Google Is Operating An Illegal Private Corporate International Government

Google is covertly owned by Obama, Biden, Harris, Pelosi, Feinstein, Newsom and Boxer. That is why Google is never regulated or shut down!


By Dan Keevers – ACLU Advocate (Opinion)

Google is now bigger and more powerful than the entire governments of Spain and France, combined.

Google has it’s own global intelligence agency. It has a “handler” for each and every Tier 1 and Tier 2 politician in France, England and The USA. It has bribed/influence-contributed more money and services to American politicians than any company in history. Google spends more money bribing politicians in a week than the nation of Puerto Rico spends operating all of it’s infrastructure in a year.

While Google pays some of the bribes in cash, most of the bribes are paid in stock market warrants and search engine rigging services. The search engine rigging services are valued at a minimum of $8 Billion per search manipulation, due to Google’s global internet monopoly.

Google pays little, or no taxes, by playing one country off against the other and running a shell-game of “Where-is-my-office”.

Every product that Google is involved in, sends private information back to Google which Google analyzes and manipulates in order to steer consumers into subliminal voting and policy trends that Google determines are “the right ones.”

Eric Schmidt has sat in the current White House and dictated more federal laws and policy decisions, exclusively benefiting him, than any other man in the world. He has had the U.S. state and federal government hire more of his friends and staff than any other man in the world.

Google bosses engage in the manipulation of Google’s assets for their own purposes and sell those same manipulation services to political candidates. In each country, Google has spent billions of dollars on political manipulation but Google never reports those expenses in campaign disclosure forms.

While some may argue that it is OK for Larry Page and Eric Schmidt to decide the outcomes of peoples and nations lives, other’s argue that the vast number of twisted sex scandals, tax evasion, bribery charges and sociopath-like actions of the Google bosses could lead nations into ruin. It is certainly up to each nation to decide if Larry Page is their God.

Rajeev Motwani created Google’s algorithm. He turned up strangely dead. Wall Street Journal reporter David Bird was covering Google’s take-over of lithium ion and indium solar and battery energy markets. He turned up strangely dead. Gary D. Conley whistle-blew on Google. He turned up strangely dead. Cheryl Sandberg’s husband worked with Google’s investors. He turned up strangely dead. Forrest Hayes was a senior Google executive who knew the secrets of Google’s algorithm. He turned up strangely dead. There are over 30 Google insiders, investment bankers and whistle-blowers who suddenly had weird accidents. Does Larry Page run out and kill anybody that pisses him off? Probably not. Are these all coincidences? Probably not.

Because Google has purchased almost every elected official, their Chiefs of Staff and most big lobbyists and law firms, an interdiction of Google’s mad power grab is unlikely to come soon.

EU, British and U.S. FTC regulators had vast amounts of money and revolving door kick-back jobs shoveled at them in order to shut down, or slow down, investigations of Google’s forced “billionaires are god’s” public information control. The public has no chance against Google’s Hitler Youth-like social media programming of young Millennials.

The world needs to resolve itself to the fact that they are now Eric Schmidt’s and Larry Page’s bitches.

Revealed: how Google enlisted members of US Congress it bankrolled to fight $6bn EU antitrust case

US tech firm has stepped up lobbying efforts with $3.5m charm offensive to persuade EU to drop punitive action over alleged abuse of monopoly position
The European commission building in Brussels.
The European commission building in Brussels, where Google’s lobbying is said to be unrivalled.Photograph: Olivier Hoslet/EPA
Google enlisted members of the US congress, whose election campaigns it had funded, to pressure the European Union to drop a €6bn antitrust case which threatens to decimate the US tech firm’s business in Europe.
The coordinated effort by senators and members of the House of Representatives, as well as by a congressional committee, formed part of a sophisticated, multimillion-pound lobbying drive in Brussels, which Google has significantly ramped up as it fends off challenges to its dominance in Europe.

An investigation by the Guardian into Google’s multifaceted lobbying campaign in Europe has uncovered fresh details of its activities and methods. Based on documents obtained under a freedom of information request and a series of interviews with EU officials, MEPs and Brussels lobbyists, the investigation has also found:

Google’s co-founder and CEO Larry Page met the then European commission chief privately in California in spring 2014 and raised the antitrust case despite being warned by EU officials that it would be inappropriate to do so.

Officials and lawmakers in Brussels say they have witnessed a significant expansion of Google lobbying efforts over the past 18 months as the company faces increased scrutiny of its business activities in Europe.

Google has employed several former EU officials as in-house lobbyists, and has funded European thinktanks and university research favourable to its position as part of its broader campaign.


Google co-founder Larry Page.
Google co-founder Larry Page. Photograph: Bloomberg via Getty Images

Capitol Hill’s aggressive intervention in Brussels came as the European parliament prepared to vote through a resolution in November 2014 that called on EU policymakers to consider breaking up Google’s online business into separate companies.

Republican and Democratic senators and congressmen, many of whom have received significant campaign donations from Google totalling hundreds of thousands of dollars, leaned on parliament in a series of similar – and in some cases identical – letters sent to key MEPs.

In another letter, the US House judiciary committee wrote to MEPs concerning the antitrust case against Google. The committee’s chairman, Bob Goodlatte, said the committee was “troubled to learn” some MEPs were “encouraging antitrust enforcement efforts that appear to be motivated by politics” that would ultimately undermine free markets.

Google has consistently donated to Goodlatte’s election campaigns, while members on the judiciary committee that he chairs collectively received more than $200,000 (£133,000) from the company during the 2014 election cycle.

Google declined to comment on the letters or its ties to the committee, including the fact one of its senior lawyers in Washington had joined the firm straight from the judiciary committee where he served as an antitrust counsel to its Republican members. A spokeswoman for the committee did not respond to the Guardian’s requests for comment.

Scaling up

Google’s expansion of its lobbying activities in Brussels has come in response to a growing number of threats to its business in the EU, where it dominates about 90% of the search market. It argues that its rivals lobby just as hard against it, if not harder.

In April, a long-running antitrust investigation came to a head when the newly installed EU competition commissioner, Margrethe Vestager, formally accused Google of abusing its market dominance by systematically favouring its shopping price-comparison service.

EU competition commissioner Margrethe Vestager.
The EU competition commissioner, Margrethe Vestager. Photograph: Francois Lenoir/Reuters

Google, which could face a heavy fine of more than €6bn (£4.3bn) if found guilty, has rejected Vestager’s case as “wrong as a matter of fact, law and economics”. But this is only one of the battles Google is fighting in Brussels.
The European commission has also launched a separate competition investigation into Google’s mobile operating system, Android, and indicated additional inquiries are being considered. This follows the symbolic blow MEPs dealt the US company late last year with the so-called “unbundling” resolution.

Under pressure to defend itself, Google has opened its cheque book. Last year, the company spent more than twice as much on lobbying in Brussels than Apple, Facebook, Yahoo, Twitter and Uber combined. Yet Google is still being outspent by Microsoft, which some in Brussels suspect is backing a vocal anti-Google lobby in Brussels. Microsoft declined to comment.

Official transparency data shows Google has increased its annual lobbying spending from €600,000 in 2011 to almost €4m last year. In addition to its team of in-house lobbyists – many of whom have come from jobs in the commission or the European parliament – the company has employed eight European lobbying firms.

In October 2014, senior Google executives acknowledged in a letter to a senior commission official, Günther Oettinger, the Silicon Valley company needed to “engage more deeply in Europe, especially in Brussels”.
This strategy is borne out by records of meetings with the commission. Between December 2014 and June 2015, Google held more high-level meetings with commission officials than any other company.

Google sympathisers accept it is lobbying hard, but suggest no company would sit back and not ensure its side of the story is being heard when so much is at stake, especially when claimants in the antitrust case have formed well-funded lobby groups to fight the firm.

One such group, ICOMP, receives funding from numerous complainants in the antitrust case, including Microsoft, and is closely associated with Burson-Marsteller, a large public relations firm previously paid by Facebook to plant negative stories about Google.

Latest data shows ICOMP spent €400,000 on lobbying in Brussels between 2013-14. It does not disclose how much it spent on legal costs incurred in connection with the case against Google.

One senior EU official speaking on condition of anonymity said Google’s lobbying in Brussels stood out because of the intricate, often subtle yet powerful mechanisms it employs.

“What is striking is the comprehensive and strategic approach they have. They are not only doing PR but they are doing everything. They are using proxies, which is much more powerful than just the usual stuff,” he told the Guardian.

For instance, as part of its broader public affairs programme, Google has paid for academic research supportive of its public policy objectives, through its funding of work at prestigious European universities and leading Brussels thinktanks, including the Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS) and the Bruegel Institute.

A spokesman for the US tech firm said European politicians had “many questions for Google and about the internet”. To help answer those questions, he added, Google sometimes commissioned independent research, but always asked the academics to disclose funding they received from the company.

Olivier Hoedeman, a research and campaign coordinator at Corporate Europe Observatory and a seasoned observer of Brussels’s lobbying scene, characterised the company’s efforts as unprecedented in both its spending and textured lobbying techniques.

“Google has in an unprecedented manner stepped up their Brussels lobbying efforts during the last few years, massively increasing their spending on lobbying and on other activities in a very comprehensive and multifaceted lobbying campaign aimed at influencing the European commission’s decisions,” he said.

