Facebook: Criminals extracting your info, your money and the piss!

Posted in The Corrupt SOB's by earthling on May 21, 2012

What a coup! They fucked you all again! Will you NEVER learn?

CIA/BILDERBERG/ZUCKERBERG screw you to the wall again and you just don’t get it do you?


At the height of the Dotcom bubble I worked with a company called Airspan Networks. They still exist today. They are in the WiMAX market. In Around June/July 2000 they floated on the Nasdaq at a price of $15 per share. In the first day’s trading, the share value went up to approx $49. All us guys who had our share options were whooping it up! BUT, we were disallowed from selling our shares for 6 months after the IPO. At the end of that 6 months the share price had fallen to $2. It then fell even further to under a $1 and Airspan was almost thrown off the Nasdaq because the Nasdaq was for corporations who traded above the $1 mark. Airspan’s underwriters were Credit Suisse First Boston (Rockefeller company). Here are some of the news items wrt that IPO:


Looks good so far huh? But wait……..  

Not so good now though is it?

Now remember while you read through the following: I worked with these guys. Stonestrom was my CEO while he had a few little “lackeys” and still does by the names of Smith-Petersen and others. God knows how the latter still gets a pay packet from this company because, frankly, he was hopeless. The guy would promise $40M deals in Asia while yours truly was just coming up with a $million here, a $million there and a $6M elsewhere (but we won’t talk about that company Bell Telephone in the Philippines who, according to the “Management” was never going to account for anything shall we?). Let’s also not mention that, to get the first $750K from them for 4 base stations and 100 L128 data units, I was told to sell them the Fixed Bandwidth network rather than the Dynamic bandwidth network I had already got them to believe in. Why did I have to do that? Because Stonestrom told me to on one of his midnight calls to Manila. Why did he want the Fixed Bandwidth network to be sold to them (and I was given no choice, I HAD to sell it to them even though I knew that is not what they wanted)? Because Airspan had shipped almost precisely that same amount of kit to another Asian customer who ended up not wanting it (when I say shipped I mean it was “in shipment” and even though not paid for, Stonestrom took the revenue to make the books look good (end of quarter – “we need to show growth for the IPO”). So he needed that lost revenue to be replaced because, in fact, he didn’t have the revenue! These are just facts.

While perhaps we also don’t wish to mention another Philippines company by the name of Majesty Communications who had agreed to order (and did) $2M of equipment from “yours truly” but then my management stitched me up with Bell Telephone and had me leave the Philippines. You see, by that time, they had to save money because this was now 2001 and the share price had fallen through the floor. They had to get rid of a good number of people and Smith-Petersen really wasn’t too keen on yours truly probably partly due to the fact that Stonestrom – instead of contacting his VP of Asia for the up to date market info – contacted me directly, thereby bypassing Smith-Petersen, knowing I was the guy who was converting REAL business and not just promising $40M deals that never happened! As I said, I still have no idea how that VP of Asia is still with the company. He achieved nothing.

Ah Suntel -yes. Well it just so happens that Suntel (Sri Lanka) was managed by a guy Smith-Petersen went to University with. That would help. Put the latter in front of complete strangers however and he couldn’t take a piece of business from A to Z. from “Hello” to “Thanks for your signature!”.

So where were we? Ah Yes Majesty Communications. So they placed the order for $2M but then yours truly got thrown out of Asia because I was an expensive “ex pat” and a good excuse to do so was to use me as the fall guy with Bell and their issue with pricing. Nice job lads! When I was told to leave the Philippines though, Majesty weren’t too happy about that because they had done the deal with me and it was me they wanted to manage their business. Now, my Finance Director had asked me whether this $2M should be booked (i.e. he wanted to take the revenue) and I said “No, not yet. Not until we get payment” but guess what he did (probably on Stonestrom’s say so). He booked it!

