Adonis Diaries

Posts Tagged ‘Council on Foreign Relations

Deep State? Global Reset? Deactivation of before Covid-19 institutional myths?

It is becoming an evidence that those influential members in the Elite Classes have never been elected in any democracy. Only their shadow powers are advanced forward.

I tend to believe that there is a “Club” for the Elite classes of deep pockets and vast network of connection, that appoint a “Sub Club” of think tank members to draw plans on how to punish States that refuse to negotiate the level of suffering and sanctions to be levied on them.

Note: It requires a high level of general knowledge to differentiate between factual stories and fake news. You have got to do your due diligence if you care about fairness and equity in societies and be determined to face-off to all kinds of indignities and injustices levied on most communities.

La « Réinitialisation mondiale » (« Global Reset ») – Désactivée. « L’État profond ».

Imaginez, vous vivez dans un monde dans lequel on vous dit qu’il est une démocratie – et vous pouvez même le croire – mais en fait votre vie et votre destin sont entre les mains de quelques oligarques ultra-riches, ultra-puissants et ultra-inhumains.

Ils peuvent être appelés État profond, ou simplement « la Bête », ou n’importe quoi d’autre d’obscur ou d’introuvable – peu importe. Ils sont inférieurs à 0,0001%.

Faute d’une meilleure expression, appelons-les pour l’instant les « individus obscurs » (“obscure individuals”, obscure influential members in the Elite Classes).

Ces « individus obscurs » qui prétendent diriger notre monde n’ont jamais été élus.

Nous n’avons pas besoin de les nommer. Vous découvrirez qui ils sont, et pourquoi ils sont célèbres, et certains d’entre eux totalement invisibles.

Ils ont créé des structures, ou des organismes sans aucun format légal.

Ils agissent totalement hors de la légalité internationale. Ils sont à l’avant-garde de « la Bête ». Il y a peut-être plusieurs « bêtes » en concurrence. Mais elles ont le même objectif : Un nouvel ordre mondial ou un seul ordre mondial (NWO, ou OWO).

Ces « individus obscurs » dirigent, par exemple, le Forum économique mondial (FEM – représentant la Grande industrie, la Grande finance et de Grande renommée), le Groupe des 7 – G7, le Groupe des 20 – G20 (les dirigeants des nations les plus « fortes » économiquement).

Il existe également quelques entités de moindre importance, appelées la Société Bilderberg, le Conseil des relations étrangères (Council on Foreign Relations, CFR), Chatham House et d’autres encore.

Les membres de toutes ces entités se chevauchent. Et même ce front élargi représente moins de 0,001 %.

Ils se sont tous superposés à des gouvernements nationaux souverains élus et constitutionnels, et à LA multinationale mondiale, les Nations unies, l’ONU.

En fait, ils ont coopté l’ONU pour faire leur travail.

Les directeurs généraux de l’ONU, ainsi que les directeurs généraux des multiples sous-organisations de l’ONU, sont choisis pour la plupart par les États-Unis, avec le consentement de leurs vassaux européens – en fonction du profil politique et psychologique du candidat.

Si sa « performance » à la tête de l’ONU ou de l’une de ses sous-organisations échoue, ses jours sont comptés.

L’Union européenne, les organisations de Bretton Woods, la Banque mondiale et le FMI, ainsi que l’Organisation mondiale du commerce (OMC)…

Et la Cour pénale internationale (CPI) de La Haye, ont également été cooptés ou créés par la ou les « Bête(s) ». Elle n’a pas de pouvoir réel. Uniquement pour s’assurer que la loi est toujours du côté des hors-la-loi.

Outre les principales institutions financières internationales, la Banque mondiale et le FMI, il existe ce que l’on appelle les banques régionales de développement et autres institutions financières similaires, qui contrôlent les pays de leurs régions respectives.

En fin de compte, c’est l’économie financière ou de la dette qui contrôle tout.

Le banditisme néolibéral occidental a créé un système dans lequel la désobéissance politique peut être punie par l’oppression économique ou le vol pur et simple des biens nationaux dans les territoires internationaux. Le dénominateur commun de ce système est le dollar US (toujours) omniprésent.

Les « individus non élues »

La suprématie de ces « individus obscurs » non élus est de plus en plus évidente.

Nous, « le Peuple », considérons qu’il est « normal » qu’ils prennent les décisions, et non pas ce que nous appelons – ou étions autrefois fiers d’appeler – nos nations souveraines et nos gouvernements souverainement élus.

Ils sont devenus un troupeau de moutons obéissants. « La Bête » a progressivement et tranquillement pris le dessus. Nous n’avons pas remarqué. C’est la tactique du salami : vous le coupez tranche par tranche et quand le salami a disparu, vous vous rendez compte qu’il ne vous reste plus rien, que votre liberté, vos droits civils et humains ont disparu.

À ce moment-là, il est trop tard. Le Patriot Act étasunien en est un bon exemple. Il a été préparé bien avant le 11 septembre. Une fois le 11 septembre « arrivé », le Patriot Act a été adopté par le Congrès en un rien de temps – pour la protection future du peuple – les gens l’ont réclamé par peur – et – bingo, le Patriot Act a privé environ 90% de la population étasunienne de sa liberté et de ses droits civils. Pour de bon.

Nous sommes devenus esclaves de « la Bête ».

« La Bête » décide de l’essor ou de l’effondrement de nos économies, de qui devrait être endetté, quand et où une pandémie devrait éclater, et des conditions de survie à la pandémie, par exemple le confinement social.

Et pour couronner le tout, les instruments que « la Bête » utilise, très astucieusement, sont un minuscule ennemi invisible, appelé virus, et un monstre énorme mais aussi invisible, appelé LA PEUR.

Cela nous empêche d’aller dans la rue, de retrouver nos amis, d’aller au théâtre, de faire du sport ou de pique-niquer dans le parc.

Bientôt, « la Bête » décidera qui vivra et qui mourra, littéralement – si nous la laissons faire.

Ce n’est peut-être pas si loin. Une autre vague de pandémie et les gens pourraient ainsi supplier, crier et hurler pour obtenir un vaccin, pour sonner le glas et pour le super profit des grandes sociétés pharmaceutiques – et pour atteindre les objectifs des eugénistes qui parcourent ouvertement le monde – voyez ceci.

Il est encore temps de dire NON collectivement. Collectivement et solidairement.

Prenez le dernier cas d’imposture flagrante.

Comme par hasard, après le passage de la première vague de Covid-19, au moins dans le « Nord global », où se prennent les grandes décisions mondiales, au début du mois de juin 2020, le président non élu du FEM, Klaus Schwab, a annoncé « La grande Réinitialisation » (“The Great Reset”).

Profitant de l’effondrement économique – le choc de la crise, comme dans « La doctrine du choc » – M. Schwab, un des leaders de « la Bête », annonce ouvertement ce que le FEM va discuter et décider pour le monde à venir lors de son prochain Forum de Davos en janvier 2021. Pour plus de détails, voir ceci.

Nous, le peuple, accepterons-nous l’ordre du jour des individus du FEM non élus ?

Le FEM se concentrera de manière opportune sur la protection de ce qui reste de la Terre Mère ; évidemment, au centre se trouvera le « Réchauffement climatique », basé sur le CO2 produit par l’humain.

L’instrument de cette protection de la nature et de l’humanité sera l’Agenda 2030 des Nations unies – qui équivaut aux Objectifs de développement durable (ODD) des Nations unies. Il sera axé sur la manière de reconstruire l’économie mondiale délibérément détruite, tout en respectant les principes (« verts ») des 17 ODD.

Mais attention, tout est relié.

Il n’y a pas de coïncidences. Le tristement célèbre Agenda 2021, qui coïncide avec et complète le soi-disant Agenda 2030 des Nations unies, sera dûment inauguré par la déclaration officielle du FEM de « The Great Reset », en janvier 2021.

De même, la mise en œuvre de l’agenda de « The Great Reset » a commencé en janvier 2020, avec le déclenchement de la pandémie de coronavirus – prévue depuis des décennies, les derniers événements visibles étant le rapport Rockfeller de 2010 avec son « Lockstep Scénario » (le Scénario du verrouillage), et l’événement 2010, du 18 octobre à New York qui a simulé par ordinateur une pandémie de coronavirus, laissant en 18 mois 65 millions de morts et une économie en ruine.

Cela a été programmée quelques semaines seulement avant le lancement de la véritable pandémie de COVID-19. Voir COVID-19, We Are Now Living the « Lock Step Scenario », voir en français La farce et l’agenda diabolique d’un «verrouillage universel» et ceci et ceci (et en français ceci).

Les émeutes raciales

Des émeutes raciales, initiées par le mouvement Black Lives Matter (financé par la Fondation Ford et l’Open Society Foundation de Soros), à la suite de l’assassinat brutal de l’Afro-Américain George Floyd par une bande de policiers de Minneapolis se sont répandues comme un feu de brousse en un rien de temps dans plus de 160 villes dans le monde, d’abord aux États-Unis, puis en Europe.

Ces émeutes ne sont pas seulement liées à l’agenda de « la Bête », mais elles constituent une déviation bien commode de la catastrophe humaine provoquée par la  pandémie Covid-19. Voir aussi ceci.

Le plan infâme de « la Bête » pour mettre en œuvre ce qui se cache réellement derrière l’Agenda 2030 des Nations unies est l’Agenda ID2020 qui demeure méconnue du grand public. Voir La pandémie du coronavirus COVID-19 : Le vrai danger est « l’Agenda ID2020 ».

Cet agenda a été créé et financé par le gourou de la vaccination Bill Gates, tout comme la GAVI (Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunizations), l’association des grandes entreprises pharmaceutiques – qui a participé à la création des vaccins coronavirus et qui finance avec la Fondation Bill et Melinda Gates (BMGF) une part importante du budget de l’OMS

La « Grande réinitialisation » (« Great Reset »), telle qu’annoncée par Klaus Schwab du FEM, est censée être mise en œuvre par l’Agenda ID2020.

C’est plus que ce que l’on pourrait croire.

L’Agenda ID2020 est même intégré aux SDG, puisque la SDG 16.9 « d’ici 2030, fournira une identité légale [numérique] pour tous, y compris l’enregistrement gratuit des naissances« . Cela s’inscrit parfaitement dans l’objectif global de la SDG 16 : « Promouvoir des sociétés pacifiques et inclusives pour un développement durable, fournir un accès à la justice pour tous et mettre en place des institutions efficaces, responsables et inclusives à tous les niveaux« .

Suivant la voie officielle de l’Agenda 2030 des Nations unies pour la réalisation des SDG, l’Agenda ID2020 « mise en oeuvre » – qui est actuellement testé sur des écoliers au Bangladesh – fournira des cartes d’identité numérisées, éventuellement sous la forme de nano-puces implantées en même temps que les programmes de vaccination obligatoires, encouragera la numérisation de l’argent et le déploiement des 5G – qui seraient nécessaires pour télécharger et contrôler les données personnelles sur les nanopuces et pour contrôler la population.

L’Agenda ID2020 inclura très probablement aussi des « programmes » – par la vaccination ? – de réduction significative de la population mondiale.

L’eugénisme est une composante importante du contrôle de la population mondiale future dans le cadre d’un NOW / OWO – voir aussi Georgia Guidestones, mystérieusement construit en 1980.

L’élite dirigeante a utilisé le confinement comme instrument pour mener à bien ce programme. Sa mise en œuvre se heurterait naturellement à des protestations massives, organisées et financées selon les mêmes modalités que les protestations et manifestations du BLM. Il se peut qu’elles ne soient pas pacifiques – et qu’elles ne soient pas planifiées comme telles.

En effet, pour contrôler la population aux États-Unis et en Europe, où l’on s’attendrait à la plupart des manifestations de la société civile, une militarisation totale de la population est nécessaire. Cela est en cours de préparation.

Dans son essai « The Big Plantation« , John Steppling rapporte, à partir d’un article de NYT, que

« Depuis 2006, un minimum de 93, 763 mitrailleuses, 180 ,718 cartouches de chargeur, des centaines de silencieux et un nombre inconnu de lance-grenades ont été fournis aux services de police d’État et locaux aux États-Unis.

Cela s’ajoute à au moins 533 avions et hélicoptères, et 432 MRAP – véhicules blindés de 9 pieds de haut, de 30 tonnes, protégés contre les embuscades et dotés de tourelles à canon et de plus de 44, 900 pièces d’équipement de vision nocturne, régulièrement utilisés lors de raids nocturnes en Afghanistan et en Irak ».

Il ajoute que cette militarisation s’inscrit dans une plus vaste tendance. Depuis la fin des années 1990, environ 89 % des services de police étasuniens desservant des populations de 50 000 personnes ou plus disposaient d’une PPU (unité paramilitaire de police), soit près du double de ce qui existait au milieu des années 1980. Il appelle ces polices militarisées la nouvelle Gestapo.

Même avant la pandémie COVID-19, environ 15 à 20 % de la population se trouvait sur ou sous le seuil de pauvreté aux États-Unis.

L’anéantissement économique post-covidien va au moins doubler ce pourcentage – et augmenter proportionnellement le risque de révoltes civiles et d’affrontements avec les autorités – ce qui renforce encore le raisonnement en faveur d’une force de police militarisée.

Le Crypto RMB chinois

Bien entendu, aucun de ces scénarios ne sera présenté au public par le FEM en janvier 2021. Il s’agit de décisions prises à huis clos par les acteurs clés de « la Bête ».

Cependant, ce plan grandiose de la « Grande Réinitialisation » (« Great Reset ») ne va pas nécessairement se réaliser. La moitié au moins de la population mondiale et certains des pays les plus puissants, économiquement et militairement – comme la Chine et la Russie – y sont opposés.

« Reset » peut-être oui, mais pas dans ces termes occidentaux. En fait, une réinitialisation de ce type est déjà en cours, la Chine étant sur le point de lancer une nouvelle monnaie cryptographique basée sur une chaîne de blocs, le RMB cryptographique, ou yuan. Il ne s’agit pas seulement d’une monnaie forte basée sur une économie solide, elle est également soutenue par l’or.

Alors que le président Trump continue de fustiger la Chine pour ses pratiques commerciales déloyales, pour sa mauvaise gestion de la pandémie de grippe (COVID-19), pour avoir volé des droits de propriété – une campagne sans fin contre la Chine -, pour avoir affirmé que la Chine dépend des États-Unis et que ces derniers vont couper les liens commerciaux avec la Chine – ou les couper complètement – la Chine appelle cela du bluff.

La Chine se réoriente discrètement vers les pays de l’ANASE plus le Japon (oui, le Japon !) et la Corée du Sud, où le commerce représente déjà aujourd’hui environ 15 % de l’ensemble des échanges commerciaux de la Chine et devrait doubler au cours des cinq prochaines années.

Malgré le verrouillage et la perturbation des échanges commerciaux, les exportations globales de la Chine se sont rétablies avec une augmentation de 3,2 % en avril (par rapport à avril 2019). Cette performance globale des exportations chinoises s’est néanmoins accompagnée d’une baisse spectaculaire des échanges commerciaux entre les États-Unis et la Chine. Les exportations chinoises vers les États-Unis ont diminué de 7,9 % en avril (par rapport à avril 2019).

Il est clair que la grande majorité des industries étasuniennes ne pourraient pas survivre sans les chaînes d’approvisionnement chinoises.

La dépendance occidentale à l’égard des fournitures médicales chinoises est particulièrement importante. Sans parler de la dépendance de la Chine à l’égard des consommateurs étasuniens.

En 2019, la consommation totale des États-Unis, soit environ 70 % du PIB, s’élevait à 13,3 billions de dollars, dont une bonne partie est directement importée de Chine ou dépend des ingrédients provenant de Chine.

Les maîtres du FEM sont confrontés à un véritable dilemme. Leur plan dépend beaucoup de la suprématie du dollar qui continuerait à permettre l’application de sanctions et la confiscation des actifs des pays qui s’opposent à la domination des États-Unis ; une hégémonie du dollar qui permettrait d’imposer les composantes du programme « The Great Reset » (la Grande réinitialisation), comme décrit ci-dessus.

À l’heure actuelle, le dollar est une monnaie fiduciaire, une dette créée de toutes pièces.

Le $ ne bénéficie d’aucun soutien. Par conséquent, sa valeur en tant que monnaie de réserve se dégrade de plus en plus, en particulier vis-à-vis du nouveau crypto-yuan de Chine.

Afin de concurrencer le yuan chinois, le gouvernement étasunien devrait s’éloigner de son système monétaire Ponzi, en se séparant du Federal Reserve Act de 1913 et en imprimant sa propre monnaie de l’économie étasunienne et éventuellement de l’or (crypto) – et non pas de la monnaie fiduciaire de la FED, comme c’est le cas aujourd’hui.

Cela impliquerait de couper les liens plus que centenaires avec la FED, propriété du clan Rothschild et Cie, et de créer une véritable banque centrale appartenant aux citoyens. Ce n’est pas impossible, mais grandement improbable.

Ici, deux « bêtes » pourraient s’affronter, car une puissance mondiale est en jeu.

Pendant ce temps, la Chine, avec sa philosophie de création sans fin, continuerait d’avancer de façon imparable avec son gigantesque plan de développement socio-économique du 21e siècle, l’Initiative ceinture et route (la Nouvelle route de la soie) reliant la Chine au reste du monde avec des infrastructures de transport terrestre et maritime, avec des projets de recherche et industriels communs, des échanges culturels – et surtout, un commerce multinational (multinational trade) avec des caractéristiques « gagnant-gagnant », l’égalité pour tous les partenaires – vers un monde multipolaire, vers un monde avec un avenir commun pour l’humanité.

Aujourd’hui déjà, plus de 120 pays sont associés à l’ICR – et le projet en chantier est libre pour que d’autres pays s’y joignent – et pour défier, démasquer et « désactiver » la Grande réinitialisation (Great Reset) de l’Occident.

Peter Koenig

Article original en anglais :

Conspiracy Theory

The Global Reset – Unplugged. “The Deep State”, publié le 17 juin 2020.

Traduit par Maya pour Mondialisation

Note aux lecteurs : veuillez cliquer sur les boutons de partage ci-dessus ou ci-dessous. Faites suivre cet article à vos listes de diffusion. Publiez cet article sur votre site de blog, vos forums Internet, etc.

Peter Koenig est économiste et analyste géopolitique. Il est également spécialiste des ressources en eau et de l’environnement.

Il a travaillé pendant plus de 30 ans à la Banque mondiale et à l’Organisation mondiale de la santé dans le monde entier dans les domaines de l’environnement et de l’eau.

Il donne des conférences dans des universités aux États-Unis, en Europe et en Amérique du Sud. Il écrit régulièrement pour Global Research, ICH, New Eastern Outlook (NEO), RT, Countercurrents, Sputnik, PressTV, The 21st Century, Greanville Post, Defend Democracy Press, The Saker Blog, et d’autres sites Internet.

Il est l’auteur de Implosion – Un thriller économique sur la guerre, la destruction de l’environnement et la cupidité des entreprises – une fiction basée sur des faits et sur 30 ans d’expérience de la Banque mondiale dans le monde entier. Il est également co-auteur de The World Order and Revolution ! – Essais de la Résistance. Il est associé de recherche au Centre de recherche sur la mondialisation.