Among MEPs, this became particularly apparent in November last year when the European parliament voted yes to the motion to break up Google’s search business from its advertising and other businesses.

“At the time of the November parliamentary session, Google’s lobby activity clearly stepped up in a way that we have never seen before,” said Ramon Tremosa, a Spanish MEP from Catalonia involved in putting forward the unbundling resolution.

Tremosa said that during the week of the vote Google’s Brussels-based lobbyists were joined by its public affairs officers for each of the 28 EU-member states in filling the corridors of parliament.

According to Jacques Lafitte, a veteran lobbyist at Avisa Partners whose clients include a complainant in the antitrust case, Google’s lobbying in Brussels is unrivalled.

“Before Google, the most sophisticated company in terms of political influence was Goldman Sachs. But Google beats them any day because contrary to Goldman they don’t just focus on the top,” Lafitte said. “Google makes its influence felt absolutely everywhere.”

High-level interventions

Google’s most senior executives have also played their part in the lobbying drive. In May 2014, with less than six months to persuade the commission to abandon the antitrust action before a change in leadership at Europe’s executive arm, Google co-founder Larry Page met the then commission president, José Manuel Barroso, at the company’s headquarters in Mountain View, California.

Former European commission president José Manuel Barroso.
Former European commission president José Manuel Barroso. Photograph: Christian Lutz/AP

Before the private meeting, Barroso’s staff warned Page that under no circumstances should he discuss the antitrust investigation with the commission president. But Page was running out of time.

A letter sent by Google’s executive chairman, Eric Schmidt, to Barroso months later shows the case was discussed. Page told Barroso Google could implement a new set of commitments designed to allay fears about European rivals being unable to compete with it. For an hour, the commission president sat and listened.

“We loved having you in Mountain View and I enjoyed our discussion tremendously,” Page later wrote to Barroso. “Next time you’re in the Valley please come and visit again.”

The timing of the meeting, according to Hoederman, was “very awkward” as the European commission was weighing the antitrust case against the company.

The entrance to Google’s headquarters in Mountain View, California.
The entrance to Google’s headquarters in Mountain View, California. Photograph: John G Mabanglo/EPA

“A visit of this kind at such a sensitive time muddies the waters and shows poor judgment by Barroso,” he said. “It would have been understandable if the EU’s competition policy officials felt that Barroso’s visit risked undermining their integrity of the investigation.”

Julia Reda, a Green MEP from Germany, noted: “This is not the first time there have been reports of Google trying to influence the outcome of the commission’s antitrust investigation through high-level interventions.
“As it is difficult to tell what is going on behind closed doors, I am not in a position to judge whether the communication between the commission and Google during this competition inquiry has been atypical, though it certainly raises questions.”

A spokesman for the commission defended its dealings with Google. “In line with its normal procedures, the commission’s antitrust investigation into Google’s business practices has been handled in an open and transparent way,” he said.

In September 2014, with the clocking ticking and less than a month before Barroso stepped down, Schmidt joined in the lobbying of Barroso, having previously left the task to Google’s chief in-house lobbyists in Brussels.

Google’s executive chairman, Eric Schmidt addresses the 9th Global Competitiveness Forum earlier this year.
Google’s executive chairman, Eric Schmidt addresses the 9th Global Competitiveness Forum earlier this year. Photograph: Fayez Nureldine/AFP/Getty Images

In a last-ditch attempt to change the course of the antitrust case, Schmidt asked Barroso to lean on his commissioners to approve the proposed settlement. Calling it a “crucial stage in the process”, Schmidt warned in pointed language that a failure to approve the settlement would undermine the commission’s credibility and result in “drawn-out litigation”.

Less than a week later, the commission reopened the long-running antitrust investigation, dealing Google a major setback. In a surprise move, it rejected Google’s third settlement offer following “very, very negative” responses from complainants to the proposed settlement.

Trouble ahead?

After changes in leadership at the European commission in November 2014, Google’s lobbyists in Brussels have become increasingly frustrated.

Documents show the company’s repeated attempts to set up meetings with senior commission officials including the president, Jean-Claude Juncker, have thus far been unsuccessful. In one instance, Google requested a meeting with a senior adviser to Juncker shortly after the commission formally issued its antitrust case. However, her assistant bluntly declined the request and directed them to the new competition commissioner, Vestager.

There is a feeling among some EU officials that Google may have underestimated the strict legal procedures that dictate how antitrust cases progress in Europe. However, others say the US firm’s mistake has more to do with underestimating the influence of an “anti-Google lobby”, backed by the likes of Microsoft and German media empire Axel Springer.

In the US, Google saw off a potentially damaging antitrust investigation by the Federal Trade Commission, which dropped its case in early 2013. But the landscape in Brussels differs from that in Washington, where Google enjoys more clout and personal connections with the highest levels of government.

John Simpson, of Consumer Watchdog in the US, believes Google has been successful at positioning itself in and around the corridors of power in Washington. “They’re masters at it and it’s worked very, very well for them,” he said.

But he claims Europe’s acceptance of Google’s size, power and dominance is less than what it is in the US. “I think there may be a failure to understand the European perspective on certain issues,” he said, “I don’t think that they at the core understand how privacy is viewed as a fundamental right in Europe.”

Alarmingly for Google, its investors are beginning to wake up to the trouble it faces in Brussels. Scott Kessler, an equity analyst at S&P Capital IQ who watches Google closely, said many investors had become apathetic about the charges levelled against the company, but the mood is beginning to change.

“Google have been facing these issues in Europe for a number of years and some people believe that now is the time that they will have to account for some of these actions in some way,” he said.

Once again the clock is ticking for Google. Vestager is treating her investigations as a high priority and has indicated EU regulators will actively pursue its new parent company, Alphabet, on multiple fronts.


Let's fix the privacy and anti-trust issues with Google!
We have a crowd-funded public litigation program set-up to fix the
"Google Problem"
Short Link:
Raise funds on @generosity
Please help promote this cause with your social media, link sharing and
press resources.
Most nations in the world, and their citizens, have filed complaints,
charges, and launched investigations against Google for: bribery, tax
evasion, corruption, privacy abuse, campaign manipulation, data
harvesting, fraud and other illicit activities. Most of these regions
have charged Google with operating as an "out-of-control private
government" and a threat to the public.
With collaborative public interest litigation such as this, the public
can join together to balance the odds in their favor and fairly adjust
portions of the system which "is rigged against the average person."
While helping this cause donors can help themselves too. Donors get a
portion of the jury trial award after expenses. Everybody wins.

FAT CAT GOOGLE BOSS Tell’s Investigators He Has So Much Money He Can’t Even Count It


Watch moment Google boss claims he has no idea how much he gets paid

The head of Google Europe Matt Brittin is accused of “living in a different world” after telling MPs he has no idea what he’s paid

Google’s fatcat boss was told he “lives in a different world” today after admitting he has no idea how much he gets paid.

Multi-millionaire Matt Brittin, president of Google Europe, Middle East and Africa, was unable to tell MPs the size of his own salary.

“It’s a salary, errr, I don’t have the figure,” the stammering Google chief said.

“I’ll provide the figure privately if it is relevant for the committee to understand my salary.”

Read more: Google tax hearing live: Updates as MPs grill tech firm’s bosses over £130m ‘sweetheart’ deal
Brittin is appearing before the Public Accounts Committee where he is being grilled about the ‘sweetheart’ deal that will see the tech giant pay just £130million in back taxes despite making sales of more than £4.6bn in the UK.
Asked by committee chair Meg Hillier MP what he was paid, Brittin replied: “I understand the anger, I’ll happily disclose that if it’s a relative matter for the committee”.

MPs erupted in scornful laughter to his comments.

Ms Hillier said he was living on a “different planet.”

“You don’t know what you get paid, Mr Brittin?

“Taxpayers out there are very angry. They live in a different world to what you live in, clearly.

“Perhaps you’ve got tin ears!” she said.

She added: “Don’t you feel a bit embarrassed by this?

“You don’t know how much you are paid. You are living on a different planet to most of our constituents.

“Out there, taxpayers, our constituents, are very angry, they live in a different world clearly to the world you live in, if you can’t even tell us what you are paid.

“It seems a bit of a PR disaster if you didn’t have the nous to realise in the same week that taxpayers were filing their tax returns, and sweating over a little bit of bank interest and getting it in on time, and you announce this as a good deal.”

Mr Brittin responded: “I understand the anger and understand that people when they see reported that we are paying 3% tax would be angry. But we’re not. We’re paying 20% tax.”

The £130 million figure was “the conclusion of a six-year rigorous, independent tax audit in which we are paying tax at 20% like every other UK company”, he said.

Department of Energy attempts cover-up and whitewash of the

Department of Energy attempts cover-up and whitewash of the most criminally corrupt program in U.S. history!

By Donna Gleason – Special to Voat

The American energy department is flooding news outlets with articles that seek to convince voters that its mind-numbing crimes, epic failures and horrific political payola scams never happened.