So yours truly is now in KL (Kuala Lumpur) and Smith-Petersen calls me up and says “Get on a plane to Manila because your customer, Majesty, are not taking our calls and are saying they want to cancel the order”. Oh dear! What a mess and what a shame! Have we booked the order yet? haha. Perhaps we shouldn’t have! But you did didn’t you? And now you’re putting the onus on me to get you out of the shit. But I can’t because Majesty won’t now accept that business because I ain’t there! You see SP, they trusted me to deal with them fairly and professionally. What does that tell you? So, in the end, what did Airspan do? Well, I had left by mid 2001 and boy were they pissed off with me. $2M deal gone. Well guys you either want quality or you don’t. If you do you have to pay for it and you didn’t. Not only that you didn’t keep to our employment contract you cheap bastards! 🙂 From what I can appreciate, they “hid” the bad debt until such times as they could write it off. So then back to the IPO issue: Let’s take a look at the ensuing lawsuit against Airspan, Eric Stonestrom and others. The following is taken from the actual court notes:               Now if you would like to read the full text of the Lawsuit by all means: AIRSPAN.PDF

But who would you rather have? A Sales guy who brought in $500K, $1M, $2M, $6M (yes lads Bell became $6M from a “paltry” initial order of $750K but I told you it would grow while I never saw the commissions from it because you sacked me on trumped up bullshit) and you were certain of getting it? Or would you prefer the VP who consistently fed you bullshit in his annual forecasts that he was going to bring you $40M from Australia and $40M from Pakistan which never happened?

Well Stonestrom, you listened to him. Had that anything to do with him having something “on you” by any chance?

Now, again, I knew these people. I worked with them. I knew how they thought and how they operated. I knew their aggressive tactics and their burning desire to “make money”. Sure, I was caught up in it too – that being caught up in the idea of making money – but what I didn’t know was how THEY were going to achieve it while the rest of us mugs helped them to yet we were forbidden from cashing in on what we achieved for them. You see, while the share price plummeted, the company was more cash rich than it had ever been because of people throwing their REAL money at it like betting on a horse. But the game was fixed. It was rigged. Just like in the game of roulette at a Casino, the House always wins. Well Airspan and the upper level of Directors (or let’s call them the American version – the VPs) and certain others were, in this case, the “House”. They sucked the public dry. Did Stonestrom and friends know the score? I can’t say but what do you think? 😉 However, they’re all still on the outside peddling the Airspan name and its products while, shortly after the IPO (and the cash injection it gave them while getting rid of people) they went on a spending spree and bought up a few companies. One, of course (where else?) being in Israel! Never!! An old Marconi unit. Why did the lawsuit come to nothing? Well look who was involved. CSFB, Lehman Bros and Bear Stearns. What on earth do you expect?


So let’s now turn to Facebook (and trust me there are so many other stories of this nature – Ericsson debentures circa 1997 and more recently a lithium mining company called AMLM or American Lithium Minerals Inc – a BULLSHIT company which stole £20K from me). Ah Zuckerberg! What a nice little Bilderberg goon you are! A Goldman Sachs arse licking little prat. A nobody who appears out of nowhere and becomes a $billionaire on the basis of nothing. A leach. But then you’re part of the big boys club and the CIA love you!

You’re not jewish are you Mark? 😉 Let’s just look at the Facebook IPO and see the parallel with the Airspan IPO regarding pumping up the share price for flotation way above the actual value of the company:       “It was just a poorly done deal and it just so happens to be the biggest deal ever for the Nasdaq and they pooched it” Tell me something world? How is it that these criminals get away with just saying “it was a mistake” time and time and time again? WHY IS THE WORLD LETTING THESE BANKERS AND THESE CORPORATE CRIMINALS AS WELL AS THE SO CALLED “REGULATORY BODIES” WHO ARE CONTROLLED BY THE SAME CRIMINALS (otherwise they disappear in plastic bags or get “suicided” and hung or are found at the bottom of a lake) TAKE IT FOR A MONUMENTAL RIDE? Now read this little “gem” from Reuters of all people:

Morgan Stanley’s $2.4 billion Facebook short

By Felix Salmon
MAY 21, 2012
Matt Levine had a very wonky post on Friday afternoon about the dynamics of the Facebook IPO in general and of the very misunderstood greenshoe option in particular. Now that we’ve all had a nice relaxing weekend, it’s maybe worth revisiting that greenshoe, because it’s actually possible, given Facebook’s tumbling share price today, that Morgan Stanley will make a substantial amount of money on it. First, it’s worth explaining how the greenshoe option is meant to work. In the IPO, the underwriting banks — there were lots of them, but let’s just call them all “Morgan Stanley”, for simplicity’s sake — sold 484 million shares of Facebook at $38 each. At the same time, they bought 421 million shares of Facebook from the company and its investors, at $37.582 each. The underwriter’s fee of 1.1% is the difference between those two numbers: if you buy at $37.582 and sell at $38, then you end up creaming off 1.1% of the total amount raised. You’ll note that Morgan Stanley sold more shares than it bought. That’s the greenshoe. When you sell more shares than you buy, you’re short that stock, so when a bank exercises its greenshoe option, as Morgan Stanley did in this case, it is going short the stock in question. Why would a company like Facebook want its banks to be short its own stock? Partly because when there’s a big short in the market, that provides upward pressure on the share price. Shorts need to cover their short position — which means they need to buy stock. But more generally, the greenshoe is a way to provide the market with a nice extra slug of shares, which everybody wants if the stock trades substantially higher than its IPO price. The greenshoe does, however, raise certain existential questions — not least, how can 484 million shares be sold, if only 421 million shares have been issued? Do those extra 63 million shares exist? It’s a good question, and the answer is that they’re in a kind of quantum limbo, a bit like Schrödinger’s cat. In one possible world the shares trade happily on the open market, in which case Morgan Stanley will exercise its option, and force Facebook and its investors* to cough up the last 63 million shares; at that point, they certainly do exist. In another possible world, Morgan Stanley ends up buying back those 63 million shares on the open market, thereby reducing the number of shares actually trading to the original 421 million. In that world, the 63 million shares never had much of an existence: they were sold by Morgan Stanley and then bought back by Morgan Stanley, and all that’s left at the end of the day is nothing. Given where Facebook is trading right now, you can be sure that Morgan Stanley will not exercise its option, Facebook and its investors will not issue those extra 63 million shares, and that in a few days’ time, the free float of Facebook shares will be 421 million, not 484 million. Which in turn means that over the course of the first two or three trading sessions, Morgan Stanley will have ended up buying 63 million shares of Facebook on the open market. It sold those shares at $38, remember. So its total profit on the greenshoe operation will be zero if it bought all 63 million shares at $38 exactly. If it bought some of the shares above $38, then it could end up making a loss. And if it ends up buying a slug of shares below $38, then it’ll end up making a profit. That’s what happens, when you go short at $38 and then buy back at, say, $34. This is a very big trade: 63 million shares at $38 each comes to $2.4 billion. On the other hand, there’s very little doubt that Morgan Stanley was doing alot of buying on Friday. 43 million shares were bought at $38.00 exactly, and another 28.5 million shares were bought at $38.01. It’s reasonable to assume that most if not all of that buying came from Morgan Stanley, supporting the share price. So the chances are that at the end of the day, Morgan Stanley is going to end up pretty flat on its trade, selling the shares at $38 and then buying them back at $38. But if it bought more than 63 million shares on Friday, then it is sitting on a substantial mark-to-market loss right now. And similarly, if it bought backfewer than 63 million shares on Friday, then it’s actually making a profit on its greenshoe short. Chances are, no one outside the company will ever know for sure what Morgan Stanley’s P&L on the Facebook IPO ends up looking like. But it would make sense, if Morgan Stanley saw a lot of selling pressure on Friday, for the bank to keep onto at least a little bit of its short position into Monday morning. At which point it could make a tidy profit on that plunging share price. *In this case, it’s actually just the investors: Facebook wasn’t participating in the greenshoe scheme. But it could have, if it had wanted to.



I wonder? Was that Irish “I love myself”, Globalist little fucktard, Bono a wally? Or did he get a special price?

Well it looks like he was in early (from 2009). So the little globalist frontman got paid off well (assuming he now sells before they plummet). Meanwhile, I wonder who the short investors are?

Mark Zuckerberg anyone? hahaha


From its first ‘sell’ rating to short bets

PUBLISHED: 19 MAY 2012 08:17:28 | UPDATED: 21 MAY 2012 09:11:35

 Facebook received what may be its first “sell” rating on Friday, from Pivotal Research Group, which also set a target price of $US30 for the stock.

Shares in the No. 1 social network fizzled in their debut on Friday, managing an 18 per cent gain before backtracking to trade close to their $US38 initial public offering price.

“We are wary of the disconnect between revenue growth and operating/capital expense growth expectations,” Pivotal analyst Brian Wieser said in a research note. “The market is pricing Facebook as a less risky asset than Google, which we believe is simply not the case.”


U2 frontman Bono has laughed off claims he will become a billionaire on the back of the Facebook flotation.

The rock star’s investment group Elevation put money into the social networking site, taking 2.3 per cent of the company in late 2009.

But while the flotation means Elevation is worth way in excess of £1 billion ($1.6 billion), Bono is joined by nine other directors who stand to profit.

And reacting to the launch of Facebook on the stock market, he said: “Contrary to reports, I’m not a billionaire or going to be richer than any Beatle – and not just in the sense of money, by the way; the Beatles are untouchable – those billionaire reports are a joke.”

There had been suggestions that the canny investment could make his wealth outstrip that of Sir Paul McCartney, said to be valued at £665 million.

Bono told MSNBC’s Andrew Mitchell in the US: “In Elevation, we invest other people’s money – endowments, pension funds. We do get paid, of course. But you know, I felt rich when I was 20 years old and my wife was paying my bills.

“Just being in a band, I’ve always felt blessed. I got interested in technology because I’m an artist; I’m interested in the forces that shape the world, politics, religion, the stuff we’ve been talking about today.”

He added: “Technology is huge, I wanted to learn about it. People might say that’s odd, but I think it’s odd if artists aren’t interested in the world around them. I’m always chasing that.

“Facebook are an amazing team, a brilliant team, it’s a technology that brings people together.”


Some of Facebook’s wealth is also slated to help fill the cash-strapped coffers of California and the smaller but still needy ones of Menlo Park, the Silicon Valley city where the company is located, although not in the form of taxes.

In a voluntary agreement with the city’s government, Facebook will soon pay a lump sum of $US1.1 million, a move Mayor Kirsten Keith hopes will be followed by another $US500,000.

The initial outlay to help fund capital projects for the city will be followed by additional annual payments of $US800,000 for five years, $US900,000 for the following four years and $US1 million in subsequent years.

The payments will help Menlo Park respond to Facebook’s expansion and its traffic. The company currently has 3500-plus employees and plans to develop a new campus – and there is an expectation the growth will lure more business to Menlo Park.

“Whenever you hear Facebook, you’ll hear Menlo Park. That’s just priceless,” Keith told Reuters in an interview. “Other companies will want to be around that.”

Keith says a future “ecosystem” of high-tech firms could establish itself in Menlo Park to develop products and services complementing the social network, providing more revenue to the city.

Menlo Park faces a budget gap of about $US1 million for the 2013 fiscal year beginning on July 1 and money slated to arrive from Facebook next January will help close the shortfall, said City Manager Alex McIntyre.

Facebook’s payments to Menlo Park will help replace revenue that was generated on the company’s campus when it housed a Sun Microsystems facility that generated about $US800,000 a year in sales tax revenue for the city.

