News & Analysis
Facebook IPO Is US Intel Operation?
Media reports suggest that Facebook will file for an IPO this week that could value the company at $100 billion — and leave the company sitting on $10 billion in cash. I'm not a financial analyst, so I'll leave it to Wall Street to discuss and debate that valuation. But the fact is this newfound wealth could not only allow Facebook to solve its biggest business challenges, it could also help Facebook finally achieve its longstanding goal to change how marketing works. So how should Facebook use its IPO windfall? − Nate Elliott's Blog
Dominant Social Theme: This Facebook IPO is very exciting and shows that young people can create incredible value in a short period of time. Mark Zuckerberg is a genius.
Free-Market Analysis: No, we don't believe the hype. It's directed history, perhaps, not reality. Zuckerberg is in his later twenties. Did you ever meet anyone who'd built a US$100 billion company in a single decade, much less at a time when most young men and women are still deciding on career choices?
It strikes us as a dominant social theme of sorts, despite all the excitement that the IPO has caused (see excerpt above). The media is full of breathless adulation regarding Facebook and Zuckerberg.
We're supposed to accept this narrative unquestioningly. We don't.
There is a group of impossibly wealthy families, in our view − a power elite initially based in the City of London − that controls central banking around the world. This handful of families uses trillions in cash flow to aid in the construction of what is popularly known as the New World Order.
This NWO is not erected without a good deal of effort, and what we call the Internet Reformation has proven to be a stumbling block. The information revealed on the Internet has generated extreme opposition to what the NWO families are trying to do, along with their enablers and associates.
In order to overcome this opposition, the power elite has launched a series of false flags that are intended to make the Internet more confusing to the opposition and more supportive of its efforts.
Facebook, from what we can tell, is a kind of false flag intended to gather huge numbers of users in an environment that will be – at least gently – pro-globalist. Or at least useful to the globalist agenda.
Why do we believe that Facebook is a kind of false flag? The biggest tip-off in our view is Facebook's astonishing popularity. It's simply another social networking site but it's one that's attracted nearly a billion users. Is it really so much better than other such facilities?
No ... the barriers-to-entry seem fairly modest to us. What probably differentiates Facebook from other such facilities is not its technology or brilliance but its backers.
When a company gets this big this fast it seems to us that there are always the powers-that-be lurking close by. In this case, Zuckerberg seems to us to have the requisite pedigree for someone that would be subject to elite cultivation.
We note a "big" movie has been made about his life. This, too, is a kind of red flag. When the elites are involved in a sizable promotion, one tool seems to be a Hollywood movie. Supposedly, Julian Assange – who also may function as a kind of false flag, in our view – is also getting a movie. He already has a book.
What's even less debatable than the evident hype surrounding Zuckerberg and Facebook is the reality of the facility's initial funding. There is almost no doubt – so far as we can tell, anyway – that the initial funding Facebook received was in part organized by US Intel.
An article posted at Advent of Deception, entitled "Behind Facebook—A New World Order Agenda?", seems to show us clearly the kind of capital that Facebook was able to amass ...
Facebook's first round of venture capital funding ($US500,000) came from former Paypal CEO Peter Thiel. Author of anti-multicultural tome 'The Diversity Myth', he is also on the board of radical conservative group VanguardPAC.
The second round of funding into Facebook ($US12.7 million) came from venture capital firm Accel Partners. Its manager James Breyer was formerly chairman of the National Venture Capital Association, and served on the board with Gilman Louie, CEO of In-Q-Tel, a venture capital firm established by the Central Intelligence Agency in 1999. One of the company's key areas of expertise are in "data mining technologies".
Breyer also served on the board of R&D firm BBN Technologies, which was one of those companies responsible for the rise of the internet. Dr Anita Jones joined the firm, which included Gilman Louie. She had also served on the In-Q-Tel's board, and had been director of Defence Research and Engineering for the US Department of Defence.
She was also an adviser to the Secretary of Defence and overseeing the Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), which is responsible for high-tech, high-end development.
This makes plenty of sense, of course. The way to control and promote promising technologies is to fund them. By funding some technologies lavishly – and ensuring they are able to avoid inconvenient run-ins with the US legal and regulatory community – one can likely build a successful company fairly easily.
Of course, it's perhaps the luck of the draw as to whether a company grows to the size of, say, MySpace or gets as big as Facebook. But in either case, one is struck by the paucity involved in the actual business model. Facebook's content is furnished by its users – and user information is then resold to advertisers.
The more of it that the company can extract, the more valuable the company becomes. It is perhaps, therefore, the first company in history where the business model is based almost entirely on spying.
Google does much the same thing, but at least Google provides a search algorithm. Facebook's business posture is almost irredeemably hostile to its users. It's a strategy based on a kind of deception.
The data Facebook gathers is valuable to more than just advertisers. Anyone who investigates Facebook in an unbiased way will find clear evidence that the website is being used for "Intel" purposes, much in the same manner as Google.
There is plenty of admitted precedent for this sort of thing. Project Mockingbird comes to mind. Such gambits show clearly that top companies and their leaders work very closely with Anglosphere spying operations.
The agencies themselves are supposedly hard at work supporting the safety of their respective nations. But in fact, the over-riding focus of Western intelligence has little to do with national security and much to do with building global government. At the very top, they probably work for the "families." That's where the real agenda is set.
In his blog on Facebook, Elliot points out that the cash that Facebook will supposedly generate from its IPO will come in handy in building a "real" company out of one that is playing "small ball."
He makes the point that "marketing doesn't work very well on Facebook," and that Facebook's revenue model is "pretty simplistic" ...
He writes: "For Facebook to become the company it wants to be (and the company investors want it to be), they need to swing for the fences ... Building or buying an ad exchange or a sell-side platform is one obvious way to do this; and they need to work hard on other creative and profitable (and legal) uses of their data as well."
Boil this down and what Elliot is saying is that he is puzzled by Facebook's business model and doesn't believe it's sustainable. And this is the company that Wall Street is valuing at US$100 billion!
Elliot also points out that Facebook isn't especially popular overseas, certainly not as popular as it is in North America and Europe. In countries where there is a lot of "social media," Facebook is doing poorly: Russia, Japan and Korea. Facebook apparently isn't even offered in China.
We're not surprised, of course. Facebook is most popular where Western Intel agencies have the most sway and can exercise the most influence. China doesn't want Facebook gaining a foothold for obvious reasons.
The idea that Zuckerberg is some sort of rogue genius whose implacable vision has swept the world is unrealistic, in our view, and that's putting it mildly. In fact, we're grateful to the Internet for revealing the larger promotional patterns of the Anglosphere power elite when it comes to "global brands" and their marketing.
We used to believe the normative narrative, but no more. We "get it" now. In the 20th and 21st centuries anyway, business and large-scale technology applications are a kind of directed history. Those who are about to try to invest in the Facebook mythology ought to bear this in mind.
If Facebook is not what it seems, then what it is? And if it is something other than what it purports to be, then is it built to last? Or will it be thrown over as soon as it has served its purpose – or when something more useful comes along?
Conclusion: These are not, of course, the normal investing questions that one might ask. But then, these are not normal times.
Posted by seer on 02/17/12 02:28 PM
Dominant social theme: Big Brother is watching Anthony Wile. LOL
Posted by Gregor on 02/04/12 09:01 PM
Advent of Deception earns a C-. If it fully exposed Theil, it would get an A.
Only a biased source could term the former Paypal CEO, Peter Thiel, as "radical conservative" -- using Orwell's memory hole to manage public perception of homosexuals.
Peter Theil is an activist homosexual Bilderberg director! He holds "freedom is fabulous" naked gay parties in his home. His *married* PayPal underling "explores" Bay Area S&M clubs with "friends," and says so on Twitter.
Click to view link
Now, don't you feel safer giving your personal details to these people, and your money to PayPal, which by the way, is not a bank and so has zero consumer protections? (Thiel is a lawyer.)
So, now we know the bias at Advent of Deception. To explore such ponerology read
Click to view link
Click to view link
Makow's site also shows how intelligence agencies since World War Two have crawled with homosexuals. Mind you, he still supports civil unions and was an ex-radical college prof. He is not some Bible thumper. He just sees the Agenda.
Thiel might be official or nonofficial cover, and so got his start (and billions) under "supervision" like Zuck.
Zuck was a pottymouth theif. His "colleagues" dragged him to court for seven figures of hush money about his underhanded betrayal. Thus he was an obvious recruitment candidate for the spooks!
The recent death at a Tracebook competitor was a likely intelligence hit. Even if his first venture failed entirely, that young man could do anything in life. Tracebook spooks just did not want competition and "suicided" him when he refused some go-away money. Notice the neat Mockingbird marketing trick -- how the "stigma" of suicide now attaches. That service can never be "cool" like Tracebook.
My advice? Visit the pub.
People in healthy cultures, not Western, seek real human contact, not computer votes. Something is broken about Tracebook users.
However Tracebook offers a redeeming feature! We can turn this PTB weapon system against them, exposing fake news dramas with our own bigbrother facial recognition.
Click to view link
Posted by EdwardUlyssesCate on 02/02/12 04:36 PM
In-Q-Tel? I know that name. Found it two years ago when I was looking up why they were calling the University of Arizona "A New American University."
Click to view link
The president of ASU? Michael M Crow
Click to view link
The Chairman of the Board of In-Q-Tel? Michael M Crow
Click to view link
Powerful connections, these Facebook people have, huh.
Your tax dollars at work.
Posted by memehunter on 02/02/12 02:15 AM
Yes, it seems like startpage does a great job, much better than ixquick.
Thanks again and please let us know regarding the email service.
Posted by James Jaeger on 02/02/12 01:04 AM
This analysis of FACEBOOK makes sense.
I too have been suspicious of FACEBOOK for quite some time. The first red flag for me was their "friending policy." You have to be a friend of someone on FACEBOOK before you can ask them to be a friend. At first I thought this was a the typical catch-22 insanity the MPAA studios have, but this "insane" policy makes sense if FACEBOOK is a data collection agency for the CIA. What the agents want most is your ALREADY EXISTING network of friends. They don't want and endless ad hoc network of NEW friends you "friend" because this enters "noise" into the network they are trying to data mine, i.e., YOU and your network of established TERRORIST friends. Also, the $100 billion market cap and the sudden Hollywood movies are outpoints as well. I have been asking myself how is this company monetizing its investments? What is $5 billion IPO raise going to buy them? It will be interesting to see. And lastly, why are they now organizing the FACEBOOK members' data into "timelines?" Isn't a timeline one of the first things lawyers assemble of suspects in crimes? So I guess the Anglosphere families consider us all suspects in our rejection of their new world order and so they want to temporally cross-index our activities.
Posted by Asystole on 02/01/12 09:17 PM
I no long use Google now that startpage gives you google results without tracking and logging your searches.
There's also a company starting beta testing an email service which doesn't trackand database your emails like gmail. I'll get back to you guys with the name.
Posted by spekulatn on 02/01/12 08:14 PM
Facebook has filed their IPO prospectus. Zero Hedge is all over it.
Click to view link
Posted by TimurTheLame on 02/01/12 05:38 PM
Good article but shouldn't this understanding be obvious to the discerning reader? By the way all use of alternative search engines, anonymous/proxy identification tools etc are useless if you are a target.
My advice is to get in their face (pun?) and blast out all venom and truth thereby turning the tables on them by capturing their most effective weapon - fear. Don't fear the reaper, they are outnumbered. Shiver their timbers by letting them know it.
This Zuckertwerp is obviously a promotion. His product however is addictive as the Bernays people would have known. 98% of people lead empty lives and now they have been introduced to an opportunity to rectify this impression though they inadvertently prove the original fact. And it is free!
In the larger sense the Facebook phenomenon and other examples like it could be the effective check on DB's Internet Reformation theory -no?
Posted by Don from the Republic of Lakotah on 02/01/12 11:34 AM
"Who are the families?
Who are the elite?
Why doesn't anyone ever name them?
What are you afraid of?"
Many people seem reticent to talk about their personal finances. Perhaps this excerpt from Shapiro's "The Penniless Billionaires" can help you "swing for the fences" around elite secretiveness.
"[The financial] knowledge and sophistication possessed by Alexander [the Great] and his advisers was in no way unique. Many leaders who preceded him and many who were his contemporaries were equally well informed.
Their knowledge had been acquired gradually over centuries and millennia, through trial and error, and had been transmitted by word of mouth from generation to generation. The tribal chief transmitted his hard-won expertise to his son or some other person next in line of succession. Kings instructed their heirs and financial advisers to kings enlightened their sons and successors about the arcane entity called money.
Evidence indicates that the accumulated wisdom was - by design - withheld from the general population. By the beginning of the second millennium B.C., universities in more advanced nations were already offering a wide curriculum, including courses in mathematics, astronomy, biology, religion, agriculture and husbandry, medicine and surgery, philosophy, art, engineering, and writing. But there was no course in finance or economics.
Nor did ancient rulers divulge figures about royal treasuries and governmental expenditures. And, of course, governments did not maintain economic statistics in the modern sense of the word. Heads of government issued proclamations and announcements on a wide variety of subjects ranging from executions to proscriptions against using chamber pots in certain sections of the royal palace. But there were no public communications of any kind about money except in times of emergency.
Money was a royal cabal. Recognizing that money was power - power in the hands of the people which some day might be used against the Crown - the princes of antiquity decided that secretiveness and silence were the best policy. The less said in public, the better - about a potential source of trouble."
Wow. I just parroted "swing for the fences." How retarded is that?
Posted by Bluebird on 02/01/12 10:59 AM
Thanks! Sounds good. Of course it is likely a moot issue, as TPTB can access whatever you have. I have nothing to hide. But it is my small way of protesting the snoops. :-)
Posted by Abe Froman on 02/01/12 10:07 AM
Not to mention on the Sandberg is a trustee at Brookings, on the board of Disney... and according to Wikipedia low an behold the World Economic Forum in Davos in 2008 was the catalyst for her coming on board:
"In late 2007, Mark Zuckerberg, co-founder and CEO of Facebook, met Sandberg at a Christmas party held by Dan Rosensweig; at the time, she was considering becoming a senior executive for the Washington Post Company. Zuckerberg had no formal search for a COO but thought of Sandberg as "a perfect fit" for this role. They spent more time together in January 2008 at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, and in March 2008 Facebook announced hiring Sheryl Sandberg away from Google.
After joining the company, Sandberg quickly began trying to figure out how to make Facebook profitable. Before she joined, the company was "primarily interested in building a really cool site; profits, they assumed, would follow." By late spring, Facebook's leadership had agreed to rely on advertising, "with the ads discreetly presented"; by 2010, Facebook became profitable. According to Facebook, Sandberg oversees the firm's business operations including sales, marketing, business development, human resources, public policy and communications.[
- Wikipedia (Click to view link
Posted by Abe Froman on 02/01/12 09:54 AM
Facebook's "parent" (ala Eric Schmidt at Google)... is COO Cheryl Sandberg. She fits perfectly into this picture given 1) she came from Google (which I believe as also a US Intel Op) 2) she was Larry Summer's protege at Harvard 3) she was his Under Secretary of the Treasury.
It's all very clear. Here Mark... here is a $30 billion for your great idea. Be a good lad and let us take the reigns from here...
Posted by Bobby7 on 02/01/12 04:14 AM
Think CIA involvement!
Think Mossad involvement!
And you would be on the right track!
Posted by memehunter on 02/01/12 02:47 AM
I discovered ixquick a while ago, but I found that I got more results (and more relevant ones) with Google most of the time. From what I've seen, Startpage is a sister site of ixquick (same design), but the difference is that it gives anonymous Google results, while ixquick uses its own system. I have to try Startpage for some time, but I believe the combination ixquick/startpage means that we could get rid of Google entirely.
Posted by Bluebird on 02/01/12 01:10 AM
Wow, thanks! I will give it a try. Regarding my FB comment, a few weeks after I tried the social site and closed my account the next day, I was reading my emails and saw at the bottom it said my mail was showing activity in two other places at that time. I investigated and sure enough, it was FB!
Posted by Bluebird on 02/01/12 01:03 AM
You are probably right, judging by the swiftness of the disappearing act. It was probably not suppose to run. The article I read said it was either a real life version of a well known movie star ship or a giant plug to the underworld. Ha!
Posted by Bluebird on 02/01/12 12:58 AM
It may be me, but my seaches halved in just a few days. Sometimes I have to try several searches to turn up what I was looking for. It was pumping them out before I could get it typed in. At that rate, I would guess 5 years is pushing it. I think they HAVE control.
Posted by Asystole on 02/01/12 12:03 AM
I'll try this again. Check out "startpage dot com" Works great.
Posted by Asystole on 02/01/12 12:01 AM
Check out Click to view link
Posted by Paul P. Wiggins II on 01/31/12 10:19 PM
I've been eyballing the Baltic artifact too. And if it is the real meal deal,
here's bettin' those bounty hunters will never lay a hook on it.