In a campaign which mirrors the twisted revisionist perversions of “the-holocaust-never-happened” people, The Department of Energy believes it can convince the voters that it has truly only delivered green-energy Unicorn farts to America and that voters should bow, on their knees to the god-like wonder of Secretary Moniz’s bizarre haircut.
“Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain”, they trumpet, Oz-like, across the press release circuits.

The FACTS are quite different than the cotton candy clouds of PR hype that have recently emerged from the DOE in a tsunami of press BS.

The DOE lost over a trillion taxpayer dollars because of their crony-ism and failures

The DOE handed Goldman Sachs tens of billions of dollars of upfront fees and bankruptcy tax write-offs for jamming ” cleantech” companies into the death line, wh
ere they instantly went bankrupt after filling up the campaign investors bank accounts via illegal skims.

The DOE handed campaign billionaire financier Frank Guistra, now under investigation in both the funding of Obama’s and Hillary’s campaigns, illicit lithium and uranium contracts.
The DOE, under a bill for emergency green energy funding in a “crisis-level domestic economy” handed U.S. taxpayer cash to Russian mobster billionaires in the Ener1 and Severstal give-aways, in exchange for kick backs in Afghanistan mining deals. Ener1 immediately went bankrupt, yet campaign billionaires made a hundred million dollars in profit by exploiting tax write-offs.

The DOE funded Solyndra, which had covert ownership by Senator Feinstein. Solyndra immediately went bankrupt and got raided by the FBI. Solyndra dumped toxic materials, was shown to have been owned by campaign financiers and lost over $500M in taxpayer cash. Goldman Sachs made over $40M on the failure. Solyndra’s tubes exploded into flames, on their own, on users roofs, as did panels from other DOE funded, Afghanistan-mined, projects.

A123 got taxpayer cash; was co-owned by DOE officials, relied on Afghan lithium mining contracts, suddenly went bankrupt, after getting the taxpayer cash, and the Sachs Cartel took a windfall on the tax write-off, again.
The same thing happened with Abound Solar. Sudden bankruptcy, toxic dumping, investigations.

The DOE funded the most cancer-causing; factory worker killing; fire starting; fetus mutating; liver damaging; airplane crashing; explosive; self-flame initiating; Afghan War profiteered program in the world: Lithium ion batteries. DOE staff and bosses own the lithium ion companies, and their stock. Even DOE’s own scientists wrote extensive papers about this toxic material which becomes increasingly unstable over time, explodes when it gets wet, or bumped, and may have been why Afghanistan was invaded. By the way, that Afghan war has now lost American taxpayers over $6 Trillion dollars according to major universities.

The DOE funded the campaign financier called: Fisker Cars. Then millions of dollars of lithium ion Fisker cars blew up and melted into slag heaps when they got wet in a storm. Your Tesla and Fisker blow up if their batteries get wet. The global crisis of exploding hover-boards, proves how deadly these batteries are. Fisker was suddenly bankrupt, taxpayers lost more money, Goldman Sachs made a profit on “fees”, “skims”, “stock pumps” and “write-offs and the company was sold to China, via Senator Feinstein’s husband, a close buddy of China’s.

Silicon Valley collusion firm: Kleiner Perkins, paid to put Department of Energy staff in office so that those DOE bosses could crony-kick-back the DOE cash to ONLY Kleiner Perkins and their Cartel members who own most of Google. History now proves that only Kleiner/Google Cartel members got cash and every single one of their competitors were denied and sabotaged by DOE staff working with Google and Kleiner hit job resources.

The DOE funded the giant solar mirror project called Ivanpah. The system never worked for anything but roasting birds in mid air, blinding pilots and wasting money. It was not only not the promised “free” or “cheap electricity”, it turned out to be the most expensive electricity in America. To underscore the failure, special supplemental generators had to be built to even keep Ivanpah going.

Elon Musk has now been revealed to exist in the world only due to tens of billions of dollars of government handouts and monopoly rights, given to him, and his backers in a crony payoff scheme. He famously built toxic, exploding cars, rockets and a battery factory that poisons its workers and the environment. Most of Musk’s crony payoffs came from DOE, which hired his business partners to make “fair” decisions.

DOE solicited hundreds of companies and asked them to bring the best technologies on Earth to help the nation. Their request was a sham. It was a cover story for a bundle of cash that had already covertly been hard-wired and secretly promised to a handful of political crony’s. None of those great American innovators were ever going to be given a chance at that cash and DOE knew that from the day they announced the grant and loan programs. DOE defrauded the applicants, tricked them into waiting and spending money on false promises, and used them to manufacture the cover story that the program was ” open to all”.

It wasn’t. The DOE programs are rigged, and staged, for the exclusive purpose of crony payola compensation in exchange for the payment of political bribes.

60 Minutes has an investigative episode, which you can see on their website, called: ” THE CLEANTECH CRASH”. It details how Kleiner Cartel members raped taxpayer’s, using the Department of Energy as their bitch, and then gave America’s technology to China at low ball prices. Senator Feinstein’s family assisted with that and profited on the China deals. The whole thing stinks from Palo Alto to Beijing.

There are hundreds of other hard facts and proven examples of organized crime-level corruption and historical failures in the Department of Energy period from 2007 to today. This is not “spin”. This is not an opinion that is “subject to interpretation”. These are hard facts with proven evidence from the GAO, The SEC, The NSA, Chinese Hackers, The FBI, The U.S. Senate and the national news media. All of these corrupt crony failures happened. They happened at the Department of Energy. It is a travesty for the Department of Energy to use taxpayer resources to try to cover it up and re-write historical facts.

Now the Department of Transportation (DOT) is being used to conduit cash kickbacks, again, to Tesla and Google for their Afghan War mining scam contracts to exploit dirty lithium ion in their “driver-less cars”. This is just an extension of the DOE crony kick-back program.

Does that sound like the DOE was ” successful”? They were successful in operating the largest criminal revolving door and bribery payoff campaign, ever! Their efforts on behalf of America, and the voters, were an epic failure.
Department of Energy officials say that they “conducted massive due diligence on each applicant”, but the only due diligence that was undertaken by Steven Chu and Secretary Moniz was that they were very diligent about ensuring that only campaign financiers got the money, and that all other applicants were stone-walled and sabotaged.

There are a plethora of reports and investigations citing “White House orders” to manipulate the Department of Energy program funding to exclusively benefit campaign financiers. This brings about the famous Watergate question: “ What did the President know and when did he know it?”

Bibliography and Evidence Sets

Filed with law enforcement. the public, the media, and the court system in an extensive number of duplicate repositories.

An extensive number of documents, reports, white papers, grand jury reviews, indictments, news stories and law enforcement reports have been published. These materials document, in deep detail, the crimes and corruption that certain politicians, their staff and campaign financiers, engaged in, in order to stop outsiders from competing with their crony deals. There were an extensive number of victims of these malicious attacks by elected officials. The following bibliography provides indisputable evidence of the crimes and cover-ups.

These are the key outside materials of interest in this matter. Click the highlighted item to download the document, usually a .pdf or image file:


The Silicon Coup. An ongoing internet authored book about the characters and historical circumstances involved in the biggest corruption case in modern times:
Click This Link To Download >>> The Silicon Coup 4.5e

Get a free copy, in other digital formats, at:

Additional free downloads:

A Corruption bibliography. A list of top documents that cover the corruption procedures used by the suspects in this case:
Click This Link To Download >>> Corruption Bibliography 2015

The Solyndra Appendix. Actual emails and documents, acquired by Senate investigators, showing corrupt collusion between elected officials and Silicon Valley VC’s:
Click This Link To Download >>> TheSolyndraAppendixPt1HIGH

The Political Retribution Tactics used against competing applicants by federal and state officials, illegally:

The Book of Tesla. A live document, constantly expanding, detailing the most audacious one of the crony kick-back schemes in the “Cleantech Crash”:

A Discussion Site:

A Discussion Site:

The U.S. Senate Investigation which found the Department of Energy Program to be rife with corruption and kickbacks:
Click This Link To Download >>> FINAL-DOE-Loan-Guarantees-Report

More On the U.S. Senate Investigation:
Click This Link To Download >>> House Oversight Committee Reports $14B Missing

Check back here to download the free public WIKI Book with detailed public investigation lessons, tips and procedures to deploy CIA/FBI-class investigative journalism skills, from the comfort of your living room, to “fry”, or legally terminate, any criminally corrupt politician or campaign financier.
Click This Link To Download >>> How To Investigate and Terminate 1.7

How Google was “Weapon-ized” as a defamation and political payback tool in the Department of Energy scam. Google executives and Google investors were a large part of the scam, using their company to rig voter perceptions, and stock market valuations, in favor of elected officials and their campaign financiers:
Click This Link To Download >>> How Google was Weaponized Against Consumers 1.2

Click This Link To Download >>> How Google Bribed It’s Way To The Top:

The Corruption Of Senator Feinstein. A detailed, constantly updated, analysis about how one elected official used their office to enrich them-self and damage millions of taxpayers, in this case.
Click This Link To Download >>> The Corruption Of Senator Feinstein.

A University analysis of the Department of Energy Corruption:
Click This Link To Download >>> AADeRugy_testimony_final




Evidence Data and Video Sets, Mirrors

Films About This Case:

In addition to the many films linked on this WIKI, a number of feature films detail the exact methods and actions that took place in this matter, among them:





Automated mass internet manipulation attack “Troll Farm” Tactics used by The Silicon Valley Cartel to hype Tesla, Pump Stocks and Attack Reporters:


Silicon Valley cartel: Apple, Google, and others 

A group of 60,000 Silicon Valley workers got clearance today to move ahead with a lawsuit based on an explosive allegation that Apple, Google, Adobe, and ……

More results

The Cartels of Silicon Valley – CounterPunch

Last week Mark Ames published an article that should forever destroy any connection between theSilicon Valley tech billionaires and libertarian worldviews.

More results

The Silicon Valley cartel | MetaFilter

Mark Ames on Silicon Valley’s conspiracy to drive down workers’ wages: In early 2005, as demand for Silicon Valley engineers began booming, Apple’s Steve Jobs …

More results

Former NYC Regulator: Uber a ‘SiliconValley Cartel’ in ..

Silicon Valley’s latest class of transportation disruptors, which is led by Uber and Lyft, can be described in a myriad of ways, but the word “cartel ……

More results

Mexican Cartel Links to Silicon Valley | NBC Bay Area

Often, families living in Silicon Valley work for the cartel processing the drugs, sometimes out of their homes. “It is a business,” he said.…

More results

Silicon Valley fends off cartel concerns | GlobalPost

Mexico’s Silicon Valley fends off cartel concerns. Tech geeks scramble to build the next Facebook in the drug war’s shadow. Tweet. Enlarge.…

More results

Silicon Valley Anti-Poaching Cartel Went Beyond a Few Tech 

The gentleman’s agreement that several Silicon Valley firms are now widely known to have taken part in to minimize employee poaching within their own circles went ……

More results

REVEALED: Court docs show role of Pixar and Dreamworks

Just when the tech giants behind the Silicon Valley “Techtopus” wage fixing cartel thought the worst was behind them, US District Judge Lucy Koh has thrown a ……

More results

The Techtopus The Silicon Valley Wage Suppression Cartel 

The Techtopus The Silicon Valley Wage Suppression Cartel W Mark Ames, TV Series Full Episodes English Subtitles…

More results

Silicon Valley Drug Bust Shows Strong Ties To Mexican Cartels 

… Patrick Vanier, Santa Clara County, Silicon Valley, … Silicon Valley Drug Bust Show Strong Ties To Mexican Cartel; KCBS’ Matt Bigler Reports…

More results

Engineers Allege Hiring Collusion in SiliconValley –

A class-action suit by Silicon Valley engineers against companies including Google, Apple and Intel has revealed details of an agreement among them not to ……

More results

Elon Musk: Government’s $5 Billion Man –

C apitalism 2015: In corporate finance today, the theme is “Go where the money is.” For Elon Musk, CEO of Tesla, SolarCity and SpaceX, the place to hunt for cash isn ……

More results

Elon Musk |

Elon Musk, as likable a guy as he is and as cool as his cars are, is a big time crony capitalist. In fact, as the LA Times reports, crony capitalism is absolutely …

More results

Tesla Loving Care | The American

But that doesn’t mean we won’t continue to be forced to “help” Elon Musk build these mobile … Tesla Loving Care. The charmed life of a crony corporatist …

More results

Elon Musk’s growing empire is fueled by $4.9 billion in crony cash. Let’s crowd-fund Elon Musk’s trip to Mars and send him there as fast as possible ..

Elon Musk’s growing empire is fueled by $4.9 billion in government subsidies … Musk/Tesla and company are very good about repaying Govt loans.

Google and the Spy: How a spoonful of dirt almost destroyed America

Google and the Spy: How a spoonful of dirt almost destroyed America

By Tom Enders, Bradley Pogue, Wendy Offerman and Dave Chen. Originally submitted for The Guardian.

The White House just announced that billions and billions of dollars would be reserved for Tesla and Google’s self driving cars (Both companies having been funded by the Obama Administration). At the same time, John Krafcik, the Google executive, said in Detroit at an Automotive News conference Tuesday held in conjunction with North American International Auto Show, that Google wants to be the boss of self-driving cars and wants the auto industry to join it. At the same time Google has hired former White House Deputy National Security Adviser Caroline Atkinson to lead its global policy team, to push self-driving cars, as the Internet advertising giant seeks an advocate to deal with regulators around the world.

The funny thing is, nobody in America knows of anybody that says that they want a “self-driving car”. Are Self Driving cars really a thing, or just another way to scam taxpayer dollars into Silicon Valley’s latest boondoggle.
While many believe that this is just another illicit campaign financing kick-back scheme, this time for Hillary’s campaign, as Solyndra was for Obama’s campaign; the reality is far darker.

Let’s step back in time:

Robert James Woolsey, Jr was born in Tulsa, Oklahoma, the son of Clyde (Kirby) and Robert James Woolsey, Sr.[1] He graduated from Tulsa’s Tulsa Central High School. In 1963, he received his BA from Stanford University (Phi Beta Kappa), and in 1965 his MA from Oxford University, where he was a Rhodes Scholar, and an LLB from Yale Law School in 1968.

Woolsey was founder and president of Yale Citizens for Eugene McCarthy for President from 1967 to 1968. Woolsey is credited as having created the idea to offer the Internet to the public as a way to spy on citizens with their knowledge.

Woolsey is a member of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) and was one of the signatories to the January 26, 1998 letter sent to President Clinton that called for the removal of Saddam Hussein.[11] That same year he served on the Rumsfeld Commission, which investigated the threat of ballistic missiles for the U.S. Congress.[12] In 2008, Woolsey joined VantagePoint Venture Partners as a venture partner.[13]
John McCain hired Woolsey as an advisor on energy and climate change issues for his 2008 U.S. Presidential election campaign.[14] In April 2011, Lux Capital announced that Woolsey would become a venture partner in the firm.[15]

In July 2011, Woolsey, in cooperation with Robert McFarlane, co-founded the United States Energy Security Council. Woolsey currently sits on the Board of Advisors for the Fuel Freedom Foundation.[16]
He currently serves as Chancellor at The Institute of World Politics.[19]

Woolsey was CIA director when Aldrich Ames was arrested for treason and spying against the United States. The CIA was criticized for not focusing on Ames sooner, given the obvious increase in Ames’ standard of living;[5] and there was a “huge uproar” in Congress when Woolsey decided that no one in the CIA would be dismissed or demoted at the agency. Woolsey declared: “Some have clamored for heads to roll in order that we could say that heads have rolled…Sorry, that’s not my way.” Woolsey was forced to resign from the CIA in shame.[6]
Woolsey was a keynote speaker at the EELPJ symposium on wind energy and biofuels in Houston, Texas on February 23, 2007, during which he outlined the national security arguments in favor of moving away from fossil fuels.[23] In a July 2007 interview with The Futurist magazine he argued that U.S. dependence on Middle Eastern oil ranks “very high” as a national security concern.[24]
and use of biomass fuels such as cellulosic ethanol both of which he, his family and associates own/owned stock in. He is a founding member of the Set America Free Coalition, dedicated to freeing the United States from oil dependence. He is on the board of directors for the electric vehicle advocacy group Plug In America.
Plug In America is a lobby group funded by Silicon Valley venture capitalists who hold monopolies in lithium ion batteries. Tesla and Google’s investors and owners are the core backers of Plug-in America.
He is an advisor to The Institute for the Analysis of Global Security, a think tank/lobbyist focused on “energy security”. He overtly hates hydrogen energy and fuel cells because they compete with, and obsolete, his lithium battery investments.

Woolsey is known for clearly articulating his hatred of clean, sustainable hydrogen and fuel cell energy. He has advocated for measures to fight global warming[2] using the lithium ion batteries he has invested in.
woolsey aka gollum
Woolsey was interviewed in Boris Malagurski‘s documentary film The Weight of Chains 2 (2014), in which he said that the “United States and the CIA made mistakes and make mistakes all the time”.[40]
Woolsey was outed as a “War Profiteer” in the article: Woolsey Needs to Make a Choice Between Being a War Profiteer or War Pundit The Washington Note July 10, 2005. In this, and many other articles, the Gollum-like Woolsey is called out for making money off of the manipulation of war and espionage situations.

In July 2011, Woolsey, in cooperation with Robert McFarlane, co-founded the United States Energy Security Council. Woolsey currently sits on the Board of Advisors for the Fuel Freedom Foundation.

[16] The Fuel Freedom Foundation was officially launched in October 2012 by philanthropists Yossie Hollander and Eyal Aronoff.[1] The foundation has a mission to end the United States’ dependence on oil by removing barriers to competition in the transportation fuel market. Through this group, Woolsey pushed his own stock holdings .[2]

While the Japanese auto industry disagreed with Woolsey on the idea that the deadly, toxic, explosive, cancer-causing, worker killing lithium ion batteries were the “end run” for vehicle alternative energy, Detroit embraced his pitch.

During Woolsey’s time, the CIA announced that it had “uncovered” documents that revealed that “Trillions of dollars of lithium” was in Afghanistan and that “Afghanistan is the Saudi Arabia of Lithium”. Indeed, thousands of news articles, under those headlines reveal the true story. The lithium mines of Afghanistan were a bait-and-switch shell game promoted by the departing Russian’s, who had just given up on Afghanistan.
The recent U.S. invasion of Afghanistan was promoted by Silicon Valley billionaires, including Google’s owners, who had been promised the monopoly on those lithium fields, for their electric cars.

The initial intelligence was provided by a CIA team run by one Mr. Woolsey. Who owned stock in the lithium ion.
Nothing shady there? Right?

A small spoonful of dirt had been “covertly returned to our labs by clandestine CIA geologists”, operating deep inside Afghanistan on a dry lake bed. That dirt revealed that “vast wealth lays in the desert ripe for our taking”. But did it?

Goldman Sachs, long a beneficiary of the scrapings of CIA adventures, was pitching that dirt like it was the water from the fountain of youth. To this day, the argument continues about whether or not the Russian’s faked that sample, or not. Was it the real deal or was it as cooked and stinky as the Afghan goat poop laying all around it?
The Silicon Valley VC’s put Elon Musk and Solyndra in charge of exploiting the fruits of the war. Both companies were designed to exploit the mining of Afghanistan. Google as silent shareholders, covertly ran the marketing, stock hype and exploitation of Tesla, Solyndra, V-Vehicle, Plug-in America, The Google “RechargeIT” initiative and now: “The Self Driving Cars” program. All of it just to push the failed Afghan mined lithium ion batteries and indium that all of Google’s insiders had acquired a monopolistic hold on. All promoted to them by Woolsey and his spy “advisors”.

So far, most of the car and battery companies created to exploit the war profiteered Afghan lithium have “blown up”, literally. Lithium blows up when it gets bumped or wet. This reality, after epic fires, FBI raids and horrific corruption, has sent most of those Obama financed companies into bankruptcy.
Back to today:

Now the scheme has gone to hell…

  • Propublica is reporting that the whole U.S. got scammed on this deal. The Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction has labeled this Afghan mining scheme a disaster for the U.S. Investigative reporter: Megan McCloskey ,and her team, found that the problem was worse than anyone imagined
  • The loss to the American taxpayer, to date, from the U.S. adventure in Afghanistan, is over six trillion dollars. Many analysts attribute the missteps in Afghanistan to the creation of ISIS and the biggest damage to the American economy in modern times
  • Steven Chu, the bag man for the Obama administration, gave quite a bit of emergency Department of Energy money to Russian held companies. This shocked many Americans. Many wondered if this was part of the payoff for the Russian “tips” about the Afghan lithium. Those “tips” turned out to be a scam, though. Chu, and his staff, resigned in shame.
  • Panasonic, a lithium ion battery partner of The Silicon Valley Cartel, has since been charged with dumping, bribery, corruption, price rigging, killing workers, and other nasty lithium ion activities
  • Lithium and Afghan mining executive Frank Guistra has now figured prominently into the email leaks and Clinton Foundation funds
  • Multiple other senior spy executives have been fired, or forced to suddenly resign, after being caught running private war profiteering. A woman who was the top NSA spy was even caught profiteering, and terminated
  • The famously missing Malay MH370 passenger jet had it’s cargo compartment stuffed with lithium ion batteries destined for Tesla and others. Did they blow up like all of the hover-board lithium ion batteries that blew up this Christmas
  • The auto industry has rejected Woolsey’s pitch for lithium ion and dedicated the future to clean hydrogen energy and fuel cells
  • “Plug In America” has been outed as a sham meat puppet troll for the lithium ion industry
  • Google has been exposed as the recipient of CIA funding and the operator of the largest taxpayer spying operation in history
  • Google, Tesla and the rest of the “Cleantech Leaders” all have turned out to have been the primary campaign financiers of the Obama, Reid and Feinstein political campaigns as well as the exclusive beneficiaries of the largest taxpayer give-aways in history
  • Nobody wants a lithium ion Tesla, now known as: “The official car of douchebags and assholes”. Tesla’s orders are 1000% below what Tesla wrote in it’s federal documents. Tesla’s cars never stop blowing up and Tesla has even lost a LEMON CAR lawsuit
  • Oh, yes; those “largest taxpayer give-aways in history” were all distributed to them under orders from Obama, Reid and Feinstein, who all owned stock in those companies, just like Mr. Woolsey

So when you hear about Google doing something with electric cars, don’t dream of electric sheep, or be like electric sheep. Don’t be naive. Ignore the sham facade of altruism that Google ties to coat all of it’s political and greed-based maneuvers with.
Google’s bank accounts are built on the bodies of dead American soldiers, and napalmed Afghan shepherd families and some of the most overt Washington DC corruption in history.
Eric Schmidt, the head of Google, has spent more time in the White House, telling the White House who to hire, what laws to make and what companies to fund, than all of the members of Congress combined. When Schmidt isn’t in his “sex penthouse” he is in The White House directing FCC laws, reductions in consumer privacy protection, energy policy, Patent office roll-backs and other Machiavellian treats.
Google got in bed with bad spies, did do evil, and never stopped doing evil.

Google’s Kick-Back Scheme With Crooked Politicians For Electric Car Monopolies

Download and read this free report on Corruption schemes that Google Created For Lithium Ion (Click Here For Report)


Google’s owners got an exclusive kickback scam between themselves and the White House over lithium ion batteries ravaged from war profiteering in Afghanistan, political rigging in Bolivia and other war incursions.

Google wants to push electric cars to keep it’s owners political payola scams alive.

Deadly, toxic, explosive, a risk to national security, fetus damaging…yet Google charged full speed ahead into it.. READ THE REPORT TO SEE WHY!


The dirtiest deal in Silicon Valley:


The U.S. Spent a Half Billion on Mining in Afghanistan With ‘Limited Progress’

The Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction has labelled yet another project in danger of failing. This time its U.S. plans to develop the country’s oil, gas and minerals industries.

A coal miner at work in the Karkar Valley coal mines in Puli Khumri, Afghanistan. (Benjamin Lowy/Getty)The United States has spent nearly half a billion dollars and five years developing Afghanistan’s oil, gas and minerals industries — and has little to show for it, a government watchdog reported today.
The project’s failings are the result of poorly planned programs, inadequate infrastructure and a challenging partnership with the Afghan government, the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction wrote in its newest damning assessment of U.S. efforts in the war-torn country. The finding comes after some 200 SIGAR reports have detailed inefficient, unsuccessful or downright wasteful reconstruction projects. A recent ProPublica analysis of the reports found that there has been at least $17 billion in questionable spending.

We Blew $17 Billion in Afghanistan. How Would You Have Spent It?

Here’s just what the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction found. See for yourself how that money could have been used at home. Explore the app.

The United States Agency for International Development and a Pentagon task force were in charge of developing a so-called “extractive” industry in Afghanistan — basically a system for getting precious resources out of the ground and to the commercial market. SIGAR called out both USAID and the Defense Department last year for their failures to coordinate and to ascertain the ability of Afghans to sustain the project, which unsurprisingly is not promising. In fact, when international aid stopped supporting the Afghan office responsible for oversight of the petroleum and natural gas industries, two-thirds of the staff were fired.

Exploiting these resources, which are estimated to be worth as much as $1 trillion, is pivotal to Afghanistan’s economic future. SIGAR noted that the Afghan government has shown progress under USAID’s tutelage in regulating and developing the commercial export of the resources. But the report said the project was still hampered by corruption, structural problems and a lack of infrastructure for the mining industry, such as reliable roads. Many of the mines operate illegally, with some profit going to the insurgency, SIGAR said.

When it came to individual extractive projects, there was little progress made, the IG found.

The controversial Pentagon task force in charge of much of the effort, the Task Force for Business Stability Operations, spent $215 million on 11 extractive programs, but “after operating in Afghanistan for 5 years, TFBSO left with nearly all of its extractive projects incomplete,” SIGAR found. Three of the programs technically met objectives, but one of those is of questionable value at best. The task force built a gas station for an outrageously inflated cost and in the end it didn’t have any customers. So while the objective to create the station was achieved, SIGAR doubted it was a worthwhile venture.

The Karkar Valley coal mines in Puli Khumri, Afghanistan. (Benjamin Lowy/Getty)

The task force, made up of mostly civilian business experts and designed to develop the Afghan economy, has come under fire from SIGAR and Congress for demanding unusual and expensive accommodations in the country, allegedly punishing a whistleblower, and lacking overall accountability. The Senate is holding a hearing on the task force next week.

In today’s report, SIGAR highlighted that the task force spent $46.5 million to try to convince companies to agree to develop the resources, but not one ended up signing a contract. About $122 million worth of task force programs had mixed results, SIGAR said.

The Defense Department declined SIGAR’s request to comment on its findings. In its response, USAID said it has helped Afghanistan “enact investor-friendly extractive legislation, improve the ability to market, negotiate and regulate contracts, and generate geological data to identify areas of interest to attract investors.” Any conclusions and criticisms, USAID told SIGAR, “need to be substantially tempered by the reality that mining is a long-term endeavor.”

Megan McCloskey

Megan McCloskey

Megan McCloskey covers the military for ProPublica. Previously she was the national correspondent at Stars and Stripes.

Character Of Google Executives and Investors Called Into Question By Studies

[wpvideo n9KrusfM]

The Lewinsky legacy: Sergey Brin, Phaneesh Murthy and other …

Google co-founder SergeyBrin with Google … center of a public sex scandal after he came on Oprah’s Show … behaved the way I behaved.” SergeyBrin and …
Prostitute Murders Another Married GOOGLE Executive on His Infidelity Yacht
[wpvideo Hg0um7Rj]
COVER STORYGoogle Ventures General Partner Kevin Rose, Khosla Ventures Board Member Keith Rabois, Yahoo! President and CEO Marissa Mayer, Greylock Partners Partner John Lilly, SV Angel Founder and Managing Partner David Lee, and Sequoia Capital Partner Roelof Botha judge onstage the Startup Battlefield Finals at TechCrunch Disrupt at Pier 48, Sept. 10, 2014 in San Francisco. Steve Jennings/Getty


What Silicon Valley Thinks of Women

By Nina Burleigh – NEWSWEEK
BusinessSilicon ValleyTech Industry

On a spring afternoon last year at an outdoor café in San Francisco, two denizens of the tech community sketched out their strategy for a startup. Like most 28-year-olds in Silicon Valley, they had smarts and dreams. One was a passionate, fast-talking New Yorker, the other a shy computer whiz from Syracuse, New York, and together they formed the classic hacker-hustler team behind many of the valley’s Next Big Things.

They had been emailing each other about the idea for months, with growing conviction of its awesome potential. It addressed a well-known problem, one that afflicts the tech industry but also banking, media, advertising and film. Corporations needed it. Individuals would love it. It might even be disruptive, as they say. That afternoon, over lunch in the California sun, they committed to an ambitious business plan. That summer, they would keep their day jobs at media and advertising companies, but devote many off-hours and weekends to the startup. The savvy talker, who had worked in communications at Citigroup and Thomson Reuters, joined professional clubs, sought out older advisers, arranged meetings and worked at creating buzz that just might pique investors.
The programmer toiled at the computer, coaxing an algorithm, often alone.

Four months later, the hustler won the project’s first investor, a woman who works at one the world’s biggest hedge funds. It was a small sum, but the entrepreneurs quit their jobs the next day, setting up camp in a donated corner of another startup’s loft office above San Francisco’s Union Square. The new digs mercifully provided free food.

In the ensuing months, the pair eschewed new clothes, walked instead of Ubered and assembled a small, mostly unpaid staff. They found pro bono lawyers with startup expertise, signed contracts, designed and revised their PowerPoint pitch a dozen times and met with more than 50 potential investors. The programmer tested the algorithm. They had 1,500 clients wait-listed for a beta launch. They attracted interest at five large technology companies, including Twitter. They told investors their project was the next Pinterest—the way screenwriters tell movie moguls their scripts are the next Titanic.

Nine months after that day at the café, they launched their startup last month.

In a community like Silicon Valley, where six- and seven-figure investments are routinely tossed at ideas that sometimes succeed but more often flash-bang and fizzle out like meteors, they were getting only paltry sums—about $400,000 shy of the $525,000 they were hoping for in “pre-seed,” early investment money.

There is, though, one thing these two founders are missing, and it is almost the sine qua non of the fabled Silicon Valley startup. They don’t have penises.

Dana Settle is pictured age 27 at a meeting at the Mayfield Fund in 2000. Settle worked at The Mayfield Fund, among the oldest VC firms in tech, before moving on to co-found a VC firm named Greycroft Partners. Bob Sacha/Corbis

Gang-Bang Interviews

The legendary names of Silicon Valley are well known, and for the most part, the men behind the names look like this: geeky, in jeans and T-shirt, maybe with a hoodie, maybe shaving, maybe a college dropout, coding since early pubescence in the upper-middle-class parental basement. They walk into a venture capital firm on Sand Hill Road in Menlo Park or in San Francisco’s SoMa district, and they walk out with a million dollars. A few years later, if all goes well, an IPO makes a lot of people richer.

Computer programmer Lauren Mosenthal and her partner, Eileen Carey, came to California attracted by that kind of possibility. The only problem with their dream is that Silicon Valley has never produced a female Gates, Zuckerberg or Kalanick. There are a few high-profile female entrepreneurs in the Bay Area, but despite the very visible success of corporate titans Meg Whitman, Sheryl Sandberg and Marissa Mayer, who signed up with companies after they took off—their numbers are relatively minuscule.

Despite that discouraging fact, the two women spent their 20s deep inside the valley’s bro community—a culture that has been described as savagely misogynistic. In inverse ratio to the forward-looking technology the community produces, it is stunningly backward when it comes to gender relations. Google “Silicon Valley” and “frat boy culture” and you’ll find dozens of pages of articles and links to mainstream news articles, blogs, screeds, letters, videos and tweets about threats of violence, sexist jokes and casual misogyny, plus reports of gender-based hiring and firing, major-league sexual harassment lawsuits and a financing system that rewards young men and shortchanges women.

There was the young executive of a company valued at $250 million who got up in front of an audience at a conference billed as diverse and joked about “gang-bang interviews” and how he got his start by sending elusive CEOs whose attention he needed “bikini shots” from a “nudie calendar” he’d made of college women. It’s the sort of place where one of the valley’s “most-eligible bachelors,” Gurbaksh Chahal—an entrepreneur with companies valued at hundreds of millions of dollars—is shown on a home security video beating his girlfriend for half an hour. (He received no jail time, pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor and received 25 hours of community service and three years’ probation.) It’s a community in which the porn-inspired, “drading” college tweets of Evan Spiegel, the CEO of Snapchat, go public; where a CEO’s history of domestic violence has no repercussions but female executives get fired for tweeting about sexist jokes they overhear. It’s a place where companies routinely staff conference booths with scantily clad “code-babes” and where women are so routinely sexually harassed at conferences that codes of conduct have become de rigueur—and the subject of endless misogynistic jokes on Twitter.

It is still the kind of place where investors can tweak women who ask them for financing with barbs like “I don’t like the way women think. They haven’t mastered linear thinking.” This was how one investor turned down Kathryn Tucker’s pitch for RedRover, an app that helps parents find kid-friendly things to do, which has since launched in New York, San Francisco and Atlanta.

Three high-profile sexual harassment lawsuits have been filed against Tinder, the virtual town square of hookup culture, and two of the biggest venture capital firms—Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers and CMEA Capital. The complaints include a senior CMEA partner harassing a series of executive assistants like a character in Mad Men, replete with sexual nicknames, trapping them in his office and frequently referring to porn and pubic hair. At Kleiner Perkins, former partner Ellen Pao says partners countenanced harassment and retaliation from a fellow partner, and excluded women from client dinner parties because they “kill the buzz.” At Tinder, a male co-founder (and ex-boyfriend) sent abusive texts and yanked co-founder Whitney Wolfe’s title because, she alleged, he told her having a woman on a board “makes the company seem like a joke.” Tinder and CMEA settled under confidential terms within months. That CMEA partner is no longer with the firm, and Tinder temporarily suspended the executive involved. The suit filed by Ellen Pao—who is now at Reddit—is headed to trial this spring. Kleiner Perkins has denied the allegations and stated that Pao “twisted facts and events in an attempt to create legal claims where none exist.”

It wouldn’t be an exaggeration to say that a front line, if not the trench of the global gender war, is in Silicon Valley. In that sense, Silicon Valley culture echoes the Wolf of Wall Street culture in the ’80s and ’90s. But while Wall Street today seems tamer—thanks to lawsuits and diversity consultants in every corner—in Silicon Valley the misogyny continues unabated. A combination of that very traditional Wall Street wolf-ism among Northern California’s venture capital boys’ club and the socially stunted boy-men that the money men like to finance has created a particularly toxic atmosphere for women in Silicon Valley.

This matters for tens of thousands of reasons, but on the broadest level, since digital technology is our era’s Industrial Revolution, fortunes being made now and business models and corporate cultures forming today will be with us for a century to come—and women are for the most part sidelined. Zuckerberg, Gates, Thiel, Musk—these are our Carnegies and Morgans and Rockefellers, whose names will be on museum wings and university halls 100 years from now. And there’s not a female among them.

Venture capitalists often blame the dearth of women graduating in computing and math and engineering, but that is only part of it. As Jodi Kantor wrote in a New York Times article tracing the fates of the Stanford class of 1994, many women with such degrees simply bailed out, while their male counterparts went on to make fortunes as the Internet exploded.

A recent report on women entrepreneurs by the Kauffman Foundation identified the chief challenges to female entrepreneurship. Researchers interviewed 350 female entrepreneurs, and most cited “lack of available advisers” at the top of their list. Female professional attrition is only one reason for the scarcity of mentors for younger women. Another is that women who stay in the game beyond their late 30s may be less subject to sexual harassment than their younger counterparts, but they are sidelined by virulent ageism in the industry that especially—but not solely—afflicts women.

Younger women, setting out on careers in tech, are furious. One group wrote a scathing “Open Letter to Tech” last year complaining about regular “rape-y emails” and professional exclusion.

Shanley Kane is a young tech industry observer and founder of Model View Culture, an acid-penned, widely read website on which she routinely exposes and excoriates the white brogrammer establishment. In an interview with MIT Technology Review in December, she said venture capitalists talk about the need to get 10-year-old girls into science in order to bring up the numbers of women they will fund, but don’t fund the ones already in the industry. “We are not getting hired, and we are not getting promoted, and we are being systematically driven out of the industry,” she said.

Asked what women should do, Kane wasn’t encouraging: “I don’t have a lot of advice. There’s not a whole lot you can do to keep your career from being crushed by misogyny.”

From left, Lauren Mosenthal and Eileen Carey are co-founders of Glassbreakers. Ashley Jones

Kicking Glass

Every successful startup pitch begins with a problem, followed by a solution and an estimation of how many people will pay for it. Carey and Mosenthal are well versed in the problems women in tech face, and that’s how they came up with the idea for their startup, which they called Glassbreakers.

Glassbreakers is a peer-mentoring platform for companies that want to retain and promote women, and it’s also for individuals because it matches women in the same profession with other women at relatively similar levels so they can share tips, contacts and skills. Based on a “software as a service” business model, it relies on an algorithm Mosenthal continues to refine to produce a product that’s a bit like a dating site, matching people by location, career goals, background and needed skills. “Glassbreakers is a $100 million-a-year opportunity for investors, given how many organizations lack the resources to build mentorship programs but are seeking a solution,” Carey says.

But there is “added value,” as she puts it in her pitch to investors: community-building for working women. “A more connected female workforce is a stronger one,” she says.

Founders Jaclyn Baumgarten, left, and Ari Horie discuss a project during a meeting with entrepreneurs at the Women’s Startup Lab in Menlo Park, Calif., May 27, 2014. Patrick Tehan/Bay Area News Group/MCT/Sipa USA
That’s an added value close to Carey’s heart. She hails from a family of East Coast feminists, and her aunt, Noreen Connell, was a member of the New York Radical Feminists, a National Organization for Women leader and Bella Abzug comrade-in-arms who co-wrote a 1974 sourcebook for rape victims. Carey is named after her mother: “I’m Eileen Junior.” She admits she has only rarely experienced sexual harassment or even sexist behavior. “Women our age expect feminism,” she says, sitting in a sunny, donated corner room in the loft offices of Prism Skylabs, a retail analytics company. “We expect to be treated equally. That shit would never fly around me.”

But she knows bias and harassment are endemic in her profession. When she hears such stories, she encourages the women to report the men, but she understands why they don’t. She has no such qualms herself. “I have seen people sexually harass people, and I have reported it to HR or their bosses,” she says.

Glassbreakers’s peer-mentorship model is different from the traditional mentorship model, Carey says. It aims to mitigate the effect of female professional attrition on younger generations of women coming up. “Traditional mentorship, established in male-dominated industry, is between very senior and very junior people. But the problem for women in the workforce is that there are many more mentees than mentors. Also, the tech industry is changing so fast that women even five or 10 years older may have very little of practical use to share with younger workers.”

Around 1,500 women signed up for last month’s launch, which was confined to the Bay Area. Customers who sign up provide information about their skills and professional goals, and thanks to Mosenthal’s algorithm, they will find three names in their inbox and the user decides whether to make the connection. The two plan to eventually tailor Glassbreakers platforms for women in other industries.

After their first investment, the women raised $100,000, including their combined personal life savings of $15,000 each. Carey says she met with around 50 potential investors, and if the launch goes well, and she can show both significant interest and that the product works without glitches, this month she will be heading out on her first “seed round”—startup lingo for pitch meetings with venture capitalists aimed at raising enough money—she wants $1.5 million—to keep going for 18 months.

The road to launch wasn’t easy. Investors did not pony up the pre-seed financing goal. The company made it to the interview stage of the coveted Y-Combinator tech incubator but no further. Carey says those setbacks were balanced out by promising signs, including the ardent support of older influential women, like the woman who ponied up their first investment.

She also picked up some male investment interest, including funding from Ben Parr, founder of the DominateFund and formerly of Mashable, who invested $20,000 in Glassbreakers just before the launch. “I’ve been talking to women about this problem for years,” Parr says. “A lot of men would write this off. If they build the community, the possibilities and opportunities are enormous—especially for Glassbreakers within workplaces.
Conference attendees at TechCrunch Disrupt at Pier 48, Sept. 8, 2014 in San Francisco. Steve Jennings/Getty

Asking for It

“We are confident women!” It’s a mantra Carey repeats, half-earnestly, half-smiling, as she prepares for a pitch meeting. CEO Carey does those alone; Chief Technology Officer Mosenthal will come only when and if the investors want to talk technology. Carey says that having two of them in the room when she’s asking for money “breaks the energy.”

But asking for money didn’t come naturally—and that’s part of the problem for women in tech. It’s not all sexism but also a culture in which women don’t easily brag or bring the same swagger to fund-raising pitches that the boys do. She and Mosenthal bootstrapped (startup talk for self-financing) for months. Even after she had her rap down for the pitch, she had to be coaxed across the line. In August, she met at a Starbucks with a woman affiliated with a major hedge fund. Over the course of an hour, Carey explained the Glassbreakers platform. The woman, who invested her own money and prefers to remain anonymous (she doesn’t want her company involved), clearly “got” the problem. At some point in their conversation, the woman gently advised Carey that it was important to come out and ask for money.

“At the end of the meeting, she asked straight out, ‘Are you going to ask me to invest in your company?’” Carey says. “And I said yes.”

That investor ponied up less than $10,000 but says she likes Glassbreakers as a business prospect because of various corporate initiatives, such as Intel’s recently announced $300 million, five-year commitment to women’s leadership and diversity. “That’s a trend that will be very favorable for a technology like Glassbreakers,” the investor says.

The effect of that investment on Carey and Mosenthal was exponentially greater than the relatively small dollar figure. “Next day,” Carey says, “we quit our jobs.”

Carey’s unease about asking for money doesn’t surprise Vivek Wadhwa, a Silicon Valley investor, diversity coach and author of Innovating Women. Wadhwa says shaky self-confidence is one of the chief things holding women back. It’s not just about the money, though. Wadhwa says women not only are reluctant to overstate their accomplishments and goals; they habitually understate them. “Often I have to say to them, Why are you underselling?” he says. “When I coach women, I tell them how wonderful they are. Women won’t make the ridiculous projections about their companies that the guys will. They won’t say the really stupid thing the nerds do. They are a lot more realistic and practical and humble.”

Stanford engineering graduate student Serena Yeung, second from left, meets up with other male engineering students Arturo Escaip, left, Subodh Iyengar, right, and Rathul Sheth, second from right, on the Stanford University campus in Stanford, Calif., May 30, 2012. Paul Sakuma/AP


No amount of confidence changes the fact that the valley’s big venture capitalists are almost entirely male. The top five don’t have any female senior partners, and VC partners are 96 percent male. Twenty years ago, the partners were 97 percent male.

A new generation of millennials starting their firms have hardly changed the system. Some of the wealthiest men in the New Billionaires club are Peter Thiel (who financed Zuckerberg) and David Sacks—two guys who spent their formative years at Stanford in the 1990s writing anti-feminist screeds for their school paper. According to Kantor in The New York Times, “In the pages of [Stanford’s] The Review, they defined feminism in negative terms—alarmist, accusatory toward men, blind to inherent biological differences. Feminists ‘see phallocentrism in everything longer than it is wide,’ Mr. Sacks wrote. ‘If you’re male and heterosexual at Stanford, you have sex and then you get screwed.’”

Speaking to the Times, Sacks regretted his collegiate anti-gay screeds, but didn’t seem too concerned about the juvenilia directed at women, nor the status of his female co-eds, the majority of whom dropped out of the business.

VCs are not funding women. According to a study by Babson College, only 2.7 percent of the 6,517 companies that received venture funding from 2011 to 2013 had women CEOs. Meanwhile, the Kauffman report found that female-run startups produce a 31 percent higher return on investment than startups run by men.
One problem with the male-dominated system is that top partners have almost never been exposed to women as professional peers. Their interaction with women is limited to their wives and daughters, and maybe executive assistants.

Male VCs who don’t have female professional peers are especially difficult to pitch on products that serve a female market. “Dozens of times, women have come and told me, I pitched to a firm and what do I hear over and over, ‘Oh, I will go home and ask my wife about it,’” says Trish Costello, an entrepreneur and founder of Portfolia, a venture capital investment platform designed for women. She is also CEO emeritus and co-founder of the Palo Alto–based Kauffman Fellows, a global training institute for venture capitalists.

A prominent venture capital investor from one of California’s top firms, who asked not to be identified because he didn’t want his firm “singled out,” called the absence of female partners “embarrassing” but said it’s directly related to the smaller percentages of women graduating from the engineering schools. “There is no question that diversity of opinion adds to the acumen of the group,” he said. “One of the most passionate business reasons we have to expand the investment to include a handful of women is that they are often not represented in the partnership dynamic around the table on Monday when we are discussing investment ideas.”

But the investor insisted that potential, not gender, was the key to which ideas, of the 10,000 that get pitched to his firm annually, end up being among the 12 that get financed. He added that of those pitches, 20 percent come from female entrepreneurs—which he said tracks with the percentage of women in engineering programs. The investor sits on the boards of two women-run firms that his company financed, and both female CEOs find the focus on their gender “patronizing.”

This is such a touchy subject for the all-male partnerships that few investors want to discuss it—on the record or not. A spokeswoman at Andreessen Horowitz declined to comment, and Peter Thiel’s firm, the Founders Fund, did not respond to messages.

To be fair, there are many reasons Glassbreakers might not appeal to a Founders Fund or Andreessen Horowitz, or any of the dozens of other all-male VC partnerships on Sand Hill Road in Menlo Park, reasons that have nothing to do with sexist bias. It’s not likely to be a Facebook, or even a Houzz, the home-remodeling site launched by an Israeli husband and wife, financed by Sequoia and now valued at $2.3 billion. Glassbreakers is by definition “gender-gated,” thereby excluding 50 percent of potential users. It also presumes that many women do feel the need for female mentorship, when in fact there is quite possibly a significant cohort of working women who think they are getting along just fine without another woman’s advice.

That said, if the Glassbreakers launch shows a market for the product, it will almost certainly have a longer life than Red Swoosh, a now-forgotten Travis Kalanick file-sharing enterprise that venture capitalists threw millions at, and which, when it sold for $19 million, enabled the young founder to buy a San Francisco mansion and Uber.
Should the Glassbreakers team fail in the next 18 months, odds are much worse for them than for men that they will not get more funding. Wadhwa often talks about the importance of “pattern recognition” among VCs. The male bankers simply have an idea of what a successful startup founder looks like, and young women like Carey and Mosenthal simply don’t fit.

“Women don’t look like winners. So they can’t fail, while boys in the club can,” Wadhwa says.

To avoid this, Carey has vetted the venture capitalist firms she will approach, seeking those that have funded other female startups, and making sure that they have some women in senior, decision-making roles. “Of the VCs we have had the highest engagement with, three are women-led firms,” Carey says.

The financing gap between male and female entrepreneurs is massive. VCs typically fund women at the lowest levels—$100,000. The Kauffman study found the majority (nearly 80 percent) of female entrepreneurs didn’t get venture capital but used personal savings as their top funding source. Carey found a network of women, some of whom are or have been venture capitalists or who have started companies. Among their bits of wisdom was one that is antithetical to the swaggering male startup CEO who is sure he’s going to be the Next Zuck. “Talking to these women, we learned you have to ask,” Carey says. “Don’t pretend you know something. If you are honest about what you don’t know, people are more responsive.”

But the advice that bothers her most, Carey says, has to do with how to deal with her own gender. “We are very fortunate and haven’t faced discrimination in our lives,” Carey said of herself and Mosenthal. “I’ve never been told I would not be able to do something or that it would be harder to do because I was a woman. So it’s been strange going through this experience and being told that because we are women it will be harder for us to fund-raise. The hardest part has been hearing that and digesting it and accepting that our gender would be a barrier for entry. I never thought it would be this real.”

Sheryl Sandberg visits the Facebook France offices, April 14, 2014. Elodie Gregoire/REA/Redux

“This Really Happened”

Heading out on her first financing round, Carey is well aware of the worst things that can happen to a young woman seeking money for a startup. The stories are rampant—in fact, every woman entrepreneur who’s been around Silicon Valley has one. For brevity’s sake, we present one from entrepreneur and venture capitalist Heidi Roizen.

Early in her career, Roizen was working “on a company-defining deal”—involving, potentially, millions of dollars—with a major PC manufacturer. “The PC manufacturer’s senior vice president who had been instrumental in crafting the deal suggested he and I sign over dinner in San Francisco to celebrate,” Roizen has written. “When I arrived at the restaurant, I found it a bit awkward to be seated at a table for four yet to be in two seats right next to each other, but it was a French restaurant and that seemed to be the style, so down I sat. Wine was brought and toasts were made to our great future together. About halfway through the dinner, he told me he had also brought me a present, but it was under the table, and would I please give him my hand so he could give it to me. I gave him my hand, and he placed it in his unzipped pants.

“Yes,” she said. “This really happened.”

Every Silicon Valley entrepreneur who spoke with Newsweek has a story somewhat like this—varying only in degree of brazenness. One young woman had worked for a year on a startup with an older male financial mentor. When she was ready to head out for a round of funding, he took her to dinner—a meeting at which she expected to be introduced to VCs or told which ones he’d arranged for her to meet with. Instead, over wine, he confessed that he was having a midlife crisis and that he was in love with her. No finances would be forthcoming.

Roizen stayed in the business and is now one of the industry’s legendary female entrepreneurs. Wadhwa says women must approach male VCs with caution and awareness: “Women don’t get it. The young women don’t seem to understand the reason why they get their calls returned so easily and get small amounts of funding is they are dealing with hungry men. These are disgusting perverts. Some of them used to be my friends—sexist jerks. And I know how they speak behind the scenes.”

To head this off, Carey recently dyed her blond hair mousy brown and dresses down, not up. Now she meets with investors only after researching them or getting references from other women. “We are vetting them left, right and center. We don’t take meetings over drinks. I do know a guy who raised a million dollars and got blackout drunk every night with the VC. That’s not how we work.”

Carey says the slightest sexist overtures dent her confidence. “When an investor kisses me on the cheek on the way out, I feel like shit for weeks afterward.”

Google employees eat lunch in a cafeteria adorned by artwork created by Google employees, in Mountain View, Calif. Jan. 6, 2006. Eros Hoagland/Redux

Viagra but No Abortions

The Glassbreakers women are launching a product for women, designed to solve a problem women understand better than men, in an economic sector that has traditionally produced products shaped by the minds of young men for young men. It’s inarguable that white, upper-middle-class young men have applied the new technologies to make things that reflect their desires and culture and foisted them on the world. Women who complain about sexist video games get death threats from legions of boyfans conditioned by formative years on the Xbox controller to believe it’s their right to rescue—or maybe assault—wasp-waisted half-naked damsels in distress. And the anonymity of the Internet has proved relatively more menacing to women.

None of these ill effects are deliberate, but they are built into designs and products created almost solely by one gender. As recently as 2011, for example, Apple made a Siri who could find prostitutes and Viagra but not abortion providers.

Reviewing the movie The Social Network, the writer Zadie Smith wrote that everything about Facebook is “reduced to the size of its founder. Poking, because that’s what shy boys do to girls they are scared to talk to.” Ultimately, she wrote, The Social Network wasn’t “a cruel portrait of any particular real-world person called ‘Mark Zuckerberg.’ It’s a cruel portrait of us: 500 million sentient people entrapped in the recent careless thoughts of a Harvard sophomore.”

Frustrated, women in Silicon Valley seem to be segregating themselves in women-only venture funds or starting gender-gated funds.

Costello says that the sexual harassment lawsuits and the public talk about endless ugly events is a sign that things are changing. “We are in a major time of shift. There is no other time when women have been better educated, earning a majority of undergraduate and graduate degrees and serving in equal numbers in nearly all professions. The control of personal wealth is about equal, as baby boomer men are dying earlier and women are inheriting money from their parents and husbands and have their own assets from working. If we can access 2 percent of that money controlled by women, we don’t need to be begging on Sand Hill Road.”

Corrections: This article originally misspelled the last name of Ben Parr. This article has also been updatedto reflect that three high-profile sexual harassment suits against Tinder, Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers and CMEA Capital were not all filed in 2014. 

Clarification: An earlier version of this article originally stated that Dana Settle works at the Mayfield Fund. Settle worked at the Mayfield Fund at one point before moving on to co-found a competing VC firm named Greycroft Partners.

Sex worker trade booming in Silicon Valley – USA TODAY


Sex worker trade booming in Silicon Valley. With money flowing from the tech industry, business is booming for sex workers in Silicon Valley.


Google executive’s November death on Santa Cruz yacht turns lurid …


Google executive’s November death on Santa Cruz yacht turns lurid ….. Did the google guy show regard for women when he hired a prostitute?


Google Executives and VC’s hire more hookers than any other …


Google Executives and VC’s hire more hookers than any other company on Earth ! Ahh living the dream: The cute little trophy wife, the BMW, …


Is Google corrupt? Search me | InfoWorld


Google was thoroughly conned by SEO experts hired by JCPenney. Can we trust its search result rankings at all?[…]ines/is-google-corrupt–search-me.html

Corrupt – definition of corrupt by The Free Dictionary


cor·rupt (kə-rŭpt′) adj. 1. Marked by immorality and perversion; depraved. 2. Venal or dishonest: a corrupt mayor. 3. Containing errors or alterations …


Is Google Corrupt? – YouTube


Uploaded by Techmedia FusionIs Google Corrupt, Well… this certainly is not my opinion, however this morning after going …


How to Destroy Someone’s Reputation with Google


How to manipulate Google searches in order to ruin someone’s life. Learn how to get articles about anyone you want on page one of Google.


How “corruptis Google? – Quora


Corrupt“? What’s that supposed to mean? It’s an organization. It’s both intent on building a better online world while at the same time making a profit. It …


Expose Corrupt Courts


Tembeckjian’s Corrupt Judicial ‘Ethics’ Commission Out of Control; As NY Judges’ Pay Fiasco Grows, Judicial ‘Ethics’ Chief Enjoys Public-Paid Perks


Everybody’s Getting Corrupt Google Search Results Except Europe


 For the first time ever, Google has given into regulatory pressure to change its search results. Today, the company reached a settlement with …