Affiliate Marketing Blog: Ex Agent: CIA seed money helped launch Google

Tuesday, 17 April 2007

Ex Agent: CIA seed money helped launch Google

Infowars has an article on their opinion that CIA seed money helped launch Google! I'm not sure if this is an April Fools joke but it's worth a read.

Here's a little snippet:

Speaking to the Alex Jones Show, Steele elaborated on his previous revelations by making it known that the CIA helped bankroll Google at its very inception.

"I think Google took money from the CIA when it was poor and it was starting up and unfortunately our system right now floods money into spying and other illegal and largely unethical activities, and it doesn't fund what I call the open source world," said Steele, citing "trusted individuals" as his sources for the claim.

"They've been together for quite a while," added Steele.

"Let me say very explicitly - their contact at the CIA is named Dr. Rick Steinheiser, he's in the Office of Research and Development," said Steele.

Steele highlighted Google's blatant censorship policies whereby press releases put out by credible organizations that are critical of Dick Cheney and other administration members don't make it to Google News even though they are carried by PR Newswire.

I'll refrain from commenting for now.

5 Comments:

At 17 April 2007 at 14:24 , Affiliate Program Advice said...: I love a conspiricy theory... good read getvis ;0)
At 17 April 2007 at 15:52 , getvisible said...: Hi Jess

Me too. I'm not saying i believe it. With all this spin and counter spin i'm not sure 'reality' exists any more.

Lee
At 18 April 2007 at 03:59 , Anonymous said...: The entire infowars site is an April Fool's joke. Either way, In-Q-Tel is real (look it up on wikipedia.)
At 18 April 2007 at 09:43 , getvisible said...: Andrew,

I've not read the site in any great detail so I can't say if that's harsh comment.

As with In-Q-Tel and their Wikipedia entry I find that the paragraph very interesting:

"In-Q-Tel sold 5,636 shares of Google Inc., worth over $2.2 million, on Nov 15, 2005[5]. The stocks were a result of Google’s acquisition of Keyhole, the CIA funded satellite mapping software now known as Google Earth."

Obviously that's not saying that the CIA had involvment from the beginning because of the dates. But do you think that if the CIA allowed Google to buy their satellite mapping organisation there would be a lot of "good will" involved?

Also, if you think that if Google controls some 70% of the World's search market and is taking a stronger foothold in foreign markets such as Russia and China, don't you think that the CIA would take a very keen interest in their activities - how much involvement or interaction the CIA has with Google is open to opinion however.

Just my thoughts ...
At 18 April 2007 at 20:33 , Anonymous said...: "The entire Infowars site is an April fool's Joke"

This post isn't directly about the CIA and Google but I had to post because to me that comment is ludicrous. As always, people are very quick to dismiss stuff. Whilst I can accept that the site is on the cutting-edge of this kind of thing, their articles are, as far as I can tell, based on other reports, public disclosures, federal documents, think-tank reports and hundreds of witnesses testimony. I mean the elites who infiltrate institutions everywhere often brag about this kind of stuff; they spell it out in their own publications. Check out the PNAC think-tank for example which massively influences the neo-con agenda. That's why I find it so hard to believe that people can dismiss stuff like this so easily.

As an example, take the internet 2. Infowars recently ran this article:

http://www.infowars.net/articles/april2007/170407internet.htm

Now, it does approach the issue from the point of view of someone who believes this stuff is real. You can't hold that against the site, they don't pretend otherwise. But most importantly their case is built in the same way detectives build a case, by looking at Means, Motive and Opportunity backed up by piece after piece of evidence with clear cross-referencing. Do they have all the answers? Undoubtedly not, but their reporting is far more accurate and honest than most mainstream outlets. I mean, if someone is murdered and a convicted murderer is found at the scene with a bloody knife, who do you question first?

The problem with people viewing information in isolation is that opinions expressed about it could come across as extreme because they simply don't know the usual suspects and their history. That takes time and effort to discuss and disclose and the mainstream news outlets only have time for the "generally accepted" view. You know, the one they force down your throat over and over. Have you ever heard any of the major tv news "shows" encouraging people not to take their news at face value but to actually go out and check it out and think for themselves. I have never once witnessed that, and I watch a lot of news. But independent media like infowars repeatedly do and I respect them a whole lot more because of it.

Also, I think people researching this stuff are far more honorable. Usually they are individuals who have had enough and actually stand up for the rights we have as citizens. The accelerated cull of freedom over the last 5½ years is documented by literally 1000s of pieces of legislation. If you've lived underground during that period and somehow missed it, they are public documents, available from government websites. Don't just take the BBCs view on the latest government whitepaper. Read it for yourself. The push for 90-day rule is a perfect example. EVERY news channel applauded it's defeat as a wonderful day for democracy. When what actually happened is we ended up with 28 days. rising from 14 before that, 7 before that.... 1 month in jail with no trial is prison folks. The end of Habeus corpus. But most disappointingly, the other 8 items on that bill were totally overlooked. And if memory serves me correcly, number 7 was a proposal to make "verbally justifying terrorism" against the law. Just think about the implications of that for minute.

It's crazy to me, true freedom has been a very rare thing in human history, with hundreds of examples of government oppression in one form or another right up to the present day. I am talking about official admissions and publically released documents from the various Official Secrets Acts. Want some modern examples of this: The Maine, Reichstag, Gulf of Tonkin, Operation Northwoods, Operation Abel Danger. We know from public admissions that the CIA and Pentagon fund various media. Only very recently, Bush has admitted to buying $1.8 billion of fake news, and that's only what we know about. And then there is COINTELPRO.

When David Shayler came forward and wrote his book, a number of journalists were forced to resign from their media jobs because they were rumbled as MI5/MI6 assets.
The popular press have been caught lying so many times it is unbelievable.

Why do people have this view that it was all in the past and we live in a utopian world where governments and now corporations don't run black ops, fund special interest groups and find ways to seize more control? History just doesn't back this up at all.

But of course, don't let the facts stand in the way of your blanket denial. I guess you don't believe NAFTA, CAFTA and the North American Union is real either because that's what the mainstream media says while they have meetings in Canada to discuss it's conception and seize land under "Eminent Domain".

I'm sorry this reply was so long but I hope it made for interesting reading.

paul