Earlier this week, California’s Legislative Analyst’s Office estimated that California will see $US2.1 billion in revenue linked to Facebook’s IPO through its next fiscal year. The estimate was based on the expectation the company’s shares will rise to $US45 a share in six months from the initial public offering price of $US38.


Shorting the Facebook IPO on its first day of trading is not for the faint of heart, but some traders are trying.

As the hottest initial public offering in recent memory, Facebook has drawn 1990s-style tech-mania interest from mom and pop investors and big institutions alike.

That intense appeal means short-sellers are both attracted by the stock’s high valuation and wary, at least for now.

“I have no interest in shorting a cultural phenomenon,” hedge fund manager Jeffrey Matthews of Ram Partners in Greenwich, Connecticut, told Reuters in an email interview.

Asked if this was because such stocks trade without regard to normal market valuation, he wrote back, “Bingo.”

Short sellers bet against shares by borrowing the security, then selling it. If the stock drops, they buy it back at the lower price, return it to the lender and pocket the difference as profit.

Shorts looking to bet against Facebook early face an uphill battle. Traders interviewed said the stock was going to be hard to borrow, at least for a few days, and only the best-sourced hedge fund managers will able to find lenders.

A prime broker at one of the top underwriters of the IPO said the firm would not be lending shares, at least until the initial settlement in three business days.

“I don’t know how many shares will be available for shorting,” said the broker, who requested anonymity. “We would only provide them once the deal has stabilised.”

The bigger-than-usual percentage of retail-investor ownership of the shares may make shorting more difficult, as those investors don’t tend to lend their shares for those who want to take a short bet.

“It will likely be difficult to get shares to borrow,” said Adam Reed, professor of finance at UNC Kenan-Flagler Business School in Chapel Hill, North Carolina.

“In our research, we found that around 70 per cent of IPOs are borrowable on the first day, but many of those names were only borrowable by well-placed investors.”

Those who are able to short need nerves of steel. The borrowing cost will be high, and short-sellers may find the trade hard to unwind by buying back the stock in the open market, and could face a lender calling in their shorts if the stock rallies sharply.

Still, some are trying to short Facebook on Day One.

“I’m doing the legwork now and calling all the brokers,” said a hedge fund manager late on Thursday, after Facebook priced its IPO at $US38 per share. “Goldman and Credit Suisse are our prime brokers, so I am in contact with them about this.”

“This is about as bubbly as you can get,” he said. “My mother asked me if she could get Facebook shares and she has never been interested in IPOs before. A cab driver asked me about the IPO too. That’s when you want to short it.”

The hedge fund manager asked not to be named as he expected to be involved in shorting the stock on Friday.

“Facebook is the kind of stock that, if you don’t like it, you simply avoid it,” said Mohannad Aama, managing director at Beam Capital Management LLC in New York.

AP, Reuters


Finally, CIA? Facebook? “Conspiracy theory bullshit” right?




By Jon King

The All-Seeing Eye

Ever wondered who is behind the internet’s all-seeing eye, Google? Who put the ‘face’ in Facebook? Who’s ‘pal’ you’ve become when you send or receive through PayPal?

Ever thought Big Brother might be logging every sale and purchase you make on its virtual auction website, eBay?

No? Well if you think the above notions are little more than paranoid conspiracy fears, you’d best think again. Evidence that the CIA, directly or by proxy, bankrolled at least some of these internet giants, is now beyond doubt.

Which means the world’s most powerful intelligence agency has more control over the internet than even the hardiest conspiracy theorist may wish to believe.

 Back in 2006 former CIA case officer, Robert Steele (left), made headline news when he revealed that Google was ‘in bed with the CIA’, confirming fears that the internet’s all-seeing eye is more a US government spy tool than a user-friendly search engine.

Further rummaging at the murky end of venture capital investment deals seems to suggest Steele knew exactly what he was talking about, as we shall see.

Google Bankrolled By The CIA

The PayPal Mafia

In 1999, PayPal became the world’s first virtual banking system, making it possible for surfers everywhere to send and receive money via the internet. The idea was conceived, and the website founded, by US futurist, entrepreneur, and 2009 Bilderberg attendee, Peter Thiel.

These days Thiel is recognized as the godfather of what was recently dubbed by Fortune Magazine the ‘PayPal Mafia’, a group of super-wealthy Silicon Valley venture capitalists with alleged business ties to the CIA.

Indeed, according to some reports, it is largely via Silicon Valley’s venture capital boardrooms that the spy agency has taken control of the internet.

“The CIA is throwing caution (and several tens of millions of dollars) to the wind, joining the frenzy and investing in Silicon Valley,“ wrote Andrew Gumbel in The Independent way back in April 2000. “It is not looking for the next cool way to swap musical downloads, or place orders for organic groceries. What it wants is a super-smart search engine to marshal all the information on the internet – in secret if possible.”

As the evidence reveals, that “super-smart search engine” would manifest itself in the form of Google. But first, the seemingly ubiquitous Peter Thiel…

For the record, PayPal was not Thiel’s only internet success. He is also the ‘face’ behind Facebook.

While ostensibly true that Facebook is headed up by Harvard graduate Mark Zuckerberg, what is not so well publicized is that the internet’s phattest social networking empire was effectively the brainchild of Thiel and his entrepreneurial VC syndicate.

And that, via this syndicate, Facebook was early on picked up and deployed by the CIA as a social networking experiment.

“Facebook is a deliberate experiment in global manipulation,â” wrote Tom Hodgkinson in the Guardian. “The creators of the site need do very little bar fiddle with the programme. In the main, they simply sit back and watch as millions of Facebook addicts voluntarily upload their ID details, photographs and lists of their favourite consumer objects. Once in receipt of this vast database of human beings, Facebook then simply has to sell the information back to advertisers, or, as Zuckerberg puts it in a recent blog post, ‘to try to help people share information with their friends about things they do on the web’.”

The Guardian article goes on to reveal Facebook’s surprisingly open connections to theCIA.

Aside from Thiel, major investors in Facebook include Silicon Valley’s Accel Partners (also major investors in eBay) and Greylock Venture Capital, both of whom, together withNVCA (National Venture Capital Association), share boardroom execs with an altogether more notorious outfit called In-Q-Tel.

And guess what? In-Q-Tel is the official venture capital wing of the CIA – check out theIn-Q-Tel website.

Google Bankrolled By The CIA

A CIA Bed Partner

About the same time as Peter Thiel was busy setting up PayPal, just across the street theCIA was busy setting up In-Q-Tel, ostensibly an investment capital firm for the development of cutting-edge IT and communications technologies.

With the almost overnight global reach of the internet, the US intelligence community realized it was time to gain a length on this new electronic information highway, and in many ways PayPal was seen as an early social experiment in this regard.

As well as providing the means to unwittingly utilize the internet-connected public for intelligence gathering, it would also serve to shift vast sums of money around the globe regardless of national borders or currencies.

The experiment worked well enough. Thiel pocketed a handsome $55 million from the sale of PayPal to eBay in 2002, while the CIA went on to learn new ways of cyber-laundering vast sums of cash worldwide. Ingenious.

But the experiment did not end there. The CIA may have bought its way into PayPal and eBay. But it wanted more, and already had its sights on further, potential acquisitions – one in particular: Google.

What was to become the internet’s most successful “super-smart search engine”, Google, was founded in 1998 by two Stanford University students, Sergey Brin and Larry Page, with seed funding from Sun Microsystems founder, Andy Bechtolsheim.

By the end of that same year the innovative search engine was already the web’s most visited domain, sufficient in itself to make America’s defence and intelligence community sit up and take note.

Indeed, just a few short months later, Google received a further $25 million development funding, primarily from Sequoia Capital (investors in Apple, Atari, eBay, PayPal, and now Google) and Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, who just happened to be bed partners with In-Q-Tel. From that point on Google and the CIA became lovers.

“Even while Google presents a public image of vigorously protecting its users’ privacy,“ wrote Michael Hampton for Homeland Stupidity, “it has quietly provided assistance to several U.S. intelligence agencies, such as the Central Intelligence Agency and Defense Intelligence Agency… In addition, Google may be providing assistance to the National Security Agency.”

In 2004 Google further expanded its cyber-empire by acquiring a company called Keyhole Inc., until then a strategic CIA-front satellite imaging firm funded by In-Q-Tel.

Within a year Keyhole’s cutting-edge ‘virtual satellite imaging’ software had become Google Earth, and In-Q-Tel’s Director of Technology Assessment, Rob Painter, had crossed the street and joined the Google board, becoming the internet spy firm’s Senior Federal Manager. Fait accompli.

The more recent addition of Google Street View and future plans to develop the 360-degree spy-cam service into a live-feed CCTV webcam service streaming directly back toCIA HQ, Virginia, is evidence enough that Orwellian Earth has finally arrived.

Big Brother is watching. His lens is Google. His name is the CIA…

Google Bankrolled By The CIA

The Birth Of Facebook

While Google was busy setting up the CIA’s public domain satellite spy-cam service, three Harvard University students were unwittingly preparing to present the CIA with yet another social experiment.

Indeed, they were already catching the eye of the CIA and its Silicon Valley business fronts.

In June 2004, Mark Zuckerberg, Chris Hughes and Dustin Moskowitz met with PayPal founder Peter Thiel in San Francisco, who invested an initial $500,000 in their fledgling ‘Facebook’ idea. The following April (2005), Thiel’s investment was boosted by a staggering $12.7 million investment stumped up by Thiel’s buddy and former Chairman ofNVCA, Jim Breyer.

It is NVCA remember, which shares company execs with the CIA’s In-Q-Tel. And Breyer himself shares CIA associations via his business relationships with Gilman Louie, formerCEO of In-Q-Tel and NVCA board member.

Another former Chairman of NVCA, Howard Cox, would later head up a further investment in Facebook of some $27.5 million, this time on behalf of investment firm Greylock Venture Capital. As we have already noted, Greylock and the CIA are conjoined in their business ambitions via shared boardroom interests with In-Q-Tel.

Howard Cox, for one, senior partner in Greylock, is also on the board of the CIA’s In-Q-Tel.

Google Bankrolled By The CIA

An Unprecedented Success

Which brings us full circle. The CIA, via In-Q-Tel and other spy-front investment firms, effectively bankrolled many of the internet’s biggest success stories – no doubt the reason behind their unprecedented successes.

And speaking of unprecedented successes…

In October 2006, Google purchased YouTube for a staggering $1.65 billion. Not bad for a video-sharing website founded eighteen months earlier by three computer nerds with nothing better to do.

 Indeed, given what we now know about the internet’s most omnipresent search engine, the question must surely be asked: who really bought YouTube – Google, or the CIA?

The PR story circulated at the time was that the nerds in question (YouTube’s founders) were former PayPal employees, itself sufficient to set sirens wailing.

But it’s the way the story is told that makes it sound so cosy and innocent, deflecting as it does all attention from the incestuous financial links now known to exist between PayPal, Google, Facebook, eBay, the US intelligence community… Oh, and YouTube.

So there we have it. Each in their own unique way, eBay, PayPal, YouTube, Facebook – not forgetting the trusty Google and a small host of others, including the web’s biggest online privacy protection firm, TRUSTe – would appear to be virtual eyes and data collectors for the world’s biggest and most powerful intelligence agency, the CIA.

Even Yahoo is suspected of being used by the CIA, as well as the NSA and other US intelligence agencies.

So the next time you log on to Facebook, or YouTube; or make a search via Google, or Yahoo; or a transaction via PayPal for something you just bought on EBay; take comfort in the knowledge that Big Brother has footprinted your every move.

And that those tracking cookies you’ve just picked up are hotwired back to Central Computer, Langley, Virginia – home of the CIA.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: