Facebook blocks Jon Rappoportâ€™s articles
No More Fake News
February 18th, 2013
I became aware of the block and censorship a few days ago, soon after I wrote and published the article: â€śRuthless State of the Union: current crime boss speaks.â€ť
That article was about Obama, and it was also about every president as far back as Nixon. It mainly described the absurdities implied by Obamaâ€™s vague notion that â€śwe all have to work together.â€ť
Readers began letting me know they couldnâ€™t Facebook-share my articles. This became: no one could share any article that included: â€śjonrappoport.wordpress.com.â€ť
As a reporter for 30 years, I know a little about the 1stAmendment. Criticizing the president, or the medical cartel, or any number of other institutions Iâ€™ve taken on is par for the course. If some Facebook readers are marking these articles spam or abusive, they should think again.
Lots of people these days believe itâ€™s part of the game to try to censor their perceived opponents. â€śWhy debate or even allow a different voice? Letâ€™s just block it out.â€ť
Blocking the FB posting of my article links could also be part of the Facebook management purge of political activists, particularly those who defend the 2ndAmendment and private gun ownership. This happened to a number of people at infowars.com last December, and it also happened at Natural News.
At the moment, I have a workaround in place, and my site and blog are working just fine, but the basic wider issue of blocking dissident opinion isnâ€™t going away.
Some people have pointed out that Facebook is a private company, and therefore it has the right to define acceptable speech any way it wants to. This may be true, but blocking and censoring political viewpoints is a very bad policy. Claiming, for example, that Facebook is only for making and communicating with friends is a cop-out. If friends canâ€™t share information about political realities, itâ€™s a hollow situation.
Many reporters, including myself, came to the Internet because we were sick and tired of trying to convince editors at newspapers and magazines that our work should see the light of day. Editors routinely shot down (and still do) article ideas that wandered too far off the mainstream reservation.
That was the censorship we were leaving in the dust. Now, here it is again.
Every day, I read articles I donâ€™t like. The idea of somehow censoring them would be absurd.
In this country (and other countries), we have people who believe in and support free speech. Then we have True Believers, whose cause in their minds outdistances any considerations about liberty. They would trample liberty at the drop of a hat to make the world over in their image. Finally, we have organizations who enter into covert political alliances to advance their own interests. These organizations also care nothing about the 1stÂ Amendment.
Where is Facebook in all of this? Are they just a front for gathering personal information on a billion people? Are they just another wing of the vast surveillance apparatus that is operating from a playbook that wants androids instead of thinking citizens?
Itâ€™s time for the bosses at Facebook to step out into the light and explain, in detail, exactly how they block information and on what grounds. How are reports of spam and â€śabusive contentâ€ť processed by their algorithms? What is their position on the 1stÂ Amendment?
Failure to make this clear is evidence of purposeful concealment.
Perhaps an article I wrote and published last August, â€śFacebook, the CIA, DARPA, and the tanking IPO,â€ť will help put this situation into perspective:
The big infusion of cash that sent Mark Zuckerberg and his fledgling college enterprise on their way came from Accel Partners, in 2004.
Jim Breyer, head of Accel, attached a $13 million rocket to Facebook, and nothing has ever been the same.
Earlier that same year, a man named Gilman Louie joined the board of the National Venture Capital Association of America (NVCA). The chairman of NVCA? Jim Breyer. Gilman Louie happened to be the first CEO of the important CIA start-up, In-Q-Tel.
In-Q-Tel was founded in 1999, with the express purpose of funding companies that could develop technology the CIA would use to â€śgather data.â€ť
Thatâ€™s not the only connection between Jim Breyer and the CIAâ€™s man, Gilman Louie. In 2004, Louie went to work for BBN Technologies, headed up by Breyer. Dr. Anita Jones also joined BBN at that time. Jones had worked for In-Q-Tel and was an adviser to DARPA, the Pentagonâ€™s technology department that helped develop the Internet.
With these CIA/Darpa connections, itâ€™s no surprise that Jim Breyerâ€™s jackpot investment in Facebook is not part of the popular mythology of Mark Zuckerberg. Better to omit it. Who could fail to realize that Facebook, with its endless stream of personal data, and its tracking capability, is an ideal CIA asset?
But now the Facebook stock has tanked. On Friday, August 17, it weighed in at half its initial IPO price. For the first time since the IPO, venture-capital backers were legally permitted to sell off their shares, and some did, at a loss.
Articles have begun appearing that question Zuckerbergâ€™s ability to manage his company. â€śExpertsâ€ť are saying he should import a professional team to run the business side of things and step away.
All this, despite the fact that Facebookâ€™s first posted revenue as a public company has exceeded analystsâ€™ predictions, according to the LA Times.
This has the earmarks of classic shakeout and squeeze play. Itâ€™s how heavy hitters gain control of a company. First, they drive down the price of the stock, then they trade it at low levels that discourage and demoralize the public and even semi-insiders. As the stock continues to tank, they quietly buy up as much of it as they can. Finally, when the price hits a designated rock bottom, they shoot it up all the way to new highs and win big.
And they hold enough shares to exert more control over the company itself.
That is how Facebook will survive. Zuckerbergâ€™s grip on Facebook will loosen.
The company is too important as a data-mining asset of the intelligence community to let it fall into disrepair and chaos. The CIA and its cutouts will save it and gain more power over it. Itâ€™s what theyâ€™ve wanted all along.
From the time Mark Zuckerberg was a child and attended the summer camp for â€śexceptional children,â€ť CTY (Center for Talented Youth), run by Johns Hopkins University, he, like other CTY students, Sergey Brin (co-founder of Google), and Lady Gaga, have been easy to track.
CTY and similar camps filter applications and pick the best and brightest for their accelerated learning programs. Tracing the later progress of these children in school and life would be a standard operation for agencies like the CIA.
When Zuckerberg founded an interesting little social network at Harvard, and then sought to turn it into a business, the data-mining possibilities were obvious to CIA personnel. Through their cutouts, as described above, they stepped in and lent a helping hand.
Now itâ€™s time for Zuckerberg to pass the baton to his handlers, so they can maximize the economics of Facebook and utilize it to spy even more extensively.
The media will play along, pretending the eventual upswing-recovery of Facebook stock happens for fundamental reasons connected to the companyâ€™s â€śbetter level of performance.â€ť The media take this approach to every stock and every company, to avoid letting the public know how massive manipulation actually runs these trading markets.
End of the August 2012 article.
People might ask, â€śThen why, Rappoport, do you use Facebook at all?â€ť
Thatâ€™s a legitimate question. My answer is simple. Since I began working as a reporter in 1982, Iâ€™ve used every possible opportunity and venue to put my information out there.
Thereâ€™s a big difference between that and overtly supporting all those venues.
When I admire a writer, broadcaster, or organization, I say so, and I have. Even then, that doesnâ€™t mean I have to agree with everything they say or stand for.
Thatâ€™s a distinction with a meaning. Itâ€™s exactly the distinction Iâ€™m asking Facebook to clarify: what will they allow, whether they agree with it or not?
Do I expect them to spell it out in sufficient detail? No. But then that means something, too.
None of this will change one iota of what I write or say.
Delivered by The Daily Sheeple
Contributed by Jon Rappoport of No More Fake News.
The author of an explosive collection,Â THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29thÂ District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world.
Please share: Spread the word to sheeple far and wide
Leave A Comment...
The Daily Sheeple Home Page