Official Intelligence Secret Talks between Saudi Arabia and Israel

In five covert meetings, old foes have planned against a common enemy (Iran? All the Arab countries not allied with Saudi Arabia? Palestinians? Syria? Iraq? Yemen?).

Now they officially met in Washington DC and took photos.

By

Since the beginning of 2014, representatives from Israel and Saudi Arabia have had five secret meetings to discuss a common foe, Iran.

On Thursday, the two countries came out of the closet by revealing this covert diplomacy at the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington.

Among those who follow the Middle East closely, it’s been an open secret that Israel and Saudi Arabia have a common interest in thwarting Iran.

But until Thursday, actual diplomacy between the two was never officially acknowledged. Saudi Arabia still doesn’t recognize Israel’s right to exist. Israel has yet to accept a Saudi-initiated peace offer to create a Palestinian state.

It was not a typical Washington think-tank event.

No questions were taken from the audience.

After an introduction, there was a speech in Arabic from Anwar Majed Eshki, a retired Saudi general and ex-adviser to Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the former Saudi ambassador to the U.S.

Then Dore Gold, a former Israeli ambassador to the United Nations who is slotted to be the next director general of Israel’s foreign ministry, gave a speech in English.

While these men represent countries that have been historic enemies (That’s the biggest lie disseminated by the western countries), their message was identical: Iran is trying to take over the Middle East and it must be stopped.

Eshki was particularly alarming. He laid out a brief history of Iran since the 1979 revolution, highlighting the regime’s acts of terrorism, hostage-taking and aggression.

He ended his remarks with a 7-point plan for the Middle East.

Atop the list was achieving peace between Israel and the Arabs.

Second came regime-change in Iran.

Also on the list were greater Arab unity, the establishment of an Arab regional military force, and a call for an independent Kurdistan to be made up of territory now belonging to Iraq, Turkey and Iran.

Gold’s speech was slightly less grandiose. He, too, warned of Iran’s regional ambitions. But he didn’t call for toppling the Tehran government.

“Our standing today on this stage does not mean we have resolved all the differences that our countries have shared over the years,” he said of his outreach to Saudi Arabia. “But our hope is we will be able to address them fully in the years ahead.” (There have never been difference between Israel and the Saudi monarchy)

It’s no coincidence that the meetings between Gold, Eshki and a few other former officials from both sides took place in the shadow of the nuclear talks among Iran, the U.S. and other major powers.

Saudi Arabia and Israel are arguably the two countries most threatened by Iran’s nuclear program, but neither has a seat at the negotiations scheduled to wrap up at the end of the month.

The five bilateral meetings over the last 17 months occurred in India, Italy and the Czech Republic.

One participant, Shimon Shapira, a retired Israeli general and an expert on the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah, told me:

“We discovered we have the same problems and same challenges and some of the same answers.”

Shapira described the problem as Iran’s activities in the region, and said both sides had discussed political and economic ways to blunt them, but wouldn’t get into any further specifics.

Eshki told me that no real cooperation would be possible until Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, accepted what’s known as the Arab Peace Initiative to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The plan was first shared with New York Times columnist Tom Friedman in 2002 by Saudi Arabia’s late King Abdullah, then the kingdom’s crown prince.

Israel’s quiet relationships with Gulf Arab states goes back to the 1990s and the Oslo Peace Process.

Back then, some Arab countries such as Qatar allowed Israel to open trade missions. Others allowed an Israeli intelligence presence, including Abu Dhabi, the capital of the United Arab Emirates.

These ties became more focused on Iran over the last decade, as shown by documents released by WikiLeaks in 2010.

A March 19, 2009, cable quoted Israel’s then-deputy director general of the foreign minister, Yacov Hadas, saying one reason for the warming of relations was that the Arabs felt Israel could advance their interests vis-a-vis Iran in Washington.

Gulf Arabs believe in Israel’s role because of their perception of Israel’s close relationship with the U.S. but also due to their sense that they can count on Israel against Iran,” the cable said. (Keep counting on your existential enemy of Israel)

But only now has open cooperation between Saudi Arabia and Israel become a possibility.

For Gold, it represents something of a sea change.

In 2003, he published a book, “Hatred’s Kingdom,” about Saudi Arabia’s role in financing terrorism and Islamic extremism.

He explained Thursday that he wrote that book “at the height of the second intifada when Saudi Arabia was financing and fundraising for the murder of Israelis.”

Today, Gold said, it is Iran that is primarily working with those Palestinian groups that continue to embrace terrorism.

Gold went on to say that Iran is now outfitting groups such as Hezbollah in Lebanon with precision-guided missiles, as opposed to the unguided rockets Iran has traditionally provided its allies in Lebanon.

He also said Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps forces propping up the Bashar al-Assad regime are now close to the Israeli-Syrian border.

A few years ago, it was mainly Israel that rang the alarm about Iranian expansionism in the Middle East. It is significant that now Israel is joined in this campaign by Saudi Arabia, a country that has wished for its destruction since 1948.

(It was Saudi monarchy that staunchly supported the creation of Israel and had close cooperation with the Zionist movement since 1920)

The two nations worry today that President Barack Obama’s efforts to make peace with Iran will embolden that regime’s aggression against them. It’s unclear whether Obama will get his nuclear deal. But either way, it may end up that his greatest diplomatic accomplishment will be that his outreach to Iran helped create the conditions for a Saudi-Israeli alliance against it.

Asad Ghsoub shared this link

مين كان بقول و الله

In five covert meetings, old foes have planned against a common enemy.

 

 

 

“Eric Schmidt of Google: An intrinsic member of the US Establishment in ideology and strategy

Schmidt had taken over as CEO of Google in 2001 and built it into an empire.

Eric Schmidt was born in Washington, D.C., where his father had worked as a professor and economist for the Nixon Treasury.

He attended high school in Arlington, Virginia, before graduating with a degree in engineering from Princeton.

In 1979, Schmidt headed out West to Berkeley, where he received his Ph.D. before joining Stanford/ Berkeley spin-off Sun Microsystems in 1983.

By the time he left Sun, 16 years later, he had become part of its executive leadership.

Sun had significant contracts with the U.S. government, but it was not until he was in Utah as CEO of Novell that records show Schmidt strategically engaging Washington’s overt political class.

Federal campaign finance records show that on January 6, 1999, Schmidt donated two lots of $1,000 to the Republican senator for Utah, Orrin Hatch. On the same day Schmidt’s wife, Wendy, is also listed giving two lots of $1,000 to Senator Hatch.

By the start of 2001, over a dozen other politicians and PACs, including Al Gore, George W. Bush, Dianne Feinstein, and Hillary Clinton, were on the Schmidts’ payroll, in one case for $100,000.

By 2013, Eric Schmidt—who had become publicly over-associated with the Obama White House—was more politic.

Schmidt’s involvement in the New America Foundation places him firmly in the Washington establishment nexus.

The foundation’s other board members, 7 of whom also list themselves as members of the Council on Foreign Relations, include:

1.  Francis Fukuyama, one of the intellectual fathers of the neoconservative movement;

2. Rita Hauser, who served on the President’s Intelligence Advisory Board under both Bush and Obama;

3. Jonathan Soros, the son of George Soros;

4. Walter Russell Mead, a U.S. security strategist and editor of the American Interest;

5. Helene Gayle, who sits on the boards of Coca-Cola, Colgate-Palmolive, the Rockefeller Foundation, the State Department’s Foreign Affairs Policy Unit, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Center for Strategic and International Studies, the White House Fellows program and Bono’s ONE Campaign; and

6. Daniel Yergin, oil geo-strategist, former chair of the U.S. Department of Energy’s Task Force.

Eric Schmidt Google Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt Petar Kujundzic/Reuters

7. Anne-Marie Slaughter. The chief executive of the foundation, Anne-Marie Slaughter, is a Princeton law and international relations wonk with an eye for revolving doors. She is everywhere, issuing calls for Obama to respond to the Ukraine crisis not only by deploying covert U.S. forces into the country but also by dropping bombs on Syria—on the basis that this will send a message to Russia and China.

Along with Schmidt, she is a 2013 attendee of the Bilderberg conference and sits on the State Department’s Foreign Affairs Policy Board.

Eric pays regular visits to the White House and delivers “fireside chats” at the World Economic Forum in Davos.

Schmidt’s emergence as Google’s “foreign minister”—making pomp and ceremony state visits across geopolitical fault lines—had not come out of nowhere; it had been presaged by years of assimilation within U.S. establishment networks of reputation and influence.

Later that year two co-wrote a policy piece for the Council on Foreign Relations’ journal Foreign Affairs, praising the reformative potential of Silicon Valley technologies as an instrument of U.S. foreign policy.

Describing what they called “coalitions of the connected,” Schmidt and Cohen claimed that:

Democratic states that have built coalitions of their militaries have the capacity to do the same with their connection technologies.…

They offer a new way to exercise the duty to protect citizens around the world [emphasis added].

Schmidt and Cohen said they wanted to interview me. I agreed. A date was set for June.

Jared Cohen Executive Chairman of Google Eric Schmidt and Jared Cohen, director of Google Ideas. Olivia Harris/Reuters

Schmidt was a good foil for Assange when they met.

“A late-fiftysomething, squint-eyed behind owlish spectacles, managerially dressed—Schmidt’s dour appearance concealed a machinelike analyticity. His questions often skipped to the heart of the matter, betraying a powerful nonverbal structural intelligence.

It was the same intellect that had abstracted software-engineering principles to scale Google into a megacorp, ensuring that the corporate infrastructure always met the rate of growth. This was a person who understood how to build and maintain systems: systems of information and systems of people.

My world was new to him, but it was also a world of unfolding human processes, scale and information flows.

For a man of systematic intelligence, Schmidt’s politics—such as I could hear from our discussion—were surprisingly conventional, even banal. He grasped structural relationships quickly, but struggled to verbalize many of them, often shoehorning geopolitical subtleties into Silicon Valley marketese or the ossified State Department micro-language of his companions. He was at his best when he was speaking (perhaps without realizing it) as an engineer, breaking down complexities into their orthogonal components.

 I asked Eric Schmidt to leak U.S. government information requests to WikiLeaks, and he refused, suddenly nervous, citing the illegality of disclosing Patriot Act requests. And then, as the evening came on, it was done and they were gone, back to the unreal, remote halls of information empire, and I was left to get back to my work.

That was the end of it, or so I thought.

* * *

Two months later, WikiLeaks’ release of State Department cables was coming to an abrupt end. For three-quarters of a year we had painstakingly managed the publication, pulling in over a hundred global media partners, distributing documents in their regions of influence and overseeing a worldwide, systematic publication and redaction system, fighting for maximum impact for our sources.

But The Guardian newspaper—our former partner—had published the confidential decryption password to all 251,000 cables in a chapter heading in its book, rushed out hastily in February 2011.

By mid-August we discovered that a former German employee—whom I had suspended in 2010—was cultivating business relationships with a variety of organizations and individuals by shopping around the location of the encrypted file, paired with the password’s whereabouts in the book. At the rate the information was spreading, we estimated that within two weeks most intelligence agencies, contractors and middlemen would have all the cables, but the public would not.

I decided it was necessary to bring forward our publication schedule by four months and contact the State Department to get it on record that we had given them advance warning. The situation would then be harder to spin into another legal or political assault.

Unable to raise Louis Susman, then U.S. ambassador to the U.K., we tried the front door. WikiLeaks investigations editor Sarah Harrison called the State Department front desk and informed the operator that “Julian Assange” wanted to have a conversation with Hillary Clinton. Predictably, this statement was initially greeted with bureaucratic disbelief.

We soon found ourselves in a reenactment of that scene in Dr. Strangelove, where Peter Sellers cold-calls the White House to warn of an impending nuclear war and is immediately put on hold. As in the film, we climbed the hierarchy, speaking to incrementally more superior officials until we reached Clinton’s senior legal advisor. He told us he would call us back. We hung up, and waited.

When the phone rang half an hour later, it was not the State Department on the other end of the line. Instead, it was Joseph Farrell, the WikiLeaks staffer who had set up the meeting with Google. He had just received an email from Lisa Shields seeking to confirm that it was indeed WikiLeaks calling the State Department.

It was at this point that I realized Eric Schmidt might not have been an emissary of Google alone. Whether officially or not, he had been keeping some company that placed him very close to Washington, D.C., including a well-documented relationship with President Obama. Not only had Hillary Clinton’s people known that Eric Schmidt’s partner had visited me, but they had also elected to use her as a back channel.

While WikiLeaks had been deeply involved in publishing the inner archive of the U.S. State Department, the U.S. State Department had, in effect, snuck into the WikiLeaks command center and hit me up for a free lunch.

Two years later, in the wake of his early 2013 visits to China, North Korea and Burma, it would come to be appreciated that the chairman of Google might be conducting, in one way or another, “back-channel diplomacy” for Washington. But at the time it was a novel thought.

I put it aside until February 2012, when WikiLeaks—along with over thirty of our international media partners—began publishing the Global Intelligence Files: the internal email spool from the Texas-based private intelligence firm Stratfor. One of our stronger investigative partners—the Beirut-based newspaper Al Akhbar— scoured the emails for intelligence on Jared Cohen.

The people at Stratfor, who liked to think of themselves as a sort of corporate CIA, were acutely conscious of other ventures that they perceived as making inroads into their sector. Google had turned up on their radar. In a series of colorful emails they discussed a pattern of activity conducted by Cohen under the Google Ideas aegis, suggesting what the “do” in “think/do tank” actually means.

Cohen’s directorate appeared to cross over from public relations and “corporate responsibility” work into active corporate intervention in foreign affairs at a level that is normally reserved for states. Jared Cohen could be wryly named Google’s “director of regime change.”

According to the emails, he was trying to plant his fingerprints on some of the major historical events in the contemporary Middle East. He could be placed in Egypt during the revolution, meeting with Wael Ghonim, the Google employee whose arrest and imprisonment hours later would make him a PR-friendly symbol of the uprising in the Western press.

Meetings had been planned in Palestine and Turkey, both of which—claimed Stratfor emails—were killed by the senior Google leadership as too risky.

10_23_wikileaks-01 Founder of Wikileaks Julian Assange speaking from the Ecuadorean embassy in London appears on a screen as he gives a video conference to open the Human Rights Film Festival in Barcelona on October 22, 2014. Quique Garcia/AFP/Getty

Only a few months before he met with me, Cohen was planning a trip to the edge of Iran in Azerbaijan to “engage the Iranian communities closer to the border,” as part of a Google Ideas’ project on “repressive societies.” In internal emails Stratfor’s vice president for intelligence, Fred Burton (himself a former State Department security official), wrote:

Google is getting WH [White House] and State Dept support and air cover. In reality they are doing things the CIA cannot do…

[Cohen] is going to get himself kidnapped or killed. Might be the best thing to happen to expose Google’s covert role in fomenting up-risings, to be blunt. The US Gov’t can then disavow knowledge and Google is left holding the shit-bag.

In further internal communication, Burton said his sources on Cohen’s activities were Marty Lev—Google’s director of security and safety—and Eric Schmidt himself.

Looking for something more concrete, I began to search in WikiLeaks’ archive for information on Cohen.

State Department cables released as part of Cablegate reveal that Cohen had been in Afghanistan in 2009, trying to convince the four major Afghan mobile phone companies to move their antennas onto U.S. military bases.

In Lebanon, he quietly worked to establish an intellectual and clerical rival to Hezbollah, the “Higher Shia League.”

And in London he offered Bollywood movie executives funds to insert anti-extremist content into their films, and promised to connect them to related networks in Hollywood.

Three days after he visited me at Ellingham Hall, Jared Cohen flew to Ireland to direct the “Save Summit,” an event co-sponsored by Google Ideas and the Council on Foreign Relations. Gathering former inner-city gang members, right-wing militants, violent nationalists and “religious extremists” from all over the world together in one place, the event aimed to workshop technological solutions to the problem of “violent extremism.” What could go wrong?

Cohen’s world seems to be one event like this after another: endless soirees for the cross-fertilization of influence between elites and their vassals, under the pious rubric of “civil society.”

The received wisdom in advanced capitalist societies is that there still exists an organic “civil society sector” in which institutions form autonomously and come together to manifest the interests and will of citizens. The fable has it that the boundaries of this sector are respected by actors from government and the “private sector,” leaving a safe space for NGOs and nonprofits to advocate for things like human rights, free speech and accountable government.

This sounds like a great idea. But if it was ever true, it has not been for decades.

Since at least the 1970s, authentic actors like unions and churches have folded under a sustained assault by free-market statism, transforming “civil society” into a buyer’s market for political factions and corporate interests looking to exert influence at arm’s length. The last forty years have seen a huge proliferation of think tanks and political NGOs whose purpose, beneath all the verbiage, is to execute political agendas by proxy.

It is not just obvious neocon front groups like Foreign Policy Initiative. It also includes fatuous Western NGOs like Freedom House, where naïve but well-meaning career nonprofit workers are twisted in knots by political funding streams, denouncing non-Western human rights violations while keeping local abuses firmly in their blind spots.

The civil society conference circuit—which flies developing-world activists across the globe hundreds of times a year to bless the unholy union between “government and private stakeholders” at geopoliticized events like the “Stockholm Internet Forum”—simply could not exist if it were not blasted with millions of dollars in political funding annually.

Scan the memberships of the biggest U.S. think tanks and institutes and the same names keep cropping up.

Cohen’s Save Summit went on to seed AVE, or AgainstViolentExtremism.org, a long-term project whose principal backer besides Google Ideas is the Gen Next Foundation. This foundation’s website says it is an “exclusive membership organization and platform for successful individuals” that aims to bring about “social change” driven by venture capital funding.

Gen Next’s “private sector and non-profit foundation support avoids some of the potential perceived conflicts of interest faced by initiatives funded by governments.” Jared Cohen is an executive member.

Gen Next also backs an NGO, launched by Cohen toward the end of his State Department tenure, for bringing Internet-based global “pro-democracy activists” into the U.S. foreign relations patronage network. The group originated as the “Alliance of Youth Movements” with an inaugural summit in New York City in 2008 funded by the State Department and encrusted with the logos of corporate sponsors.

The summit flew in carefully selected social media activists from “problem areas” like Venezuela and Cuba to watch speeches by the Obama campaign’s new-media team and the State Department’s James Glassman, and to network with public relations consultants, “philanthropists,” and U.S. media personalities.

The outfit held two more invite-only summits in London and Mexico City where the delegates were directly addressed via video link by Hillary Clinton:

You are the vanguard of a rising generation of citizen activists.…

And that makes you the kind of leaders we need.

In 2011, the Alliance of Youth Movements rebranded as “Movements.org.”

In 2012 Movements.org became a division of “Advancing Human Rights,” a new NGO set up by . Robert L. Bernstein after he resigned from Human Rights Watch (which he had originally founded) because he felt it should not cover Israeli and U.S. human rights abuses. Advancing Human Rights aims to right Human Rights Watch’s wrong by focusing exclusively on “dictatorships.”

Cohen stated that the merger of his Movements.org outfit with Advancing Human Rights was “irresistible,” pointing to the latter’s “phenomenal network of cyber-activists in the Middle East and North Africa.” He then joined the Advancing Human Rights board, which also includes Richard Kemp, the former commander of British forces in occupied Afghanistan.

In its present guise, Movements.org continues to receive funding from Gen Next, as well as from Google, MSNBC and PR giant Edelman, which represents General Electric, Boeing, and Shell, among others.

Google Ideas is bigger, but it follows the same game plan. Glance down the speaker lists of its annual invite-only get-togethers, such as “Crisis in a Connected World” in October 2013.

Social network theorists and activists give the event a veneer of authenticity, but in truth it boasts a toxic piñata of attendees: U.S. officials, telecom magnates, security consultants, finance capitalists and foreign-policy tech vultures like Alec Ross (Cohen’s twin at the State Department).

At the hard core are the arms contractors and career military: active U.S. Cyber Command chieftains, and even the admiral responsible for all U.S. military operations in Latin America from 2006 to 2009. Tying up the package are Jared Cohen and the chairman of Google, Eric Schmidt.

I began to think of Schmidt as a brilliant but politically hapless Californian tech billionaire who had been exploited by the very U.S. foreign-policy types he had collected to act as translators between himself and official Washington—a West Coast–East Coast illustration of the principal-agent dilemma.

I was wrong.

* * *

Eric Schmidt was born in Washington, D.C., where his father had worked as a professor and economist for the Nixon Treasury. He attended high school in Arlington, Virginia, before graduating with a degree in engineering from Princeton.

In 1979, Schmidt headed out West to Berkeley, where he received his Ph.D. before joining Stanford/ Berkeley spin-off Sun Microsystems in 1983. By the time he left Sun, sixteen years later, he had become part of its executive leadership.

Sun had significant contracts with the U.S. government, but it was not until he was in Utah as CEO of Novell that records show Schmidt strategically engaging Washington’s overt political class.

Federal campaign finance records show that on January 6, 1999, Schmidt donated two lots of $1,000 to the Republican senator for Utah, Orrin Hatch. On the same day Schmidt’s wife, Wendy, is also listed giving two lots of $1,000 to Senator Hatch.

By the start of 2001, over a dozen other politicians and PACs, including Al Gore, George W. Bush, Dianne Feinstein, and Hillary Clinton, were on the Schmidts’ payroll, in one case for $100,000.

By 2013, Eric Schmidt—who had become publicly over-associated with the Obama White House—was more politic.

Eight Republicans and eight Democrats were directly funded, as were two PACs. That April, $32,300 went to the National Republican Senatorial Committee. A month later the same amount, $32,300, headed off to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.

Why Schmidt was donating exactly the same amount of money to both parties is a $64,600 question.

It was also in 1999 that Schmidt joined the board of a Washington, D.C.–based group: the New America Foundation, a merger of well-connected centrist forces (in D.C. terms). The foundation and its 100 staff serve as an influence mill, using its network of approved national security, foreign policy and technology pundits to place hundreds of articles and op-eds per year.

By 2008, Schmidt had become chairman of its board of directors.

As of 2013 the New America Foundation’s principal funders (each contributing over $1 million) were listed as Eric and Wendy Schmidt, the U.S. State Department and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Secondary funders include Google, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and Radio Free Asia.

Schmidt’s involvement in the New America Foundation places him firmly in the Washington establishment nexus. The foundation’s other board members, 7 of whom also list themselves as members of the Council on Foreign Relations, include Francis Fukuyama, one of the intellectual fathers of the neoconservative movement; Rita Hauser, who served on the President’s Intelligence Advisory Board under both Bush and Obama; Jonathan Soros, the son of George Soros; Walter Russell Mead, a U.S. security strategist and editor of the American Interest; Helene Gayle, who sits on the boards of Coca-Cola, Colgate-Palmolive, the Rockefeller Foundation, the State Department’s Foreign Affairs Policy Unit, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Center for Strategic and International Studies, the White House Fellows program and Bono’s ONE Campaign; and Daniel Yergin, oil geo-strategist, former chair of the U.S. Department of Energy’s Task Force.

Eric Schmidt Google Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt Petar Kujundzic/Reuters

The chief executive of the foundation, Anne-Marie Slaughter, is a Princeton law and international relations wonk with an eye for revolving doors. She is everywhere, issuing calls for Obama to respond to the Ukraine crisis not only by deploying covert U.S. forces into the country but also by dropping bombs on Syria—on the basis that this will send a message to Russia and China.

Along with Schmidt, she is a 2013 attendee of the Bilderberg conference and sits on the State Department’s Foreign Affairs Policy Board.

 who pays regular visits to the White House, or who delivers “fireside chats” at the World Economic Forum in Davos.

Schmidt’s emergence as Google’s “foreign minister”—making pomp and ceremony state visits across geopolitical fault lines—had not come out of nowhere; it had been presaged by years of assimilation within U.S. establishment networks of reputation and influence.

Google’s chairman is a classic “head of industry” player, with all of the ideological baggage that comes with that role. Schmidt fits exactly where he is: the point where the centrist, liberal and imperialist tendencies meet in American political life.

By all appearances, Google’s bosses genuinely believe in the civilizing power of enlightened multinational corporations, and they see this mission as continuous with the shaping of the world according to the better judgment of the “benevolent superpower.” They will tell you that open-mindedness is a virtue, but all perspectives that challenge the exceptionalist drive at the heart of American foreign policy will remain invisible to them. This is the impenetrable banality of “don’t be evil.” They believe that they are doing good. And that is a problem

Google is different. Google is visionary. Google is the future. Google is more than just a company. Google gives back to the community. Google is a force for good.

Even when Google airs its corporate ambivalence publicly, it does little to dislodge these items of faith.

The company’s reputation is seemingly unassailable. Google’s colorful, playful logo is imprinted on human retinas just under 6 billion times each day, 2.1 trillion times a year—an opportunity for respondent conditioning enjoyed by no other company in history.

Caught red-handed last year making petabytes of personal data available to the U.S. intelligence community through the PRISM program, Google nevertheless continues to coast on the goodwill generated by its “don’t be evil” doublespeak.

A few symbolic open letters to the White House later and it seems all is forgiven. Even anti-surveillance campaigners cannot help themselves, at once condemning government spying but trying to alter Google’s invasive surveillance practices using appeasement strategies.

Nobody wants to acknowledge that Google has grown big and bad. But it has.

Schmidt’s tenure as CEO saw Google integrate with the shadiest of U.S. power structures as it expanded into a geographically invasive megacorporation. But Google has always been comfortable with this proximity.

Long before company founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin hired Schmidt in 2001, their initial research upon which Google was based had been partly funded by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). And even as Schmidt’s Google developed an image as the overly friendly giant of global tech, it was building a close relationship with the intelligence community.

In 2003, the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) had already started systematically violating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) under its director General Michael Hayden. These were the days of the “Total Information Awareness” program. Before PRISM was ever dreamed of, under orders from the Bush White House the NSA was already aiming to “collect it all, sniff it all, know it all, process it all, exploit it all.”

During the same period, Google—whose publicly declared corporate mission is to collect and “organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful”—was accepting NSA money to the tune of $2 million to provide the agency with search tools for its rapidly accreting hoard of stolen knowledge.

In 2004, after taking over Keyhole, a mapping tech startup co-funded by the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) and the CIA, Google developed the technology into Google Maps, an enterprise version of which it has since shopped to the Pentagon and associated federal and state agencies on multimillion-dollar contracts.

In 2008, Google helped launch an NGA spy satellite, the GeoEye-1, into space. Google shares the photographs from the satellite with the U.S. military and intelligence communities. In 2010, NGA awarded Google a $27 million contract for “geospatial visualization services.”

In 2010, after the Chinese government was accused of hacking Google, the company entered into a “formal information-sharing” relationship with the NSA, which was said to allow NSA analysts to “evaluate vulnerabilities” in Google’s hardware and software.

Although the exact contours of the deal have never been disclosed, the NSA brought in other government agencies to help, including the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security.

Around the same time, Google was becoming involved in a program known as the “Enduring Security Framework” (ESF), which entailed the sharing of information between Silicon Valley tech companies and Pentagon-affiliated agencies “at network speed.”

Emails obtained in 2014 under Freedom of Information requests show Schmidt and his fellow Googler Sergey Brin corresponding on first-name terms with NSA chief General Keith Alexander about ESF.

Reportage on the emails focused on the familiarity in the correspondence: “General Keith…so great to see you…!” Schmidt wrote. But most reports over-looked a crucial detail. “Your insights as a key member of the Defense Industrial Base,” Alexander wrote to Brin, “are valuable to ensure ESF’s efforts have measurable impact.”

The Department of Homeland Security defines the Defense Industrial Base as “the worldwide industrial complex that enables research and development, as well as design, production, delivery, and maintenance of military weapons systems, subsystems, and components or parts, to meet U.S. military requirements [emphasis added].” The Defense Industrial Base provides “products and services that are essential to mobilize, deploy, and sustain military operations.”

Does it include regular commercial services purchased by the U.S. military? No.

The definition specifically excludes the purchase of regular commercial services. Whatever makes Google a “key member of the Defense Industrial Base,” it is not recruitment campaigns pushed out through Google AdWords or soldiers checking their Gmail.

In 2012, Google arrived on the list of top-spending Washington, D.C., lobbyists—a list typically stalked exclusively by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, military contractors, and the petro-carbon leviathans. Google entered the rankings above military aerospace giant Lockheed Martin, with a total of $18.2 million spent in 2012 to Lockheed’s $15.3 million. Boeing, the military contractor that absorbed McDonnell Douglas in 1997, also came below Google, at $15.6 million spent, as did Northrop Grumman at $17.5 million.

In autumn 2013 the Obama administration was trying to drum up support for U.S. airstrikes against Syria. Despite setbacks, the administration continued to press for military action well into September with speeches and public announcements by both President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry.

On September 10, Google lent its front page—the most popular on the Internet—to the war effort, inserting a line below the search box reading “Live! Secretary Kerry answers questions on Syria. Today via Hangout at 2pm ET.”

As the self-described “radical centrist” New York Times columnist Tom Friedman wrote in 1999, sometimes it is not enough to leave the global dominance of American tech corporations to something as mercurial as “the free market”:

The hidden hand of the market will never work without a hidden fist. McDonald’s cannot flourish without McDonnell Douglas, the designer of the F-15. And the hidden fist that keeps the world safe for Silicon Valley’s technologies to flourish is called the U.S. Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps.

If anything has changed since those words were written, it is that Silicon Valley has grown restless with that passive role, aspiring instead to adorn the hidden fist like a velvet glove. Writing in 2013, Schmidt and Cohen stated,

What Lockheed Martin was to the twentieth century, technology and cyber-security companies will be to the twenty-first.

One way of looking at it is that it’s just business. For an American Internet services monopoly to ensure global market dominance, it cannot simply keep doing what it is doing and let politics take care of itself. American strategic and economic hegemony becomes a vital pillar of its market dominance. What’s a megacorp to do? If it wants to straddle the world, it must become part of the original “don’t be evil” empire.

But part of the resilient image of Google as “more than just a company” comes from the perception that it does not act like a big, bad corporation. Its penchant for luring people into its services trap with gigabytes of “free storage” produces the perception that Google is giving it away for free, acting directly contrary to the corporate profit motive.

Google is perceived as an essentially philanthropic enterprise—a magical engine presided over by otherworldly visionaries—for creating a utopian future. The company has at times appeared anxious to cultivate this image, pouring funding into “corporate responsibility” initiatives to produce “social change”—exemplified by Google Ideas.

But as Google Ideas shows, the company’s “philanthropic” efforts, too, bring it uncomfortably close to the imperial side of U.S. influence. If Blackwater/Xe Services/Academi was running a program like Google Ideas, it would draw intense critical scrutiny. But somehow Google gets a free pass.

Whether it is being just a company or “more than just a company,” Google’s geopolitical aspirations are firmly enmeshed within the foreign-policy agenda of the world’s largest superpower.

As Google’s search and Internet service monopoly grows, and as it enlarges its industrial surveillance cone to cover the majority of the world’s population, rapidly dominating the mobile phone market and racing to extend Internet access in the global south, Google is steadily becoming the Internet for many people. Its influence on the choices and behavior of the totality of individual human beings translates to real power to influence the course of history.

If the future of the Internet is to be Google, that should be of serious concern to people all over the world—in Latin America, East and Southeast Asia, the Indian subcontinent, the Middle East, sub-Saharan Africa, the former Soviet Union and even in Europe—for whom the Internet embodies the promise of an alternative to U.S. cultural, economic, and strategic hegemony.

A “don’t be evil” empire is still an empire.

Extracted from When Google Met Wikileaks by Julian Assange published by OR Books. Newsweek readers can obtain a 20 percent discount on the cover price when ordering from the OR Books website and including the offer code word NEWSWEEK.


adonis49

adonis49

adonis49

November 2020
M T W T F S S
 1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30  

Blog Stats

  • 1,441,658 hits

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.adonisbouh@gmail.com

Join 784 other followers

%d bloggers like this: