A former insider to Silicon Valley’s elite philanthropic circles recently issued a stark warning about how wealthy tech wives were allegedly manipulated to advance a broader political agenda, raising troubling questions about the integrity of progressive charitable giving.
Nicole Shanahan, who was previously married to Google co-founder Sergey Brin and ran as Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s vice presidential candidate, recently spoke out about what she describes as a systematic exploitation of wealthy women in the tech industry.
Shanahan, who personally distributed philanthropy checks totaling hundreds of millions of dollars, now claims the entire model is fundamentally broken.
In her public statements, Shanahan addressed what she calls the “tech wife mafia,” a network of affluent women married to Silicon Valley’s most powerful figures.
According to her account, these women believed they were making positive social change through their charitable work.
Shanahan stated that many of these women remain unaware of how their efforts allegedly served a larger purpose.
She suggested their financial resources were directed through networks involving non-governmental organization advisors, Hollywood connections and the World Economic Forum gathering in Davos.
“I don’t think many of the tech mafia wives realize… they were used to set the groundwork for what Klaus Schwab calls The Great Reset,” Shanahan said.
She described how their money was being “conscripted through a network of NGO advisors, Hollywood, Davos, and their own companies.”
The former philanthropist characterized the coordinating group as “a really small group of people” who were “completely blind to how their groundwork is being used to enable these Great Reset policies.”
Shanahan’s comments align with criticism from others who have questioned the World Economic Forum’s “Great Reset” initiative.
Critics argue the program, marketed under the slogan “build back better,” promised climate action, Environmental Social Governance standards, inclusion and public-private partnerships.
However, skeptics contend the initiative transferred authority from elected representatives to unelected entities including NGOs, corporate leadership and technocratic administrators.
They claim policy decisions were rebranded as scientific consensus to prevent legitimate debate.
Shanahan reflected on her own motivations during her philanthropic years, explaining that these women derive personal meaning from charitable activities.
“I really believed I was helping black communities and indigenous communities rise up…” she stated.
She distinguished between her intended goals and actual outcomes, saying her vision of success involved communities being “actually uplifted. Not just more money pumped into them.”
The reality she now observes tells a different story.
Shanahan acknowledged that conditions in targeted communities have deteriorated rather than improved.
“Crime worse. Mental health worse. The whole model is broken,” she said.
According to Shanahan, when confronted with these failures, advocates consistently redirect attention to climate concerns.
“At the end of the day they always go: ‘But climate change…’ Social justice + climate change – it gets progressive women 100% of the time,” she explained.
Critics of ESG frameworks argue they distorted market functions through scoring systems, carbon taxation, and regulatory requirements that prioritized compliance over productivity.
They further contend that corporations became enforcement mechanisms for ideological positions rather than focusing on shareholder value and consumer service.
WATCH:
