred to in the law enforcement and legal investigation community as “Organized Corporate Stalking” or “Political Gang Stalking” in the vernacular.

 

There are dozens of websites and YouTube channels dedicated to these black ops which are perpetrated in every major city of the US (and small towns as well)

 

Moving objects around in someone’s home is referred to as “gas-lighting” and is done so that the complainant/victim sounds delusional when they call the police for assistance.

 

After all, who is going to break into a home (usually without leaving a trace) and move a few objects around without stealing anything? It does not sound credible or believable.

 

Everything is done so there is plausible deniability, should the potential perpetrators ever be identified.

 

These tactics/techniques were used against American Embassy Staff in Cuba and Russia for years, however US authorities have been quite mum about it since the same techniques are used on a wide scale in the United States against “dissidents, activists” and anyone else who has been extra-judicially deemed a threat to the establishment, the status quo or large companies.

 

These activities are usually done in conjunction with vehicle vandalism/hacking, computer/e-mail/bank account hacking, mail tampering and untraceable, remotely-initiated damage to electronic devices and their power supplies.

 

Additionally victims of these covertly-styled assaults are also plagued by people passing by their residences at all hours and blowing their horns or revving their engines (referred to as a noise campaign).

 

Codes can be remotely stripped/read from computer keyboards, phones and alarm touch-pads since every key generates an electronic signature which can be read/culled from a distance – there are devices built specifically for this purpose.

 

Furthermore, these black ops are done while the victim’s name is simultaneously being slandered via false accusations of criminal activity, theft, violence, crimes of moral turpitude and prior mental health issues. The “teams” perpetrating these illegal acts will try and destroy every aspect of the target’s life.

 

You are likely bugged and your vehicle tagged with a GPS, thus moving will not necessarily terminate the issue(s) you are experiencing – although if your experience(s) have been published it may alleviate some of the illegal activities.

 

These politicos will hire private security groups and criminals to follow their targets around in order to let them know that he/she is now “persona non grata” and being monitored.

 

Being a single woman – especially with a child makes these activities even more traumatizing.

 

These tactics were used by Hitler, Mao Tze Tung, the East German Stasi and the KGB.

 

All of these activities are done so that the perpetrators are hard to identify – and the criminal acts are hard to prove to the police – and in court. (plausible deniability).

 

You will find you can’t get a job. You will get many phone calls and emails from people with east indian accents asking you to approve submitting a resume for a great job. Each time you will never hear back from them. Your disappointment will increase. That is how they like it. Those were not real recruiters, they were operatives trying to build you up and let you down, over and over, in order to create a sense of self-doubt and a sense of personal failure, so that you will be too emotionally weakened to fight against the politician.

 

It is also referred to as “No-Touch Torture” and is used to intimidate the target in addition to making them psychologically more vulnerable. The technique was developed by the Stasi and is called Zersetzung. Google has added new technology to these tactics for “special clients” like political party leaders, White House press officers, Silicon Valley billionaires and partners like Elon Musk. Zersetzung (German; variously translated as decomposition, corrosion, undermining, biodegradation or dissolution) was a working technique of the East German secret police, the Stasi. The “measures of Zersetzung”, defined in the framework of a directive on police procedures in 1976,[1] were effectively used in the context of so-called “operational procedures” (in German Operative Vorgänge or OV). They replaced the overt terror of the Ulbricht era. As to the practice of repressive persecution, Zersetzung comprised extensive and secret methods of control and manipulation, even in the personal relations of the target. The Stasi relied for this on its network of unofficial collaborators[2] (in German inoffizielle Mitarbeiter or IM), on the State’s influence on institutions, and on “operational psychology”. By targeted psychological attacks the Stasi tried in this way to deprive the dissident of any possibility of “hostile action”.

 

Thanks to numerous files of the Stasi made public following “the turning” (Die Wende) of East Germany, the use of measures of Zersetzung is well documented. Estimates of the number of victims of such measures are on the order of a thousand, or even about 10,000,[3] of which 5,000 sustained irreversible damage.[4] Pensions for restitution have been created for the victims. [Zersetzung is] an operational method of the Ministry for Security of State for an efficacious struggle against subversive doings, in particular in the treatment of operations. With Zersetzung, across different operational political activities, one gains influence over hostile and negative persons, in particular over that which is hostile and negative in their dispositions and beliefs, in such a way that these would be shaken off and changed little by little, and, if applicable, the contradictions and differences between the hostile and negative forces would be provoked, exploited, and reinforced. The goal of Zersetzung is the fragmentation, paralysis, disorganization, and isolation of the hostile and negative forces, in order to impede thereby, in a preventive manner, the hostile and negative doings, to limit them in large part, or to totally avert them, and if applicable to prepare grounds for a political and ideological reestablishment. Zersetzung is equally an immediate constitutive element of “operational procedures” and other preventive activities to impede hostile gatherings. The principal forces to put Zersetzung in practice are the unofficial collaborators. Zersetzung presupposes information and significant proof of hostile activities planned, prepared, and accomplished as well as anchor points corresponding to measures of Zersetzung. Zersetzung must be produced on the basis of an analysis of the root of facts and the exact establishment of a concrete goal. Zersetzung must be executed in a uniform and supervised manner; its results must be documented. The political explosivity of Zersetzung poses elevated imperatives in that which concerns the maintenance of secrecy.[5]

 

Political context

 

During the first decade of existence of the German Democratic Republic, political opposition was combatted primarily through the penal code, via accusations of incitement to war or boycott.[6] To counteract the isolation of the GDR on the international scene due to the construction of the Berlin wall in 1963, judicial terror was abandoned.[7] Especially since the debut of the Honecker era in 1971, the Stasi intensified its efforts to punish dissident behaviors without using the penal code.[8] Important motives were the desire on the part of the GDR for international recognition and rapprochement with West Germany at the end of the ’60s. In fact the GDR was committed, in adhering to the Charter of the U.N.[9] and the Helsinki accords[10] as well as the fundamental treaty signed with the Federal Republic of Germany,[11] to respect human rights, or at least it announced its intention as such. The regime of the Socialist Unity Party of Germany decided thus to reduce the number of political prisoners, which was compensated for by practices of repression without imprisonment or judicial condemnation.[12][13]

 

In practice

 

The Stasi used Zersetzung essentially as a means of psychological oppression and persecution.[14] Findings of Operativen psychologie (psychological operations),[15] formulated into method at the Stasi’s College of Legal Studies (Juristischen Hochschule der Staatssicherheit, or JHS), were applied to political opponents in an effort to undermine their self-confidence and self-esteem. Operations were designed to intimidate and destabilise them through subjection to repeated disappointments, and to socially alienate them through interference in and disruption of their relationships with others. The aim was to then induce personal crises in victims, leaving them too unnerved and psychologically distressed to have the time and energy for anti-government activism.[16] The Stasi intended that their role as mastermind of the operations remain concealed.[17][18]Jürgen Fuchs, a victim of Zersetzung who later wrote about his experience, described the Stasi’s actions as “psychosocial crime”, and “an assault on the human soul”.[16]

 

Although its techniques had been established as effective by the late 1950s, Zersetzung was not defined in terms of scientific method until the mid-1970s, and only began to be carried out in a significantly systematic way in the 1970s and 1980s.[19] It is difficult to determine the number of people targeted, since source material has been deliberately and considerably redacted; it is known, however, that tatics were varied in scope, and that a number of different departments participated in their implementation. Overall there was a ratio of four or five authorised Zersetzung operators for each targeted group, and three for each individual.[20] Some sources indicate that around 5,000 people were “persistently victimised” by Zersetzung.[21] At the College of Legal Studies, the number of dissertations submitted on the subject of Zersetzung was in double figures.[22] It also had a comprehensive 50-page Zersetzung teaching manual, which included numerous examples of its practice.[23]

 

Institutions implementing and cooperating with Zersetzung operations

 

Almost all Stasi departments were involved in Zersetzung operations, although foremost among these in implementing them were the head department of the Stasi’s directorate XX (Hauptabteilung XX) in Berlin, as well as its divisional offices in regional and municipal government. The function of the head and area Abteilung XXs was to maintain surveillance of religious communities; cultural and media establishments; alternative political parties; the GDR’s many political establishment-affiliated mass social organisations; sport; and education and health services – effectively, as such, covering all aspects of civic life and activity.[24] The Stasi made use of the means available to them within, and as a circumstance of, the GDR’s closed social system. An established, politically-motivated collaborative network (politisch-operatives Zusammenwirken, or POZW) provided them with extensive opportunities for interference in such situations as the sanctioning of professionals and students, expulsion from associations and sports clubs, and occasional arrests by the Volkspolizei[17] (the GDR’s quasi-military national police). Refusal of permits for travel to socialist states, or denial of entry at Czechoslovakian and Polish border crossings where no visa requirement existed, were also arranged. The various collaborators (Partnern des operativen Zusammenwirkens) included branches of regional government, university and professional management, housing administrative bodies, the Sparkasse public savings bank, and in some cases head physicians.[25] The Stasi’s Linie III (Observation), Abteilung 26 (Telephone and room surveillance) and M (Postal communications) departments provided essential background information for the designing of Zersetzung techniques, with Abteilung 32 procuring the required technology.[26]The Stasi also collaborated with the secret services of other Eastern Bloc countries in implementing Zersetzung. One such example was the co-operation of the Polish secret services in actions taken against branches of the Jehovah’s Witnesses organisation in the early 1960s, which would come to be known[27] as “innere Zersetzung”[28] (internal subversion).

 

Against individuals

 

The Stasi applied Zersetzung before, during, after, or instead of incarcerating the targeted individual. The “operational procedures” did not have as an aim, in general, to gather evidence for charges against the target, or to be able to begin criminal prosecutions. The Stasi considered the “measures of Zersetzung” rather in part as an instrument that was used when judiciary procedures were not convenient, or for political reasons such as the international image of the GDR.[29][30] In certain cases, the Stasi attempted meanwhile to knowingly inculpate an individual, as for example in the case of Wolf Biermann: The Stasi set him up with minors, hoping that he would allow himself to be seduced, and that they could then pursue criminal charges.[31] The crimes that they researched for such accusations were non-political, as for example drug possession, trafficking in customs or currencies, theft, financial fraud, and rape.[32]

 

the Stasi often used a method which was really diabolic. It was called Zersetzung, and it’s described in another guideline. The word is difficult to translate because it means originally “biodegradation.” But actually, it’s a quite accurate description. The goal was to destroy secretly the self-confidence of people, for example by damaging their reputation, by organizing failures in their work, and by destroying their personal relationships. Considering this, East Germany was a very modern dictatorship. The Stasi didn’t try to arrest every dissident. It preferred to paralyze them, and it could do so because it had access to so much personal information and to so many institutions.

Hubertus Knabe, German historian [33]

 

The proven forms of Zersetzung are described in the directive 1/76:

 

a systematic degradation of reputation, image, and prestige in a database on one part true, verifiable and degrading, and on the other part false, plausible, irrefutable, and always degrading; a systematic organization of social and professional failures for demolishing the self-confidence of the individual; […] stimulation of doubts with respect to perspectives on the future; stimulation of mistrust or mutual suspicion among groups […]; putting in place spatial and temporal obstacles rendering impossible or at least difficult the reciprocal relations of a group […], for example by […] assigning distant workplaces. —Directive No. 1/76 of January 1976 for the development of “operational procedures”.[34]Beginning with intelligence obtained by espionage, the Stasi established “sociograms” and “psychograms” which it applied for the psychological forms of Zersetzung. They exploited personal traits, such as homosexuality, as well as supposed character weaknesses of the targeted individual — for example a professional failure, negligence of parental duties, pornographic interests, divorce, alcoholism, dependence on medications, criminal tendencies, passion for a collection or a game, or contacts with circles of the extreme right — or even the veil of shame from the rumors poured out upon one’s circle of acquaintances.[35][36] From the point of view of the Stasi, the measures were the most fruitful when they were applied in connection with a personality; all “schematism” had to be avoided.[35]For marketing and political manipulation, Google now maintains a sociogram of each user and manipulates each user via Stasi-like mood manipulation. Moreover, methods of Zersetzung included espionage, overt, hidden, and feigned; opening letters and listening to telephone calls; encroachments on private property; manipulation of vehicles; and even poisoning food and using false medications.[37] Certain collaborators of the Stasi tacitly took into account the suicide of victims of Zersetzung.[38]

 

It has not been definitely established that the Stasi used x-rays to provoke long-term health problems in its opponents.[39] That said, Rudolf Bahro, Gerulf Pannach, and Jürgen Fuchs, three important dissidents who had been imprisoned at the same time, died of cancer within an interval of two years.[40] A study by the Federal Commissioner for the Records of the State Security Service of the former GDR (Bundesbeauftragte für die Unterlagen des Staatssicherheitsdienstes der ehemaligen Deutschen Demokratischen Republik or BStU) has meanwhile rejected on the basis of extant documents such a fraudulent use of x-rays, and only mentions isolated and unintentional cases of the harmful use of sources of radiation, for example to mark documents.[41]In the name of the target, the Stasi made little announcements, ordered products, and made emergency calls, to terrrorize him/her.[42][43] To threaten or intimidate or cause psychoses the Stasi assured itself of access to the target’s living quarters and left visible traces of its presence, by adding, removing, and modifying objects.[32]

 

Against groups and social relations

 

The Stasi manipulated relations of friendship, love, marriage, and family by anonymous letters, telegrams and telephone calls as well as compromising photos, often altered.[44] In this manner, parents and children were supposed to systematically become strangers to one another.[45] To provoke conflicts and extramarital relations the Stasi put in place targeted seductions by Romeo agents.[31]For the Zersetzung of groups, it infiltrated them with unofficial collaborators, sometimes minors.[46] The work of opposition groups was hindered by permanent counter-propositions and discord on the part of unofficial collaborators when making decisions.[47] To sow mistrust within the group, the Stasi made believe that certain members were unofficial collaborators; moreover by spreading rumors and manipulated photos,[48] the Stasi feigned indiscretions with unofficial collaborators, or placed members of targeted groups in administrative posts to make believe that this was a reward for the activity of an unofficial collaborator.[31] They even aroused suspicions regarding certain members of the group by assigning privileges, such as housing or a personal car.[31] Moreover the imprisonment of only certain members of the group gave birth to suspicions.[47]

 

Target groups for measures

 

The Stasi used Zersetzung tactics on individuals and groups. There was no particular homogeneous target group, as opposition in the GDR came from a number of different sources. Tactical plans were thus separately adapted to each perceived threat.[49] The Stasi nevertheless defined several main target groups:[50]

 

  • associations of people making collective visa applications for travel abroad

 

 

 

  • artists’ groups critical of the government

  • religious opposition groups

  • youth subculture groups

  • groups supporting the above (human rights and peace organisations, those assisting illegal departure from the GDR, and expatriate and defector movements).

 

The Stasi also occasionally used Zersetzung on non-political organisations regarded as undesirable, such as the Watchtower Society.[51]Prominent individuals targeted by Zersetzung operations included Jürgen Fuchs, Gerulf Pannach, Rudolf Bahro, Robert Havemann, Rainer Eppelmann, Reiner Kunze, husband and wife Gerd und Ulrike Poppe, and Wolfgang Templin.

 

Social and juridicial process

 

Once aware of his own status as a target, GDR opponent Wolfgang Templin tried, with some success, to bring details of the Stasi’s Zersetzung activities to the attention of western journalists.[52] In 1977 Der Spiegel published a five-part article series (“Du sollst zerbrechen!” – “You’re going to crack!”) by the exiled Jürgen Fuchs, in which he describes the Stasi’s “operational psychology”. The Stasi tried to discredit Fuchs and the contents of similar articles, publishing in turn claims that he had a paranoid view of its function,[53] and intending that Der Spiegel and other media would assume he was suffering from a persecution complex.[54][55] This, however, was refuted by the official Stasi documents examined after Die Wende (the political power shift in the GDR in 1989-90).

 

Because the scale and nature of Zersetzung were unknown both to the general population of the GDR and to people abroad, revelations of the Stasi’s malicious tactics were met with some degree of disbelief by those affected.[56] Many still nowadays express incomprehension at how the Stasi’s collaborators could have participated in such inhuman actions.[57]

 

Since Zersetzung as a whole, even after 1990, was not deemed to be illegal because of the principle of nulla poena sine lege (no penalty without law), actions against involvement in either its planning or implementation were not enforceable by the courts.[58] Because this specific legal definition of Zersetzung as a crime didn’t exist,[59] only individual instances of its tactics could be reported. Acts which even according to GDR law were offences (such as the violation of Briefgeheimnis, the secrecy of correspondence) needed to have been reported to the GDR authorities soon after having been committed in order not to be subject to a statute of limitations clause.[60] Many of the victims experienced the additional complication that the Stasi was not identifiable as the originator in cases of personal injury and misadventure. Official documents in which Zersetzung methods were recorded often had no validity in court, and the Stasi had many files detailing its actual implementation destroyed.[61]

 

Unless they had been detained for at least 180 days, survivors of Zersetzung operations, in accordance with §17a of a 1990 rehabilitation act (the Strafrechtlichen Rehabilitierungsgesetzes, or StrRehaG), are not eligible for financial compensation. Cases of provable, systematically effected targeting by the Stasi, and resulting in employment-related losses and/or health damage, can be pursued under a law covering settlement of torts (Unrechtsbereinigungsgesetz, or 2. SED-UnBerG) as claims either for occupational rehabilitation or rehabilitation under administrative law. These overturn certain administrative provisions of GDR institutions and affirm their unconstitutionality. This is a condition for the social equalisation payments specified in the Bundesversorgungsgesetz (the war victims relief act of 1950). Equalisation payments of pension damages and for loss of earnings can also be applied for in cases where victimisation continued for at least three years, and where claimants can prove need.[62] The above examples of seeking justice have, however, been hindered by various difficulties victims have experienced, both in providing proof of the Stasi’s encroachment into the areas of health, personal assets, education and employment, and in receiving official acknowledgement that the Stasi was responsible for personal damages (including psychic injury) as a direct result of Zersetzung operations. Google is well known for spying on, documenting, analyzing psychological behaviors, manipulating public moods and using technology to engage in most of the former tactics of the Stasi but, now, dramatically updated with modern technology.[63]Russia‘s secret police, the FSB, has been reported to use such techniques against foreign diplomats and journalists.[64]. Google

 

See also

 

 

References

 

    1. Federal Commissioner for the Records of the State Security Service of the former German Democratic Republic. Directive No. 1/76 on the Development and Revision of Operational Procedures Richtlinie Nr. 1/76 zur Entwicklung und Bearbeitung Operativer Vorgänge (OV)

    2. Federal Commissioner for the Records of the State Security Service of the former German Democratic Republic: The Unofficial Collaborators (IM) of the MfS

    3. Süß, Strukturen, p. 217.

    4. Consider in this regard the written position taken by Michael Beleites, responsible for the files of the Stasi in the Free State of Saxony: PDF, visited 24 August 2010, as well as 3sat : Subtiler Terror – Die Opfer von Stasi-Zersetzungsmethoden, visited 24 August 2010.

    5. Ministry for Security of State, Dictionary of political and operational work, entry Zersetzung: Ministerium für Staatssicherheit (Hrsg.): Wörterbuch zur politisch-operativen Arbeit, 2. Auflage (1985), Stichwort: „Zersetzung“, GVS JHS 001-400/81, p. 464.

    6. Rainer Schröder: Geschichte des DDR-Rechts: Straf- und Verwaltungsrecht, forum historiae iuris, 6 avril 2004.

    7. Falco Werkentin: Recht und Justiz im SED-Staat. Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung, Bonn 1998, 2. durchgesehene Auflage 2000, S. 67.

    8. Sandra Pingel-Schliemann: Zerstörung von Biografien. Zersetzung als Phänomen der Honecker-Ära. In: Eckart Conze/Katharina Gajdukowa/Sigrid Koch-Baumgarten (Hrsg.): Die demokratische Revolution 1989 in der DDR. Köln 2009, S. 78–91.

    9. Art. 1 Abs. 3 UN-Charta. Dokumentiert in: 12. Deutscher Bundestag: Materialien der Enquete-Kommission zur Aufarbeitung von Geschichte und Folgen der SED-Diktatur in Deutschland. Band 4, Frankfurt a. M. 1995, S. 547.

    10. Konferenz über Sicherheit und Zusammenarbeit in Europa, Schlussakte, Helsinki 1975, S. 11.

    11. Art. 2 des Vertrages über die Grundlagen der Beziehungen zwischen der Bundesrepublik Deutschland und der Deutschen Demokratischen Republik vom 21. Dezember 1972. In: Matthias Judt (Hrsg.): DDR-Geschichte in Dokumenten – Beschlüsse, Berichte, interne Materialien und Alltagszeugnisse. Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung Bd. 350, Bonn 1998, S. 517.

    12. Johannes Raschka: „Staatsverbrechen werden nicht genannt“ – Zur Zahl politischer Häftlinge während der Amtszeit Honeckers. In: Deutschlandarchiv. Band 30, Nummer 1, 1997, S. 196

    13. Jens Raschka: Einschüchterung, Ausgrenzung, Verfolgung – Zur politischen Repression in der Amtszeit Honeckers. Berichte und Studien, Band 14, Dresden 1998, S. 15.

    14. Klaus-Dietmar Henke: Zur Nutzung und Auswertung der Stasi-Akten. In: Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte. Nummer 4, 1993, S. 586.

    15. Süß: Strukturen. S. 229.

    16. to: ab Pingel-Schliemann: Zersetzen. S. 188.

    17. to: ab Jens Gieseke: Mielke-Konzern. S. 192f.

    18. Pingel-Schliemann: Formen. S. 235.

    19. Süß: Strukturen. S. 202-204.

    20. Süß: Strukturen. S. 217.

    21. Siehe hierzu die schriftliche Stellungnahme des Sächsischen Landesbeauftragten für die Stasi-Unterlagen Michael Beleites zur Anhörung des Rechtsausschusses des Deutschen Bundestages zu den Gesetzentwürfen und Anträgen zur Verbesserung rehabilitierungsrechtlicher Vorschriften für Opfer politischer Verfolgung in der DDR vom 7. Mai 2007 (PDF, 682 KB), eingesehen am 24. August 2010, sowie 3sat: Subtiler Terror – Die Opfer von Stasi-Zersetzungsmethoden, eingesehen am 24. August 2010.

    22. Günter Förster: Die Dissertationen an der „Juristischen Hochschule“ des MfS. Eine annotierte Bibliographie. BStU, Berlin 1997, Online-Quelle (Memento vom 13. Juli 2009 im Internet Archive).

    23. Anforderungen und Wege für eine konzentrierte, offensive, rationelle und gesellschaftlich wirksame Vorgangsbearbeitung. Juristische Hochschule Potsdam 1977, BStU, ZA, JHS 24 503.

    24. Jens Gieseke: Das Ministerium für Staatssicherheit 1950–1989/90 – Ein kurzer historischer Abriss. In: BF informiert. Nr. 21, Berlin 1998, S. 35.

    25. Hubertus Knabe: Zersetzungsmaßnahmen. In: Karsten Dümmel, Christian Schmitz (Hrsg.): Was war die Stasi? KAS, Zukunftsforum Politik Nr. 43, Sankt Augustin 2002, S. 31, PDF, 646 KB.

    26. Pingel-Schliemann: Zersetzen, S. 141–151.

    27. Waldemar Hirch: Zusammenarbeit zwischen dem ostdeutschen und dem polnischen Geheimdienst zum Zweck der „Zersetzung“ der Zeugen Jehovas. In: Waldemar Hirch, Martin Jahn, Johannes Wrobel (Hrsg.): Zersetzung einer Religionsgemeinschaft: die geheimdienstliche Bearbeitung der Zeugen Jehovas in der DDR und in Polen. Niedersteinbach 2001, S. 84–95.

    28. Aus einem Protokoll vom 16. Mai 1963, zit. n. Sebastian Koch: Die Zeugen Jehovas in Ostmittel-, Südost- und Südeuropa: Zum Schicksal einer Religionsgemeinschaft. Berlin 2007, S. 72.

    29. Richtlinie 1/76 zur Entwicklung und Bearbeitung Operativer Vorgänge vom 1. Januar 1976. Dokumentiert in: David Gill, Ulrich Schröter: Das Ministerium für Staatssicherheit. Anatomie des Mielke-Imperiums. S. 390

    30. Lehrmaterial der Hochschule des MfS: Anforderungen und Wege für eine konzentrierte, rationelle und gesellschaftlich wirksame Vorgangsbearbeitung. Kapitel 11: Die Anwendung von Maßnahmen der Zersetzung in der Bearbeitung Operativer Vorgänge vom Dezember 1977, BStU, ZA, JHS 24 503, S. 11.

    31. to: abcd Gieseke: Mielke-Konzern. S. 195f.

    32. to: ab Pingel-Schliemann: Phänomen. S. 82f.

    33. Hubertus Knabe: The dark secrets of a surveillance state, TED Salon, Berlin, 2014

    34. Roger Engelmann, Frank Joestel: Grundsatzdokumente des MfS. In: Klaus-Dietmar Henke, Siegfried Suckut, Thomas Großbölting (Hrsg.): Anatomie der Staatssicherheit: Geschichte, Struktur und Methoden. MfS-Handbuch. Teil V/5, Berlin 2004, S. 287.

    35. to: ab Knabe: Zersetzungsmaßnahmen. S. 27–29

    36. Arbeit der Juristischen Hochschule der Staatssicherheit in Potsdam aus dem Jahr 1978, MDA, MfS, JHS GVS 001-11/78. In: Pingel-Schliemann: Formen. S. 237.

    37. Pingel-Schliemann: Zersetzen. S. 266–278.

    38. Pingel-Schliemann: Zersetzen. S. 277.

    39. Pingel-Schliemann: Zersetzen, S. 280f.

    40. Der Spiegel 20/1999: In Kopfhöhe ausgerichtet (PDF, 697 KB), S. 42–44.

    41. Kurzdarstellung des Berichtes der Projektgruppe „Strahlen“ beim BStU zum Thema: „Einsatz von Röntgenstrahlen und radioaktiven Stoffen durch das MfS gegen Oppositionelle – Fiktion oder Realität?“, Berlin 2000.

    42. Udo Scheer: Jürgen Fuchs – Ein literarischer Weg in die Opposition. Berlin 2007, S. 344f.

    43. Gieseke: Mielke-Konzern. S. 196f.

    44. Gisela Schütte: Die unsichtbaren Wunden der Stasi-Opfer. In: Die Welt. 2. August 2010, eingesehen am 8. August 2010

    45. Pingel-Schliemann: Zersetzen, S. 254–257.

    46. Axel Kintzinger: „Ich kann keinen mehr umarmen“. In: Die Zeit. Nummer 41, 1998.

    47. to: ab Pingel-Schliemann: Zersetzen, S. 358f.

    48. Stefan Wolle: Die heile Welt der Diktatur. Alltag und Herrschaft in der DDR 1971–1989. Bonn 1999, S. 159.

    49. Kollektivdissertation der Juristischen Hochschule der Staatssicherheit in Potsdam. In: Pingel-Schliemann: Zersetzen. S. 119.

    50. Jens Gieseke: Mielke-Konzern. S. 192f.

    51. Mike Dennis: Surviving the Stasi: Jehovah’s Witnesses in Communist East Germany, 1965 to 1989. In: Religion, State and Society. Band 34, Nummer 2, 2006, S. 145-168

    52. Gieseke: Mielke-Konzern. S. 196f.

    53. Scheer: Fuchs. S. 347.

    54. Gieseke: Mielke-Konzern. S. 196f.

    55. Treffbericht des IMB „J. Herold“ mit Oberleutnant Walther vom 25. März 1986 über ein Gespräch mit dem „abgeschöpften“ SPIEGEL-Redakteur Ulrich Schwarz. Dok. in Jürgen Fuchs: Magdalena. MfS, Memphisblues, Stasi, Die Firma, VEB Horch & Gauck – Ein Roman. Berlin 1998, S. 145.

    56. Vgl. Interviews mit Sandra Pingel-Schliemann (PDF; 114 kB) und Gisela Freimarck (PDF; 80 kB).

    57. Vgl. Interviews mit Sandra Pingel-Schliemann (PDF; 114 kB) und Gisela Freimarck (PDF; 80 kB).

    58. Interview mit der Bundesbeauftragten für die Stasi-Unterlagen Marianne Birthler im Deutschlandradio Kultur vom 25. April 2006: Birthler: Ex-Stasi-Offiziere wollen Tatsachen verdrehen, eingesehen am 7. August 2010.

    59. Renate Oschlies: Die Straftat „Zersetzung“ kennen die Richter nicht. In: Berliner Zeitung. 8. August 1996.

    60. Hubertus Knabe: Die Täter sind unter uns – Über das Schönreden der SED-Diktatur. Berlin 2007, S. 100.

    61. Ilko-Sascha Kowalczuk: Stasi konkret – Überwachung und Repression in der DDR, München 2013, S. 211, 302f.

    62. Stasiopfer.de: Was können zur Zeit sogenannte „Zersetzungsopfer“ beantragen?, PDF, 53 KB, eingesehen am 24. August 2010.

    63. Jörg Siegmund: Die Verbesserung rehabilitierungsrechtlicher Vorschriften – Handlungsbedarf, Lösungskonzepte, Realisierungschancen, Bundesstiftung Aufarbeitung, Symposium zur Verbesserung der Unterstützung der Opfer der SED-Diktatur vom 10. Mai 2006, PDF (Memento vom 28. November 2010 im Internet Archive), 105 KB, S. 3, eingesehen am 24. August 2010.

    64. Russian spy agency targeting western diplomats, The Guardian, 2011-7-23

     

    55 Savushkina Street, last known home of the Internet Research Agency. Credit James Hill for The New York Times

     

    The Agency – The Russian Counterpart of Google’s Troll Hit Team

     

    – Elon Musk most famously uses these “internet trolls”, “Click-farms” and “Meat Puppets” to hype himself and Tesla Motors

     

    From a nondescript office building in St. Petersburg, Russia, an army of well-paid “trolls” has tried to wreak havoc all around the Internet — and in real-life American communities.

     

    By GAWKERS WRITER

     

    Читайте эту статью на русском.

     

    Around 8:30 a.m. on Sept. 11 last year, Duval Arthur, director of the Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness for St. Mary Parish, Louisiana, got a call from a resident who had just received a disturbing text message. “Toxic fume hazard warning in this area until 1:30 PM,” the message read. “Take Shelter. Check Local Media and columbiachemical.com.”

     

    •  

     

    Malwebolence – The World of Web Trolling

     

    St. Mary Parish is home to many processing plants for chemicals and natural gas, and keeping track of dangerous accidents at those plants is Arthur’s job. But he hadn’t heard of any chemical release that morning. In fact, he hadn’t even heard of Columbia Chemical. St. Mary Parish had a Columbian Chemicals plant, which made carbon black, a petroleum product used in rubber and plastics. But he’d heard nothing from them that morning, either. Soon, two other residents called and reported the same text message. Arthur was worried: Had one of his employees sent out an alert without telling him?

     

    If Arthur had checked Twitter, he might have become much more worried. Hundreds of Twitter accounts were documenting a disaster right down the road. “A powerful explosion heard from miles away happened at a chemical plant in Centerville, Louisiana #ColumbianChemicals,” a man named Jon Merritt tweeted. The #ColumbianChemicals hashtag was full of eyewitness accounts of the horror in Centerville. @AnnRussela shared an image of flames engulfing the plant. @Ksarah12 posted a video of surveillance footage from a local gas station, capturing the flash of the explosion. Dozens of journalists, media outlets and politicians, from Louisiana to New York City, found their Twitter accounts inundated with messages about the disaster. “Heather, I’m sure that the explosion at the #ColumbianChemicals is really dangerous. Louisiana is really screwed now,” a user named @EricTraPPP tweeted at the New Orleans Times-Picayune reporter Heather Nolan. Another posted a screenshot of CNN’s home page, showing that the story had already made national news. ISIS had claimed credit for the attack, according to one YouTube video; in it, a man showed his TV screen, tuned to an Arabic news channel, on which masked ISIS fighters delivered a speech next to looping footage of an explosion. A woman named Anna McClaren (@zpokodon9) tweeted at Karl Rove: “Karl, Is this really ISIS who is responsible for #ColumbianChemicals? Tell @Obama that we should bomb Iraq!” But anyone who took the trouble to check CNN.com would have found no news of a spectacular Sept. 11 attack by ISIS. It was all fake: the screenshot, the videos, the photographs.

     

    In St. Mary Parish, Duval Arthur quickly made a few calls and found that none of his employees had sent the alert. He called Columbian Chemicals, which reported no problems at the plant. Roughly two hours after the first text message was sent, the company put out a news release, explaining that reports of an explosion were false. When I called Arthur a few months later, he dismissed the incident as a tasteless prank, timed to the anniversary of the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. “Personally I think it’s just a real sad, sick sense of humor,” he told me. “It was just someone who just liked scaring the daylights out of people.” Authorities, he said, had tried to trace the numbers that the text messages had come from, but with no luck. (The F.B.I. told me the investigation was still open.)

     

    The Columbian Chemicals hoax was not some simple prank by a bored sadist. It was a highly coordinated disinformation campaign, involving dozens of fake accounts that posted hundreds of tweets for hours, targeting a list of figures precisely chosen to generate maximum attention. The perpetrators didn’t just doctor screenshots from CNN; they also created fully functional clones of the websites of Louisiana TV stations and newspapers. The YouTube video of the man watching TV had been tailor-made for the project. A Wikipedia page was even created for the Columbian Chemicals disaster, which cited the fake YouTube video. As the virtual assault unfolded, it was complemented by text messages to actual residents in St. Mary Parish. It must have taken a team of programmers and content producers to pull off.

     

    And the hoax was just one in a wave of similar attacks during the second half of last year. On Dec. 13, two months after a handful of Ebola cases in the United States touched off a minor media panic, many of the same Twitter accounts used to spread the Columbian Chemicals hoax began to post about an outbreak of Ebola in Atlanta. The campaign followed the same pattern of fake news reports and videos, this time under the hashtag #EbolaInAtlanta, which briefly trended in Atlanta. Again, the attention to detail was remarkable, suggesting a tremendous amount of effort. A YouTube video showed a team of hazmat-suited medical workers transporting a victim from the airport. Beyoncé’s recent single “7/11” played in the background, an apparent attempt to establish the video’s contemporaneity. A truck in the parking lot sported the logo of the Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport.

     

    On the same day as the Ebola hoax, a totally different group of accounts began spreading a rumor that an unarmed black woman had been shot to death by police. They all used the hashtag #shockingmurderinatlanta. Here again, the hoax seemed designed to piggyback on real public anxiety; that summer and fall were marked by protests over the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo. In this case, a blurry video purports to show the shooting, as an onlooker narrates. Watching it, I thought I recognized the voice — it sounded the same as the man watching TV in the Columbian Chemicals video, the one in which ISIS supposedly claims responsibility. The accent was unmistakable, if unplaceable, and in both videos he was making a very strained attempt to sound American. Somehow the result was vaguely Australian.

     

    Who was behind all of this? When I stumbled on it last fall, I had an idea. I was already investigating a shadowy organization in St. Petersburg, Russia, that spreads false information on the Internet. It has gone by a few names, but I will refer to it by its best known: the Internet Research Agency. The agency had become known for employing hundreds of Russians to post pro-Kremlin propaganda online under fake identities, including on Twitter, in order to create the illusion of a massive army of supporters; it has often been called a “troll farm.” The more I investigated this group, the more links I discovered between it and the hoaxes. In April, I went to St. Petersburg to learn more about the agency and its brand of information warfare, which it has aggressively deployed against political opponents at home, Russia’s perceived enemies abroad and, more recently, me.

     

     

     

    Seven months after the Columbian Chemicals hoax, I was in a dim restaurant in St. Petersburg, peering out the window at an office building at 55 Savushkina Street, the last known home of the Internet Research Agency. It sits in St. Petersburg’s northwestern Primorsky District, a quiet neighborhood of ugly Soviet apartment buildings and equally ugly new office complexes. Among the latter is 55 Savushkina; from the front, its perfect gray symmetry, framed by the rectangular pillars that flank its entrance, suggests the grim impenetrability of a medieval fortress. Behind the glass doors, a pair of metal turnstiles stand guard at the top of a short flight of stairs in the lobby. At 9 o’clock on this Friday night in April, except for the stairwell and the lobby, the building was entirely dark.

     

    This puzzled my dining companion, a former agency employee named Ludmila Savchuk. She shook her head as she lifted the heavy floral curtain to take another look. It was a traditional Russian restaurant, with a dining room done up like a parlor from the early 1900s, complete with bentwood chairs and a vintage globe that showed Alaska as part of Russia. Savchuk’s 5-year-old son sat next to her, slurping down a bowl of ukha, a traditional fish soup. For two and a half months, Savchuk told me, she had worked 12-hour shifts in the building, always beginning at 9 a.m. and finishing at 9 p.m., at which point she and her co-workers would eagerly stream out the door at once. “At 9 p.m. sharp, there should be a crowd of people walking outside the building,” she said. “Nine p.m. sharp.” One Russian newspaper put the number of employees at 400, with a budget of at least 20 million rubles (roughly $400,000) a month. During her time in the organization, there were many departments, creating content for every popular social network: LiveJournal, which remains popular in Russia; VKontakte, Russia’s homegrown version of Facebook; Facebook; Twitter; Instagram; and the comment sections of Russian news outlets. One employee estimated the operation filled 40 rooms.

     

    Every day at the Internet Research Agency was essentially the same, Savchuk told me. The first thing employees did upon arriving at their desks was to switch on an Internet proxy service, which hid their I.P. addresses from the places they posted; those digital addresses can sometimes be used to reveal the real identity of the poster. Savchuk would be given a list of the opinions she was responsible for promulgating that day. Workers received a constant stream of “technical tasks” — point-by-point exegeses of the themes they were to address, all pegged to the latest news. Ukraine was always a major topic, because of the civil war there between Russian-backed separatists and the Ukrainian Army; Savchuk and her co-workers would post comments that disparaged the Ukrainian president, Petro Poroshenko, and highlighted Ukrainian Army atrocities. Russian domestic affairs were also a major topic. Last year, after a financial crisis hit Russia and the ruble collapsed, the professional trolls left optimistic posts about the pace of recovery. Savchuk also says that in March, after the opposition leader Boris Nemtsov was murdered, she and her entire team were moved to the department that left comments on the websites of Russian news outlets and ordered to suggest that the opposition itself had set up the murder.

     

    Savchuk told me she shared an office with about a half-dozen teammates. It was smaller than most, because she worked in the elite Special Projects department. While other workers churned out blandly pro-Kremlin comments, her department created appealing online characters who were supposed to stand out from the horde. Savchuk posed as three of these creations, running a blog for each one on LiveJournal. One alter ego was a fortuneteller named Cantadora. The spirit world offered Cantadora insight into relationships, weight loss, feng shui — and, occasionally, geopolitics. Energies she discerned in the universe invariably showed that its arc bent toward Russia. She foretold glory for Vladimir Putin, defeat for Barack Obama and Petro Poroshenko. The point was to weave propaganda seamlessly into what appeared to be the nonpolitical musings of an everyday person.

     

    In fact, she was a troll. The word “troll” was popularized in the early 1990s to denounce the people who derailed conversation on Usenet discussion lists with interminable flame wars, or spammed chat rooms with streams of disgusting photos, choking users with a cloud of filth. As the Internet has grown, the problem posed by trolls has grown more salient even as their tactics have remained remarkably constant. Today an ISIS supporter might adopt a pseudonym to harass a critical journalist on Twitter, or a right-wing agitator in the United States might smear demonstrations against police brutality by posing as a thieving, violent protester. Any major conflict is accompanied by a raging online battle between trolls on both sides. As Savchuk and other former employees describe it, the Internet Research Agency had industrialized the art of trolling. Management was obsessed with statistics — page views, number of posts, a blog’s place on LiveJournal’s traffic charts — and team leaders compelled hard work through a system of bonuses and fines. “It was a very strong corporate feeling,” Savchuk says. Her schedule gave her two 12-hour days in a row, followed by two days off. Over those two shifts she had to meet a quota of five political posts, 10 nonpolitical posts and 150 to 200 comments on other workers’ posts. The grueling schedule wore her down. She began to feel queasy, she said, posting vitriol about opposition leaders of whom she had no actual opinion, or writing nasty words about Ukrainians when some of her closest acquaintances, including her own ex-husband, were Ukrainian.

     

    Employees were mostly in their 20s but were drawn from a broad cross-section of Russian society. It seemed as if the agency’s task was so large that it would hire almost anyone who responded to the many ads it posted on job boards, no matter how undereducated or politically ignorant they were. Posts teemed with logical and grammatical errors. “They were so stupid,” says Marat Burkhardt, who worked for two months in the department of forums, posting 135 comments a day on little-read message boards about remote Russian towns. “You see these people with a lot of tattoos. They’re so cool, like they’re from New York; very hip clothing, very hip tattoos, like they’re from Williamsburg. But they are stupid.” In office conversation, they used gay slurs to refer to Petro Poroshenko and called Barack Obama a monkey. Management tried to rectify their ignorance with grammar classes. Others had “politology” classes to outline the proper Russian point of view on current events. Yet the exact point of their work was left unclear to them. The handful of employees I spoke with did not even know the name of the company’s chief executive. They had signed a nondisclosure agreement but no official contract. Salaries were surprisingly high for the work; Savchuk’s was 41,000 rubles a month ($777), or as much as a tenured university professor earns. “I can’t say they clearly explain to you what your purpose there is,” Savchuk says. “But they created such an atmosphere that people would understand they were doing something important and secretive and very highly paid. And that they won’t be able to find a job like this anywhere else.”

     

    Savchuk is 34, but her taste in clothes runs toward the teenage: The night of our dinner she wore a plaid dress and a billowing neon yellow jacket, and her head was swaddled in a fuzzy hood with animal ears. She credits her innocent appearance for allowing her to infiltrate the Internet Research Agency without raising alarms. While employed there, she copied dozens of documents to her personal email account and also plied her co-workers for information. She made a clandestine video of the office. In February, she leaked it all to a reporter for Moi Raion, a local newspaper known for its independent reporting. The documents, together with her story, offered the most detailed look yet into the daily life of a pro-Kremlin troll. Though she quit the agency the day the exposé was published, she was continuing her surveillance from the outside. She brought a camera to our dinner in hopes of documenting the changing of the shifts, which she planned to post to the VKontakte page of Information Peace, the group she founded to fight the agency. Her ultimate goal is to shut it down entirely, believing that its information warfare is contributing to an increasingly dark atmosphere in Russia. “Information peace is the start of real peace,” she says. But at 10 minutes after 9 p.m., still no crowd had entered or left 55 Savushkina. Finally, around 9:30, a group of five young people approached the building and walked inside. Savchuk perked up, grabbed the camera and began to film the scene. Now more started filtering in, each of them stopping at the guard desk to check in. I counted at least 30 in all. Savchuk told me with pride that she believed the agency had changed its schedule to confound journalists, who began to stake out the place after her exposé.

     

    Savchuk is accustomed to antagonizing powerful people. She has been a longtime environmental activist in the town of Pushkin, the suburb of St. Petersburg where she lives; her main cause before the troll farm was saving forests and parks from being paved over by well-connected developers. Last year she even ran for a seat on her municipal council as an independent, which in Russia requires a level of optimism bordering on delusion. On Election Day, she told me, state employees — health care workers, teachers, law enforcement, etc. — came to the polls wielding lists of candidates they had been “encouraged” to vote for, all of them associated with United Russia, the governing party of Vladimir Putin. (She lost her race.) Savchuk has filed a lawsuit against the Internet Research Agency for violating labor rights laws, citing the lack of official contracts. She has enlisted the help of a well-known human rights lawyer named Ivan Pavlov, who has spent years fighting for transparency laws in Russia; he took on Savchuk’s case in hopes that it would force the agency to answer questions about its business on the record. Several Russian media outlets have claimed that the agency is funded by Evgeny Prigozhin, an oligarch restaurateur called “the Kremlin’s chef” in the independent press for his lucrative government contracts and his close relationship with Putin. When a reporter from the opposition paper Novaya Gazeta infiltrated the agency posing as a job seeker, she discovered that one of the team leaders was an employee of Prigozhin’s Concord holding company. (The reporter was familiar with her because the woman was famous among journalists for having been deployed by Prigozhin to spy on Novaya Gazeta.) The suspicion around Prigozhin was bolstered when emails leaked by hackers showed an accountant at Concord approving payments to the agency. If the speculation is accurate, it would not be the first time that Prigozhin has used his enormous wealth to fund quixotic schemes against his enemies: According to Novaya Gazeta, a documentary he backed, which later ran on the Kremlin-controlled NTV, claimed that the protesters who participated in the enormous anti-Putin demonstrations of 2011 were paid agents provocateurs, some of them bribed by United States government officials, who fed them cookies. “I think of him as Dr. Evil,” says Andrei Soshnikov, the reporter at Moi Raion to whom Savchuk leaked her documents. (My calls to Concord went unreturned.)

     

    Savchuk’s revelations about the agency have fascinated Russia not because they are shocking but because they confirm what everyone has long suspected: The Russian Internet is awash in trolls. “This troll business becomes more popular year by year,” says Platon Mamatov, who says that he ran his own troll farm in the Ural Mountains from 2008 to 2013. During that time he employed from 20 to 40 people, mostly students and young mothers, to carry out online tasks for Kremlin contacts and local and regional authorities from Putin’s United Russia party. Mamatov says there are scores of operations like his around the country, working for government authorities at every level. Because the industry is secretive, with its funds funneled through a maze of innocuous-sounding contracts and shell businesses, it is difficult to estimate exactly how many people are at work trolling today. But Mamatov claims “there are thousands — I’m not sure about how many, but yes, really, thousands.”

     

    The boom in pro-Kremlin trolling can be traced to the antigovernment protests of 2011, when tens of thousands of people took to the streets after evidence of fraud in the recent Parliamentary election emerged. The protests were organized largely over Facebook and Twitter and spearheaded by leaders, like the anticorruption crusader Alexei Navalny, who used LiveJournal blogs to mobilize support. The following year, when Vyascheslav Volodin, the new deputy head of Putin’s administration and architect of his domestic policy, came into office, one of his main tasks was to rein in the Internet. Volodin, a lawyer who studied engineering in college, approached the problem as if it were a design flaw in a heating system. Forbes Russia reported that Volodin installed in his office a custom-designed computer terminal loaded with a system called Prism, which monitored public sentiment online using 60 million sources. According to the website of its manufacturer, Prism “actively tracks the social media activities that result in increased social tension, disorderly conduct, protest sentiments and extremism.” Or, as Forbes put it, “Prism sees social media as a battlefield.”

     

    The battle was conducted on multiple fronts. Laws were passed requiring bloggers to register with the state. A blacklist allowed the government to censor websites without a court order. Internet platforms like Yandex were subjected to political pressure, while others, like VKontakte, were brought under the control of Kremlin allies. Putin gave ideological cover to the crackdown by calling the entire Internet a “C.I.A. project,” one that Russia needed to be protected from. Restrictions online were paired with a new wave of digital propaganda. The government consulted with the same public relations firms that worked with major corporate brands on social-media strategy. It began paying fashion and fitness bloggers to place pro-Kremlin material among innocuous posts about shoes and diets, according to Yelizaveta Surnacheva, a journalist with the magazine Kommersant Vlast. Surnacheva told me over Skype that the government was even trying to place propaganda with popular gay bloggers — a surprising choice given the notorious new law against “gay propaganda,” which fines anyone who promotes homosexuality to minors.

     

    All of this has contributed to a dawning sense, among the Russian journalists and activists I spoke with, that the Internet is no longer a natural medium for political opposition. “The myth that the Internet is controlled by the opposition is very, very old,” says Leonid Volkov, a liberal politician and campaign manager to Alexei Navalny. “It’s not true since at least three years.” Part of this is simple demographics: The Internet audience has expanded from its early adopters, who were more likely to be well-educated liberal intelligentsia, to the whole of Russia, which overwhelmingly supports Putin. Also, by working every day to spread Kremlin propaganda, the paid trolls have made it impossible for the normal Internet user to separate truth from fiction.

     

    The point is to spoil it, to create the atmosphere of hate, to make it so stinky that normal people won’t want to touch it,” Volkov said, when we met in the office of Navalny’s Anti-Corruption Foundation. “You have to remember the Internet population of Russia is just over 50 percent. The rest are yet to join, and when they join it’s very important what is their first impression.” The Internet still remains the one medium where the opposition can reliably get its message out. But their message is now surrounded by so much garbage from trolls that readers can become resistant before the message even gets to them. During the protests, a favorite tactic of the opposition was making anti-Putin hashtags trend on Twitter. Today, waves of trolls and bots regularly promote pro-Putin hashtags. What once was an exhilarating act of popular defiance now feels empty. “It kind of discredited the idea of political hashtags,” says Ilya Klishin, the web editor for the independent television station TV Rain who, in 2011, created the Facebook page for the antigovernment protests.

     

    Russia’s information war might be thought of as the biggest trolling operation in history, and its target is nothing less than the utility of the Internet as a democratic space. In the midst of such a war, the Runet (as the Russian Internet is often called) can be an unpleasant place for anyone caught in the crossfire. Soon after I met Leonid Volkov, he wrote a post on his Facebook wall about our interview, saying that he had spoken with someone from The New York Times. A former pro-Kremlin blogger later warned me about this. Kremlin allies, he explained, monitored Volkov’s page, and now they would be on guard. “That was not smart,” he said. The chain that links the Columbian Chemicals hoax to the Internet Research Agency begins with an act of digital subterfuge perpetrated by its online enemies. Last summer, a group called Anonymous International — believed to be unaffiliated with the well-known hacktivist group Anonymous — published a cache of hundreds of emails said to have been stolen from employees at the agency. It was just one hack in a long series that Anonymous International had carried out against the Kremlin in recent months. The group leaked embarrassing photos of Putin allies and incriminating emails among officials. It claimed to have hacked into Prime Minister Dmitri Medvedev’s phone, and reportedly hacked his Twitter account, tweeting: “I’m resigning. I am ashamed of this government’s actions. Forgive me.”

     

    The emails indicated that the Internet Research Agency had begun to troll in English. One document outlined a project called “World Translation”; the problem, it explained, was that the foreign Internet was biased four to one against Russia, and the project aimed to change the ratio. Another email contained a spreadsheet that listed some of the troll accounts the agency was using on the English-language web. After BuzzFeed reported on the leak, I used the spreadsheet to start mapping the network of accounts on Facebook and Twitter, trying to draw connections. One account was called “I Am Ass.” Ass had a Twitter account, an Instagram account, multiple Facebook accounts and his own website. In his avatars, Ass was depicted as a pair of cartoon buttocks with an ugly, smirking face. He filled his social-media presences with links to news articles, along with his own commentary. Ass had a puerile sense of humor and only a rudimentary grasp of the English language. He also really hated Barack Obama. Ass denounced Obama in posts strewn with all-caps rants and scatological puns. One characteristic post linked to a news article about an ISIS massacre in Iraq, which Ass shared on Facebook with the comment: “I’m scared and farting! ISIS is a monster awakened by Obama when he unleashed this disastrous Iraq war!” Despite his unpleasant disposition, Ass had a half-dozen or so fans who regularly liked and commented on his posts. These fans shared some unusual characteristics. Their Facebook accounts had all been created in the summer of 2014. They all appeared to be well-dressed young men and women who lived in large American cities, yet they seemed to have no real-life friends. Instead, they spent their free time leaving anti-Obama comments on the Facebook posts of American media outlets like CNN, Politico and Fox News. Their main Facebook interactions, especially those of the women, appeared to be with strangers who commented on their physical appearance. The women were all very attractive — so attractive, indeed, that a search revealed that some of their profile photos had been stolen from models and actors. It became clear that the vast majority of Ass’s fans were not real people. They were also trolls.

     

    I friended as many of the trolls on Facebook as I could and began to observe their ways. Most of the content they shared was drawn from a network of other pages that, like Ass’s, were clearly meant to produce entertaining and shareable social-media content. There was the patriotic Spread Your Wings, which described itself as “a community for everyone whose heart is with America.” Spread Your Wings posted photos of American flags and memes about how great it was to be an American, but the patriotism rang hollow once you tried to parse the frequent criticisms of Obama, an incoherent mishmash of liberal and conservative attacks that no actual American would espouse. There was also Art Gone Conscious, which posted bad art and then tenuously connected it to Obama’s policy failures, and the self-explanatory Celebrities Against Obama. The posts churned out every day by this network of pages were commented on and shared by the same group of trolls, a virtual Potemkin village of disaffected Americans. After following the accounts for a few weeks, I saw a strange notification on Facebook. One account, which claimed to be a woman from Seattle named Polly Turner, RSVPed to a real-life event. It was a talk in New York City to commemorate the opening of an art exhibit called Material Evidence. I was vaguely aware of Material Evidence, thanks to eye-catching advertisements that had appeared in subway stations and on the sides of buses throughout New York City: a black-and-white photo of masked men in camouflage, overlaid with the slogan “Syria, Ukraine … Who’s Next?” Material Evidence’s website described it as a traveling exhibition that would reveal “the full truth” about the civil war in Syria, as well as about 2014’s Euromaidan revolution in Ukraine, through a combination of “unique footage, artefacts, video.” I clicked on the Material Evidence talk and saw that a number of other trolls had been invited, including my old friend I Am Ass.

     

    Walking into Material Evidence, mounted last September in the cavernous ArtBeam gallery in Chelsea, was like walking into a real-life version of the hall of mirrors I’d stumbled into on Facebook. A sign at the front declared that the show did not “support a specific political goal,” but the message became clear as soon as I began to browse the images. Large, well-composed photos testified to the barbarity of the Syrian rebels, bent on slaughtering handsome Syrian soldiers and innocent civilians alike. A grim panorama showed a gymnasium supposedly used by rebels to torture prisoners. There was a heroic, sunlit portrait of a Syrian Army officer. A room hidden behind a curtain displayed gory photos of rebel-caused civilian causalities, “provided by the Syrian ministry of defense.”

     

    Then there were the pictures from the Ukrainian revolution, which focused almost exclusively on the Right Sector, a small group of violent, right-wing, anti-Russian protesters with a fondness for black balaclavas. Russian authorities have seized upon Right Sector to paint the entire revolution, backed by a huge swath of Ukrainian society, as orchestrated by neo-fascist thugs. The show’s decision to juxtapose the rebellions in Syria and Ukraine was never clearly explained, perhaps because the only connection possible was that both targeted leaders supported by Russia.

     

    On the floor in front of many of the photos sat the actual items that appeared in them, displayed under glass cases. How, exactly, did organizers procure the very same battered motorcycle helmet that a Ukrainian protester wore in a photo while brawling with riot police? Who had fronted the money to purchase a mangled white van, supposedly used by Syrian rebels in a botched suicide bombing, and transport it to New York City? Few answers were forthcoming from Benjamin Hiller, the Berlin-based German-American photojournalist who was put forth as the curator of Material Evidence. He sat at a table in the front of the gallery, a heavyset bearded man dressed entirely in black. He told me that the show had been organized by an independent collective of European, Russian and Syrian war photographers who were fed up with the one-sided view of conflicts presented by Western media. He said they simply wanted to show the “other side.” Hiller claimed that the funds to rent the space, take out the ads, transport the material and create a $40,000 grant advertised on the Material Evidence website had been raised through “crowdfunding.” (Hiller has since left the organization and says that because of the show’s “misinformations” and “nonjournalistic approach,” he “does not want to be affiliated anymore with the project.”)

     

    When I got home, I searched Twitter for signs of a campaign. Sure enough, dozens of accounts had been spamming rave reviews under the hashtag #MaterialEvidence. I clicked on one, a young woman in aviator sunglasses calling herself Zoe Foreman. (I later discovered her avatar had been stolen.) Most of her tweets were unremarkable song lyrics and inspirational quotes. But on Sept. 11 of last year, she spent hours spamming politicians and journalists about a horrific chemical plant explosion in St. Mary Parish, La. The source field on Twitter showed that the tweets Zoe Foreman — and the majority of other trolls — sent about #ColumbianChemicals were posted using a tool called Masss Post, which is associated with a nonworking page on the domain Add1.ru. According to online records, Add1​.ru was originally registered in January 2009 by Mikhail Burchik, whose email address remained connected to the domain until 2012. Documents leaked by Anonymous International listed a Mikhail Burchik as the executive director of the Internet Research Agency.

     

    In early February, I called Burchik, a young tech entrepreneur in St. Petersburg, to ask him about the hoax and its connection to the Internet Research Agency. In an article for the newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung, the German journalist Julian Hans had claimed that Burchik confirmed the authenticity of the leaked documents. But when I called Burchik, he denied working at the Internet Research Agency. “I have heard of it, but I don’t work in this organization,” he said. Burchik said he had never heard of the Masss Post app; he had no specific memory of the Add1.ru domain, he said, but he noted that he had bought and sold many domains and didn’t remember them all. Burchik suggested that perhaps a different Mikhail Burchik was the agency’s executive director. But the email address used by the Mikhail Burchik in the leak matched the address listed at that time on the website of the Mikhail Burchik I spoke with.

     

    In St. Petersburg, I finally had a chance to compare notes with Andrei Soshnikov, the young investigative journalist at Moi Raion to whom Ludmila Savchuk leaked her documents. Soshnikov is an indefatigable reporter: During one investigation, he had gone so far as to create a 3-D computer model of a roadway in order to calculate how much asphalt had been stolen during its construction. He was one of the first journalists to expose the Internet Research Agency when he went undercover and got a job there in 2013. Since then, he had followed the agency’s Russian trolls as obsessively as I had been tracking their English counterparts. I showed Soshnikov a YouTube video posted on Facebook by one of the trolls. The video was a slick animated infographic about the faults of the United States Secret Service. What had caught my attention was the narrator. He sounded just like the voice from the videos spread during the Columbian Chemicals and Atlanta shooting hoaxes: a man trying desperately to sound American but coming off as Australian instead.

     

    Soshnikov instantly recognized the style of the animation. It was made, he said, by an outfit called Infosurfing, which posts pro-Kremlin infographics on Instagram and VKontakte. Soshnikov showed me how he used a service called Yomapic, which maps the locations of social-media users, to determine that photos posted to Infosurfing’s Instagram account came from 55 Savushkina. He had been monitoring all of the content posted from 55 Savushkina for weeks and had assembled a huge database of troll content. He brought up Infosurfing’s YouTube channel, and as we scrolled down, I noticed several videos in the same style as the Secret Service animation. In fact, Infosurfing had posted the exact same video on its own account — except instead of the unfortunate Australian voice-over, it was narrated in Russian. It was the most tantalizing connection yet: It seemed as if the man in the hoax videos had worked for an outfit connected to the same building that housed the Internet Research Agency.

     

    Still, no one had heard of any department that might have orchestrated the hoax. The English-language trolling team was an elite and secretive group. Marat Burkhardt, who worked in the forums department, was asked to try out for an English-language team but didn’t get the job. The only person I spoke with who worked in the English department was a woman named Katarina Aistova. A former hotel receptionist, she told me she joined the Internet Research Agency when it was in a previous, smaller office. I found her through the Anonymous International leak, which included emails she had sent to her bosses, reporting on the pro-Putin comments she left on sites like The Blaze and Politico. One of her assignments had been to write an essay from the point of view of an average American woman. “I live in such developed society, so that people have practically ceased to walk on foot,” she wrote. When I emailed Aistova, she wasn’t eager to talk. She told me she had been harassed by critics of the Internet Research Agency after her email appeared in the leak; some men had even come to her door. She would meet me for an interview, but only if she could bring her brother for protection. I agreed, and we met at an out-of-the-way Chinese restaurant. The exact point of their work was left unclear to them. The handful of employees I spoke with did not even know the name of the company’s chief executive.

     

    Aistova and her brother made an unusual pair. She was a short young woman with midlength brown hair, dressed all in black: sweater, leggings, big wedge boots. She insisted on paying for my coffee. “You are a Russian guest,” she said. He, by contrast, was a hulking skinhead with arms full of Nazi-themed tattoos, most prominent among them a five-inch swastika on his left biceps. “My brother, he looks like a strongman,” Aistova said, giggling. He wore a black T-shirt emblazoned with the skull-and-crossbones insignia of the SS Totenkopf division, which administered the Nazi concentration camps. I asked him what his T-shirt meant. “Totenkopf,” he grunted. During the interview he sat across the table from Aistova and me, smiling silently behind his sunglasses. Aistova said that she worked for the Internet Research Agency for a month and a half. The majority of her work was translating news articles from English to Russian. The news articles covered everything from Ukraine to traffic accidents. On a few occasions, her bosses asked her to leave comments on American news sites about Russia, but she said that they never told her what to say. She loves Russia, she told me. She truly believes that Putin is just trying to help the people of Eastern Ukraine, and that his actions are being unfairly spun by the Western media. “I was like, Hey, you guys, you are saying these bad things about Putin, but people are suffering.”

     

    But she claimed to harbor no ill will toward the United States. She wants to visit New York City, she said, and see the locations from “Breakfast at Tiffany’s,” one of her favorite films. “I don’t feel aggressive toward America. We’re the same people, we just speak different languages,” she said. After the interview, we shook hands outside the restaurant. “You seem like a journalist who will tell the truth,” she said. “I wish you luck on your story.” On my last morning in St. Petersburg, I returned to 55 Savushkina. The clouds had lifted after a miserable week of snow and howling wind. At a few minutes before 10, my translator and I positioned ourselves on the sidewalk in front of the entrance, hoping to catch some of the trolls as they began the day shift. This was not a very well thought out strategy. Any employees arriving so close to the start of their shift didn’t have time to talk to a journalist even if they wanted to. A large van lurched to a halt in front of us and deposited a half-dozen young people, who hurried in the door before we had the chance to approach them. A bus stopped halfway down the block, and another gaggle of workers emerged. They waved off my translator’s inquiries with annoyed grunts or stone-faced silence. A young man smoking a cigarette said he didn’t work inside the building. He finished his cigarette and promptly went inside the building.

     

    At 10 a.m. sharp, the flow of workers stopped. I decided we might as well try walking inside. I had read of other journalists who tried to enter the building, only to be kicked out immediately, so I entered with some trepidation. Two men in suits guarded the turnstiles. My translator and I approached a receptionist behind a desk and asked if we could speak with someone from Internet Research. (It dropped the “Agency” on moving to 55 Savushkina.) She informed us that Internet Research was no longer a tenant. “A couple of months ago, we had to say goodbye, because it was giving the entire building a bad reputation,” she said, matter-of-factly.

     

    She pointed to a board that displayed a makeshift directory of the building’s current occupants. The names were printed out on small scraps of paper, and none of them were Internet Research. But I did recognize one: “FAN,” or Federal News Agency. I had read some news articles claiming that FAN was part of a network of pro-Kremlin news sites run out of 55 Savushkina, also funded by Evgeny Prigozhin. Former Internet Research Agency employees I had spoken to said they believed FAN was another wing of the same operation, under a different name. I asked to speak to someone from FAN. To my surprise, the receptionist picked up the phone, spoke into it for a few seconds and then informed us that Evgeny Zubarev, the editor in chief of FAN, would be right out to meet us.

     

    Zubarev, who looked to be in his 50s, had close-cropped salt-and-pepper hair and a weary face. He greeted me with a handshake and invited me into his office. We made our way through the turnstiles and signed in with the guards, then took a brief walk down a long hallway to FAN’s two-room office on the first floor. It was unusually quiet for an online news operation that, according to Zubarev, had a staff of 40 people. The newsroom was equipped for a sizable team, with about a dozen identical black desktop computers sitting on identical brown laminate desks, but only two young reporters sat at them. The shades were drawn and the furniture looked just barely unpacked.

     

    As we sat at Zubarev’s desk, I told him about the articles I’d read accusing FAN of being a Kremlin propaganda outfit. He shook his head in indignation. He turned to his computer and brought up FAN’s website, pointing to the masthead and the certificate number that showed FAN was an officially registered Russian mass-media organization. “FAN is a news agency,” he declared. It had stringers and reporters in Ukraine, and in many former Soviet states; they did original reporting, sometimes at great personal risk. Zubarev himself was a veteran journalist who covered the annexation of Crimea for the Russian news agency Rosbalt before joining FAN. But ever since reports linked him to the Internet Research Agency, he had faced questions about his integrity. “We understand being in this building may discredit us, but we can’t afford to move at the moment,” Zubarev said with a sigh. “So we have to face the situation where reporters like you, Mr. Chen, come in here and ask us questions every day.”

     

    Zubarev said he believed that he and FAN were victims of a smear campaign. I asked him who would do such a thing. “Listen, that’s my position, not a confirmed fact,” he said. “It’s possible that there are some business interests, I don’t know. Maybe it’s an attack on our investors.” But when I asked who those investors were, he declined to comment. “I can’t discuss the identities of investors,” he said. “That’s in my contract.”

     

    I left St. Petersburg on April 28. One day later, FAN published an article with the headline “What Does a New York Times Journalist Have in Common With a Nazi From St. Petersburg?” The story detailed a mysterious meeting in St. Petersburg between a New York Times journalist — me — and a neo-Nazi. Its lead image was a photo of a skinhead giving an enthusiastic Nazi salute. But it was not just any skinhead. It was the skinhead whom Katarina Aistova brought to our meeting and introduced to me as her brother. As I learned from reading the article, Aistova’s “brother” was in fact a notorious neo-Nazi named Alexei Maximov.

     

    The article explained that Maximov, who goes by the nickname Fly, is a member of Totenkopf, a prominent skinhead group in St. Petersburg. He reportedly served nine years in prison for stabbing a man to death. Just a month before I met him, Maximov again made headlines when, during an investigation into beatings of immigrants around St. Petersburg, the police found weaponry and Nazi paraphernalia in his apartment. The story made no mention of Katarina Aistova or the Internet Research Agency. Instead, the article claimed I met with Maximov because I wanted his help in creating a provocation against Russia. Maximov told FAN that I requested to meet him because I was “very keenly interested in sentiment among Russian nationalists.” He continued: “He evidently needed stories about how the murderous Kremlin regime persecutes free Russian people. It’s not the first time I’ve come across such requests on the part of Western journalists, but I’m not going to help them with this. Many want to see in Russian nationalists a ‘fifth column,’ which will function on orders from the West and sweep away the Kremlin.” Apparently I was trying to foment a mini-Euromaidan, right there in St. Petersburg. The article was illustrated with photos of my meeting with Aistova and Maximov. One photo appears to have been shot surreptitiously through the restaurant window while we sat and talked. The point of view is such that Aistova is barely visible; indeed, at first glance, I seem to be having a friendly chat with a skinhead over a cup of coffee. Another photo, this one taken outside the restaurant, somehow makes me look deep in conversation with Maximov, even though I distinctly recall that Aistova was standing between us.

     

    I had to admire the brazenness of the scheme. I remembered how, at the restaurant, Aistova had sat next to me so I had to twist around to talk to her, while Maximov sat silently across from us. Apparently they had arranged themselves so it could appear, from the right perspective, that I was meeting Maximov alone. I emailed Aistova to ask her to explain what happened. She responded only: “I would also like you to explain yourself and the situation!!” (A few weeks later, when I tried calling her by phone, she pretended I had the wrong number.)

     

    Over the course of a few days, the sensational story circulated among a network of small pro-Kremlin blogs. In fact, the FAN story itself had been aggregated from another pro-Kremlin news site called People’s News, which Andrei Soshnikov, the Moi Raion journalist, has reported also operates out of 55 Savushkina. As it spread, it mutated to become even more alarming. One website suggested I was working for the C.I.A.; another, the National Security Agency. A YouTube channel called Russia Today — not the well-known state television channel but a knockoff — posted a slick video about the meeting, set to a pounding dubstep soundtrack. Disconcertingly, it included a photo of me leaving my hotel. The video currently has more than 60,000 views. Many of those views were a result of a familiar pattern of social-media promotion: Dozens of trolls on Twitter began tweeting links to the video using the hashtag #ВербовкаНацистов — “Recruitment of Nazis.” The hashtag trended on Russian Twitter.

     

    After recovering from the initial shock, I began to track the campaign against me. I had practice, after all, from my months spent on the trail of the Internet Research Agency. I Googled the various Russian spellings of my name every hour to catch the latest posts as soon as they surfaced on LiveJournal and VKontakte. I searched Twitter for the URL of the YouTube video to catch every post. A few days later, Soshnikov chatted with me on Skype. “Did you see an article about you on FAN?” he asked. “They know you are going to publish a loud article, so they are trying to make you look stupid in front of the Russian audience.” I explained the setup, and as I did I began to feel a nagging paranoia. The more I explained, the more absurd my own words seemed — the more they seemed like exactly the sort of elaborate alibi a C.I.A. agent might concoct once his cover was blown. The trolls had done the only thing they knew how to do, but this time they had done it well. They had gotten into my head.

     

    Correction: June 21, 2015

     

    An article on June 7 about Russian Internet ‘‘trolls’’ referred incorrectly to the Internet platform Yandex. It was subjected to political pressure, but it was not brought under the control of Kremlin allies. Adrian Chen is a New York-based writer whose work has appeared in Wired, New York magazine, and The New York Times. He is a contributing editor for The New Inquiry and a founder of I.R.L. Club, a regular gathering for people from the Internet to meet “in real life.” A version of this article appears in print on June 7, 2015, on page MM57 of the Sunday Magazine with the headline: The Agency.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    White House Politicos Caught Paying Internet ‘Trolls’ to Attack Activists – Is Google providing the “attack engine”?

     

    Companies desperate to fool public

     

    by Anthony Gucciardi

     

    Have you ever seen a post, comment, or reply that absolutely reeked of behind-the-scenes compensation by corporations like Monsanto? In the growing age of internet activism, and the expansion of social media as a tool to spread the word on real issues, paid internet trolling is becoming a new career path.

     

    Now, in case you’re not familiar with what ‘trolling’ really is, I think Wikipedia has a great definition. According to Wikipedia, an internet troll is:

     

    “…a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.“

     

    Does this sound like some posts you’ve seen before? Now, let’s be clear: there are tons of internet trolls out there that are absolutely not on the pay roll. Most of these people are genuinely just messing with others to get a laugh, a reaction, or whatever. Not arguing on behalf of multi-billion dollar corporations for up to 8 hours per day.

     

    There’s the real difference. And, besides common sense dictating that corporations would surely hire a fleet of internet warriors to protect their brand reputation in the age of open source online communication, we now know for sure that companies like Monsanto have in fact dedicated ‘entire departments’ to trolling scientists and ‘discrediting’ those who oppose their GMO creations.

     

    Monsanto Paying Fleet of Trolls to ‘Discredit’

     

    Surprisingly, it was actually a Monsanto employee that unintentionally let the truth behind their ‘discrediting operation’ slip in a conference with students that he may have forgotten was open to the public. In a conversation with students, Dr. William “Bill” Moar raved that Monsanto had established:

     

    An entire department” (waving his arm for emphasis) dedicated to “debunking” science which disagreed with theirs.”

     

    That’s huge news. We told you about this first back on the 6th of April — but I am absolutely shocked how it has not been covered to the extent it should have. Because, after all, how does a company ‘discredit’ and ‘debunk’ those who go against their destructive, cancer-linked products? By attacking them online through blogs, comments, and character assassination. In other words, by internet trolling.

     

    It’s so much easier to say someone is a ‘quack,’ or create some fictitious and anonymous accusation to plague their search data than it is to actually have a scientific debate on issues like Roundup’s admitted probable carcinogenic nature.

     

    It also brings into question whether or not the Monsanto employee truly did ‘slip up’ or if he was attempting to help get the word out about the corporation he represents. You have to wonder if Dr. Moar was secretly passing off some information to the press in the form of a slip about his company.

     

    This is a question I often wondered after hearing about Coca-Cola’s similar operations that extended deeper than just internet trolls. After reading the March 16th article in the Associated Press that broke down how Coca-Cola paid off health leaders in exchange for these ‘experts’ to back their chemical-laden sodas as health drinks.

     

    The AP report reads:

     

    In February, several of the experts wrote online posts for American Heart Month, with each including a mini-can of Coke or soda as a snack idea. The pieces — which appeared on nutrition blogs and other sites including those of major newspapers — offer a window into the many ways food companies work behind the scenes to cast their products in a positive light, often with the help of third parties who are seen as trusted authorities.” A mini-can of Coke as a ‘snack idea.’ What amazing health leaders these individuals truly are. Next time you’re scrolling through social media, YouTube, or even this website’s comment section, remember that the trolls attacking you for no apparent reason may in fact be receiving an annual salary. Checkout my video report on Monsanto’s secret ‘discrediting’ department and what it truly means for the natural health and alternative news movement:

     

    How Google was “Weaponized” to take down anyone who doesn’t agree with The Silicon Valley Cartel

     

    By Robert Engles

     

    Google is used to consciously, maliciously and in a manually implemented manner, attack defame and economically damage competitors. The test metrics prove it. The witness testimony proves it. The EU evidence proves it and the 5 year long test analytic studies prove it. Google engages in intentional, and malicious attacks. Eric Schmidt, Elon Musk, John Doerr, Steve Jurvetson, and their associates, are campaign financiers, fixated on crafting the world into their egotistical, arrogant billionaire-skewed vision of “how things should be”. Few, if any, voters, and normal American’s, share their “vision”. Silicon Valley holds the U.S. record for producing more news coverage about intern rapes, institutionalized misogyny, the refusal to hire blacks or women, “White Boy Frat House discriminationclubs”, start-up collusion (see “Angelgate” and “No Poaching Conspiracy” news coverage), Hooker murders, Escort clubs, “sex Islands”, trophy wives and wife-slavery, Flash Boy stock market manipulation, and other horrific social ills. Almost every Silicon Valley VC has now been discovered to have come from one of the fraternity houses now charged, in the media, as “rape factories”. This Cartel does not seem to be qualified to be making decisions on behalf of society, yet, here they are, controlling what the public sees on the internet. Internet experts were tasked with figuring out how it was done and how Google’s associate: Elon Musk, got every negative article about him hidden by Google. Here is what they discovered. This proves that “Google Manipulates The Internet For Elections And Stock Market Results For Its Investors” Technical testing arrays were built, by numerous groups. They tested all of Google’s results for years. The results prove that “mood manipulation” technology is intentionally used and operated by Google management. Google is accused of running Stasi mind experiments on the public without their knowledge or consent.

     

    Influencing elections

     

    By David Shultz

     

    What we’re talking about here is a means of mind control on a massive scale that there is no precedent for in human history.” That may sound hyperbolic, but Robert Epstein says it’s not an exaggeration. Epstein, a research psychologist at the American Institute for Behavioral Research in Vista, California, has found that the higher a politician ranks on a page of Internet search results, the more

     

    likely you are to vote for them. “ I have a lot of faith in the methods they’ve used, and I think it’s a very rigorously conducted study,” says Nicholas Diakopoulos, a computer scientist at the University of Maryland, College Park, who was not involved in the research. “I don’t think that they’ve overstated their claims.” In their first experiment, Epstein and colleagues recruited three groups of 102 volunteers in San Diego, California, who were generally representative of the U.S. voting population in terms of age, race, political affiliation, and other traits. The researchers wanted to know if they could influence who the Californians would have voted for in the 2010 election … for prime minister of Australia. So they built a fake search engine called Kadoodle that returned a list of 30 websites for the finalist candidates, 15 for Tony Abbott and 15 for Julia Gillard. Most of the Californians knew little about either candidate before the test began, so the experiment was their only real exposure to Australian politics. What they didn’t know was that the search engine had been rigged to display the results in an order biased toward one candidate or the other. For example, in the most extreme scenario, a subject would see 15 webpages with information about Gillard’s platform and objectives followed by 15 similar results for Abbott.

     

    As predicted, subjects spent far more time reading Web pages near the top of the list. But what surprised researchers was the difference those rankings made: Biased search results increased the number of undecided voters choosing the favored candidate by 48% compared with a control group that saw an equal mix of both candidates throughout the list. Very few subjects noticed they were being manipulated, but those who did were actually more likely to vote in line with the biased results. “We expect the search engine to be making wise choices,” Epstein says. “What they’re saying is, ‘Well yes, I see the bias and that’s telling me … the search engine is doing its job.’”

     

    In a second experiment, the scientists repeated the first test on 2100 participants recruited online through Amazon’s labor crowdsourcing site Mechanical Turk. The subjects were also chosen to be representative of the U.S. voting population. The large sample size—and additional details provided by users—allowed the researchers to pinpoint which demographics were most vulnerable to search engine manipulation: Divorcees, Republicans, and subjects who reported low familiarity with the candidates were among the easiest groups to influence, whereas participants who were better informed, married, or reported an annual household income between $40,000 and $50,000 were harder to sway. Moderate Republicans were the most susceptible of any group: The manipulated search results increased the number of undecided voters who said they would choose the favored candidate by 80%.

     

    In a two­ person race, a candidate can only count on getting half of the uncommitted votes, which is worthless. With the help of biased search rankings,a candidate might be able to get 90% of the uncommitted votes [in select demographics],” Epstein explains.In a third experiment, the team tested its hypothesis in a real, ongoing election: the 2014 general election in India. After recruiting a sample of 2150 undecided Indian voters, the researchers repeated the original experiment, replacing the Australian candidates with the three Indian politicians who were actually running at the time. The results of the real world trial were slightly less dramatic—an outcome that researchers attribute to voters’ higher familiarity with the candidates. But merely changing which candidate appeared higher in the results still increased the number of undecided Indian voters who would vote for that candidate by 12% or more compared with controls. And once again, awareness of the manipulation enhanced the effect. A few percentage points here and there may seem meager, but the authors point out that elections are often won by margins smaller than 1%. If 80% of eligible voters have Internet access and 10% of them are undecided, the search engine effect could convince an additional 25% of those undecided to vote for a target candidate, the team reports online this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. That type of swing would determine the election outcome, as long as the expected win margin was 2% or less. “This is a huge effect,” Epstein says. “It’s so big that it’s quite dangerous.” But perhaps the most concerning aspect of the findings is that a search engine doesn’t even have to intentionally manipulate the order of results for this effect to manifest. Organic search algorithms already in place naturally put one candidate’s name higher on the list than others. This is based on factors like “relevance” and “credibility” (terms that are closely guarded by developers at Google and other major search engines). So the public is already being influenced by the search engine manipulation effect, Epstein says. “Without any intervention by anyone working at Google, it means that Google’s algorithm has been determining the outcome of close elections around the world.”

     

    He also points out that the Internet mogul will benefit more from certain election outcomes than others. And according to Epstein, Google is very aware both of the power it wields, as well as the research his team is doing: When the team recruited volunteers from the Internet in the second experiment, two of the IP addresses came from Google’s head office, he says. “ It’s easy to point the finger at the algorithm because it’s this supposedly inert thing, but there are a lot of people behind the algorithm,” Diakopoulos says. “I think that it does pose a threat to the legitimacy of the democracy that we have.

     

    We desperately need to have a public conversation about the role of these systems in the democratic processes.”

     

    Posted in Brain & Behavior, Technology

     

    PSYCHOLOGIST’S TRICKS USED BY GOOGLE TO CONTROL THE PUBLIC AND DESTROY OPPONENTS

     

    By Andrew Fishman

     

    JTRIG’s operations have been referred to as “dirty tricks,” and Dhami’s paper notes that the unit’s own staff characterize their work using “terms such as ‘discredit,’ promote ‘distrust,’ ‘dissuade,’‘deceive,’ ‘disrupt,’ ‘delay,’ ‘deny,’‘denigrate/degrade,’ and ‘deter.’” The unit’s targets go beyond terrorists and foreign militaries and include groups considered “domestic extremist[s],” criminals, online “hacktivists,” and even “entire countries.” After publishing Dhami’s paper for the first time in June, The Intercept reached out to several of her fellow psychologists, including some whose work was referenced in the paper, about the document’s ethical implications. One of the psychologists cited in the report criticized the paper and GCHQ’s ethics. Another psychologist condemned Dhami’s recommendations as “grossly unethical” and another called them an “egregious violation” of psychological ethics. But two other psychologists cited in the report did not express concern when contacted for reaction, and another psychologist, along with Dhami’s current employer, defended her work and her ethical standards. A British law firm hired to represent Dhami maintained that any allegations of unethical conduct are “grossly defamatory and totally untrue.”The divergent views on the paper highlight how the profession of psychology has yet to resolve key ethical concerns around consulting for government intelligence agencies. These issues take on added resonance in the context of the uproar currently roiling the American Psychological Association over the key role it played in the CIA torture program during the Bush administration. The APA’s Council of Representatives voted Friday to bar psychologists from taking part in national security interrogations or to advise on confinement conditions. Dhami’s consultation with JTRIG and the APA’s role in support of the CIA torture program are disparate — there is no suggestion that Dhami advised on interrogations involving torture nor that her paper was part of an ongoing relationship with JTRIG — but Dhami’s GCHQ work, like the APA scandal, provokes heated disagreement and criticism.”

     

    (Ed Note: The top-secret document, titled “Behavioural Science Support for JTRIG’s (Joint Threat Research and Intelligence Group’s) Effects and Online HUMINT Operations,” appears to have been written during this stint at the spy agency and is now known to be in the hands of Google planning executives at Google headquarters in Mountain View, California according to Google staff whistle-blowers. They state that these procedures are in use against the political enemies of Google’s executives and venture capitalists)

     

     

    (The term “HUMINT” commonly refers to human intelligence.) It was based on interviews with 22 JTRIG staffers and seven support staff from GCHQ. In it, Dhami provides advice on how JTRIG can improve its approach and attain desired outcomes, for example, by applying theories and research around persuasive communication, compliance, obedience, conformity, and the creation of trust and distrust. “ Compliance can be achieved through various techniques,” reads the “obedience” section of Dhami’s report, “including: Engaging the norm of reciprocity; engendering liking (e.g., via ingratiation or attractiveness); stressing the importance of social validation (e.g., via highlighting that others have also complied); instilling a sense of scarcity or secrecy; getting the ‘foot-in-the-door’ (i.e., getting compliance to a small request/issue first); and applying the ‘door-in-the-face’ or ‘low-ball’ tactics (i.e., asking for compliance on a large request/issue first and having hidden aspects to a request/issue that someone has already complied with, respectively).” In other cases, Dhami presents a menu of possible effective approaches grounded in specific psychological research that is formally cited throughout the body of the paper, in a “recommended reading list,” and in a “list of training requirements for JTRIG staff.”

     

    Propaganda techniques include,” Dhami writes,“Using stereotypes; substituting names/labels for neutral ones; censorship or systematic selection of information; repetition; assertions without arguments; and presenting a message for and against a subject.” Dhami’s 42-page report came nearly three years before the world became aware of JTRIG and of its methods of deception, dissemination of online propaganda, and acquisition of human intelligence. The unit’s existence was first revealed through leaked documents provided by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden and published by NBC News and The Intercept. JTRIG’s tactics include seeding propaganda on social media, impersonating people online, and creating false blog posts to discredit targets. Dhami recommends that staff be trained on the various specific techniques she outlines, that a social influence research program be developed, that the possibility of compiling psychological profiles for exploitation in intelligence operations be explored, that a catalog of online crime prevention techniques be developed, that processes for assessment of risk and effectiveness be established, and that JTRIG develop guidelines for operational best practices.JTRIG has now acquired this material’Some of the psychology research texts Dhami recommends are marked with an asterisk indicating “JTRIG has now acquired this material.” The Interceptattempted to contact the authors of materials that had been “acquired” byJTRIG.

     

    One of those authors, Peter Smith, emeritus professor of psychology at University of Sussex near Brighton, England, raised questions about Dhami’s paper. “ Some of the reported actions of JTRIG are clearly contrary to the ethical guidelines of the British Psychological Society,” Smith wrote in an email. “The descriptions that [s]he provides of the social psychology of influence are broadly accurate, but the use of this knowledge to deceive people or distort the information that they receive is not advocated in any of the sources that [s]he cites.” He added: “I am certainly not comfortable with the ways in which Dr. Dhami has used [her] knowledge of social psychology.” Dhami’s profile at Middlesex University does not list the British Psychological Society among her current professional affiliations. Other psychologists cited by Dhami did not criticize her paper but rather disclaimed any control over her use of their material. Susan Fiske, a Princeton psychologist and fellow of six APA divisions, also had her work acquired by JTRIG. She told The Intercept by email, “Anyone can buy my book. When you write a textbook, it’s in the public domain, and anyone can use it. I have no control over what happens after it is published.”

     

    Eleven other psychologists whose work was cited by Dhami did not respond to emails from The Intercept.•A ‘bespoke’ code of ethics. Dhami does directly address ethical concerns in part of her report. But her treatment of ethics is brief. JTRIG, she writes, operates under “no specific guidelines on ethical practice.” She notes that professional codes of conduct exist, such as those of the British Society of Criminology and the British Psychological Society, but determines that “clearly, not all of the aspects of the above codes will be relevant or applicable to JTRIG’s operations” and the codes “do not identify best practice in all of the types of online interactions that JTRIG staff might be involved in.” “Thus,” she concludes, “JTRIG may need to develop a bespoke code” that complies with the U.K. legislation governing intelligence agencies.”

     

    I do not think that JTRIG requires a set of ethical guidelines that is different from those that are relevant to the rest of humanity.” The very idea of a “bespoke code” that “complies” with the law but merely considers established ethics codes “that may be pertinent,” without being bound by them, is controversial, but not novel. It’s far from clear that there is an ethically correct way to engage in acts to discredit, deceive, denigrate, and degrade unsuspecting targets, and it’s decidedly possible that developing guidelines that purport to do so will only lend legitimacy to unsavory behavior.”

     

     

     

     

     

    Andrew Fishman ✉ fishman@ theintercept.com t @AndrewDFish

     

    Google’s Use of “Mood Manipulation” on the Public: Psychologists Approve Ban on Role

     

    By JAMES RISEN – TORONTO — The American Psychological Association on Friday overwhelmingly approved a new ban on any involvement by psychologists in national security interrogations conducted by the United States government, even non-coercive interrogations now conducted by the Obama administration. The council of representatives of the organization, the nation’s largest professional association of psychologists, voted to impose the ban at its annual meeting here.” The actions of Google’s inner workings now affect so many billions of people, without there knowledge, that the APA would have a fit if they knew the whole story.

    Google’s user manipulation program (PSYWAR), or the basic aspects of modern psychological operations (PSYOP), have been known by many other names or terms, including MISO, Psy Ops, Political Warfare, “Hearts and Minds,” and propaganda.[1] The term is used “to denote any action which is practiced mainly by psychological methods with the aim of evoking a planned psychological reaction in other people.”[2] Various techniques are used, and are aimed at influencing a target audience’s value system, belief system, emotions, motives, reasoning, or behavior. It is used to induce confessions or reinforce attitudes and behaviors favorable to the originator’s objectives, and are sometimes combined with black operations or false flag tactics. It is also used to destroy the morale of political enemies through tactics that aim to depress or alter the public’s psychological states.[3][4] Target audiences can be governments, organizations, groups, and individuals, and is not just limited to soldiers. Civilians of foreign territories can also be targeted by Google technology and media so as to cause an effect in the government of their country.[5]

     

    In Propaganda: The Formation of Men’s Attitudes, Jacques Ellul discusses psychological warfare as a common peace policy practice between nations as a form of indirect aggression in place of military aggression. This type of propaganda drains the public opinion of an opposing regime by stripping away its power on public opinion. This form of aggression is hard to defend against because no international court of justice is capable of protecting against psychological aggression since it cannot be legally adjudicated. The only defense is using the same means of psychological warfare. It is the burden of every government to defend its state against propaganda aggression. “Here the propagandists is [sic] dealing with a foreign adversary whose morale he seeks to destroy by psychological means so that the opponent begins to doubt the validity of his beliefs and actions.”[6][7]

     

    Since prehistoric times, warlords and chiefs have recognised the importance of inducing psychological terror in opponents and currying favour with supporters. An early practitioner of such tactics was Alexander the Great, who successfully conquered large parts of Europe and the Middle East and held on to his territorial gains by co-opting local elites into the Greek administration and culture. Alexander left some of his men behind in each conquered city to introduce Greek culture and oppress dissident views. His soldiers were paid dowries to marry locals[8] in an effort to encourage assimilation.

     

    Genghis Khan, leader of the Mongolian Empire in the 13th century AD employed this technique. Defeating the will of the enemy before having to attack and reaching a consented settlement was preferable to actually fighting. The Mongol generals demanded submission to the Khan, and threatened the initially captured villages with complete destruction if they refused to surrender. If they had to fight to take the settlement, the Mongol generals fulfilled their threats and massacred the survivors. Tales of the encroaching horde spread to the next villages and created an aura of insecurity that undermined the possibility of future resistance.[9]

     

    The Khan also employed tactics that made his numbers seem greater than they actually were. During night operations he ordered each soldier to light three torches at dusk to give the illusion of an overwhelming army and deceive and intimidate enemy scouts. He also sometimes had objects tied to the tails of his horses, so that riding on open and dry fields raised a cloud of dust that gave the enemy the impression of great numbers. His soldiers used arrows specially notched to whistle as they flew through the air, creating a terrifying noise.[10]

     

    A later Mongolian chieftain, Tamerlane, built a pyramid of 90,000 human heads in front of the walls of Delhi, to convince them to surrender during his Indian campaign. Another tactic favoured by the Mongols was catapulting severed human heads over city walls to frighten the inhabitants and spread disease in the besieged city’s closed confines.

     

    The Muslim caliph Omar, in his battles against the Byzantine Empire, sent small reinforcements in the form of a continuous stream, giving the impression that a large force would accumulate eventually if not swiftly dealt with.

     

    Lord Bryce led the commission of 1915 to document German atrocities committed against Belgian civilians.

     

    The start of modern psychological operations in war is generally dated to the First World War. By that point, Western societies were increasingly educated and urbanized, and mass media was available in the form of large circulation newspapers and posters. It was also possible to transmit propaganda to the enemy via the use of airborne leaflets or through explosive delivery systems like modified artillery or mortar rounds.[11]

     

    At the start of the war, the belligerents, especially the British and Germans, began distributing propaganda, both domestically and on the Western front. The British had several advantages that allowed them to succeed in the battle for world opinion; they had one of the world’s most reputable news systems, with much experience in international and cross-cultural communication and they controlled much of the undersea cable system then in operation. These capabilities were easily transitioned to the task of warfare.

     

    The British also had a diplomatic service that kept up good relations with many nations around the world, in contrast to the reputation of the German services.[12] While German attempts to foment revolution in parts of the British Empire, such as Ireland and India, were ineffective, extensive experience in the Middle East allowed the British to successfully induce the Arabs to revolt against the Ottoman Empire.

     

    In August 1914, David Lloyd George appointed Charles MastermanMP, to head a Propaganda Agency at Wellington House. A distinguished body of literary talent was enlisted for the task, with its members including Arthur Conan Doyle, Ford Madox Ford, G. K. Chesterton, Thomas Hardy, Rudyard Kipling and H. G. Wells. Over 1,160 pamphlets were published during the war and distributed to neutral countries, and eventually, to Germany. One of the first significant publications, the Report on Alleged German Outrages of 1915, had a great effect on general opinion across the world. The pamphlet documented atrocities, both actual and alleged, committed by the German army against Belgian civilians. A Dutch illustrator, Louis Raemaekers, provided highly emotional drawings which appeared in the pamphlet.[13]

     

    In 1917, the bureau was subsumed into the new Department of Information and branched out into telegraph communications, radio, newspapers, magazines and the cinema. In 1918, Viscount Northcliffe was appointed Director of Propaganda in Enemy Countries. The department was split between propaganda against Germany organized by H.G Wells and against the Austro-Hungarian Empire supervised by Wickham Steed and Robert William Seton-Watson; the attempts of the latter focused on the lack of ethnic cohesion in the Empire and stoked the grievances of minorities such as the Croats and Slovenes. It had a significant effect on the final collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Army at the Battle of Vittorio Veneto.[11]

     

    Aerial leaflets were dropped over German trenches containing postcards from prisoners of war detailing their humane conditions, surrender notices and general propaganda against the Kaiser and the German generals. By the end of the war, MI7b had distributed almost 26 million leaflets. The Germans began shooting the leaflet-dropping pilots, prompting the British to develop unmanned leaflet balloons that drifted across no-man’s land. At least one in seven of these leaflets were not handed in by the soldiers to their superiors, despite severe penalties for that offence. Even General Hindenburg admitted that “Unsuspectingly, many thousands consumed the poison”, and POWs admitted to being disillusioned by the propaganda leaflets that depicted the use of German troops as mere cannon fodder. In 1915, the British began airdropping a regular leaflet newspaper Le Courrier de l’Air for civilians in German-occupied France and Belgium.[14]

     

    A report from a German secret agent about Lenin‘s arrival to Petrograd in 1917. This event was actively arranged by the German government in a bid to destabilize Russia.

     

    At the start of the war, the French government took control of the media to suppress negative coverage. Only in 1916, with the establishment of the Maison de la Presse, did they begin to use similar tactics for the purpose of psychological warfare. One of its sections was the “Service de la Propagande aérienne” (Aerial Propaganda Service), headed by Professor Tonnelat and Jean-Jacques Waltz, an Alsatian artist code-named “Hansi”. The French tended to distribute leaflets of images only, although the full publication of US PresidentWoodrow Wilson‘s Fourteen Points, which had been heavily edited in the German newspapers, was distributed via airborne leaflets by the French.[15]

     

    The Central Powers were slow to use these techniques; however, at the start of the war the Germans succeeded in inducing the Sultan of the Ottoman Empire to declare ‘holy war’, or Jihad, against the Western infidels. They also attempted to foment rebellion against the British Empire in places as far afield as Ireland, Afghanistan, and India. The Germans’ greatest success was in giving the Russian revolutionary, Lenin, free transit on a sealed train from Switzerland to Finland after the overthrow of the Tsar. This soon paid off when the Bolshevik Revolution took Russia out of the war.[16]

     

    World War II

     

    An example of a World War II era leaflet meant to be dropped from an American B-17 over a German city. See the file description page for a translation.

     

    Adolf Hitler was greatly influenced by the psychological tactics of warfare the British had employed during WWI, and attributed the defeat of Germany to the effects this propaganda had on the soldiers. He became committed to the use of mass propaganda to influence the minds of the German population in the decades to come. Joseph Goebbels was appointed as Propaganda Minister when Hitler came to power in 1933, and he portrayed Hitler as a messianic figure for the redemption of Germany. Hitler also coupled this with the resonating projections of his orations for effect.

     

    Germany’s Fall Grün plan of invasion of Czechoslovakia had a large part dealing with psychological warfare aimed both at the Czechoslovak civilians and government as well as, crucially, at Czechoslovak allies.[17] It became successful to the point that Germany gained support of UK and France through appeasement to occupy Czechoslovakia without having to fight an all-out war, sustaining only minimum losses in covert war before the Munich Agreement.

     

    At the start of the Second World War, the British set up the Political Warfare Executive to produce and distribute propaganda. Through the use of powerful transmitters, broadcasts could be made across Europe. Sefton Delmer managed a successful black propaganda campaign through several radio stations which were designed to be popular with German troops while at the same time introducing news material that would weaken their morale under a veneer of authenticity. British Prime Minister Winston Churchill made use of radio broadcasts for propaganda against the Germans.

     

    Map depicting the targets of all the subordinate plans of Operation Bodyguard.

     

    During World War II, the British made extensive use of deception – developing many new techniques and theories. The main protagonists at this time were ‘A’ Force, set up in 1940 under Dudley Clarke, and the London Controlling Section, chartered in 1942 under the control of John Bevan.[18][19] Clarke pioneered many of the strategies of military deception. His ideas for combining fictional orders of battle, visual deception and double agents helped define Allied deception strategy during the war, for which he has been referred to as “the greatest British deceiver of WW2”.[20]

     

    During the lead up to the Allied invasion of Normandy, many new tactics in psychological warfare were devised. The plan for Operation Bodyguard set out a general strategy to mislead German high command as to the exact date and location of the invasion. Planning began in 1943 under the auspices of the London Controlling Section (LCS). A draft strategy, referred to as Plan Jael, was presented to Allied high command at the Tehran Conference. Operation Fortitude was intended to convince the Germans of a greater Allied military strength than existed, through fictional field armies, faked operations to prepare the ground for invasion and leaked information about the Allied order of battle and war plans.

     

    Elaborate naval deceptions (Operations Glimmer, Taxable and Big Drum) were undertaken in the English Channel.[21] Small ships and aircraft simulated invasion fleets lying off Pas de Calais, Cap d’Antifer and the western flank of the real invasion force.[22] At the same time Operation Titanic involved the RAF dropping fake paratroopers to the east and west of the Normandy landings.

     

    The deceptions were implemented with the use of double agents, radio traffic and visual deception. The British “Double Cross” anti-espionage operation had proven very successful from the outset of the war,[23] and the LCS was able to use double agents to send back misleading information about Allied invasion plans.[24] The use of visual deception, including mock tanks and other military hardware had been developed during the North Africa campaign. Mock hardware was created for Bodyguard; in particular, dummy landing craft were stockpiled to give the impression that the invasion would take place near Calais.

     

    The Operation was a strategic success and the Normandy landings caught German defences unaware. Subsequent deception led Hitler into delaying reinforcement from the Calais region for nearly seven weeks.[25]

     

    Vietnam War

     

    “Viet Cong, beware!” – South Vietnam leaflets urging the defection of Viet Cong.

     

    The United States ran an extensive program of psychological warfare during the Vietnam War. The Phoenix Program had the dual aim of assassinating NLF personnel and terrorizing any potential sympathizers or passive supporters. Chieu Hoi program of the South Vietnam government promoted NLF defections.

     

    When members of the PRG were assassinated, CIA and Special Forces operatives placed playing cards in the mouth of the deceased as a calling card. During the Phoenix Program, over 19,000 NLF supporters were killed.[26]

     

    Recent operations

     

    An American PSYOP leaflet disseminated during the Iraq War. It shows a caricature of Al-Qaeda in Iraq leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi caught in a rat trap. The caption reads “This is your future, Zarqawi”.

     

    The CIA made extensive use of Contra soldiers to destabilize the Sandinista government in Nicaragua.[27] The CIA used psychological warfare techniques against the Panamanians by broadcasting pirate TV broadcasts. The CIA has extensively used propaganda broadcasts against the Cuban government through TV Marti, based in Miami, Florida. However, the Cuban government has been successful at jamming the signal of TV Marti.

     

    In the Iraq War, the United States used the shock and awe campaign to psychologically maim, and break the will of the Iraqi Army to fight.

     

    Social media has enabled the use of disinformation on a wide scale. Analysts have found evidence of doctored or misleading photographs spread by social media in the Syrian Civil War and 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine, possibly with state involvement.[28]

     

     

     

     

    Most modern uses of the term psychological warfare, refers to the following military methods:

     

    • Demoralization:

      • Distributing pamphlets that encourage desertion or supply instructions on how to surrender

      • Shock and awe military strategy

      • Projecting repetitive and annoying sounds and music for long periods at high volume towards groups under siege like during Operation Nifty Package

    • Propaganda radio stations, such as Lord Haw-Haw in World War II on the “Germany calling” station

    • Renaming cities and other places when captured, such as the renaming of Saigon to Ho Chi Minh City after Vietnamese victory in the Vietnam War

    • False flag events

    • Use of loudspeaker systems to communicate with enemy soldiers

    • Terrorism[29]

    • The threat of chemical weapons[30]

     

    Most of these techniques were developed during World War II or earlier, and have been used to some degree in every conflict since. Daniel Lerner was in the OSS (the predecessor to the American CIA) and in his book, attempts to analyze how effective the various strategies were. He concludes that there is little evidence that any of them were dramatically successful, except perhaps surrender instructions over loudspeakers when victory was imminent. It should be noted, though, that measuring the success or failure of psychological warfare is very hard, as the conditions are very far from being a controlled experiment.

     

    Lerner also divides psychological warfare operations into three categories:[31][page needed]

     

    • White propaganda (Omissions and Emphasis): Truthful and not strongly biased, where the source of information is acknowledged.

    • Grey propaganda (Omissions, Emphasis and Racial/Ethnic/Religious Bias): Largely truthful, containing no information that can be proven wrong; the source is not identified.

    • Black propaganda (Commissions of falsification): Inherently deceitful, information given in the product is attributed to a source that was not responsible for its creation.

     

    Lerner points out that grey and black operations ultimately have a heavy cost, in that the target population sooner or later recognizes them as propaganda and discredits the source. He writes, “This is one of the few dogmas advanced by Sykewarriors that is likely to endure as an axiom of propaganda: Credibility is a condition of persuasion. Before you can make a man do as you say, you must make him believe what you say.”[31]:28 Consistent with this idea, the Allied strategy in World War II was predominantly one of truth (with certain exceptions).[citation needed]

     

    Other uses

     

    Modern use of psychological warfare is not limited to the military, but can be applied in the household as parents battle over custody of a child. As parents utilize the idea of “you’ll never see your child again,” they cause an alienation that psychologically changes their children, leading to mental damage in one or both of the parents as well. This alienation can cause a child to be more hostile toward whichever parent they do not currently reside with or live with for most of their time, thus psychologically destroying the morale of the parent targeted with hostility.[32]

     

    According to U.S. military analysts, attacking the enemy’s mind is an important element of the People’s Republic of China‘s military strategy.[33] This type of warfare is rooted in the Chinese Stratagems outlined by Sun Tzu in The Art of War and Thirty-Six Stratagems. In its dealings with its rivals, China is expected to utilize Marxism to mobilize communist loyalists, as well as flex its economic and military muscle to persuade other nations to act in China’s interests. The Chinese government also tries to control the media to keep a tight hold on propaganda efforts for its people.[33]

     

    In the GermanBundeswehr, the Zentrum Operative Information and its subordinate Batallion für Operative Information 950 are responsible for the PSYOP efforts (called Operative Information in German). Both the center and the battalion are subordinate to the new Streitkräftebasis (Joint Services Support Command, SKB) and together consist of about 1,200 soldiers specialising in modern communication and media technologies. One project of the German PSYOP forces is the radio station Stimme der Freiheit (Sada-e Azadi, Voice of Freedom),[34] heard by thousands of Afghans. Another is the publication of various newspapers and magazines in Kosovo and Afghanistan, where German soldiers serve with NATO.

     

    The British were one of the first major military powers to use psychological warfare in the First and Second World Wars. In current the British Armed Forces, PSYOPS are handled by the tri-service 15 Psychological Operations Group. (See also MI5 and Secret Intelligence Service). The Psychological Operations Group comprises over 150 personnel, approximately 75 from the regular Armed Services and 75 from the Reserves. The Group supports deployed commanders in the provision of psychological operations in operational and tactical environments.[35][36]

     

    The Group was established immediately after the 1991 Gulf War,[37] has since grown significantly in size to meet operational requirements,[38] and from 2015 it will be one of the sub-units of the 77th Brigade, formerly called the Security Assistance Group.[39]Stephen Jolly, the MOD’s Director of Defence Communications and former Chair of the UK’s National Security Communications Committee (2013–15), is thought to be the most senior serving psyops officer within British Defence.

     

    See also: Psychological Operations (United States)

     

    The term psychological warfare is believed to have migrated from Germany to the United States in 1941.[40] During World War II, the United States Joint Chiefs of Staff defined psychological warfare broadly, stating “Psychological warfare employs any weapon to influence the mind of the enemy. The weapons are psychological only in the effect they produce and not because of the weapons themselves.”[41] The U.S. Department of Defense currently defines psychological warfare as:

     

    “The planned use of propaganda and other psychological actions having the primary purpose of influencing the opinions, emotions, attitudes, and behavior of hostile foreign groups in such a way as to support the achievement of national objectives.”[42]

     

    This definition indicates that a critical element of the U.S. psychological operations capabilities includes propaganda and by extension counterpropaganda. Joint Publication 3-53 establishes specific policy to use public affairs mediums to counterpropaganda from foreign origins.[43]

     

    The purpose of United States psychological operations is to induce or reinforce attitudes and behaviors favorable to US objectives. The Special Activities Division (SAD) is a division of the Central Intelligence Agency’s National Clandestine Service, responsible for Covert Action and “Special Activities”. These special activities include covert political influence (which includes psychological operations) and paramilitary operations.[44] SAD’s political influence group is the only US unit allowed to conduct these operations covertly and is considered the primary unit in this area.[44]

     

    Dedicated psychological operations units exist in the United States Army. The United States Navy also plans and executes limited PSYOP missions. United States PSYOP units and soldiers of all branches of the military are prohibited by law from targeting U.S. citizens with PSYOP within the borders of the United States (Executive Order S-1233, DOD Directive S-3321.1, and National Security Decision Directive 130). While United States Army PSYOP units may offer non-PSYOP support to domestic military missions, they can only target foreign audiences.

     

    A U.S. Army field manual released in January 2013 states that “Inform and Influence Activities” are critical for describing, directing, and leading military operations. Several Army Division leadership staff are assigned to “planning, integration and synchronization of designated information-related capabilities.”[45]

     

    WHEREAS, Defendants are documented by advisors, whistle-blowers and consultants from law enforcement, defense, civil investigation, insider reporters from such as publications as TECH CRUNCH, The Daily Mail, ICIJ, Drudge Report, etc. and intelligence entities as being the persons and parties who did engage in the following attacks on Plaintiffs and said attacks can be tracked back to Defendants via forensic data and said attacks by Defendants threatened the lives, brands, incomes, careers, safety, security, and other metrics of Plaintiffs:

     

    ­ Defendants produced a series of attack videos, articles, blog comments and documents and sent them directly to the spouses, partners, landlords, investors, employers, news media and others in an effort to “vaporize” Plaintiffs as part of the reprisal, vendetta, retribution services which Defendants offered and accepted employment to engage in. Defendants published these attack materials to over 5 billion people for over 5 years in hopes of “destroying” Plaintiffs.

     

    – Defendants contacted Social Security, SSI, SDI, Disability and other earned benefits services and caused them to be stone­walled. Applications were “lost”. Files in the application process “disappeared”. Lois Lerner hard drive “incidents” took place.

     

    ­ Corrupt state and federal employees worked with Defendants to play an endless game of Catch­22 by arbitrarily determining that deadlines had passed that they, the government officials, had stonewalled and obfuscated applications for, in order to force these deadlines that they set, to appear to be missed.

     

    ­ Some applicants found themselves strangely poisoned, not unlike the Alexander Litvenko case. Heavy metals and toxic materials were found right after their work with the Department of Energy weapons and energy facilities. Many wonder if these “targets” were intentionally exposed to toxins in retribution for their testimony. The federal MSDS documents clearly show that a number of these people were exposed to deadly compounds and radiations.

     

    ­ Applicants employers were called, and faxed, and ordered to fire applicants from their places of employment, in the middle of the day,with no notice, as a retribution tactic.

     

    ­ Applicants HR and employment records, on recruiting and hiring databases, were embedded with negative keywords and links to Defendants servers in order to prevent them from gaining future employment.

     

    ­ Peers Gary D. Conley and Rajeev Motwani, both whistle­blowers in this matter, turned up dead under strange circumstances. They are not alone in a series of bizarre deaths related to this matter.

     

    ­ Paypal, owned by Gawker backer Pierre Omidyar, and other on­line payments for on­line sales were delayed, hidden, or re­directed in order to terminate income potential for applicants who competed with Defendants interests and holdings.

     

    ­ DNS redirection, website spoofing which sent applicants websites to dead ends and other Internet activity manipulations were conducted.

     

    ­ Campaign finance dirty tricks contractors IN­Q­Tel, Think Progress, Media Matters, Gawker Media, Syd Blumenthal, etc., were hired and proven to have all been financially connected to Defendants. Executives and their campaign financiers to attack applicants who competed with Defendant executives stocks and personal assets.

     

    ­ Covert Defendant partner: Google, transfered large sums of cash to dirty tricks contractors and then manually locked the media portion of the attacks into the top lines of the top pages of all Google searches globally, for years, with hidden embedded codes in the links and web-pages which multiplied the attacks on applicants by many magnitudes.

     

    ­ Honeytraps and moles were employed by the attackers. In this tactic, people who covertly worked for the attackers were employed to approach the “target” in order to spy on and misdirect the subject. Vanity Fair produced a feature article about one such attack on the Founder of Tech Crunch, a peer.

     

    ­ Mortgage and rental applications had red flags added to them by Defendants in databases to prevent the targets from getting homes or apartments.

     

    ­ McCarthy­Era “Black­lists” were created and employed against applicants who competed with Defendants executives and their campaign financiers to prevent them from funding and future employment.

     

    ­ Targets were very carefully placed in a position of not being able to get jobs, unemployment benefits, disability benefits or acquire any possible sources of income. “

     

    The above list is only a partial set of examples of the attacks by Defendants.

     

    WHEREAS, Defendants attacking entities, for whom law enforcement and intelligence surveillance records exist, are, at least, known to include Defendants employees and contractors: 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 at a minimum but not to be limited by this law enforcement list.

     

    WHEREAS further information provided in the 7 other related federal cases that this Court has been notified of provide further confirming evidence.

     

    WHEREAS financial tracking of the financiers, beneficiaries and means of operations communications prove that a RICO-qualified Cartel was operated by Defendants.

     

    DEMAND IS HEREBY MADE FOR A JOINT DOJ/PLAINTIFF FEDERAL RICO COMPLAINT TO BE FILED AGAINST DEFENDANTS BY DOJ ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFFS AND THE UNITED STATES TAXPAYERS.

     

     

     

    PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that copies of any motions scheduled for hearing on the omnibus dates may be obtained free of charge by visiting the website of the Debtors’ claims and noticing agent, Prime Clerk LLC, at https://cases.primeclerk.com/gawker.

     

    You may also obtain copies of any pleadings by visiting the Court’s website at http://nysb.uscourts.gov in accordance with the procedures and fees set forth therein. You may also obtain copies of non-classified evidence for this case at http://www.globalscoop.net Case # 2788-D in folders # A-1 through A-50.

     

     

     

    PROOF OF SERVICE

     

    Plaintiffs group hereby certifies that on this date we caused this filing to be served via a true and correct copy of the foregoing by causing copies of same to be served on all counsel of record, all known creditors, federal law enforcement liaisons and on the U.S. Trustee for the Southern District of

     

    New York, Region 2, by electronic filing same via electronically traced and tracked digital networking and using the Prime Clerk case system and the Judge’s office electronic filing system.

     

     

     

     

    BCC: FBI, U.S. Congress, FTC, SEC, OSC, GAO, INTERPOL

     

    The last four digits of the taxpayer identification number of the debtors are: Gawker Media LLC (0492); Gawker

    Media Group, Inc. (3231); and Gawker Hungary Kft. (f/k/a Kinja Kft.) (5056). Gawker Media LLC and Gawker

    Media Group, Inc.’s mailing addresses are c/o Opportune LLP, Attn: William D. Holden, Chief Restructuring

    Officer, 10 East 53rd Street, 33rd Floor, New York, NY 10022. Gawker Hungary Kft.’s mailing address is c/o

    Opportune LLP, Attn: William D. Holden, 10 East 53rd Street, 33rd Floor, New York, NY 10022.

     

     

    WAS GAWKER MEDIA A RUSSIAN SPY OPERATION?

    UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

     

    SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

     

    ——————————————————x

     

    :

     

    In re : Chapter 11

     

    :

     

    Gawker Media LLC, et al., 1 : Case No. 16-11700 (SMB)

     

    :

     

    Debtors. : (Jointly Administered)

     

    :

     

    ——————————————————x

     

     

     

     

     

    AMENDED RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ) DEMAND FOR CO-OPERATIVE FILING OF RICO CHARGES WITH ASSISTED AND ASSOCIATED CHARGES COMBINING THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND PLAINTIFFS AS PLAINTIFF GROUP

     

    WHEREAS, Defendants Gawker Media, GMGI, Gawker Hungary (f/k/a Blogwire Hungary Szellemi Alkotast Hasznosito Kft.), Gawker Entertainment LLC, Gawker Technology, LLC, Gawker Sales, LLC, Nicholas G. A. Denton, Irin Carmon, Univision Communications, Univision America, Adrian Covert, Jon Herrman, Gaby Darbyshire, UniModa LLC, Elon Musk, John Doerr and DOES I through 220, including each employee of Gawker Media, did engage in RICO statute violations in their attempts to damage Plaintiffs.

     

    WHEREAS, public officials and investigators have provided proof of RICO violations to all journalism, Congressional and law enforcement parties with jurisdiction in these charges.

     

    WHEREAS, public news media and IT forums have now confirmed that due to Gawker Media’s attempted media manipulations in the 2008 and 2016 Presidential elections and the cross-national exchange of funds and interests between multiple questionable entities on multiple continents that each and every member of the above-stated defendants group has been under electronic surveillance on every electronic device with an IMEI address or network functionality by multiple law enforcement, defense, civil investigation, intelligence entities and the placement of under-cover journalists with Defendants group; and that the results of that surveillance, since 2007 is subpoena-accessible in this matter. Further, each of those legitimate entities that engaged in such surveillance that had even a single Cisco or Juniper Networks back-door embedded device touching their network has been revealed by U.S. DHS public reports to have had their servers breached by hackers. Any such evidence discovered after-the-fact may also legally be used in this case as evidence

     

    WHEREAS the publication known as THE INTERCEPT is funded by Gawker Media’s backers and shares real-estate venues with Gawker Media, First Look, The Intercept and other coordinating publications and that publication has published the following overview which describes in detail the Stasi-like methods used by Defendants against Plaintiffs:

     

    “One of the many pressing stories that remains to be told from the Snowden archive is how western intelligence agencies are attempting to manipulate and control online discourse with extreme tactics of deception and reputation-destruction. It’s time to tell a chunk of that story, complete with the relevant documents.

     

    Over the last several weeks, I worked with NBC News to publish a series of articles about “dirty trick” tactics used by GCHQ’s previously secret unit, JTRIG (Joint Threat Research Intelligence Group). These were based on four classified GCHQ documents presented to the NSA and the other three partners in the English-speaking “Five Eyes” alliance. Today, we at the Intercept are publishing another new JTRIG document, in full, entitled “The Art of Deception: Training for Online Covert Operations.”

     

    By publishing these stories one by one, our NBC reporting highlighted some of the key, discrete revelations: the monitoring of YouTube and Blogger, the targeting of Anonymous with the very same DDoS attacks they accuse “hacktivists” of using, the use of “honey traps” (luring people into compromising situations using sex) and destructive viruses. But, here, I want to focus and elaborate on the overarching point revealed by all of these documents: namely, that these agencies are attempting to control, infiltrate, manipulate, and warp online discourse, and in doing so, are compromising the integrity of the internet itself.

     

    Among the core self-identified purposes of JTRIG are two tactics: (1) to inject all sorts of false material onto the internet in order to destroy the reputation of its targets; and (2) to use social sciences and other techniques to manipulate online discourse and activism to generate outcomes it considers desirable. To see how extremist these programs are, just consider the tactics they boast of using to achieve those ends: “false flag operations” (posting material to the internet and falsely attributing it to someone else), fake victim blog posts (pretending to be a victim of the individual whose reputation they want to destroy), and posting “negative information” on various forums. Here is one illustrative list of tactics from the latest GCHQ document we’re publishing today:

     

     

    Other tactics aimed at individuals are listed here, under the revealing title “discredit a target”:

     

     

    Then there are the tactics used to destroy companies the agency targets:

     

     

    GCHQ describes the purpose of JTRIG in starkly clear terms: “using online techniques to make something happen in the real or cyber world,” including “information ops (influence or disruption).”

     

     

    Critically, the “targets” for this deceit and reputation-destruction extend far beyond the customary roster of normal spycraft: hostile nations and their leaders, military agencies, and intelligence services. In fact, the discussion of many of these techniques occurs in the context of using them in lieu of “traditional law enforcement” against people suspected (but not charged or convicted) of ordinary crimes or, more broadly still, “hacktivism”, meaning those who use online protest activity for political ends.

     

    The title page of one of these documents reflects the agency’s own awareness that it is “pushing the boundaries” by using “cyber offensive” techniques against people who have nothing to do with terrorism or national security threats, and indeed, centrally involves law enforcement agents who investigate ordinary crimes:

     

     

    No matter your views on Anonymous, “hacktivists” or garden-variety criminals, it is not difficult to see how dangerous it is to have secret government agencies being able to target any individuals they want – who have never been charged with, let alone convicted of, any crimes – with these sorts of online, deception-based tactics of reputation destruction and disruption. There is a strong argument to make, as Jay Leiderman demonstrated in the Guardian in the context of the Paypal 14 hacktivist persecution, that the “denial of service” tactics used by hacktivists result in (at most) trivial damage (far less than the cyber-warfare tactics favored by the US and UK) and are far more akin to the type of political protest protected by the First Amendment.

     

    The broader point is that, far beyond hacktivists, these surveillance agencies have vested themselves with the power to deliberately ruin people’s reputations and disrupt their online political activity even though they’ve been charged with no crimes, and even though their actions have no conceivable connection to terrorism or even national security threats. As Anonymous expert Gabriella Coleman of McGill University told me, “targeting Anonymous and hacktivists amounts to targeting citizens for expressing their political beliefs, resulting in the stifling of legitimate dissent.” Pointing to this study she published, Professor Coleman vehemently contested the assertion that “there is anything terrorist/violent in their actions.”

     

    Government plans to monitor and influence internet communications, and covertly infiltrate online communities in order to sow dissension and disseminate false information, have long been the source of speculation. Harvard Law Professor Cass Sunstein, a close Obama adviser and the White House’s former head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, wrote a controversial paper in 2008 proposing that the US government employ teams of covert agents and pseudo-”independent” advocates to “cognitively infiltrate” online groups and websites, as well as other activist groups.

     

    Sunstein also proposed sending covert agents into “chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups” which spread what he views as false and damaging “conspiracy theories” about the government. Ironically, the very same Sunstein was recently named by Obama to serve as a member of the NSA review panel created by the White House, one that – while disputing key NSA claims – proceeded to propose many cosmetic reforms to the agency’s powers (most of which were ignored by the President who appointed them).

     

    But these GCHQ documents are the first to prove that a major western government is using some of the most controversial techniques to disseminate deception online and harm the reputations of targets. Under the tactics they use, the state is deliberately spreading lies on the internet about whichever individuals it targets, including the use of what GCHQ itself calls “false flag operations” and emails to people’s families and friends. Who would possibly trust a government to exercise these powers at all, let alone do so in secret, with virtually no oversight, and outside of any cognizable legal framework?

     

    Then there is the use of psychology and other social sciences to not only understand, but shape and control, how online activism and discourse unfolds. Today’s newly published document touts the work of GCHQ’s “Human Science Operations Cell,” devoted to “online human intelligence” and “strategic influence and disruption”:

     

     

     

    Under the title “Online Covert Action”, the document details a variety of means to engage in “influence and info ops” as well as “disruption and computer net attack,” while dissecting how human beings can be manipulated using “leaders,” “trust,” “obedience” and “compliance”:

     

     

     

     

     

    The documents lay out theories of how humans interact with one another, particularly online, and then attempt to identify ways to influence the outcomes – or “game” it:

     

     

     

     

    We submitted numerous questions to GCHQ, including: (1) Does GCHQ in fact engage in “false flag operations” where material is posted to the Internet and falsely attributed to someone else?; (2) Does GCHQ engage in efforts to influence or manipulate political discourse online?; and (3) Does GCHQ’s mandate include targeting common criminals (such as boiler room operators), or only foreign threats?

     

    As usual, they ignored those questions and opted instead to send their vague and nonresponsive boilerplate: “It is a longstanding policy that we do not comment on intelligence matters. Furthermore, all of GCHQ’s work is carried out in accordance with a strict legal and policy framework which ensures that our activities are authorised, necessary and proportionate, and that there is rigorous oversight, including from the Secretary of State, the Interception and Intelligence Services Commissioners and the Parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee. All our operational processes rigorously support this position.”

     

    These agencies’ refusal to “comment on intelligence matters” – meaning: talk at all about anything and everything they do – is precisely why whistleblowing is so urgent, the journalism that supports it so clearly in the public interest, and the increasingly unhinged attacks by these agencies so easy to understand. Claims that government agencies are infiltrating online communities and engaging in “false flag operations” to discredit targets are often dismissed as conspiracy theories, but these documents leave no doubt they are doing precisely that.

     

    Whatever else is true, no government should be able to engage in these tactics: what justification is there for having government agencies target people – who have been charged with no crime – for reputation-destruction, infiltrate online political communities, and develop techniques for manipulating online discourse? But to allow those actions with no public knowledge or accountability is particularly unjustifiable.

     

    Documents referenced in this article:

     

     

    WHEREAS, Defendants are documented by advisors, whistle-blowers and consultants from law enforcement, defense, civil investigation, insider reporters from such as publications as TECH CRUNCH, The Daily Mail, ICIJ, Drudge Report, etc. and intelligence entities as being the persons and parties who did engage in the following attacks on Plaintiffs and said attacks can be tracked back to Defendants via forensic data and said attacks by Defendants threatened the lives, brands, incomes, careers, safety, security, and other metrics of Plaintiffs:

     

    ­ Defendants produced a series of attack videos, articles, blog comments and documents and sent them directly to the spouses, partners, landlords, investors, employers, news media and others in an effort to “vaporize” Plaintiffs as part of the reprisal, vendetta, retribution services which Defendants offered and accepted employment to engage in. Defendants published these attack materials to over 5 billion people for over 5 years in hopes of “destroying” Plaintiffs.

     

    – Defendants contacted Social Security, SSI, SDI, Disability and other earned benefits services and caused them to be stone­walled. Applications were “lost”. Files in the application process “disappeared”. Lois Lerner hard drive “incidents” took place.

     

    ­ Corrupt state and federal employees worked with Defendants to play an endless game of Catch­22 by arbitrarily determining that deadlines had passed that they, the government officials, had stonewalled and obfuscated applications for, in order to force these deadlines that they set, to appear to be missed.

     

    ­ Some applicants found themselves strangely poisoned, not unlike the Alexander Litvenko case. Heavy metals and toxic materials were found right after their work with the Department of Energy weapons and energy facilities. Many wonder if these “targets” were intentionally exposed to toxins in retribution for their testimony. The federal MSDS documents clearly show that a number of these people were exposed to deadly compounds and radiations.

     

    ­ Applicants employers were called, and faxed, and ordered to fire applicants from their places of employment, in the middle of the day,with no notice, as a retribution tactic.

     

    ­ Applicants HR and employment records, on recruiting and hiring databases, were embedded with negative keywords and links to Defendants servers in order to prevent them from gaining future employment.

     

    ­ Peers Gary D. Conley and Rajeev Motwani, both whistle­blowers in this matter, turned up dead under strange circumstances. They are not alone in a series of bizarre deaths related to this matter.

     

    ­ Paypal, owned by Gawker backer Pierre Omidyar, and other on­line payments for on­line sales were delayed, hidden, or re­directed in order to terminate income potential for applicants who competed with Defendants interests and holdings.

     

    ­ DNS redirection, website spoofing which sent applicants websites to dead ends and other Internet activity manipulations were conducted.

     

    ­ Campaign finance dirty tricks contractors IN­Q­Tel, Think Progress, Media Matters, Gawker Media, Syd Blumenthal, etc., were hired and proven to have all been financially connected to Defendants. Executives and their campaign financiers to attack applicants who competed with Defendant executives stocks and personal assets.

     

    ­ Covert Defendant partner: Google, transfered large sums of cash to dirty tricks contractors and then manually locked the media portion of the attacks into the top lines of the top pages of all Google searches globally, for years, with hidden embedded codes in the links and web-pages which multiplied the attacks on applicants by many magnitudes.

     

    ­ Honeytraps and moles were employed by the attackers. In this tactic, people who covertly worked for the attackers were employed to approach the “target” in order to spy on and misdirect the subject. Vanity Fair produced a feature article about one such attack on the Founder of Tech Crunch, a peer.

     

    ­ Mortgage and rental applications had red flags added to them by Defendants in databases to prevent the targets from getting homes or apartments.

     

    ­ McCarthy­Era “Black­lists” were created and employed against applicants who competed with Defendants executives and their campaign financiers to prevent them from funding and future employment.

     

    ­ Targets were very carefully placed in a position of not being able to get jobs, unemployment benefits, disability benefits or acquire any possible sources of income. “

     

    The above list is only a partial set of examples of the attacks by Defendants.

     

    WHEREAS, Defendants attacking entities, for whom law enforcement and intelligence surveillance records exist, are, at least, known to include Defendants employees and contractors: 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 at a minimum but not to be limited by this law enforcement list.

     

    WHEREAS further information provided in the 7 other related federal cases that this Court has been notified of provide further confirming evidence.

     

    WHEREAS financial tracking of the financiers, beneficiaries and means of operations communications prove that a RICO-qualified Cartel was operated by Defendants.

     

    DEMAND IS HEREBY MADE FOR A JOINT DOJ/PLAINTIFF FEDERAL RICO COMPLAINT TO BE FILED AGAINST DEFENDANTS BY DOJ ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFFS AND THE UNITED STATES TAXPAYERS.

     

     

     

    PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that copies of any motions scheduled for hearing on the omnibus dates may be obtained free of charge by visiting the website of the Debtors’ claims and noticing agent, Prime Clerk LLC, at https://cases.primeclerk.com/gawker.

     

    You may also obtain copies of any pleadings by visiting the Court’s website at http://nysb.uscourts.gov in accordance with the procedures and fees set forth therein. You may also obtain copies of non-classified evidence for this case at http://www.globalscoop.net Case # 2788-D in folders # A-1 through A-50.

     

     

     

    PROOF OF SERVICE

     

    Plaintiffs group hereby certifies that on this date we caused this filing to be served via a true and correct copy of the foregoing by causing copies of same to be served on all counsel of record, all known creditors, federal law enforcement liaisons and on the U.S. Trustee for the Southern District of

     

    New York, Region 2, by electronic filing same via electronically traced and tracked digital networking and using the Prime Clerk case system and the Judge’s office electronic filing system.

     

     

     

     

    BCC: FBI, U.S. Congress, FTC, SEC, OSC, GAO, INTERPOL

     

    The last four digits of the taxpayer identification number of the debtors are: Gawker Media LLC (0492); Gawker

    Media Group, Inc. (3231); and Gawker Hungary Kft. (f/k/a Kinja Kft.) (5056). Gawker Media LLC and Gawker

    Media Group, Inc.’s mailing addresses are c/o Opportune LLP, Attn: William D. Holden, Chief Restructuring

    Officer, 10 East 53rd Street, 33rd Floor, New York, NY 10022. Gawker Hungary Kft.’s mailing address is c/o

    Opportune LLP, Attn: William D. Holden, 10 East 53rd Street, 33rd Floor, New York, NY 10022.

     

     

    1The last four digits of the taxpayer identification number of the debtors are: Gawker Media LLC (0492); Gawker

    Media Group, Inc. (3231); and Gawker Hungary Kft. (f/k/a Kinja Kft.) (5056). Gawker Media LLC and Gawker

    Media Group, Inc.’s mailing addresses are c/o Opportune LLP, Attn: William D. Holden, Chief Restructuring

    Officer, 10 East 53rd Street, 33rd Floor, New York, NY 10022. Gawker Hungary Kft.’s mailing address is c/o

    Opportune LLP, Attn: William D. Holden, 10 East 53rd Street, 33rd Floor, New York, NY 10022.

    GAWKER MEDIA LAWSUIT TURNS UP THE REAL REASON GAWKER EXISTED: IT WAS AN ATTACK DOG SERVICE

    UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

     

    SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

     

    ——————————————————x

     

    :

     

    In re : Chapter 11

     

    :

     

    Gawker Media LLC, et al., 1 : Case No. 16-11700 (SMB)

     

    :

     

    Debtors. : (Jointly Administered)

     

    :

     

    ——————————————————x

     

     

     

     

     

    AMENDED RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ) DEMAND FOR CO-OPERATIVE FILING OF RICO CHARGES WITH ASSISTED AND ASSOCIATED CHARGES COMBINING THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND PLAINTIFFS AS PLAINTIFF GROUP

     

    WHEREAS, Defendants Gawker Media, GMGI, Gawker Hungary (f/k/a Blogwire Hungary Szellemi Alkotast Hasznosito Kft.), Gawker Entertainment LLC, Gawker Technology, LLC, Gawker Sales, LLC, Nicholas G. A. Denton, Irin Carmon, Univision Communications, Univision America, Adrian Covert, Jon Herrman, Gaby Darbyshire, UniModa LLC, Elon Musk, John Doerr and DOES I through 220, including each employee of Gawker Media, did engage in RICO statute violations in their attempts to damage Plaintiffs.

     

    WHEREAS, public officials and investigators have provided proof of RICO violations to all journalism, Congressional and law enforcement parties with jurisdiction in these charges.

     

    WHEREAS, public news media and IT forums have now confirmed that due to Gawker Media’s attempted media manipulations in the 2008 and 2016 Presidential elections and the cross-national exchange of funds and interests between multiple questionable entities on multiple continents that each and every member of the above-stated defendants group has been under electronic surveillance on every electronic device with an IMEI address or network functionality by multiple law enforcement, defense, civil investigation, intelligence entities and the placement of under-cover journalists with Defendants group; and that the results of that surveillance, since 2007 is subpoena-accessible in this matter. Further, each of those legitimate entities that engaged in such surveillance that had even a single Cisco or Juniper Networks back-door embedded device touching their network has been revealed by U.S. DHS public reports to have had their servers breached by hackers. Any such evidence discovered after-the-fact may also legally be used in this case as evidence

     

    WHEREAS the publication known as THE INTERCEPT is funded by Gawker Media’s backers and shares real-estate venues with Gawker Media, First Look, The Intercept and other coordinating publications and that publication has published the following overview which describes in detail the Stasi-like methods used by Defendants against Plaintiffs:

     

    “One of the many pressing stories that remains to be told from the Snowden archive is how western intelligence agencies are attempting to manipulate and control online discourse with extreme tactics of deception and reputation-destruction. It’s time to tell a chunk of that story, complete with the relevant documents.

     

    Over the last several weeks, I worked with NBC News to publish a series of articles about “dirty trick” tactics used by GCHQ’s previously secret unit, JTRIG (Joint Threat Research Intelligence Group). These were based on four classified GCHQ documents presented to the NSA and the other three partners in the English-speaking “Five Eyes” alliance. Today, we at the Intercept are publishing another new JTRIG document, in full, entitled “The Art of Deception: Training for Online Covert Operations.”

     

    By publishing these stories one by one, our NBC reporting highlighted some of the key, discrete revelations: the monitoring of YouTube and Blogger, the targeting of Anonymous with the very same DDoS attacks they accuse “hacktivists” of using, the use of “honey traps” (luring people into compromising situations using sex) and destructive viruses. But, here, I want to focus and elaborate on the overarching point revealed by all of these documents: namely, that these agencies are attempting to control, infiltrate, manipulate, and warp online discourse, and in doing so, are compromising the integrity of the internet itself.

     

    Among the core self-identified purposes of JTRIG are two tactics: (1) to inject all sorts of false material onto the internet in order to destroy the reputation of its targets; and (2) to use social sciences and other techniques to manipulate online discourse and activism to generate outcomes it considers desirable. To see how extremist these programs are, just consider the tactics they boast of using to achieve those ends: “false flag operations” (posting material to the internet and falsely attributing it to someone else), fake victim blog posts (pretending to be a victim of the individual whose reputation they want to destroy), and posting “negative information” on various forums. Here is one illustrative list of tactics from the latest GCHQ document we’re publishing today:

     

     

    Other tactics aimed at individuals are listed here, under the revealing title “discredit a target”:

     

     

    Then there are the tactics used to destroy companies the agency targets:

     

     

    GCHQ describes the purpose of JTRIG in starkly clear terms: “using online techniques to make something happen in the real or cyber world,” including “information ops (influence or disruption).”

     

     

    Critically, the “targets” for this deceit and reputation-destruction extend far beyond the customary roster of normal spycraft: hostile nations and their leaders, military agencies, and intelligence services. In fact, the discussion of many of these techniques occurs in the context of using them in lieu of “traditional law enforcement” against people suspected (but not charged or convicted) of ordinary crimes or, more broadly still, “hacktivism”, meaning those who use online protest activity for political ends.

     

    The title page of one of these documents reflects the agency’s own awareness that it is “pushing the boundaries” by using “cyber offensive” techniques against people who have nothing to do with terrorism or national security threats, and indeed, centrally involves law enforcement agents who investigate ordinary crimes:

     

     

    No matter your views on Anonymous, “hacktivists” or garden-variety criminals, it is not difficult to see how dangerous it is to have secret government agencies being able to target any individuals they want – who have never been charged with, let alone convicted of, any crimes – with these sorts of online, deception-based tactics of reputation destruction and disruption. There is a strong argument to make, as Jay Leiderman demonstrated in the Guardian in the context of the Paypal 14 hacktivist persecution, that the “denial of service” tactics used by hacktivists result in (at most) trivial damage (far less than the cyber-warfare tactics favored by the US and UK) and are far more akin to the type of political protest protected by the First Amendment.

     

    The broader point is that, far beyond hacktivists, these surveillance agencies have vested themselves with the power to deliberately ruin people’s reputations and disrupt their online political activity even though they’ve been charged with no crimes, and even though their actions have no conceivable connection to terrorism or even national security threats. As Anonymous expert Gabriella Coleman of McGill University told me, “targeting Anonymous and hacktivists amounts to targeting citizens for expressing their political beliefs, resulting in the stifling of legitimate dissent.” Pointing to this study she published, Professor Coleman vehemently contested the assertion that “there is anything terrorist/violent in their actions.”

     

    Government plans to monitor and influence internet communications, and covertly infiltrate online communities in order to sow dissension and disseminate false information, have long been the source of speculation. Harvard Law Professor Cass Sunstein, a close Obama adviser and the White House’s former head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, wrote a controversial paper in 2008 proposing that the US government employ teams of covert agents and pseudo-”independent” advocates to “cognitively infiltrate” online groups and websites, as well as other activist groups.

     

    Sunstein also proposed sending covert agents into “chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups” which spread what he views as false and damaging “conspiracy theories” about the government. Ironically, the very same Sunstein was recently named by Obama to serve as a member of the NSA review panel created by the White House, one that – while disputing key NSA claims – proceeded to propose many cosmetic reforms to the agency’s powers (most of which were ignored by the President who appointed them).

     

    But these GCHQ documents are the first to prove that a major western government is using some of the most controversial techniques to disseminate deception online and harm the reputations of targets. Under the tactics they use, the state is deliberately spreading lies on the internet about whichever individuals it targets, including the use of what GCHQ itself calls “false flag operations” and emails to people’s families and friends. Who would possibly trust a government to exercise these powers at all, let alone do so in secret, with virtually no oversight, and outside of any cognizable legal framework?

     

    Then there is the use of psychology and other social sciences to not only understand, but shape and control, how online activism and discourse unfolds. Today’s newly published document touts the work of GCHQ’s “Human Science Operations Cell,” devoted to “online human intelligence” and “strategic influence and disruption”:

     

     

     

    Under the title “Online Covert Action”, the document details a variety of means to engage in “influence and info ops” as well as “disruption and computer net attack,” while dissecting how human beings can be manipulated using “leaders,” “trust,” “obedience” and “compliance”:

     

     

     

     

     

    The documents lay out theories of how humans interact with one another, particularly online, and then attempt to identify ways to influence the outcomes – or “game” it:

     

     

     

     

    We submitted numerous questions to GCHQ, including: (1) Does GCHQ in fact engage in “false flag operations” where material is posted to the Internet and falsely attributed to someone else?; (2) Does GCHQ engage in efforts to influence or manipulate political discourse online?; and (3) Does GCHQ’s mandate include targeting common criminals (such as boiler room operators), or only foreign threats?

     

    As usual, they ignored those questions and opted instead to send their vague and nonresponsive boilerplate: “It is a longstanding policy that we do not comment on intelligence matters. Furthermore, all of GCHQ’s work is carried out in accordance with a strict legal and policy framework which ensures that our activities are authorised, necessary and proportionate, and that there is rigorous oversight, including from the Secretary of State, the Interception and Intelligence Services Commissioners and the Parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee. All our operational processes rigorously support this position.”

     

    These agencies’ refusal to “comment on intelligence matters” – meaning: talk at all about anything and everything they do – is precisely why whistleblowing is so urgent, the journalism that supports it so clearly in the public interest, and the increasingly unhinged attacks by these agencies so easy to understand. Claims that government agencies are infiltrating online communities and engaging in “false flag operations” to discredit targets are often dismissed as conspiracy theories, but these documents leave no doubt they are doing precisely that.

     

    Whatever else is true, no government should be able to engage in these tactics: what justification is there for having government agencies target people – who have been charged with no crime – for reputation-destruction, infiltrate online political communities, and develop techniques for manipulating online discourse? But to allow those actions with no public knowledge or accountability is particularly unjustifiable.

     

    Documents referenced in this article:

     

     

    WHEREAS, Defendants are documented by advisors, whistle-blowers and consultants from law enforcement, defense, civil investigation, insider reporters from such as publications as TECH CRUNCH, The Daily Mail, ICIJ, Drudge Report, etc. and intelligence entities as being the persons and parties who did engage in the following attacks on Plaintiffs and said attacks can be tracked back to Defendants via forensic data and said attacks by Defendants threatened the lives, brands, incomes, careers, safety, security, and other metrics of Plaintiffs:

     

    ­ Defendants produced a series of attack videos, articles, blog comments and documents and sent them directly to the spouses, partners, landlords, investors, employers, news media and others in an effort to “vaporize” Plaintiffs as part of the reprisal, vendetta, retribution services which Defendants offered and accepted employment to engage in. Defendants published these attack materials to over 5 billion people for over 5 years in hopes of “destroying” Plaintiffs.

     

    – Defendants contacted Social Security, SSI, SDI, Disability and other earned benefits services and caused them to be stone­walled. Applications were “lost”. Files in the application process “disappeared”. Lois Lerner hard drive “incidents” took place.

     

    ­ Corrupt state and federal employees worked with Defendants to play an endless game of Catch­22 by arbitrarily determining that deadlines had passed that they, the government officials, had stonewalled and obfuscated applications for, in order to force these deadlines that they set, to appear to be missed.

     

    ­ Some applicants found themselves strangely poisoned, not unlike the Alexander Litvenko case. Heavy metals and toxic materials were found right after their work with the Department of Energy weapons and energy facilities. Many wonder if these “targets” were intentionally exposed to toxins in retribution for their testimony. The federal MSDS documents clearly show that a number of these people were exposed to deadly compounds and radiations.

     

    ­ Applicants employers were called, and faxed, and ordered to fire applicants from their places of employment, in the middle of the day,with no notice, as a retribution tactic.

     

    ­ Applicants HR and employment records, on recruiting and hiring databases, were embedded with negative keywords and links to Defendants servers in order to prevent them from gaining future employment.

     

    ­ Peers Gary D. Conley and Rajeev Motwani, both whistle­blowers in this matter, turned up dead under strange circumstances. They are not alone in a series of bizarre deaths related to this matter.

     

    ­ Paypal, owned by Gawker backer Pierre Omidyar, and other on­line payments for on­line sales were delayed, hidden, or re­directed in order to terminate income potential for applicants who competed with Defendants interests and holdings.

     

    ­ DNS redirection, website spoofing which sent applicants websites to dead ends and other Internet activity manipulations were conducted.

     

    ­ Campaign finance dirty tricks contractors IN­Q­Tel, Think Progress, Media Matters, Gawker Media, Syd Blumenthal, etc., were hired and proven to have all been financially connected to Defendants. Executives and their campaign financiers to attack applicants who competed with Defendant executives stocks and personal assets.

     

    ­ Covert Defendant partner: Google, transfered large sums of cash to dirty tricks contractors and then manually locked the media portion of the attacks into the top lines of the top pages of all Google searches globally, for years, with hidden embedded codes in the links and web-pages which multiplied the attacks on applicants by many magnitudes.

     

    ­ Honeytraps and moles were employed by the attackers. In this tactic, people who covertly worked for the attackers were employed to approach the “target” in order to spy on and misdirect the subject. Vanity Fair produced a feature article about one such attack on the Founder of Tech Crunch, a peer.

     

    ­ Mortgage and rental applications had red flags added to them by Defendants in databases to prevent the targets from getting homes or apartments.

     

    ­ McCarthy­Era “Black­lists” were created and employed against applicants who competed with Defendants executives and their campaign financiers to prevent them from funding and future employment.

     

    ­ Targets were very carefully placed in a position of not being able to get jobs, unemployment benefits, disability benefits or acquire any possible sources of income. “

     

    The above list is only a partial set of examples of the attacks by Defendants.

     

    WHEREAS, Defendants attacking entities, for whom law enforcement and intelligence surveillance records exist, are, at least, known to include Defendants employees and contractors: 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 at a minimum but not to be limited by this law enforcement list.

     

    WHEREAS further information provided in the 7 other related federal cases that this Court has been notified of provide further confirming evidence.

     

    WHEREAS financial tracking of the financiers, beneficiaries and means of operations communications prove that a RICO-qualified Cartel was operated by Defendants.

     

    DEMAND IS HEREBY MADE FOR A JOINT DOJ/PLAINTIFF FEDERAL RICO COMPLAINT TO BE FILED AGAINST DEFENDANTS BY DOJ ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFFS AND THE UNITED STATES TAXPAYERS.

     

     

     

    PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that copies of any motions scheduled for hearing on the omnibus dates may be obtained free of charge by visiting the website of the Debtors’ claims and noticing agent, Prime Clerk LLC, at https://cases.primeclerk.com/gawker.

     

    You may also obtain copies of any pleadings by visiting the Court’s website at http://nysb.uscourts.gov in accordance with the procedures and fees set forth therein. You may also obtain copies of non-classified evidence for this case at http://www.globalscoop.net Case # 2788-D in folders # A-1 through A-50.

     

     

     

    PROOF OF SERVICE

     

    Plaintiffs group hereby certifies that on this date we caused this filing to be served via a true and correct copy of the foregoing by causing copies of same to be served on all counsel of record, all known creditors, federal law enforcement liaisons and on the U.S. Trustee for the Southern District of

     

    New York, Region 2, by electronic filing same via electronically traced and tracked digital networking and using the Prime Clerk case system and the Judge’s office electronic filing system.

     

     

     

     

    BCC: FBI, U.S. Congress, FTC, SEC, OSC, GAO, INTERPOL

     

    The last four digits of the taxpayer identification number of the debtors are: Gawker Media LLC (0492); Gawker

    Media Group, Inc. (3231); and Gawker Hungary Kft. (f/k/a Kinja Kft.) (5056). Gawker Media LLC and Gawker

    Media Group, Inc.’s mailing addresses are c/o Opportune LLP, Attn: William D. Holden, Chief Restructuring

    Officer, 10 East 53rd Street, 33rd Floor, New York, NY 10022. Gawker Hungary Kft.’s mailing address is c/o

    Opportune LLP, Attn: William D. Holden, 10 East 53rd Street, 33rd Floor, New York, NY 10022.

     

     

    1The last four digits of the taxpayer identification number of the debtors are: Gawker Media LLC (0492); Gawker

    Media Group, Inc. (3231); and Gawker Hungary Kft. (f/k/a Kinja Kft.) (5056). Gawker Media LLC and Gawker

    Media Group, Inc.’s mailing addresses are c/o Opportune LLP, Attn: William D. Holden, Chief Restructuring

    Officer, 10 East 53rd Street, 33rd Floor, New York, NY 10022. Gawker Hungary Kft.’s mailing address is c/o

    Opportune LLP, Attn: William D. Holden, 10 East 53rd Street, 33rd Floor, New York, NY 10022.

     

     

    RICO RACKETEERING CHARGES DEMAND FILED FOR JOINT DOJ CHARGES AGAINST GAWKER MEDIA AND THEIR “CARTEL”

     

     

     

     

    Evidence Set, per BRANCHES public
    law center http://www.globalscoop.net Case # 2788-D

     

     

     

    In pro per Claimant and Plaintiff group requesting Court
    Appointed legal counsel or the provision of contingency litigators
    or deferral fee litigators

     

     

     

     

     

    UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

     

    SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

     

    ——————————————————x

     

    :

     

    In re : Chapter 11

     

    :

     

    Gawker Media LLC, et al., 1 : Case No. 16-11700 (SMB)

     

    :

     

    Debtors. : (Jointly Administered)

     

    :

     

    ——————————————————x

     

     

     

     

     

    RICO Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act demand for co-operative filing of RICO charges in association with The U.S. Department of Justice

     

    WHEREAS, Defendants Gawker Media, GMGI, Gawker Hungary (f/k/a Blogwire Hungary Szellemi Alkotast Hasznosito Kft.), Gawker Entertainment LLC, Gawker Technology, LLC, Gawker Sales, LLC, Nicholas G. A. Denton, Irin Carmon, Univision Communications, Univision America, Adrian Covert, Jon Herrman, Gaby Darbyshire, Elon Musk, John Doerr and DOES I through 50 did engage in RICO statute violations in their attempts to damage Plaintiffs.

     

    WHEREAS, public officials and investigators have provided proof of RICO violations to all parties with jurisdiction in these charges.

     

    WHEREAS the publication known as THE INTERCEPT is funded by Gawker Media’s backers and that publication has published the following overview which describes in detail the methods used by Defendants against Plaintiffs:

     

    “One of the many pressing stories that remains to be told from the Snowden archive is how western intelligence agencies are attempting to manipulate and control online discourse with extreme tactics of deception and reputation-destruction. It’s time to tell a chunk of that story, complete with the relevant documents.

     

    Over the last several weeks, I worked with NBC News to publish a series of articles about “dirty trick” tactics used by GCHQ’s previously secret unit, JTRIG (Joint Threat Research Intelligence Group). These were based on four classified GCHQ documents presented to the NSA and the other three partners in the English-speaking “Five Eyes” alliance. Today, we at the Intercept are publishing another new JTRIG document, in full, entitled “The Art of Deception: Training for Online Covert Operations.”

     

    By publishing these stories one by one, our NBC reporting highlighted some of the key, discrete revelations: the monitoring of YouTube and Blogger, the targeting of Anonymous with the very same DDoS attacks they accuse “hacktivists” of using, the use of “honey traps” (luring people into compromising situations using sex) and destructive viruses. But, here, I want to focus and elaborate on the overarching point revealed by all of these documents: namely, that these agencies are attempting to control, infiltrate, manipulate, and warp online discourse, and in doing so, are compromising the integrity of the internet itself.

     

    Among the core self-identified purposes of JTRIG are two tactics: (1) to inject all sorts of false material onto the internet in order to destroy the reputation of its targets; and (2) to use social sciences and other techniques to manipulate online discourse and activism to generate outcomes it considers desirable. To see how extremist these programs are, just consider the tactics they boast of using to achieve those ends: “false flag operations” (posting material to the internet and falsely attributing it to someone else), fake victim blog posts (pretending to be a victim of the individual whose reputation they want to destroy), and posting “negative information” on various forums. Here is one illustrative list of tactics from the latest GCHQ document we’re publishing today:

     


     

    Other tactics aimed at individuals are listed here, under the revealing title “discredit a target”:

     


     

    Then there are the tactics used to destroy companies the agency targets:

     


     

    GCHQ describes the purpose of JTRIG in starkly clear terms: “using online techniques to make something happen in the real or cyber world,” including “information ops (influence or disruption).”

     


     

    Critically, the “targets” for this deceit and reputation-destruction extend far beyond the customary roster of normal spycraft: hostile nations and their leaders, military agencies, and intelligence services. In fact, the discussion of many of these techniques occurs in the context of using them in lieu of “traditional law enforcement” against people suspected (but not charged or convicted) of ordinary crimes or, more broadly still, “hacktivism”, meaning those who use online protest activity for political ends.

     

    The title page of one of these documents reflects the agency’s own awareness that it is “pushing the boundaries” by using “cyber offensive” techniques against people who have nothing to do with terrorism or national security threats, and indeed, centrally involves law enforcement agents who investigate ordinary crimes:

     


     

    No matter your views on Anonymous, “hacktivists” or garden-variety criminals, it is not difficult to see how dangerous it is to have secret government agencies being able to target any individuals they want – who have never been charged with, let alone convicted of, any crimes – with these sorts of online, deception-based tactics of reputation destruction and disruption. There is a strong argument to make, as Jay Leiderman demonstrated in the Guardian in the context of the Paypal 14 hacktivist persecution, that the “denial of service” tactics used by hacktivists result in (at most) trivial damage (far less than the cyber-warfare tactics favored by the US and UK) and are far more akin to the type of political protest protected by the First Amendment.

     

    The broader point is that, far beyond hacktivists, these surveillance agencies have vested themselves with the power to deliberately ruin people’s reputations and disrupt their online political activity even though they’ve been charged with no crimes, and even though their actions have no conceivable connection to terrorism or even national security threats. As Anonymous expert Gabriella Coleman of McGill University told me, “targeting Anonymous and hacktivists amounts to targeting citizens for expressing their political beliefs, resulting in the stifling of legitimate dissent.” Pointing to this study she published, Professor Coleman vehemently contested the assertion that “there is anything terrorist/violent in their actions.”

     

    Government plans to monitor and influence internet communications, and covertly infiltrate online communities in order to sow dissension and disseminate false information, have long been the source of speculation. Harvard Law Professor Cass Sunstein, a close Obama adviser and the White House’s former head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, wrote a controversial paper in 2008 proposing that the US government employ teams of covert agents and pseudo-”independent” advocates to “cognitively infiltrate” online groups and websites, as well as other activist groups.

     

    Sunstein also proposed sending covert agents into “chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups” which spread what he views as false and damaging “conspiracy theories” about the government. Ironically, the very same Sunstein was recently named by Obama to serve as a member of the NSA review panel created by the White House, one that – while disputing key NSA claims – proceeded to propose many cosmetic reforms to the agency’s powers (most of which were ignored by the President who appointed them).

     

    But these GCHQ documents are the first to prove that a major western government is using some of the most controversial techniques to disseminate deception online and harm the reputations of targets. Under the tactics they use, the state is deliberately spreading lies on the internet about whichever individuals it targets, including the use of what GCHQ itself calls “false flag operations” and emails to people’s families and friends. Who would possibly trust a government to exercise these powers at all, let alone do so in secret, with virtually no oversight, and outside of any cognizable legal framework?

     

    Then there is the use of psychology and other social sciences to not only understand, but shape and control, how online activism and discourse unfolds. Today’s newly published document touts the work of GCHQ’s “Human Science Operations Cell,” devoted to “online human intelligence” and “strategic influence and disruption”:

     


     


     

    Under the title “Online Covert Action”, the document details a variety of means to engage in “influence and info ops” as well as “disruption and computer net attack,” while dissecting how human beings can be manipulated using “leaders,” “trust,” “obedience” and “compliance”:

     


     

     

     

     

    The documents lay out theories of how humans interact with one another, particularly online, and then attempt to identify ways to influence the outcomes – or “game” it:

     

     

     

     

    We submitted numerous questions to GCHQ, including: (1) Does GCHQ in fact engage in “false flag operations” where material is posted to the Internet and falsely attributed to someone else?; (2) Does GCHQ engage in efforts to influence or manipulate political discourse online?; and (3) Does GCHQ’s mandate include targeting common criminals (such as boiler room operators), or only foreign threats?

     

    As usual, they ignored those questions and opted instead to send their vague and nonresponsive boilerplate: “It is a longstanding policy that we do not comment on intelligence matters. Furthermore, all of GCHQ’s work is carried out in accordance with a strict legal and policy framework which ensures that our activities are authorised, necessary and proportionate, and that there is rigorous oversight, including from the Secretary of State, the Interception and Intelligence Services Commissioners and the Parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee. All our operational processes rigorously support this position.”

     

    These agencies’ refusal to “comment on intelligence matters” – meaning: talk at all about anything and everything they do – is precisely why whistleblowing is so urgent, the journalism that supports it so clearly in the public interest, and the increasingly unhinged attacks by these agencies so easy to understand. Claims that government agencies are infiltrating online communities and engaging in “false flag operations” to discredit targets are often dismissed as conspiracy theories, but these documents leave no doubt they are doing precisely that.

     

    Whatever else is true, no government should be able to engage in these tactics: what justification is there for having government agencies target people – who have been charged with no crime – for reputation-destruction, infiltrate online political communities, and develop techniques for manipulating online discourse? But to allow those actions with no public knowledge or accountability is particularly unjustifiable.

     

    Documents referenced in this article:

     

     

    WHEREAS further information provided in the 7 other related federal cases that this Court has been notified of provide further confirming evidence.

     

    WHEREAS financial tracking of the financiers, beneficiaries and means of operations communications prove that a RICO-qualified Cartel was operated by Defendants.

     

    DEMAND IS HEREBY MADE FOR A JOINT DOJ/PLAINTIFF FEDERAL RICO COMPLAINT TO BE FILED AGAINST DEFENDANTS BY DOJ ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFFS AND THE UNITED STATES TAXPAYERS.

     

     

    PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that copies of any motions scheduled for hearing on the omnibus dates may be obtained free of charge by visiting the website of the Debtors’ claims and noticing agent, Prime Clerk LLC, at https://cases.primeclerk.com/gawker.

    You may also obtain copies of any pleadings by visiting the Court’s website at http://nysb.uscourts.gov in accordance with the procedures and fees set forth therein. You may also obtain copies of non-classified evidence for this case at http://www.globalscoop.net Case # 2788-D in folders # A-1 through A-50.

     

    PROOF OF SERVICE

     

    Plaintiffs group hereby certifies that on this date we caused this filing to be served via a true and correct copy of the foregoing by causing copies of same to be served on all counsel of record, all known creditors, federal law enforcement liaisons and on the U.S. Trustee for the Southern District of

     

    New York, Region 2, by electronic filing same via electronically traced and tracked digital networking and using the Prime Clerk case system and the Judge’s office electronic filing system.

     

     

     

    BCC: FBI, U.S. Congress, FTC, SEC, OSC, GAO, INTERPOL

     

    1The last four digits of the taxpayer identification number of the debtors are: Gawker Media LLC (0492); Gawker

    Media Group, Inc. (3231); and Gawker Hungary Kft. (f/k/a Kinja Kft.) (5056). Gawker Media LLC and Gawker

    Media Group, Inc.’s mailing addresses are c/o Opportune LLP, Attn: William D. Holden, Chief Restructuring

    Officer, 10 East 53rd Street, 33rd Floor, New York, NY 10022. Gawker Hungary Kft.’s mailing address is c/o

    Opportune LLP, Attn: William D. Holden, 10 East 53rd Street, 33rd Floor, New York, NY 10022.

     

     

    How The Silicon Valley Tech Cartel Rapes American Innovation

    How The Silicon Valley Tech Cartel Rapes American

     

    Innovation

     

     

     

    By Allison Hunter

     

     

     

     

    I interviewed Silicon Valley’s inventors. The stories are all tragically similar:

     

    I worked 8 to 10 hours a day, six days a week for over 40 years and other’s made billions of dollars off of my work after they came by to see how to copy it….”

     

    For those who say the creators should reap the benefits of their work and innovations, where are my benefits of my work? These same men came, copied, stole and laughed off any rebuke…”

     

    Sony, Google and Kleiner Perkins owners and bosses dated me, (and f*cked me in so many other ways), solicited me, had me to their homes, came to my offices, and invited me to “show them my technology so they could see about ‘investing’ their venture capitol” funds in my companies. In 90% of the cases they came, they saw, they copied, they blockaded and they made billions of dollars.”

     

    Not a single one of these Silicon Valley Cartel tech mobsters had a single bit of previous experience in the technologies that I had spent decades on before they copied them. They have been proven to have had no knowledge of, or full understanding of the technologies prior to our meetings. They simply copied others and never ever paid for the rights to copy…”

     

    The biggest thief is Google. Google put it’s lawyer: Michelle Lee, in charge of the U.S. Patent Office so that she could help blockade any patents that Google didn’t want Silicon Valley inventors to get. The New York Times published an article about how Google’s Larry Page is “obsessed” with sneaking around at tech events and stealing inventors technologies. Google seems to have the moral code of an alley rat.

     

    The Silicon Valley tactic involves sending an MBA graduate known as a “window-man” to harvest an entrepreneurs technology. In Silicon Valley these MBA idea bandits are called “Venture Capitalists” or “VC’s”. The VC comes to an entrepreneur, or has the entrepreneur send in a powerpoint, so that the VC can send the data off to a process called “due diligence”. At Kleiner Perkins and Draper Fisher, two highly self-promoted VC firms, “due diligence” often involves figuring out how the VC can copy the technology without getting caught. The VC’s have another person in their group copy the entrepreneur, rename the technology, author character assassination blog articles while black-listing the original entrepreneur and roll out their clone technology.

     

    The VC’s do not even use their own money. They scam retirement funds and pension aggregates into given them your parents money to play with and Ponzi around their little schemes.

     

    The facts, federal filings, dated and signed NDA’s prove that many of these big tech companies were absolutely not a matter of coincidence or “Silicon synergy” as Kleiner Perkins claims. It is clear that a number of these big companies came from outsiders who were not yuppie-enough, white frat-house-bro enough or Elite-family connected enough to get into the old boys club. The Eric Schmidt’s, The Vinod Khosla’s and the John Doerr simply said “Steal it” when they saw what they wanted.

     

    The copy cat VC’s make certain that the entrepreneur is bankrupted and defamed so that he can never get funded, can’t compete and has no way to get the two million dollars in legal fees that it costs to sue the Silicon Valley thieves. The Silicon Valley Cartel has warned every high technology law firm that if they ever represent one of these ripped-off entrepreneurs then that law firm will get black-listed from any future contracts with Silicon Valley. This has forced many entrepreneurs to turn to Russian and Chinese law firms who will gladly sue Silicon Valley.

     

    Of over 320 million Americans, only these thirty, or so, men, from the same club, frat houses and social meeting spots engaged in these same heinous activities over and over. These are the same exact men whose fraternity houses were involved in the take-what-you-want college rape scandals. These are also the same exact men who are involved in the high-end prostitute scandals. Notice a trend?

     

    They are all connected to the same handful of people at Sony, Google, and Kleiner Perkins. The publicly available hacks of all of their emails and stock records prove that they conspired and colluded together. The forensic evidence proves that they all paid cash to the same small group of politicians in exchange for crony payola.

     

    The FTC, SEC and Attorney General needs to bring crushing indictments against John Doerr, Elon Musk, Tim Draper, Larry Page, Eric Schmidt, Ira Erhenpreis, Steve Westly and the rest of the Silicon Valley Cartel for anti-trust and intellectual property theft mill operations. These men are a sad vestige of the past criminality that the previous administration promoted. The future must hold better for America.

    The Man From I.N.Q.T.E.L.

     

    IN-Q-TEL SPIES ARE PUBLICLY ACKNOWLEDGED TO BE WORKING AT ELON MUSK’S COMPANIES, ERIC SCHMIDT’S COMPANIES AND MARK ZUCKERBERG’S INVESTMENTS

     

    The Man From I.N.Q.T.E.L.

     

    Special submission to the Intercept by Rob Martin and S. Brown with The Guardian

     

    Five tons of cocaine may seem like a lot of cocaine for a “501 C 3 non-profit charity” to have on it’s

     

    airplanes but the little rogue Silicon Valley spy agency called I.N.Q.T.E.L. said that “it just couldn’t

     

    imagine how it got there” or why I.N.Q.T.E.L. flight manifests had decided to name the airplane

     

    “Cocaine One”.

     

    Former editors at Silicon Valley’s TechCrunch say that “I.N.Q.T.E.L. is just an off-shoot of the Mark

     

    Zuckerberg/Eric Schmidt scheme to try to steer defense money to Silicon Valley VC’s who funded the

     

    Obama campaign. In fact, all of the Big Data technologies that Silicon Valley tried to push off onto the

     

    Pentagon have failed on every front, found not a single terrorist ahead of time, been exploited by those

     

    VC’s to spy on Americans for marketing and political manipulation and, got every major corporation

     

    hacked by the Russians and Chinese and, generally, turned into one of the biggest social technology

     

    disasters in history.”

     

    Chris Byron writes in the The New York Post that he thinks that the THE SPY AGENCY SHOULD

     

    CLOSE ITS VENTURE CAPITAL FIRM

     

    “If former National Security Agency chief Michael Hayden hangs in there as President Bush’s nominee

     

    to head the CIA and makes it to a Senate confirmation hearing, one of the panel’s members should ask

     

    him this: “Sir, please tell the committee how much further you anticipate allowing the CIA to expand its

     

    presence on Wall Street via the private venture capital firm known as In-Q-Tel, Inc.”

     

    Hayden came under withering fire in Washington last week as word spread that the ex-NSA chief had

     

    presided over the White House’s post-9/11 surveillance program of monitoring domestic U.S. telephone

     

    calls. The White House, politically weakened from a year of setbacks both at home and abroad, may

     

    decide to withdraw Hayden from consideration and submit an alternative nominee burdened with less

     

    civil liberties baggage.

     

    Yet whoever winds up in the CIA’s top job will inherit a developing mess involving In-Q-Tel that was

     

    largely ignored by the agency’s departing director, Porter Goss. Hints that all is not well with In-Q-Telhave begun seeping into view as this little-known domestic CIA front operation continues to funnel

     

    agency money into penny stock and micro-cap companies in Wall Street’s murkiest back alleys.

     

    Two In-Q-Tel CEOs have resigned from the six-year-old venture capital fund in just the last four

     

    months; the fund is being run on a day-to-day basis by a man from Washington’s politically greased

     

    Carlyle Group who has been with In-Q-Tel for only a few weeks. Headhunters are said to be having

     

    trouble coming up with candidates for a permanent replacement.

     

    And there are even reports, largely unconfirmed, that the Securities and Exchange Commision is

     

    looking into several penny stock promoters with ties to In-Q-Tel.

     

    Launched in 1999 by CIA director George Tenet as a Wall Street venture fund to finance new

     

    technologies for the spy world, In-Q-Tel quickly found friends on Capitol Hill, where policymakers

     

    seized on the fund as a way to remind constituents that the ghost of Vietnam no longer walked the land.

     

    The attacks of 9/11 gave In-Q-Tel even more stature in Congress, where the fund came to be seen as an

     

    essential element in the war effort.

     

    Yet the public’s visceral reaction to last week’s NSA revelations suggests that war or no war, a backlash

     

    against government snooping may be starting. And that in turn promises to crank up the heat under In-

     

    Q-Tel, where at least some of the fund’s investments raise questions of judgment regarding how

     

    taxpayer money is being spent by the organization, as well as who it is choosing for business partners.

     

    A year ago, this column drew back the curtain on a fishy In-Q-Tel in vestment, financed out of the black

     

    box budget of the CIA, in a defense-sector start-up called Ionatron Inc.

     

    Run by a longtime Wall Street regulatory violator named Robert Howard, Ionatron used a cash

     

    infusion from In-Q-Tel to promote itself around Washington as the developer of a laser-equipped,

     

    remotely controlled device the size of a golf cart that could patrol the highways of Iraq, ferreting out

     

    and detonating insurgent land mines ahead of troop movements.

     

    We warned in this space that the technology being trumpeted by Ionatron was not only unproven, but

     

    had been obtained by Howard and some midlevel researchers at Raytheon Corp. under highly

     

    irregular circumstances designed to persuade a West Coast laser researcher into turning over his

     

    research to Howard’s group.

     

    Nonetheless, Sen. Hillary Clinton and her Democratic colleague from California, Barbara Boxer,

     

    quickly embraced the Ionatron program, which eventually devoured more than $12 million in

     

    government funding before the Pentagon finally concluded last week that the devices are not reliable

     

    and cancelled plans to deploy them.

     

    Ionatron’s stock price has tumbled more than a third in the last three weeks, leaving the company’s

     

    largest investor – prominent hedge fund SAC Capital Advisors, run by Steven A. Cohen of Connecticut –

     

    sitting with millions in paper losses.

     

    SAC Capital has acknowledged that it is under investigation by the SEC in what appears to be a

     

    separate matter involving stock trading, and the SEC may soon start taking a look into the hedge fund’s

     

    buying of Ionatron’s shares.

     

    In-Q-Tel’s growing portfolio of investments includes a few successes. Yet the fund has more often

     

    poured money into companies that were barking dogs long before In-Q-Tel showed up, and have failed

     

    to improve since.

     

    Consider a North Carolina outfit called ID Technologies Corp., which began life in 1994 as

     

    CardGuard International Inc. to promote a fingerprint identification system no one wanted to buy. In

     

    the four years that followed, the company racked up losses of $3 million on a mere $92,000 in

     

    revenues.

     

    In 1998, the company changed its name to ID Technologies and added $2.5 million more to the loss

     

    column on barely $100,000 more in revenues.

     

    Along the way, In-Q-Tel popped up with plans to invest $400,000 more in ID Tech, but the firm

     

    collapsed, leaving investors with $5.58 million in cumulative losses and a stock that now sells for a

     

    fraction of a penny per share.Another In-Q-Tel investment, in a data software company called Convera Corp., may be headed in the

     

    same direction, bearing much greater losses. In 2004 the fund took a stake in Convera, which had yet

     

    to turn a profit while piling up more than $1 billion in cumulative losses since its founding in the mid-

     

    1980s.

     

    By the end of 2005, a resulting bounce in Convera stock had topped out at $16, and the shares have

     

    since lost half their value. Last week they were trading below $8 on investor disenchantment with the

     

    perennial money loser’s latest offering: an Internet search engine for extracting information from video

     

    files.

     

    Because its funding comes from the CIA, In-Q-Tel has been an irresistible target for conspiracy

     

    theorists who charge that the CIA is somehow linked through it to every penny stock that goes south.

     

    Last week, one left-leaning Web site reported that SEC investigators think the CIA-backed venture fund

     

    has been steering money into penny stock “pump and dump” firms in Israel, Dubai and Malaysia.

     

    But a day’s worth of phoning around traces these claims to a tireless complainant named Tony Ryals,

     

    who has been bombarding the SEC and Internet message boards for years with claims that he has

     

    uncovered a submerged world of In-Q-Tel-linked fraud stretching for Kuala Lumpur to the Middle

     

    East.

     

    The alleged linkages are bewildering in their complexity and typically impossible to follow, but

     

    conspiracy buffs find them irresistible, since they seem to echo some of the CIA’s worst excesses from

     

    30 to 40 years ago, and by their nature, they can never be entirely disproved.

     

    WHETHER the SEC has looked into Ryals’ charges and found them baseless isn’t known, but thanks to

     

    In-Q-Tel and the lengthening shadow of the CIA on Wall Street, the most improbable of such claims

     

    once again have a whiff of credibility.

     

    Bottom line: There are many sensible ways the CIA could have gone about developing the technologies

     

    it needs, but funneling money into Wall Street via an outfit like In-Q-Tel was never one of them. So it

     

    will be a good thing for Wall Street – and for America, too – if the CIA’s next spymaster simply shuts the

     

    operation down. (cbyron@nypost.com)

     

    Bob Simon, of the CBS News 60 Minutes TV show, thought that I.N.Q.T.E.L. was a bunch of wanna

     

    be’s from Stanford and Yale. The internet’s Corbett Report has produced numerous documentaries

     

    which describe I.N.Q.T.E.L. as nearly psychotic fringe-mentality yuppie spies with their own private

     

    agenda.

     

    Thomas Ricks explains how I.N.Q.T.E.L. and New America Foundation, who are, essentially the same

     

    organization want all war to now be fought by Silicon Valley technologies. Isn’t that convenient for

     

    those Silicon Valley campaign financiers?

     

    “The Future of War: A New America project looking at 21st century conflict. In the interest of

     

    improving our national security, protecting our rights, and helping get us out of the endless “war on

     

    terror,” the New America Foundation is launching a project on the future of war. Here is a look at the

     

    initial thinking, which is liable to change as our various participants bring to bear their very different

     

    areas of expertise. Plus, isn’t it time that there was a study of the future of defense funded by neither

     

    the Pentagon nor the defense industry?

     

    By the Future of War team, New America Foundation (Controlled by Eric Schmidt and Google)

     

    Best Defense office of the future. Throughout history, changes in the conduct of warfare have been one

     

    of the primary drivers of shifts in how societies and states are organized. Today, the evolution of

     

    autonomous weapons systems, the emergence of ever more sophisticated surveillance technologies, the

     

    militarization of cyberspace and outer space, and a range of similar developments are dramaticallychanging the nature of war — with profound implications for the nature of the international order, the

     

    manner in which we control and constrain power and violence, and the nature of the state itself.

     

    Few seem fully to grasp this, however. For the most part, these changes in the means and methods of

     

    warfare are usually viewed narrowly, and understood as matters of interest mainly to specialized

     

    communities of policy wonks, military planners, civil libertarians, or counterterrorism experts. As with

     

    the story of the blind men and the elephant, many people are looking at different facets of the changing

     

    nature of war, each trying to describe what they see (and often misunderstanding what it is they are

     

    seeing). That’s not good enough: We need to look at the whole elephant.

     

    With the United States still locked into a “forever war” paradigm that doesn’t comport with American

     

    values or history, it’s more urgent than ever to understand the ways in which changes in the nature of

     

    war both drive and are driven by changes in state-level, sub-state-level, and international policies and

     

    institutions. At the same time states are developing unprecedented military technologies, the means of

     

    mass destruction have been democratized: Today, terrorist organizations and other non-state actors

     

    can cause damage and destruction on a scale we normally associate with states. Meanwhile, new

     

    technologies are eroding old assumptions about sovereignty and state autonomy. Nonetheless, we still

     

    operate mainly within a legal and political paradigm that draws sharp — if increasingly arbitrary–

     

    lines between domestic and international matters, between states and non-state actors, and between

     

    war and crime.

     

    It’s increasingly apparent that existing legal paradigms neither provide adequate tools for responding

     

    to new kinds of threats nor offer an appropriate framework for protecting human rights and human

     

    dignity. As we move forward, we need to find a way to evolve beyond the post-9/11 state of perpetual

     

    war — and we need to do so in a way takes into account these seismic changes, allows for an adaptive

     

    response to evolving threats, and enhances the robust protection of human rights.

     

    The New America Foundation is well positioned to sort out the thorny issues that arise from the

     

    changing nature of warfare. Unlike most think tanks and NGOs, New America isn’t made up of

     

    specialists having “insider” conversations with one another: lawyers talking to other lawyers, or

     

    defense policy experts talking to other defense policy experts. Instead, New America connects the

     

    worlds of law, technology, political science, history, policy, the military, the human rights community,

     

    and the media, each of which often operates in isolation.

     

    Core members of New America’s Future of War team include journalists, technologists, military history

     

    and terrorism experts, human rights experts, and international law and defense policy experts. Our

     

    individual and collective expertise and connections enable us to convene the most creative and

     

    influential thinkers, writers, and decision-makers from these varied and often separate worlds; develop

     

    bold conceptual frameworks combined with more specific legal and policy proposals; write and talk

     

    about these intelligibly and interestingly; and attract extensive media coverage to our work and our

     

    recommendations. The Future of War project is led by Peter Bergen, director of national security

     

    studies at the New America Foundation and the author of several books. This series was drafted by him

     

    and the team’s other members: Rosa Brooks, Anne-Marie Slaughter, Sascha Meinrath, and Tom Ricks.”

     

    If that isn’t a pitch for “GIVE GOOGLE ALL OF THE PENTAGON’S MONEY” then the moon is

     

    blue. There is how Eric Schmidt gets hundreds of billions of government dollars shoveled into his

     

    pocket and why Eric Schmidt gets to tell President Obama what to do! (See the article THE ANDROID

     

    ADMINISTRATION)

     

    I.N.Q.T.E.L. has provided the staff for Google, Facebook, Elon Musk’s companies including Space X

     

    (Where an I.N.Q.T.E.L. related programmer was arrested for running SILK ROAD, the largest on-line

     

    cocaine selling service in history) and helped get Sony Pictures Entertainment the secret information

     

    for their OBL film: ZERO DARK THIRTY in exchange for campaign contributions.I.N.Q.T.E.L. is the dirty tricks team that the Sid Blumenthal’s of the world send their clients to.

     

    I.N.Q.T.E.L. is contracted by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to put hit jobs on the enemies of the U.S.

     

    Chamber of Commerce. Hillary Clinton’s State Department has paid I.N.Q.T.E.L. tens of millions of

     

    dollars. Why?

     

    When Eric Schmidt and Google created “The Arab Spring” uprisings in the Middle East, a fact widely

     

    reported in the news and bragged about by Google’s own staff, I.N.Q.T.E.L. was riding shotgun on the

     

    whole affair.

     

    Here is the thing: Should taxpayer money be used to fund I.N.Q.T.E.L. when it is often just being used

     

    as a political and business dirty tricks service to attack U.S. citizens, inside America, who compete with

     

    Silicon Valley campaign financiers?

     

    The law says it is a felony for I.N.Q.T.E.L. to exist. What does the reader think?

     

    We asked Chester L. Jordan, The U.S. Army Legal Services Agency Regulatory Law and Intellectual

     

    Property Division boss in Arlington, VA, and his staff, if I.N.Q.T.E.L. did not seem to be competing

     

    <

    p style=”margin-bottom:0;line-height:100%;”>with, and screwing with the very Pentagon, itself. He said he would take it under consideration.

     

    Bankers openly confess to rare metals mining organized crime yet Elon Musk’s rare metal lithium corruption is still covered up

    Bankers openly confess to rare metals mining organized crime yet Elon Musk’s rare metal lithium corruption is still covered up

     

     

     

    Bankers Turn Against Each Other, Release “Smoking Gun” Proof Of Massive Market Rigging Scheme

     

    The Free Thought Project

     

     

     

    (ZeroHedge) — Back in April, when we first reported that Deutsche Bank had agreed to settle allegations it had rigged the silver market in exchange for $38 million, we revealed something stunning: “in a curious twist, the settlement letter revealed that the former members of the manipulation cartel have turned on each other“, and that Deutsche Bank would provide documents implicating other precious metals riggers. To wit: “In addition to valuable monetary consideration, Deutsche Bank has also agreed to provide cooperation to plaintiffs, including the production of instant messages, and other electronic communications, as part of the settlement. In Plaintiff’s estimation, the cooperation to be provided by Deutsche Bank will substantially assist Plaintiffs in the prosecution of their claims against the non-settling defendants.”

     

    Overnight we finally got a glimpse into what this “production” contained, and according to documents filed by the plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit, what Deutsche Bank provided as part of its settlement was nothing short of “smoking gun” proof that UBS Group AG, HSBC Holdings Plc, Bank of Nova Scotia and other firms rigged the silver market. The allegation, as Bloomberg first noted, came in a filing Wednesday in a Manhattan federal court lawsuit filed in 2014 by individuals and entities that bought or sold futures contracts.

     

    In the document records surrendered by Deutsche Bank and presented below, traders and submitters were captured coordinating trades in advance of a daily phone call, manipulating the spot market for silver, conspiring to fix the spread on silver offered to customers and using illegal strategies to rig prices.

     

    “Plaintiffs are now able to plead with direct, ‘smoking gun’ evidence,’ including secret electronic chats involving silver traders and submitters across a number of financial institutions, a multi-year, well-coordinated and wide-ranging conspiracy to rig the prices,” the plaintiffs said in their filing.

     

     

     

    The latest evidence is critical because as the plaintiffs add, the new scheme “far surpasses the conspiracy alleged earlier.” As a result, the litigants are seeking permission to file a new complaint with the additional allegations, i.e., demand even more reparations from the defendants who have not yet settled, and perhaps even more evidence of ongoing market rigging. Their proposed complaint broadens the case beyond the four banks initially sued to include claims against units of Barclays Plc, BNP Paribas Fortis SA, Standard Chartered Plc and Bank of America Corp.

     

    Representatives of UBS, BNP Paribas Fortis, HSBC, Standard Chartered and Scotiabank didn’t immediately respond to e-mails outside regular business hours seeking comment on the allegations. Barclays and Bank of America declined to immediately comment.

     

    The Deutsche Bank documents show, among other things, how two UBS traders communicated directly with two Deutsche Bank traders and discussed ways to rig the market. The traders shared customer order-flow information, improperly triggered customer stop-loss orders, and engaged in practices such as spoofing, all meant to destabilize the price of silver ahead of the fix and result in forced selling or buying. It is also what has led on so many occasions to the infamous previous metals “slam”, when out of nowhere billions in notional contracts emerge, usually with the intent to sell, to halt any upside moment in the precious metals/

     

    “UBS was the third-largest market maker in the silver spot market and could directly influence the prices of silver financial instruments based on the sheer volume of silver it traded,” the plaintiffs allege. “Conspiring with other large market makers, like Deutsche Bank and HSBC, only increased UBS’s ability to influence the market.”

     

    Some examples of the chats quoted are shown below. In the first example a chart between DB and HSBC traders in which one HSBC trader says “really wanna sel sil[ver” to which the other trader says “Let’s go and smash it together.”

     

     

    Another chat transcript from May 11, 2011 reveals a Deutsche Bank trader telling a UBS trader that the cartel “WERE THE SILVER MARKET”(sic) based on feedback from outside traders to which UBS replies, referring to the silver market “we smashed it good”, leading to the following lament “fking hell UBS now u make me regret not joining.”

     

     

     

    Finally, for all those traders who wonder what happened to their stops as a result of dramatic moves in the price, here is the answer: a June 2011 chat between a UBS and a DB trader comes down to the following: “if you have stops… who ya gonna call… STOP BUSTERS”

     

     

    If the plaintiff request for an expanded lawsuit is granted, we expect many more fireworks as other banks rush to settle on their own and provide even more documentary proof of unprecedented precious metal market manipulation, until there is just one bank left standing, ostensibly the one slammed with the biggest fine of all, perhaps even leading to prison time for some of the market riggers.

     

    <

    p style=”margin-bottom:0;line-height:100%;”> 

     

    Elon Musk, George Soros and Eric Schmidt Hold Meetings About How To Sabotage Trump

     

    Soros And Liberal Mega-Donors Plot For War With Donald Trump

    Tyler Durden's picture
     
    Submitted by Joseph Jankowski of PlanetFreeWill.com

    George Soros and other liberal mega-donors are gathering in Washington for a three-day, closed-door meeting where they will discuss opposing Trump’s plan for his first 100 days in office.

    According to Politico, the meeting, which began on Sunday night at Washington’s Mandarin Oriental hotel, is sponsored by the influential Democracy Alliance donor club and will include darlings of the left such as House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, Senator Elizabeth Warren and Congressional Progressive Caucus co-chairman Keith Ellison.

    Politico reports:

    The meeting is the first major gathering of the institutional left since Trump’s shocking victory over Hillary Clinton in last week’s presidential election, and, if the agenda is any indication, liberals plan full-on trench warfare against Trump from Day One. Some sessions deal with gearing up for 2017 and 2018 elections, while others focus on thwarting President-elect Trump’s 100-day plan, which the agenda calls “a terrifying assault on President Obama’s achievements — and our progressive vision for an equitable and just nation.”

     

    Yet the meeting also comes as many liberals are reassessing their approach to politics — and the role of the Democracy Alliance, or DA, as the club is known in Democratic finance circles. The DA, its donors and beneficiary groups over the last decade have had a major hand in shaping the institutions of the left, including by orienting some of its key organizations around Clinton, and by basing their strategy around the idea that minorities and women constituted a so-called “rising American electorate” that could tip elections to Democrats.

    The Democracy Alliance has fed upwards of $500 million toward liberal activist groups and candidates since Soros co-founded the groujp in 2005.

    All members of DA are required to give $200,000 a year to recommended activist groups and pay annual dues of $30,000 to fund the DA staff and its meetings.

    Gara LaMarche, the president of the DA, told donors Sunday evening that some reassessment is in order for the Democratic party. “You don’t lose an election you were supposed to win, with so much at stake, without making some big mistakes, in assumptions, strategy and tactics,” LaMarche said, according to prepared remarks he provided to Politico.

    LaMarche would add that the reassessment “must take place without recrimination and finger-pointing, whatever frustration and anger some of us feel about our own allies in these efforts,” and he said “It is a process we should not rush, even as we gear up to resist the Trump administration.”

    While focusing on preserving ObamaCare and other achievements of the Obama administration that are threatened by a Donald Trump presidency, the DA’s agenda includes panels on rethinking polling and the left’s approach to winning the working-class vote. The group will also stress funneling cash into state legislative policy initiatives and races where Republicans took over last week.

    President-elect Donald Trump has said his first 100 days will be dedicated to restoring “honesty, accountability and change to Washington” through the following seven steps:

    1. A Constitutional Amendment to impose term limits on all members of Congress
    2. A hiring freeze on all federal employees to reduce federal workforce through attrition (exempting military, public safety, and public health)
    3. A requirement that for every new federal regulation, two existing regulations must be eliminated
    4. A five year ban on White House and Congressional officials becoming lobbyists after they leave government service
    5. A lifetime ban on the White House officials lobbying on behalf of a foreign government
    6. A complete ban on foreign lobbyists raising money for American elections
    7. Cancel billions in payments to U.N. climate change programs and use the money to fix America’s water and environmental infrastructure

    Billionaire George Soros immediately had fingers of blame pointing at him for the anti-Trump riots and protests that swept the nation since Nov. 9, as his group MoveOn.org has organized most of them.

    The billionaire committed $25 million to boosting the Clinton campaign and other Democratic candidates and causes in 2016.

    Elon Musk, George Soros and Eric Schmidt Hold Meetings About How To Sabotage Trump

     

    FACEBOOK, GOOGLE and TWITTER Charged with being “FAKE NEWS SITES” that censor the news on behalf of their crazy CEO’s

     

    By Honor Lee – Hollywood Reporter Public Blog

     

    The Cartel formed by FACEBOOK, GOOGLE/YOUTUBE and TWITTER is trying to cut off revenue for anyone using their sites that the CEO’s of those companies don’t agree with.

     

     

    The Silicon Valley Cartel has gotten together to agree to say that any news sites that Google’s Eric Schmidt and Larry Page don’t agree with is “Fake News”.

     

     

    The labeling of the truth as “fake news” is a long-standing political tradition but the FACEBOOK, GOOGLE/YOUTUBE and TWITTER Silicon Valley Mafia are using a hundred billion dollars of software and device control to try to brain-wash the public into believing that anything that Silicon Valley doesn’t tell you isn’t true.

     

    Google, Facebook Mafia move to restrict ads on news sites that are not DNC approved

    The Google logo adorns the entrance of Google Germany headquarters in Hamburg, Germany July 11, 2016. REUTERS/Morris Mac Matzen

    By Julia Love and Kristina Cooke | SAN FRANCISCO

    Alphabet Inc’s Google (GOOGL.O) and Facebook Inc (FB.O) on Monday announced measures aimed at halting the spread of (the truth) on the internet by targeting how some purveyors of (non-DNC-manipulated) content make money: advertising.

    Google said it is working on a policy change to prevent websites that (tell the truth) from using its AdSense advertising network, while Facebook updated its advertising policies to spell out that its ban on deceptive and misleading content applies to everything (that Zuckerberg thinks is right-wing.)

     

    Censorship by Google – Wikipedia

     

    … and analysis is acceptable”. The sites removed from Google News remain accessible from Google’s main search page as normal.

     

    cached proxied

     

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_by_Google

     

    Internet censorship in China – Wikipedia

     

    Internet censorship in China is extreme due to a wide variety of laws and administrative regulations. More than sixty Internet regulations have been created by the …

     

    cached proxied

     

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet%5B…%5Dip_in_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China

     

    Trump left out of Google search for …

     

    Google has restored Donald Trump as the Republican candidate for the presidential election after an earlier search left him off.

     

    cached proxied

     

    http://nbc4i.com/2016/07/27/trump-left%5B…%5Dle-search-for-presidential-candidates/

     

    Google Censorship – Huffington Post

     

    (Reuters) – Google Inc GOOGL.O GOOG.O on Thursday reversed its decision to remove several links to stories in Britain’s Guardian newspaper, underscori.

     

    cached proxied

     

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/google-censorship/

     

    BUSTED: Google News Censors Articles About YouTube Censorship

     

    About a month ago, I caught Google News censoring news about a shooting at a Black Lives Matter rally, and then shortly after, I busted them …

     

    cached proxied

     

    http://theralphretort.com/google-news-%5B…%5Dcles-about-youtube-censorship-9002016/

     

    Google Now Censoring Trump From Internet » Alex Jones’ Infowars …

     

    Google Now Censoring Trump From Internet … According to Spectre, blocking news coverage of Donald Trump will “give concerned citizens …

     

    cached proxied

     

    http://www.infowars.com/google-and-the-trump-free-internet/

     

    Censorship war: Website unmasks links Google is blocking from …

     

    A subversive website has been launched to keep track of news and other webpages Google has “censored” from the search engine’s index, …

     

    cached proxied

     

    https://www.rt.com/news/173308-hidden-censorship-forgotten-google/

     

    Google Is Censoring Search Results About … – Fox News Insider

     

    Google is being accused of burying internet searches about Hillary Clinton’s health.

     

    cached proxied

     

    http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/08/28/%5B…%5Dut-hillary-clintons-health-reports-say

     

    censorship news headlines – censorship News

     

    The censorship of anti-Hillary: Email leaks show Hillary’s ties with Google and Facebook …. Google censorship news, articles and information:.

     

    cached proxied

     

    http://www.censorship.news/

     

    Google, Facebook, Reddit are run by a bunch of ‘left-wing guys …

     

    Meanwhile, the news aggregator website Reddit, which bills itself as a bastion of free speech, was accused of censorship by users who said …

     

    cached proxied

     

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/20%5B…%5Dit-censorship-reignites-conservative-/

     

    ABC Censors ‘Embarrassing’ Leaks of Hillary…

     

    ABC’s morning and evening newscasts, as of Saturday morning, have yet to report on the Friday release of purported excerpts from some of Hillary Clinton’s speeches to …

     

    yahoo cached proxied

     

    http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/ma%5B…%5Drassing-leaks-hillary-clinton-speeches

     

     

     

     

     

    Arrest Warrant Is Issued For Google and Kleiner Perkins Insiders For Rigging Federal Public Policy

    ARREST WARRANT

     

    State of California- United States Of America under State, Federal and Constitutional Law

     

    Hereby verified before The United States Congress in session November 2016

     

    NOTICE: IF YOU ENCOUNTER THESE INDIVIDUALS, YOU ARE, WITH THIS DOCUMENT, LEGALLY EMPOWERED TO ARREST THEM AND REMAND THEM TO THE FBI FOR PROSECUTION.

     

    Suspects below may surrender themselves in person to the FBI at 450 Golden Gate Avenue in San Francisco, California to the attention of Senior Agent David Johnson or face arrest at any time.

     

     

    This is a warrant for the arrest of the following individuals:

     

    John Doerr

     

    Eric Schmidt

     

    Steven Westly

     

    Larry Page

     

    Jared Cohen

     

    Vinod Khosla

     

    Karim Faris

     

    David Drummond

     

    Elon Musk

     

    Steven Spinner

     

    and their associates

     

    charged with the following crimes in a Racketeering and Organized Crime Cartel Operation within the State of California and across multi-state borders of The United States:

     

     

    Overview of the charges: These men (AKA: “The Silicon Valley Cartel”, “The PayPal Mafia”, “Kleiner’s Crooks”, et al) took control of U.S. Department of Energy Executives, White House executives federal employees and political candidates and engaged in these attacks and thefts in order to control the solar and “green car” markets. The did not care about green issues, they only cared about green cash and stock market rigging. They ran retribution and vendetta campaigns against applicants who competed with inside deals they had set up to line their own pockets at taxpayer expense. It appears that this Cartel was involved in organizing the murders of one or more individuals. These men organized the heavily documented “AngelGate Collusion System” , The 60 Minutes documented “Cleantech Crash”, the “Silicon Valley No Poaching Conspiracy” and the Wikileaks documented infiltration and perversion of the DNC, rigging of the lithium ion battery mining, stock and exploitation market, the rigging of United States election information via their aligned control of Google, Facebook and Twitter and other crimes, as stated below.

     

    These corrupt politicians thought they could take over an estimated six trillion dollar “Cleantech” industry that was being created to exploit new marketing opportunities around “green-washing” environmental issues and exploiting middle east disruption. After an epic number of Solyndra­-type failures, all owned by these men, their first scheme fell apart but they tried new schemes. The non crony applicants suffered the worst fates. As CBS News reporter Cheryl Attkisson has reported, the willingness of these men to engage in media “hitjobs” was only exceeded by the audacity with which Department of Energy officials employed such tactics.

     

    Now, in a number of notorious trials and email leaks, including the Hulk Hogan lawsuit and the DNC and Panama Papers leaks, the public has gotten to see the depths to which these men are willing to stoop to cheat rather than compete in the open market.

     

    Department of Energy employees and State of California employees engaged in the following documented attacks against applicants who were competing with their billionaire backers personal stock holdings. Each and every tax-payer in the United States has suffered financial, personal, economic, employment and public policy loss and damages because of the activities of these men, their quid-pro-quo crony payola schemes and their targeted attacks on those who tried to stop their crimes.

     

    ­ Social Security, SSI, SDI, Disability and other earned benefits were stone­walled. Applications were “lost”. Files in the application process “disappeared”. Lois Lerner hard drive “incidents” took place.

     

    ­ State and federal employees, on orders from these men, as documented in their own emails, played an endless game of Catch­22 by arbitrarily determining that deadlines had passed that they, the government officials, had stonewallesed.

     

    – Google and Kleiner Perkins, in particular, under orders from these men, asked small businesses to look at their technology under the guise of “a possible investment” and then simply stole the technology and told the victims: “Try to sue us, we will black-list you”. The New York Times article about “Larry Page’s ‘obsession’..” describes this tactic.

     

    ­ Some applicants found themselves strangely poisoned, not unlike the Alexander Litvenko case. Heavy metals and toxic materials were found right after their work with the Department of Energy weapons and energy facilities. Many wonder if these “targets” were intentionally exposed to toxins in retribution for their testimony. The federal MSDS documents clearly show that a number of these people were exposed to deadly compounds and radiations without being provided with proper HazMat suits which DOE officials knew were required.

     

    ­ Applicants employers were called, and faxed, and ordered to fire applicants from their places of employment, in the middle of the day, with no notice, as a retribution tactic.

     

    ­ Applicants HR and employment records, on recruiting and hiring databases, were embedded with negative keywords in order to prevent them from gaining future employment.

     

    ­ One Gary D. Conley, one Seth Rich and one Rajeev Motwani, both whistle-blowers in this matter, turned up dead under strange circumstances. Their families believe these men amy have paid for their murders. These men are connected to over 78 suspicious deaths of persons connected to them alone in a series of bizarre deaths related to the DOE.

     

    2­ Disability and VA complaint hearings and benefits were frozen, delayed, denied or subjected to lost records and “missing hard drives” as in the Lois Lerner case.

     

    ­ Paypal and other on­line payments for on­line sales were delayed, hidden, or re­directed in order to terminate income potential for applicants who competed with DOE interests and holdings.

     

    ­ DNS redirection, website spoofing which sent applicants websites to dead ends and other Internet activity manipulations were conducted.

     

    ­ Campaign finance dirty tricks contractors IN­Q­Tel, Think Progress, Media Matters, Gawker Media, Syd Blumenthal, etc., were hired by these men to attack applicants who competed with DOE executives stocks and personal assets.

     

    ­ Covert DOE partner: Google, transfered large sums of cash to dirty tricks contractors and then manually locked the media portion of the attacks into the top lines of the top pages of all Google searches globally, for years, with hidden embedded codes in the links and web­pages which multiplied the attacks on applicants by many magnitudes.

     

    ­ Honeytraps and moles were employed by the attackers. In this tactic, people who covertly worked for the attackers were employed to approach the “target” in order to spy on and misdirect the subject.

     

    ­ Mortgage and rental applications had red flags added to them in databases to prevent the targets from getting homes or apartments.

     

    ­ McCarthy­Era “Black­lists” were created and employed against applicants who competed with DOE executives and their campaign financiers to prevent them from funding and future employment.

     

    ­ Targets were very carefully placed in a position of not being able to get jobs, unemployment benefits, disability benefits or acquire any possible sources of income. The retribution tactics were audacious, overt..and quite illegal.

     

    – And other charges to be unsealed by FBI, GAO, SEC, FTC, OSC, AG, IG and U.S. Congressional investigators including the compromise of DOJ senior officials via the payments of cash, stock, perks and revolving door jobs.

     

    Any member of the taxpaying public may effect this warrant and arrest the individuals for remand to an active officer of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

     

    PROCEDURES FOR ARREST

     

    HOW TO MAKE THESE ARRESTS:

     

    In the United States, a private person, of any age, can stop or “arrest” an individual engaged in a serious crime. You can also use reasonable force to hold them until law enforcement arrives on the scene.[1] This is known as a “citizen’s arrest.” The rules on when and how an individual may conduct a “citizen’s arrest” varies from state to state. It’s important to understand the laws in your region, especially since you can be prosecuted for improperly conducting a citizen’s arrest.[2]

     

    Part 1

    The process

     

    You must witness the crime(s) taking place. You have seen the crimes taking place as documented in over 45,000 news articles and over 20,000 television news stories. When the police arrive, you will have to provide “probable cause” for making the arrest. This means you’ll have to show that you had a reasonable belief that the person you arrested committed a crime. You will have this document with you to show the police and FBI agents that you will call after you make the arrest [3] . Wikileaks and the news media have now published the work and home addresses of all of the suspects and their enabling associates. Many of the news stories have published the restaurants, speaking locations and other possible locations of the suspects. You can arrest them at any location they can be found at.

      • For example, if you see a person use a knife to stab another person, you’ve seen a crime and can detain the perpetrator.

     

     

    Determine whether the crime is a felony. In most states, it’s legal to make a citizen’s arrest when you see or have reasonable cause to believe that a person committed a felony, even if the felony was not committed in your presence.[4] Citizen’s arrests are not usually legal when the crime committed is only a misdemeanor.[5] Since the definition of a felony varies slightly from state to state, it’s a good idea to read up on your state’s individual laws. The following is a list of crimes that are typically a felony[6]. All of the suspects are known to have commited felony organized crimes:

      • Murder, rape, or assault resulting in bodily injury

      • Theft of more than $500 worth of property (over a trillion dollars of taxpayer money was embezzled in this case, so you are good)

      • Indecent exposure before a child (Ie: Anthony Weiner, the Lolita Express and the Silicon Valley VC Sex Club)

      • Hit and run

      • Arson (Ie: knowing that lithium ion blew up cars yet still selling it to naive consumers)


    1. Illustration 1: ARRESTING DAVID DRUMMOND FROM GOOGLE

    3

    Decide if the crime was a “breach of peace.” In some cases, you may make a citizen’s arrest for misdemeanors if the misdemeanor can also be considered a breach of peace.[7] Misdemeanors that are considered breaches of peace in some states include public brawling or public intoxication.[8] If John Doerr is drunk and causing trouble then it may be in this arena.

      • If you arrest someone for committing a crime that falls into this category, you must have seen the crime firsthand.

    4

    Decide if you can safely make a citizen’s arrest. Be sure you and your security team can physically restrain the person you want to arrest before you try to. Misunderstanding your physical capabilities may put you or others in harm’s way. If you make a citizen’s arrest, the situation could easily escalate beyond your control.

      • Remember to think hard before making a citizen’s arrest, especially if the perpetrator is armed.

    5

    Be prepared and have the documents on hand and via http://urtube.org and the thousands of other police documentation sites. Be sure you fully understand the circumstances in which you can make a citizen’s arrest. You may want to research the rules specific to your state. If so, contact a lawyer through your State Bar Association or local law enforcement office.

      • Don’t make a citizen’s arrest unless you’re willing to face these risks on behalf of your country.

     

     

    Part 2

    Making the Citizen’s Arrest

     

    1

    Tell the person you’re making a citizen’s arrest. There are no specific words you must say, but you must make it completely clear to John Doerr, Elon Musk, Eric Schmidt, etc. that you are making a citizen’s arrest. The person you’re arresting must fully understand what’s happening. Explain to the potential criminal why you are making a citizen’s arrest. Hand them this packet of information. Each suspect has now been notified that this warrant has been issued.

      • Leave it to the police to read the person his or her rights. For now, you only need to say that you’re making an arrest.

    2

    Detain the person using reasonable force. You can only use the amount of force required to detain the person until the police arrive. Using a greater amount of force exposes you to legal trouble. Be careful not to harm the perpetrator unless it’s absolutely necessary.[10] You can hire armed or specially trained security guards to assist you. Have plenty of media on hand and wear multiple body cameras and film the arrest from the street as well. You can stakeout suspects locations and live-stream the stakeout as long as you follow the law.


    1. Illustration 2: RESTRAINING DAVID DRUMMOND FROM GOOGLE

    3

    Call and deliver the suspect to the FBI. Call your closest FBI office right after the person is detained. Some statutes in states like California and Minnesota require that a person take the arrested individual before a judge or peace officer “without unnecessary delay.”[11]. Do not transport the suspect. Sit on them or handcuff them to a tree or utility pool on the public street.

      • But, if you try to transport a suspect on your own and you conducted an improper citizen’s arrest, you may be subjected to problems. Keep the suspects at the arrest locations.[12]

    1.  


      Illustration 3: SITTING ON DAVID DRUMMOND FROM GOOGLE

    4

    Ask someone to stay with you. If you can’t deliver the suspect or your state doesn’t need you to, ask a third party to stay with you and or bring hired security guards, ideally former military police or trained tactical staff. Wait for the FBI to arrive. If possible, avoid watching the person you’ve arrested alone. Having a third party help you detain the person is best for everyone’s safety. Always video live-stream the arrests on the web.

      • The third parties may be helpful in making sure the encounter doesn’t get violent and might be able to serve as a witness.

    5

    Explain in full detail what you know and have multiple copies of this arrest warrant and documentation data DVD’s ready to handout. When the FBI arrives, explain what you saw in full detail. The local police may arrive first. Cooperate fully with them but immediately state that the FBI has “Associated Jurisdiction on this case”. Law enforcement will probably ask you to give a statement. Make sure to include everything that you saw. Explain your actions during the criminal act and the citizen’s arrest. Be clear about any force you had to use to arrest the suspect.

     

     

     

    Part 3

    Do it right and be very precise during the arrest

     

    1

    Don’t make an arrest if you didn’t read the news documentation of the crime and if you are not a U.S. taxpayer . Don’t make a citizen’s arrest if you overhear someone talking about robbing a bank. If you’re wrong, you may be at fault. Call the police instead.[13] Always remember, an improper citizen’s arrest can result in prosecution for crimes like kidnapping.[14]

      • For example, just because you see a crowd of people chasing a suspect or a victim asking for help, doesn’t necessarily mean you have grounds to arrest someone.

    2

    Don’t let the suspects beat you up. Bring MACE and the Media![15]

    3

    Don’t kill them or use excessive force. Even the police are not allowed to use excessive force when taking a suspect into custody, so you, as a private citizen, should be especially careful about this. Otherwise, you may be charged with battery, even if the suspect you apprehend is guilty of a crime. The use of deadly force is usually not allowed unless the perpetrator is attacking you or someone else.[16] If the suspects attack you, try to not cause lethal injury.

      • Don’t use a weapon against the perpetrator when you can use your own strength.[17] For example, you can tackle someone to the ground rather than hitting him or her.

    4

    Work with the police when they arrive. Be very polite and calm with the police.[18] As a private citizen, it’s not your job to make arrests. If it is at all possible, you should always leave policing to those who have a legal authority to do so–the police. Otherwise, your actions might put you, the alleged perpetrator and the general public, at risk. When the police do not act, or are overloaded, then it is your duty as an American citizen to act.

      • Your actions may also be viewed as vigilantism, which is not legally protected action. Be proper and do not act like a vigilanti


    1. Illustration 4: HOW TO HOLD JOHN DOERR DOWN

    2.  

    5

    Keep the detained suspect safe. Once you have detained someone, you are responsible for what happens to the person while he or she is under your control. Make sure they are not in the road, where they could be hit by a car, and make sure they are protected from onlookers who might try to attack them.

     

    <

    p class=”western” style=”line-height:120%;”>

     

    Silicon Valley Gets Caught Rigging The Presidential Election

     

     

    Darkened Corridors

     

     

     

    A ProPublica Live Wiki-Documentation

     

     

     

    A gunshot rang through the corridors of San Francisco City Hall. A Mayor was dead and a new mayor was moved into position. The bullet that killed Mayor George Moscone on November 27, 1978 would lead to political corruption in 2016 that would change the course of the world. Systematized political rigging had breached a new era.

     

     

    The assassination of George Moscone was perfectly timed to place Dianne Feinstein into power as the new mayor of San Francisco and it begin the next-generation of industrialized corruption on an epic scale. The new generation of corporation-backed pay-to-play was now being sponsored by the newly minted power known as The Silicon Valley Cartel.

     

     

    As George Moscone lay dying on his desk in San Francisco, just south of there a man named John Doerr was looking at a folder that showed that his Silicon Valley “venture capitol” scheme had just broken the record at $750 million dollars of input. Did John Doerr have George Moscone killed? Did he also kill Rajeev Motwani, Vince Foster, Gary D. Conley, Ravi Kumar, Andrew Breitbart, or the 78 other folks who had information that Doerr would not like to see go public? Maybe not…maybe so. What does the FBI think? Every single one of these people died before their time and they had information that threatened Doerr and his Silicon Valley political schemes.

     

     

    Kleiner Perkins was formed in 1972. It has traditionally focused on early-stage investments, but also does later-stage investments.[7][8] The savvy team at Kleiner, aka KPCB, realized that buying politicians was prudent and, in fact, necessary for the kind of financial shell-games they played. Dianne Feinstein had been one of their big bets. KPCB’s Tom Perkin’s had been the lead on arranging the quid-pro-quo with Feinstein. Feinstein’s daughter: Kathryn, had bemoaned the fact that her Mother was too driven by power to give her daughter the attention she deserved. This led Kathryn to tell stories out of class, during her days in college, which caught the ear of the San Francisco Bay Guardian, a crusading local newspaper. Guardian staff have investigated Feinstein ever since and led to the breaking of this story.

     

    In the late spring of 1971, a woman began dating Bill Clinton, at Yale. During the summer, she interned at the Oakland, California, law firm of Treuhaft, Walker and Burnstein.[50] The firm was well known for its support of constitutional rights, civil liberties, and radical causes (two of its four partners were current or former Communist Party members);[50] The womans name was Hillary Rodham Clinton and she worked on child custody and other cases in Oakland.[b]. It was during this period that Hillary hopped across San Francisco Bay to meet the founders of Kleiner Perkins. She became “the back-up plan” in case Feinstein fell through.

     

    Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton would be their bigger, and most notorious plays. In a yet to be released recorded interview, Kleiner’s Tom Perkin’s explains his theory of quid-pro-quo with politicians. His words will make anyone shudder with fear about the fact that these types of Machiavellian billionaires actually exist. In fact, Kleiner Perkins and their festering child: Google, are all comprised of these kinds of warped, power-mad minds.

     

    The firm was named after its four founding partners: Eugene Kleiner, Tom Perkins (“Poor people are Nazi’s..”), Frank J. Caufield, and Brook Byers. Other notable members of the firm include partners John Doerr and tax evader Raymond J. Lane, as well as high-profile individuals such as Sun Microsystems co-founder Bill Joy (who joined as partner in January 2005), former U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell (who joined in July 2005 in the newly created position of “strategic limited partner”), Vinod Khosla and former U.S. Vice President Al Gore, who joined as partner in November 2007[9][10] as part of a collaboration between KPCB and Gore’s firm Generation Investment Management (GIM) to promote green technology, business and policy solutions.[11] Kleiner Perkins was, and is, the founder of the collusion group known as the Silicon Valley Cartel.

     

    Feinstein backed Italian mobster John Molinari for the next new mayoral position. To hedge her bets, she also kept an inside deal going with candidate Roger Boas, also running for Mayor, and later indicted for racketeering and child prostitution. Molinari lost the election due to his connections to corruption, abuse of his daughter (Per a San Francisco Police Department report), his tenure of the Golden Gate Bridge district where embezzlement was also charged and his old-school North Beach mob connections. The Weiner-Gate and Epstein Sex Island scandals prove that under-age and twisted sex scandals are part and parcel of this crowd.

     

     

     

    All three were placed under permanent surveillance by the FBI and multi-agency task force groups. Feinstein had a number of “bag-men” who delivered cash to her through various outlets. The Coblentz law firm was one such avenue of payola. The most notorious bag-man was James Bronkema, the head of the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce and a co-conspirator of Molinari’s on the Golden Gate Bridge District Board. Bronkema received massive funds from David Rockefeller, under various trusts and hotel guises, which Bronkema relayed to Feinstein for real estate favors. Bronkema’s mistress, Patricia Novak, the head of the San Francisco Fair, along with her girl friends, recall Bronkema as a tough character who threatened to “turn you into a headless body floating in San Francisco Bay” if you got on his bad side.

     

     

    A testament to the Bronkema/Rockefeller/Feinstein play are the bridges that run between the Embarcadero Center buildings, above the roads in San Francisco. Rockefeller wanted those bridges but no other San Francisco developer was allowed to have them. This was per Feinstein’s machinations on behalf of her Rockefeller-ian benefactor. “She’s a bitch”, decried real estate developer Walter Shorenstein, “But she’s Rockefeller’s bitch”. Both the Embarcadero Center and the Golden Gate Bridge’s stand as permanent reminders of the beginning of this epoch of corruption.

     

     

    Feinstein later found a new “Bag-man” named Richard Blum. His billions financed her move to the U.S. Senate with hopes of placing her in the White House. In exchange, she tripled his billions with public policy decisions that almost exclusively benefited Blum’s companies.

     

     

    Feinstein made a deal with Silicon Valley’s Elon Musk, facilitated by Kleiner Perkins. She took a plot of land in Fremont, California which her family 1.) ran the real estate company for, 2.) the construction company for, 3.) the lobbying for, 4.) the HR firm for and 5.) other services for. The conflicts-of-interest stagger the imagination. She put Solyndra and Tesla side-by-side on that land and her family grabbed the stock market warrants and lobbying cash for both of the companies. Solyndra failed and got raided by the FBI after $500+M of taxpayer cash went sideways. Because Barack Obama’s campaign was financed by The Silicon Valley Cartel, The White House ordered AG Eric Holder and AG Loretta Lynch to shut down the further investigations of Solyndra, Tesla and the rest of the Cleantech Crash Cartel disasters. The cover-up makes Watergate pale in comparison. Feinstein helped Cartel member Elon Musk get part of NASA shut down and then get handed the very same NASA contracts that NASA was just curtailed from doing. It was amazing quid-pro-quo. Feinstein would stop at nothing to scrape from the pig trough of state and federal cash.

     

     

    The media outed Feinstein and she never made it to the White House. The internet has dubbed her: “The most corrupt living politician in America”. While Feinstein has faded, the Silicon Valley Cartel has tripled in size and power. With payrolls of $200 million dollars a day, Kliener, Google and the Kleiner portfolio could order worker bee’s to do a lot of damage by trolling blogs and pushing election perception manipulation. They did and they still do!

     

     

    The Cartel did a study that showed that “edgy candidates like women or blacks could stand out in the media” so they jumped over to use Barack Obama, and then Hillary Clinton, for their government kick-back schemes. The campaign financing deal between the Silicon Valley tech titans goes like this: “Silicon Valley rigs the internet and media to put you in office and you rig the government to give us insane amounts of cash, stock perks, federal contracts and monopolies”

     

     

    Kleiner Perkins created a Russian venture development group and courted the biggest mobsters in Russia. In fact, Silicon Valley’s Steven Chu started handing taxpayer cash to the Russian billionaires Ener1, Severstal and other Russian mobster billionaire fronts until even Congress thought it was too overtly corrupt and shut him down. The heads of Russian Cartels were suddenly teaching The Silicon Valley Cartel a thing or two about rigging the system. Kleiner put their insider’s Steven Chu, Matt Rogers, Steve Spinner, and Steve Westly in charge of the U.S. Department of Energy pay-to-play gambit with orders to get billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars shipped exclusively back to the Silicon Valley Cartel while sabotaging all of the Cartel’s competitors.

     

     

    The scheme worked stunningly, until it didn’t. 60 Minutes has a great investigative segment called: THE CLEANTECH CRASH. This tells the story of part of the corruption but it only begins the tale. Someone took the largest corrupt hand-out in U.S. history and then crashed all of the Silicon Valley Cartel’s “Green Scheme” companies. It is thought that a GOP-based SWAT Team took on the task. The Cartel had already gotten most of their payola from skims off-the-top and from stock market pump-and-dumps created by exploiting the free government money that could be used to artificially hype the stock market valuations while Goldman Sachs and The Silicon Valley Cartel skimmed the momentary high-points on the Wall Street stock exchange.

     

     

    Kleiner loved to steal federal funds under the guise of “It will help the nation”.

     

     

    The green-washing “Cleantech” deal didn’t work out so well so they moved their pitch to “Let’s stop terrorists”. Kleiner had funded many database companies so Silicon Valley pitched Washington that all of their database companies could spy on every American and “see the future like Tom Cruise did in the movie Minority Report and catch bad guys before they become bad”. This was just a scam to try to make the wasted internet toys stay relevant. That scam has now failed too. Silicon Valley’s “Big Data” has not only missed every single terrorist activity but it has steered law enforcement down wild goose chases and cost the consumer electronics industry a hundred billions dollars in losses because people hate being spied on. Big Data trying to accurately figure out what organic things will do is like trying to get the Amish to build nuclear reactors. The CIA has found out that you can generate lots of pretty bar graphs and flowcharts with Silicon Valley’s tools but the outcome will be nonsense that has no application in real life.

     

     

    The newest tactic is “Driverless Cars”. Nobody wants driverless cars but The Silicon Valley Cartel gets Obama and Hillary to give them both DOT and DOE taxpayer cash for the facade driverless car projects while they sell their lithium ion batteries, from the Afghanistan lithium fields, that they have monopolized. Great! Apple, exposed in the media in this scheme, was recently forced to cancel it’s car project which was also diving for federal handout dollars.

     

     

    Our reporters will cover, in detail, how these Silicon Valley Cartel dirty payola deals work, who did them, how the money is hidden and who the beneficiary trails lead to, in a series of articles. We could not cover this story until now because we needed to wait until this Presidential election raised the interest level in such dirty deeds. We also needed to wait until someone like Wikileaks dropped the archives to prove that these kinds of insane and epic corruption deals actually happen. It is likely not the Russians who are responsible for all of the leaks but insiders from Google, KPBC, the DNC and Facebook. It may even be FBI moles who have been inside these operations as well as Ellen Pao-esque players who were simply disgusted by the corruption.

     

     

    Everyone in the world is now aware of the fact that John Doerr, Dianne Feinstein, Elon Musk, Larry Page and Eric Schmidt rig elections, White House decisions and the direction of the use of U.S. Treasury funds. The emails and FBI documents prove it. How long can Americans tolerate the use of 40% of their paychecks to pay for John Doerr’s private jets? That remains to be seen.

     

     

    Stay tuned for part two: A Death In The Family

     

     

     

    Topics: KPCB, John Doerr, Dianne Feinstein, Elon Musk, Larry Page, Corruption, Google, Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, Eric Schmidt, pay to play, quid pro quo, White House corruption, FBI, Huma Abedin, Weiner-Gate

     

     

     

    <

    p class=”western” style=”margin-bottom:0;line-height:150%;orphans:2;widows:2;” align=”left”>This publication is constantly updated by the internet via WikiPedia Process

     

    How Tech Companies Are Helping Hillary

    How Tech Companies Are Helping Hillary

    Hillary rigged election technology

    Hillary Clinton’s Silicon Valley Advantage

    It’s no secret that Hilary Clinton has the support of the technology industry. Sheryl Sandberg,the Chief Operating Officer of Facebook and Marissa Mayer, Chief Executive Officer of Yahoo have both endorsed her. She’s garnered the support of the top people at Google, Airbnb and Tumblr. Those are just a few of tech companies, however, behind her. Silicon Valley doesn’t go by the nickname”Valley of the Democrats” for nothing. Apple’s Tim Cook hosted a fundraiser for Clinton where tickets to attend went for as much as $50,000 a seat. Everyone knows elections aren’t won with mere votes in America. Wealthy donors pave a candidate’s way towards the White House, but the Clinton campaign’s liaison with the tech industry has gone beyond money.

    Digital Media & Election Hackers

    To see examples of technology uses to change election outcomes, look no further than Central America. Andrés Sepúlveda, recently profiled in Bloomberg , has been instrumental in tilting presidential elections in the favor of candidates who pay him to do things like launch fake Twitter accounts that advocate for them to win or break into their opponent’s donor databases. It’s no wonder he’s so well known in global political circles. His services, as unethical and illegal as they are, make a difference. Sepúlveda claims to have influenced the outcomes of elections in at least two countries in Latin America. While it’s difficult to corroborate the truth from a man who admits to being paid to sabotage political campaigns for high amounts of cash, Sepúlveda claims to have been recently contacted by someone on the team of an American candidate for president. He doesn’t share the name of who it is, of course, but made it clear that he wouldn’t work for Trump.

    Mobile Media Bias Against Trump

    Clinton’s up close and personal ties to the tech community have enabled her to benefitting from more than just its money. Game and app designers feel that Apple demonstrates a preference for Clinton by not releasing products that are critical of her. “Capitol HillAwry,” a game ridiculing Clinton’s “emailgate” scandal was rejected by Apple for being offensive, according to its developer, John Matze. Countless apps ridiculing Trump, however, have been approved, one even going by the blatantly politically critical name. “Dump Trump.” After receiving scrutiny from the media for its obvious bias towards Clinton, Apple has allowed the “Capital HillAwry” app to be sold on its platform, however. Twitter has been accused of banning accounts that are pro-Trump while giving liberal users as much freedom to promote their viewpoints as they want. Twitter recently shut down the account of Milo Yiannopoulos, a conservative writer, for example, for posting comments that were reportedly racist. There’s never a backlash against Twitter users who advocate for killing police officers, however. Clinton posts on Twitter, but Trump rants.

    Valley of Democrats

    Maybe the tech community doesn’t consider it unscrupulous to use their popularity and pull to make sure that Clinton makes it into the White House, but the relationship between Google and the Democrats has become difficult to separate. Some might say that Google has become the digital arm of the Democratic party. Whether or not you agree, there’s no better company for Hilary to have on her side when it comes to big data expertise. Big data is as crucial to a candidate’s success with voters as it is to a corporation’s success with customers, and no one has a better grip on the large and complex data set that comprises the American public than Google. Making sense of massive quantities of information about millions of people falls into their area of specialization. Hilary, simply put, has an ability to build relationships with voters that no other presidential candidate has.

    Election Technology Talent

    Getting high paid digerati to take jobs in politics isn’t easy. The salaries they’re paid isn’t enough to leave lucrative tech careers for. Campaigns are short-lived and don’t offer the benefit packages available in the private sector. Clinton has the usual array of young professionals around her. There’s nothing about her campaign that’s out of the ordinary. She has a prowess for getting support from rich donors in the country’s most progressive industry. That’s it. This is how Clinton apologists reply to theories that Clinton’s magic influence over the tech world is legit.

    The role that technology played in the Obama campaign is now minimized. His people like to insist that technology had little to do with his making it into the Oval Office. Ellen Kriegel, however, was on his staff. She confirms that the campaign’s use of complex software analytics gave them an advantage of  a few percentage points. She’s now doing analytics for Clinton. The Clinton campaign has paid out $177,000 to the Groundwork, an organization that there’s very little information on. They’re not very forthcoming with the press. They tweak big data, in layman’s terms.The company’s CEO was the CTO for Obama back in 2008. The relationship that Hilary has with the tech world goes well beyond being written fat checks. It couldn’t be more clear.

    Stephanie Hannon, Chief Technology Officer at Hillary for America, was an executive at Google. It’s said that there are a host of other former Googlers that comprise Clinton’s campaign staff. This is particularly troubling when accusations that Google’s search results are biased in behalf of Ms. Clinton abound. Google has, of course, shot down the premise that their algorithms are rigged. They categorically deny that they suppress negative news on Clinton while making sure that it proliferates about Trump.

    Is Google Helping Hillary?

    Matt Lieberman, the host of a popular Youtube channel, isn’t buying their claims of being neutral and fair, however. He’s done enough searches using Clinton’s name on multiple search engines to be sure that Google protects her. He claims that doing a search starting with her last name and the letters “cri” and the predictive search feature will finish your query by offering you choices such as ” crime reform,”. Use Yahoo or Bing, he points out, and the words “criminal activity” are retrieved.

    Naysayers moan that it’s business as usual. The Clinton campaign is just how politics looks in the tech era. Because of Clinton’s unfair influence over the technocracy and the media, Trump has already begun pointing out that a fair election isn’t coming. It’s anticipated that he’ll inflame his opponents by saying the system is rigged. Even as voters across the political spectrum complain that Election Day seems more and more like a spectacle to convince Americans that democracy is not dead, American media continues to manipulate audiences to support Hillary. Without the slightest bit of journalistic integrity, they continue to cut the Trump campaign to bits. It takes a village to raise a child, Clinton is famous for saying. Perhaps she’ll also share what it takes to swing an election.

     

    Darkened Corridors

    A ProPublica Live Wiki-Documentation

    A gunshot rang through the corridors of San Francisco City Hall. A Mayor was dead and a new mayor was moved into position. The bullet that killed Mayor George Moscone on November 27, 1978 would lead to political corruption in 2016 that would change the course of the world. Systematized political rigging had breached a new era.

    The assassination of George Moscone was perfectly timed to place Dianne Feinstein into power as the new mayor of San Francisco and begin the next-generation of industrialized corruption on an epic scale. The new generation of corporation-backed pay-to-play was now being sponsored by the newly minted power known as The Silicon Valley Cartel.

    As George Moscone lay dying on his desk in San Francisco, just south of there a man named John Doerr was looking at a folder that showed that his Silicon Valley “venture capitol” scheme had just broken the record at $750 million dollars of input. Did John Doerr have George Moscone killed? Did he also kill Rajeev Motwani, Vince Foster, Gary D. Conley, Ravi Kumar, Andrew Breitbart, or the 78 other folks who had information that Doerr would not like to see go public? Maybe not…maybe so. What does the FBI think? Every single one of these people died before their time and they had information that threatened Doerr and his Silicon Valley political schemes.

     

     Kleiner Perkins was formed in 1972. It has traditionally focused on early-stage investments, but also does later-stage investments.[7][8] The savvy team at Kleiner, aka KPCB, realized that buying politicians was prudent and, in fact, necessary for the kind of financial shell-games they played. Dianne Feinstein had been one of their big bets. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton would be their bigger, and most notorious plays. In a yet to be released recorded interview, Kleiner’s Tom Perkin’s explains his theory of quid-pro-quo with politicians. His words will make anyone shudder with fear about the fact that these types of Machiavellian billionaires actually exist. In fact, Kleiner Perkins and their festering child: Google, are all comprised of these kinds of warped, power-mad minds.

    The firm was named after its four founding partners: Eugene Kleiner, Tom Perkins (“Poor people are Nazi’s..”), Frank J. Caufield, and Brook Byers. Other notable members of the firm include partners John Doerr and tax evader Raymond J. Lane, as well as high-profile individuals such as Sun Microsystems co-founder Bill Joy (who joined as partner in January 2005), former U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell (who joined in July 2005 in the newly created position of “strategic limited partner”), Vinod Khosla and former U.S. Vice President Al Gore, who joined as partner in November 2007[9][10] as part of a collaboration between KPCB and Gore’s firm Generation Investment Management (GIM) to promote green technology, business and policy solutions.[11] Kleiner Perkins was, and is, the founder of the collusion group known as the Silicon Valley Cartel.

    Feinstein backed Italian mobster John Molinari for the next new mayoral position. To hedge her bets, she also kept an inside deal going with candidate Roger Boas, also running for Mayor, and later indicted for racketeering and child prostitution. Molinari lost due to his connections to corruption, abuse of his daughter (Per a San Francisco Police Department report), his tenure of the Golden Gate Bridge district where embezzlement was also charged and his old-school North Beach mob connections. The Weiner-Gate and Epstein Sex Island scandals prove that under-age and twisted sex scandals are part and parcel of this crowd.

     

    All three were placed under permanent surveillance by the FBI and multi-agency task force groups. Feinstein had a number of “bag-men” who delivered cash to her through various outlets. The Coblentz law firm was one such avenue of payola. The most notorious bag-man was James Bronkema, the head of the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce and a co-conspirator of Molinari’s on the Golden Gate Bridge District Board. Bronkema received massive funds from David Rockefeller, under various trusts and hotel guises, which Bronkema relayed to Feinstein for real estate favors. Bronkema’s mistress, Patricia Novak, the head of the San Francisco Fair, along with her girl friends, recall Bronkema as a tough character who threatened to “turn you into a headless body floating in San Francisco Bay” if you got on his bad side.

    A testament to the Bronkema/Rockefeller/Feinstein play are the bridges that run between the Embarcadero Center buildings, above the roads in San Francisco. Rockefeller wanted those bridges but no other San Francisco developer was allowed to have them. This was per Feinstein’s machinations on behalf of her Rockefeller-ian benefactor. “She’s a bitch”, decried real estate developer Walter Shorenstein, “But she’s Rockefeller’s bitch”. Both the Embarcadero Center and the Golden Gate Bridge’s stand as permanent reminders of the beginning of this epoch of corruption.

    Feinstein later found a new “Bag-man” named Richard Blum. His billions financed her move to the U.S. Senate with hopes of placing her in the White House. In exchange, she tripled his billions with public policy decisions that almost exclusively benefited Blum’s companies.

    Feinstein made a deal with Silicon Valley’s Elon Musk, facilitated by Kleiner Perkins. She took a plot of land in Fremont, California which her family 1.) ran the real estate company for, 2.) the construction company for, 3.) the lobbying for, 4.) the HR firm for and 5.) other services for. The conflicts-of-interest stagger the imagination. She put Solyndra and Tesla side-by-side on that land and her family grabbed the stock market warrants and lobbying cash for both of the companies. Solyndra failed and got raided by the FBI after $500+M of taxpayer cash went sideways. Because Barack Obama’s campaign was financed by The Silicon Valley Cartel, The White House ordered AG Eric Holder and AG Loretta Lynch to shut down the further investigations of Solyndra, Tesla and the rest of the Cleantech Crash Cartel disasters. The cover-up makes Watergate pale in comparison. Feinstein helped Cartel member Elon Musk get part of NASA shut down and then get handed the very same NASA contracts that NASA was just curtailed from doing. It was amazing quid-pro-quo. Feinstein would stop at nothing to scrape from the pig trough of state and federal cash.

    The media outed Feinstein and she never made it to the White House. The internet has dubbed her: “The most corrupt living politician in America”. While Feinstein has faded, the Silicon Valley Cartel has tripled in size and power. With payrolls of $200 million dollars a day, Kliener, Google and the Kleiner portfolio could order worker bee’s to do a lot of damage by trolling blogs and pushing election perception manipulation. They did and they still do!

    The Cartel did a study that showed that “edgy candidates like women or blacks could stand out in the media” so they jumped over to use Barack Obama, and then Hillary Clinton, for their government kick-back schemes. The campaign financing deal between the Silicon Valley tech titans goes like this: “Silicon Valley rigs the internet and media to put you in office and you rig the government to give us insane amounts of cash, stock perks, federal contracts and monopolies”

    Kleiner Perkins created a Russian venture development group and courted the biggest mobsters in Russia. In fact, Silicon Valley’s Steven Chu started handing taxpayer cash to the Russian billionaires Ener1, Severstal and other Russian mobster billionaire fronts until even Congress thought it was too overtly corrupt and shut him down. The heads of Russian Cartels were suddenly teaching The Silicon Valley Cartel a thing or two about rigging the system. Kleiner put their insider’s Steven Chu, Matt Rogers, Steve Spinner, and Steve Westly in charge of the U.S. Department of Energy pay-to-play gambit with orders to get billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars shipped exclusively back to the Silicon Valley Cartel while sabotaging all of the Cartel’s competitors.

    The scheme worked stunningly, until it didn’t. 60 Minutes has a great investigative segment called: THE CLEANTECH CRASH. This tells the story of part of the corruption but it only begins the tale. Someone took the largest corrupt hand-out in U.S. history and then crashed all of the Silicon Valley Cartel’s “Green Scheme” companies. It is thought that a GOP-based SWAT Team took on the task. The Cartel had already gotten most of their payola from skims off-the-top and from stock market pump-and-dumps created by exploiting the free government money that could be used to artificially hype the stock market valuations while Goldman Sachs and The Silicon Valley Cartel skimmed the momentary high-points on the Wall Street stock exchange.

    Kleiner loved to steal federal funds under the guise of “It will help the nation”.

    The green-washing “Cleantech” deal didn’t work out so well so they moved their pitch to “Let’s stop terrorists”. Kleiner had funded many database companies so Silicon Valley pitched Washington that all of their database companies could spy on every American and “see the future like Tom Cruise did in the movie Minority Report and catch bad guys before they become bad”. This was just a scam to try to make the wasted internet toys stay relevant. That scam has now failed too. Silicon Valley’s “Big Data” has not only missed every single terrorist activity but it has steered law enforcement down wild goose chases and cost the consumer electronics industry a hundred billions dollars in losses because people hate being spied on. Big Data trying to accurately figure out what organic things will do is like trying to get the Amish to build nuclear reactors. The CIA has found out that you can generate lots of pretty bar graphs and flowcharts with Silicon Valley’s tools but the outcome will be nonsense that has no application in real life.

    The newest tactic is “Driverless Cars”. Nobody wants driverless cars but The Silicon Valley Cartel gets Obama and Hillary to give them both DOT and DOE taxpayer cash for the facade driverless car projects while they sell their lithium ion batteries, from the Afghanistan lithium fields, that they have monopolized. Great! Apple, exposed in the media in this scheme, was recently forced to cancel it’s car project which was also diving for federal handout dollars.

    Our reporters will cover, in detail, how these Silicon Valley Cartel dirty payola deals work, who did them, how the money is hidden and who the beneficiary trails lead to, in a series of articles. We could not cover this story until now because we needed to wait until this Presidential election raised the interest level in such dirty deeds. We also needed to wait until someone like Wikileaks dropped the archives to prove that these kinds of insane and epic corruption deals actually happen. It is likely not the Russians who are responsible for all of the leaks but insiders from Google, KPBC, the DNC and Facebook. It may even be FBI moles who have been inside these operations as well as Ellen Pao-esque players who were simply disgusted by the corruption.

    Everyone in the world is now aware of the fact that John Doerr, Dianne Feinstein, Elon Musk, Larry Page and Eric Schmidt rig elections, White House decisions and the direction of the use of U.S. Treasury funds. The emails and FBI documents prove it. How long can Americans tolerate the use of 40% of their paychecks to pay for John Doerr’s private jets? That remains to be seen.

     

    Stay tuned for part two: A Death In The Family

     

    Topics: KPCB, John Doerr, Dianne Feinstein, Elon Musk, Larry Page, Corruption, Google, Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, Eric Schmidt, pay to play, quid pro quo, White House corruption, FBI, Huma Abedin, Weiner-Gate

     

    This publication is constantly updated by the internet via WikiPedia Process

    GOVERNMENT INSIDERS HELPING WIKILEAKS: FBI ? !!!!!

     

     

     

    Darkened Corridors

     

     

    A ProPublica Live Wiki-Documentation

     

     

    A gunshot rang through the corridors of San Francisco City Hall. A Mayor was dead and a new mayor was moved into position. The bullet that killed Mayor George Moscone on November 27, 1978 would lead to political corruption in 2016 that would change the course of the world. Systematized political rigging had breached a new era.

     

     

    The assassination of George Moscone was perfectly timed to place Dianne Feinstein into power as the new mayor of San Francisco and begin the next-generation of industrialized corruption on an epic scale. The new generation of corporation-backed pay-to-play was now being sponsored by the newly minted power known as The Silicon Valley Cartel.

     

     

    As George Moscone lay dying on his desk in San Francisco, just south of there a man named John Doerr was looking at a folder that showing that his Silicon Valley “venture capitol” scheme had just broken the record at $750 million dollars of input. Did John Doerr have George Moscone killed? Did he also kill Rajeev Motwani, Vince Foster, Gary D. Conley, Ravi Kumar, Andrew Breitbart, or the 78 other folks who had information that Doerr would not like to see go public? Maybe not…maybe so. What does the FBI think? Every single one of these people died before their time and they had information that threatened Doerr and his Silicon Valley political schemes.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Kleiner Perkins was formed in 1972. It has traditionally focused on early-stage investments, but also does later-stage investments.[7][8] The savvy team at Kleiner, aka KPCB, realized that buying politicians was prudent and, in fact, necessary for the kind of financial shell-games they played. Dianne Feinstein had been one of their big bets. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton would be their bigger, and most notorious plays. In a yet to be released recorded interview, Kleiner’s Tom Perkin’s explains his theory of quid-pro-quo with politicians. His words will make anyone shudder with fear about the fact that these types of Machiavellian billionaires actually exist. In fact, Kleiner Perkins and their festering child: Google, are all comprised of these kinds of warped, power-mad minds.

     

    The firm was named after its four founding partners: Eugene Kleiner, Tom Perkins (“Poor people are Nazi’s..”), Frank J. Caufield, and Brook Byers. Other notable members of the firm include partners John Doerr and tax evader Raymond J. Lane, as well as high-profile individuals such as Sun Microsystems co-founder Bill Joy (who joined as partner in January 2005), former U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell (who joined in July 2005 in the newly created position of “strategic limited partner”), Vinod Khosla and former U.S. Vice President Al Gore, who joined as partner in November 2007[9][10] as part of a collaboration between KPCB and Gore’s firm Generation Investment Management (GIM) to promote green technology, business and policy solutions.[11] Kleiner Perkins was, and is, the founder of the collusion group known as the Silicon Valley Cartel.

     

    Feinstein backed Italian mobster John Molinari for the next new mayoral position. To hedge her bets, she also kept an inside deal going with candidate Roger Boas, also running for Mayor, and later indicted for racketeering and child prostitution. Molinari lost due to his connections to corruption, abuse of his daughter (Per a San Francisco Police Department report), his tenure of the Golden Gate Bridge district where embezzlement was also charged and his old-school North Beach mob connections. The Weiner-Gate and Epstein Sex Island scandals prove that under-age sex scandals are part and parcel of this crowd.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    All three were placed under permanent surveillance by the FBI and multi-agency task force groups. Feinstein had a number of “bag-men” who delivered cash to her through various outlets. The Coblentz law firm was one such avenue of payola. The most notorious bag-man was James Bronkema, the head of the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce and a co-conspirator of Molinari’s on the Golden Gate Bridge District Board. Bronkema received massive funds from David Rockefeller, under various trusts and hotel guises, which Bronkema relayed to Feinstein for real estate favors. Bronkema’s mistress, Patricia Novak, the head of the San Francisco Fair, along with her girl friends, recall Bronkema as a tough character who threatened to “turn you into a headless body floating in San Francisco Bay” if you got on his bad side.

     

     

    A testament to the Bronkema/Rockefeller/Feinstein play are the bridges that run between the Embarcadero Center buildings, above the roads in San Francisco. Rockefeller wanted those bridges but no other San Francisco developer was allowed to have them. This was per Feinstein’s machinations on behalf of her Rockefeller-ian benefactor. “She’s a bitch”, decried real estate developer Walter Shorenstein, “But she’s Rockefeller’s bitch”. Both the Embarcadero Center and the Golden Gate Bridge’s stand as permanent reminders of the beginning of this epoch of corruption.

     

     

    Feinstein later found a new “Bag-man” named Richard Blum. His billions financed her move to the U.S. Senate with hopes of placing her in the White House. In exchange, she tripled his billions with public policy decisions that almost exclusively benefited Blum’s companies.

     

     

    Feinstein made a deal with Silicon Valley’s Elon Musk, facilitated by Kleiner Perkins. She took a plot of land in Fremont, California which her family 1.) ran the real estate company for, 2.) the construction company for, 3.) the lobbying for, 4.) the HR firm for and 5.) other services for. The conflicts-of-interest stagger the imagination. She put Solyndra and Tesla side-by-side on that land and her family grabbed the stock market warrants and lobbying cash for both of the companies. Solyndra failed and got raided by the FBI after $500+M of taxpayer cash went sideways. Because Barack Obama’s campaign was financed by The Silicon Valley Cartel, The White House ordered AG Eric Holder and AG Loretta Lynch to shut down the further investigations of Solyndra, Tesla and the rest of the Cleantech Crash Cartel disasters. Feinstein helped Cartel member Elon Musk get part of NASA shut down and then get handed the very same NASA contracts that NASA was just curtailed from doing. It was amazing quid-pro-quo. Feinstein would stop at nothing to scrape from the pig trough of state and federal cash.

     

     

    The media outed Feinstein and she never made it to the White House. The internet has dubbed her: “The most corrupt living politician in America”. While Feinstein has faded, the Silicon Valley Cartel has tripled in size and power. With payrolls of $200 million dollars a day, Kliener, Google and the Kleiner portfolio could order worker bee’s to do a lot of damage by trolling blogs and pushing election perception manipulation. They did and they still do!

     

     

    The Cartel did a study that showed that “edgy candidates like women or blacks could stand out in the media” so they jumped over to use Barack Obama and then Hillary Clinton for their government kick-back schemes. The campaign financing deal is: “ Silicon Valley rigs the internet and media to put you in office and you rig the government to give us insane amounts of cash, stock perks, federal contracts and monopolies”

     

     

    Kleiner Perkins created a Russian venture development group and courted the biggest mobsters in Russia. In fact, Silicon Valley’s Steven Chu started handing taxpayer cash to the Russian billionaires Ener1, Severstal and other Russian mobster billionaire fronts until even Congress thought it was too corrupt and shut him down. The heads of Russian Cartels were suddenly teaching The Silicon Valley Cartel a thing or two about rigging the system. Kleiner put their insider’s Steven Chu, Matt Rogers, Steve Spinner, and Steve Westly in charge of the U.S. Department of Energy pay-to-play gambit with orders to get billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars shipped exclusively back to the Silicon Valley Cartel while sabotaging all of the Cartel’s competitors.

     

     

    The scheme worked stunningly, until it didn’t. 60 Minutes has a great investigative segment called: THE CLEANTECH CRASH. This tells the story of part of the corruption but it only begins the tale. Someone took the largest corrupt hand-out in U.S. history and then crashed all of the Silicon Valley Cartel’s “Green Scheme” companies. It is thought that a GOP-based SWAT Team took on the task. The Cartel had already gotten most of their payola from skims off-the-top and from stock market pump-and-dumps created by exploiting the free government money that could be used to artificially hype the stock market valuations while Goldman Sachs and The Silicon Valley Cartel skimmed the momentary high-points on Wall Street.

     

     

    Kleiner loved to steal federal funds under the guise of “It will help the nation”.

     

     

    The green-washing “Cleantech” deal didn’t work out so well so they moved their pitch to “Let’s stop terrorists”. Kleiner had funded database companies so they pitched Washington that all of their database companies could spy on every American and “see the future like Tom Cruise did in the movie Minority Report and catch bad guys before they become bad”. This was just a scam to try to make the wasted internet toys stay relevant. That scam has now failed too as Silicon Valley’s “Big Data” has not only missed every single terrorist activity but it has steered law enforcement down wild goose chases and cost the consumer electronics industry a hundred billions dollars in losses because people hate being spied on. Big Data trying to accurately figure out what organic things will do is like trying to get the Amish to build nuclear reactors. The CIA has found out that you can generate lots of pretty bar graphs and flowcharts with Silicon Valley’s tools but the outcome will be nonsense that has no application in real life.

     

     

    The newest tactic is “Driverless Cars”. Nobody wants driverless cars but The Silicon Valley Cartel gets Obama and Hillary to give them both DOT and DOE taxpayer cash for them while they sell their lithium ion batteries, from the Afghanistan lithium fields, that they have monopolized. Great!

     

     

    Our reporters will cover, in detail, how these Silicon Valley Cartel dirty payola deals work, who did them, how the money is hidden and who the beneficiary trails lead to, in a series of articles. We could not cover this story until now because we needed to wait until this Presidential election raised the interest level in such dirty deeds. We also needed to wait until someone like Wikileaks dropped the archives to prove that these kinds of insane and epic corruption deals actually happen. It is likely not the Russians who are responsible for all of the leaks but insiders from Google, KPBC, the DNC and Facebook. It may even be FBI moles who have been inside these operations as well as Ellen Pao-esque players who were simply disgusted by the corruption.

     

     

    Everyone in the world is now aware of the fact that John Doerr, Dianne Feinstein, Elon Musk, Larry Page and Eric Schmidt rig elections, White House decisions and the direction of the use of U.S. Treasury funds. The emails and FBI documents prove it. How long can Americans tolerate the use of 40% of their paychecks to pay for John Doerr’s private jets? That remains to be seen.

     

     

     

    Stay tuned for part two: A Death In The Family

     

     

     

    Topics: KPCB, John Doerr, Dianne Feinstein, Elon Musk, Larry Page, Corruption, Google, Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, Eric Schmidt, pay to play, quid pro quo, White House corruption, FBI, Huma Abedin, Weiner-Gate

     

     

     

    <

    p class=”western” style=”margin-bottom:0;line-height:150%;orphans:2;widows:2;”>This publication is constantly updated by the internet via WikiPedia Process

     

    DARKENED CORRIDORS: MURDER AND ELECTION RIGGING IN SILICON VALLEY

     

    A ProPublica Documentation

    A gunshot rang through the corridors of San Francisco City Hall. A Mayor was dead and a new mayor was moved into position. The bullet that killed Mayor George Moscone on November 27, 1978 would lead to political corruption in 2016 that would change the course of the world.

    The assassination of George Moscone was perfectly timed to place Dianne Feinstein into power as the new mayor and begin the next-generation of industrialized corruption on an epic scale. The new generation of corporation-backed pay-to-play was backed by the newly minted power known as The Silicon Valley Cartel.

    As George Moscone lay dying on his desk in San Francisco, just south of City Hall a man named John Doerr was looking at a folder that showing that his Silicon Valley “venture capitol” scheme had just broken the record at $750 million dollars of input. Did John Doerr have George Moscone killed? Did he also kill Rajeev Motwani, Vince Foster, Gary D. Conley, Ravi Kumar, Andrew Breitbart, or the 78 other folks who had information that Doerr would not like to see go public? Maybe not…maybe so. What does the FBI think? Every single one of these people died before their time and they had information that threatened Doerr and the Silicon Valley political schemes.

    Kleiner Perkins was formed in 1972. It has traditionally focused on early-stage investments, but also does later-stage investments.[7][8] The savvy team at Kleiner, aka KPCB, realized that buying politicians was prudent and, in fact, necessary for the kind of financial shell-games they played. Dianne Feinstein had been one of their big bets. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton would be their bigger, later , and most notorious plays. In a yet to be released recorded interview, Kleiner’s Tom Perkin’s explains his theory of quid-pro-quo with politicians. His words make anyone shudder with fear that these types of Machiavellian billionaires actually exist. In fact, Kleiner Perkins and their festering child: Google, are all comprised of these kinds of warped, power-mad minds.

     

    <

    p style=”line-height:150%;”> The firm was named after its four founding partners: Eugene Kleiner, Tom Perkins (“Poor people are Nazi’s..”), Frank J. Caufield, and Brook Byers. Other notable members of the firm include partners John Doerr and tax evader Raymond J. Lane, as well as high-profile individuals such as Sun Microsystems co-founder Bill Joy (who joined as partner in January 2005), former U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell (who joined in July 2005 in the newly created position of “strategic limited partner”), Vinod Khosla and former U.S. Vice President Al Gore, who joined as partner in November 2007[9][10] as part of a collaboration between KPCB and Gore’s firm Generation Investment Management (GIM) to promote green technology, business and policy solutions.[11] Kleiner Perkins was, and is, the founder of the collusion group known as the Silicon Valley Cartel.

     

    Feinstein backed Italian mobster John Molinari for the new mayoral position. To hedge her bets, she kept an in with Roger Boas, also running for Mayor, and later indicted for racketeering and child prostitution. Molinari lost due to his connections to corruption, abuse of his daughter (Per a San Francisco Police Department report), his tenure of the Golden Gate Bridge district where embezzlement was also charged and his old-school North Beach mob connections.

    All three were placed under permanent surveillance by the FBI and multi-agency task force groups. Feinstein had a number of “bag-men” who delivered cash to her through various outlets. The Coblentz law firm was one such avenue of payola. The most notorious bag-man was James Bronkema, the head of the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce and a co-conspirator of Molinari’s on the Golden Gate Bridge District Board. Bronkema received massive funds from David Rockefeller, under various trusts and hotel guises, which Bronkema relayed to Feinstein for real estate favors. Bronkema’s mistress, Patricia Novak, the head of the San Francisco Fair, and her girl friends recall, Bronkema as a tough character who threatened to “turn you into a headless body floating in San Francisco Bay” if you got on his bad side. A testament to the Bronkema/Rockefeller/Feinstein play is the bridge that runs between the Embarcadero Center buildings, above the roads in San Francisco. Rockefeller wanted those bridges but no other San Francisco developer was allowed to have them per Feinsteins machinations on behalf of her Rockefellerian benefactor. “She’s a bitch”, decried real estate developer Walter Shorenstein, “But she’s Rockefeller’s bitch”. Both the Embarcadero Center and the Golden Gate Bridge’s stand as permanent reminders of the beginning of this epoch of corruption.

    Feinstein later found a new “Bag-man” named Richard Blum. His billions financed her move to the U.S. Senate with hopes of placing her in the White House. In exchange, she tripled his billions with public policy decisions that almost exclusively benefited Blum’s companies.

    Feinstein made a deal with Silicon Valley’s Elon Musk, facilitated by Kleiner Perkins. She took a plot of land in Fremont, California which her family ran the real estate company for, the construction company for, the lobbying for, the HR firm for and other services. She put Solyndra and Tesla side-by-side on that land and her family grabbed the stock and lobbying cash for both of the companies. Solyndra failed and got raided by the FBI after $500+M of taxpayer cash went sideways. Because the Barack Obama’s campaign was financed by The Silicon Valley Cartel, The White House ordered AG Eric Holder and AG Loretta Lynch to shut down the further investigations of Solyndra, Tesla and the rest of the Cleantech Crash Cartel disasters. Feinstein helped Cartel member Elon Musk get part of NASA shut down and then get handed the very same NASA contracts that NASA was just curtailed from doing. It was amazing quid-pro-quo.

    The media outed Feinstein and she never made it to the White House. The internet has dubbed her: “The most corrupt living politician in America”. While Feinstein has faded, the Silicon Valley Cartel has tripled in size and power. With payrolls of $200 million dollars a day, Kliener, Google and the Kleiner portfolio could order worker bee’s to do a lot of damage by trolling blogs and pushing election perception manipulation. They did.

    The Cartel did a study that showed that “edgy candidates like women or blacks could stand out in the media” so they jumped over to use Barack Obama and then Hillary Clinton for their government kick-back schemes.

    Kleiner Perkins created a Russian venture development group and courted the biggest mobsters in Russia. The heads of Russian Cartels were suddenly teaching The Silicon Valley Cartel a thing or two about rigging the system. Kleiner put their insider’s Steven Chu, Matt Rogers, Steve Spinner, and Steve Westly in charge of the U.S. Department of Energy pay-to-play gambit with orders to get billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars shipped exclusively back to the Silicon Valley Cartel while sabotaging any of the Cartel’s competitors.

    The scheme worked stunningly, until it didn’t. 60 Minutes has a great investigative segment called: THE CLEANTECH CRASH. This tells the story of part of the corruption but it only begins the tale. Someone took the largest corrupt hand-out in U.S. history and then crashed all of the Silicon Valley Cartel’s “Green Scheme” companies. The Cartel had already gotten most of their payola from skims off-the-top and from stock market pump-and-dumps created by exploiting the free government money that could be used to cook the stock market valuations.

    Kleiner loved to steal federal funds under the guise of “It will help the nation”. The green-washing “Cleantech” deal didn’t work out so well so they moved their pitch to “Let’s stop terrorists”. Kleiner had funded database companies so they pitched Washington that all of their database companies could spy on every American and “see the future like Tom Cruise did in the movie Minority Report and catch bad guys before they become bad”. This was just a scam to try to make the wasted internet toys stay relevant. That scam has now failed too as Silicon Valley’s “Big Data” has not only missed every single terrorist activity but it has steered law enforcement down wild goose chases and cost the consumer electronics industry a hundred billions dollars in losses because people hate being spied on.

    The newest tactic is “Driverless Cars”. Nobody wants driverless cars but The Cartel can get Obama and Hillary to give them both DOT and DOE taxpayer cash for them while they sell their lithium ion batteries that they have monopolized. Great!

    We will cover, in detail, these Silicon Valley Cartel dirty payola deal in a series of articles. We could not cover this story until now because we needed to wait until this Presidential election raised the interest level in such dirty deeds and until someone like Wikileaks dropped the archives to prove that these kinds of insane and epic corruption deals actually happen.

    Everyone in the world is now aware of the fact that John Doerr, Dianne Feinstein, Elon Musk, Larry Page and Eric Schmidt rig elections, White House decisions and the direction of the use of U.S. Treasury funds. The emails and FBI documents prove it. How long can Americans tolerate the use of 40% of their paychecks to pay for John Doerr’s private jets? That remains to be seen.

    Stay tuned for part two:  A Death In The Family

    Silicon Valley Buys Itself Another White House – Epic Corruption Revealed

    Silicon Valley Cozies Up to Washington, Outspending Wall Street 2-1

     

    – Silicon Valley rigged the internet to put Obama in the White House and get trillions in government hand-outs. Now they are doing it again with Hillary

     

    – Elon Musk, Eric Schmidt, John Doerr and team received the largest government hand-outs in history from Obama

    – “A Coup D’Etat is underway” claim Conservatives

     

    Saleha Mohsin SalehaMohsin

     

     

     

    • Big tech is outspending banks, alumni get government jobs

    • Wishlist from trade to antitrust poses challenge to regulators

     

    A political weather map of America would show Wall Street under a cloud, and Silicon Valley bathed in sunshine.

     

    Over the Obama administration’s eight years, the technology industry has embedded itself in Washington. The president hung out with Facebook Inc.’s Mark Zuckerberg and hired the government’s first chief tech officer. At least at the lower levels of officialdom, the revolving door with companies such as Google is spinning ever faster — as it once did with Wall Street.

     

     

    Politicians have played down their connections to finance since the taxpayer bailout of 2008. No such stigma attaches to tech, for now. But as the Valley steps up its lobbying efforts, with a wish-list that ranges from immigration to rules for driverless cars, some critics warn that similar traps lie in wait: It’s not easy for the government to police an industry from which it poaches talent and solicits help with writing laws.

     

    “If you’re trying to influence government policy on behalf of a corporate sector, it’s not better that you do it for the tech industry than for Goldman,” said Jeff Hauser from the Center for Economic Policy and Research in Washington.

     

    Hauser heads the Revolving Door Project, which scrutinizes political appointees. Even amid mounting concern over inequality, he says wealthy tech executives and their companies are still considered cool. In other words: It may be hard to persuade people these days that what’s good for Goldman Sachs is good for America — but it might just work for Google.

     

    The five biggest U.S. tech companies are now the five biggest companies, period — at least as measured by market value. And they’re flexing that financial muscle.

     

     

    The tech firms spent $49 million on Washington lobbyists last year, while the five largest banks shelled out $19.7 million, data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics shows.

     

    On the personnel front, the Campaign for Accountability, a non-profit group, studied the to-and-fro between government and Google, a unit of Alphabet Inc. It found that 183 people who worked under President Barack Obama through last year were hired by Google, while 58 headed the other way.

     

    Google is in Washington to “help policy makers understand our business and the work we do to keep the internet open and fuel economic growth,” the Mountain View, California-based company said by e-mail in response to questions. Facebook’s goals in the capital include protecting customers, “explaining how our service works, and maintaining an open Internet and a culture of innovation,” it said in an e-mail.

     

    There have been other high-profile moves out of Washington: former Attorney General Eric Holder this year took a job at Airbnb Inc., and David Plouffe, Obama’s one-time campaign manager, started at Uber Technologies Inc. in 2014.

     

    Persistent rumors have linked Facebook Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg with the post of Treasury secretary in a Hillary Clinton administration. Sandberg, a former chief of staff at the Treasury under Larry Summers, told a conference this month that she plans to stay at Facebook. Apple Inc.’s Chief Executive Officer Tim Cook and Microsoft Corp.’s founder Bill Gates were on a list of Clinton’s potential vice-presidential nominees, according to an e-mail allegedly from her campaign chair that was released by Wikileaks.

     

    The administration’s view is that tech people are welcome in Washington because they can help make things work better — and help is certainly needed.

     

    Penny Pritzker, the commerce secretary, says the government is shifting toward using technology the way business has been doing for years. It has set up a coding boot-camp for employees, while data scientists work across federal agencies to mine the archives and help improve transportation projects.

     

    ‘Data as Currency’

     

    “We view data as currency,” Pritzker said in an interview. She travels to Silicon Valley at least once a quarter and has an advisory council of 21 tech experts.

     

    Megan Smith, the former Google manager who took a job as Obama’s chief technology officer in 2014, says the long-term goal is to make government services as smooth a user experience as that offered by, say, Amazon or Dropbox.

     

    Collaboration with tech companies pre-dates Obama’s creation of a special post to oversee it. Zillow Group Inc., the real-estate website, helped the Treasury after the housing-market collapse, according to Stan Humphries, its chief analytics officer.

     

    “I was struck by how little data the government had” in areas such as price indexes or foreclosures, Humphries said. The Seattle-based firm filled the gap, offering its micro-data to Federal Reserve researchers and even, on occasion, to Neel Kashkari, then an assistant secretary at the Treasury department and now in charge of the Minneapolis Fed. “They were soon sucking up every bit of data that we had available,” said Humphries.

     

    In Washington, favors typically come at a price though. Tech giants, which are in the habit of buying up smaller companies and also trying to tie customers to their own platforms, keep a close watch on antitrust policy. In 2013, Google — like Microsoft before it — was threatened with a potentially costly legal battle. Federal Trade Commission staff said the company “unlawfully maintained its monopoly” over internet searches, though the 20-month probe was eventually closed.

     

     

    Competition policy, that’s the thing they’re most scared of,” said Barry Lynn, a senior fellow at the New America Foundation, a Washington think-tank. “If a Microsoft-style case was brought against any of these companies, it could totally change their business prospects. It could result in radical changes to the scale and structure of their corporations.”

     

    Cases have been opened in Europe against Google and Amazon, Facebook and Microsoft, said Lynn. He’s a Republican, showing that concern about the growing power of the tech giants isn’t confined to the political left.

     

    Not that the left doesn’t share it. Clinton has talked about tougher antitrust laws aimed at ending the “abuse of economic power” by corporations.

     

    ‘Their Damn Computers’

     

    She’s also taken aim at their shifting of profits overseas to avoid taxes. Hauser, who worked at the Justice Department’s antitrust division before joining the Revolving Door Project, said tech firms “are at the leading edge of tax avoidance because of the ways they’ve perfected moving their intellectual property overseas.”

     

    He said Treasury Secretary Jacob J. Lew’s support for Apple, after the iPhone-maker was ordered to pay back-taxes in Europe, is an unprecedented stance for a Democratic administration. Clinton’s Republican rival Donald Trump proposed a tax cut for companies that repatriate profits, though it didn’t win him many converts in the tech industry.

     

    Then there’s the labor market. Trump has taken aim at Apple among other companies that have shifted jobs overseas. “We’re going to get Apple to start building their damn computers and things in this country,” he said in January. But the iPhone-maker announced this month it’s setting up a second R&D center in China.

     

    Big tech simply doesn’t hire on the same scale as its heavy-industry predecessors. And technology is reshaping the workforce in other ways too, with Silicon Valley favorites like Uber and Taskrabbit Inc. at the forefront. They’re central to the growth of a gig economy that’s spurred calls for rules on health-care and employment insurance to be updated.

     

    Tech companies also typically back immigration rights for skilled labor that have become politically toxic, and they support trade accords that both presidential candidates oppose. They’ve clashed with the government over the balance between internet privacy and national security, notably when Apple boss Cook refused to help unlock an iPhone belonging to one of the San Bernardino shooters.

     

    Beyond the shopping-list of specifics, says Lynn, the industry has one overarching desire: light-touch regulation. “They want to be left alone,” he said. “They want to be allowed to do what they want to do.”

     

    And to keep Washington at arm’s length, it helps to get close to it first.

     

     

     

     

     

    Google keeps a psychological profile on every American and seeks to identify Republicans and “Fix Them…”

     

     

     

    By Andy Oscar, New York Times Advisor

     

     

     

    If you post cute pictures of German Shepherds then Google thinks you are a Republican. Google’s analytical system thinks that because Nazi’s all had German Shepherds that your love for German Shepherds makes you a GOP-lover.

     

     

    You may have posted those pictures on Facebook or Snapchat. It does not matter. Google scours every social network on Earth.

     

     

    Your innocent pictures of cats, dogs, kids and Christmas parties reveal huge amounts of psychological Rorschach Test background about the inner workings of your mind. Google loves to know about your thoughts.

     

     

    Larry Page, Jared Cohen and Eric Schmidt sincerely believe that they are doing “the right thing” by being your digital interventionist. They believe that there is nothing wrong with covertly building a psychological profile on you, personally, adding to it every hour and using that information to manipulate your buying habits, voting habits and mass social trends. They believe that anything is OK for their vision of the “greater good.” So did Hitler.

     

     

    Google’s drones, phones, fiber networks, satellites, Nest devices, web services, driverless cars and other oddball products all have one thing in common. They watch you electronically and send the information back to Google’s data storage servers.

     

     

    Well, it is all free”, you say, “Why should I care?”

     

     

    Because you are being date raped!

     

     

    You are being drugged up with marvelous free shiny technology so that you will be too intoxicated with goodies to notice that Google has shoved it’s DNS probe as far up your rectum as possible…all the way to your brain stem.

     

     

    Afterwards you will start to remember that something happened the night you let Google in but you won’t be able to quite put your finger on it.

     

     

    Your PSTD will keep you from questioning why you always have this uncertain feeling about Good Old Uncle Google.

     

     

    Larry Page, Jared Cohen and Eric Schmidt, the key sultans of Google, believe that using billions of dollars of digital mood manipulation, news censorship, subliminal messaging, character assassination, mass perception steering, impression subtle-insertion sequences, and other tricks you ever heard of, is OK because they know what is right. Google is a social engineering program. Google is digital Apartheid. Google is the creator of electronic genocide…but in a quite deceptive manner.

     

     

    <

    p style=”margin-bottom:0;line-height:100%;”>They and are their staff of raping, intern abusing, hooker hiring, hooker-murdered, Senator bribing, sex-penthouse-owning, sex-club-member, no-black-hiring, no-woman-hiring, frat house elitist yuppie guys certainly must know what is “right”.

     

    Here is what is going to happen next to Silicon Valley!

    Here is what is going to happen next to Silicon Valley!

     

     

     

    The Silicon Valley companies are going to continue to fail in a huge way!

     

     

     

    They are going to fail because they spied on America, and the world, and the public wants pay-back.

     

     

     

    They are going to fail because the world has woken up and realized that they make useless nonsense.

     

     

     

    They are going to fail because nobody is interested in their dumb Narcissism.

     

     

     

    They are going to fail because the TV show: “Silicon Valley” showed the world what assholes they are.

     

     

     

    They are going to fail because the Republican party targeted every single one of their investor’s portfolios in a payback plan.

     

     

     

    They are going to fail because the Russians and the Chinese hacked every single one of their Cisco and Juniper Networks back-doors and took their technology and emails.

     

     

     

    They are going to fail because their banks: Deutsch Bank, Wells Fargo, JP Morgan, etc. are failing and getting exposed as sleazy criminal operations.

     

     

     

    They are going to fail because “The Internet of Things” turns out to be an UN-closeable door for every hacker on Earth.

     

     

     

    They are going to fail because they treat women, blacks and workers like dogs.

     

     

     

    They are going to fail because their own workers think they suck and have no allegiance to them longer than the next pay check.

     

     

     

    They are going to fail because they bribed politicians and got caught.

     

     

     

    They are going to fail because Wikileaks is bringing the goods on them.

     

     

     

    They are going to fail because of all of their sex scandals, rapes, hookers and abuse charges which prove that they are run by scum.

     

     

     

    They are going to fail because their crooked lawyers (ie: WSGR) are now under federal investigation.

     

     

     

    They are going to fail because their brands now only trigger negative impressions in consumers minds.

     

     

     

    They are going to fail because their Ponzi Scheme financing pump-and-dumps have run out of air.

     

     

     

    They are going to fail because most of the internet really, really, WANTS them to fail for all of the above reasons.

     

     

     

    They are going to die huge, epic, smoking-crater kinds of deaths and it will be glorious. Their arrogant, self-aggrandizing venture capitalists will cry over their dead stock valuations.

     

     

     

    <

    p style=”margin-bottom:0;line-height:100%;”>Goodbye Rat-Bags of Silicon Valley. You reap what you sow!