Facebook's Slide Continues Despite the Company's Reach and the Market's Hopes … Facebook shares fell nearly 4 percent on Wednesday to $20.88 — nearly half of what they were worth when the company went public on May 17 … It has been a tough week for Facebook. Last Thursday, the company's shares declined 8.5 percent in regular trading, as investors reacted to the weak earnings report the day before of Zynga, the social gaming site that is a major Facebook partner. Then last Friday, the stock was down again, to slightly under $23 a share in after-hours trading, after Facebook's own earnings report. This week the stock declined steadily each day. – New York Times
Dominant Social Theme: Facebook and social networks in general represent the best of the Internet and the hope of the future.
Free-Market Analysis: We are in our "told you so" mode these past few weeks so we might as well add one more. As reporters on the dominant social themes of the elite, we never believed in the whole social network nonsense.
We wrote several articles about the impending Facebook fiasco. You can see one of our articles here:
And here's an excerpt:
The Economist Magazine is out with an article entitled "The end of mass media: Coming full circle." It actually provides us with a kind of sub-dominant social theme – that "social media" take us back to the pamphleteering days of Samuel Johnson, Ben Franklin, Thomas Paine and others.
This has been, in a sense, a message of ours for many years. And here at DB, we've regularly compared the output of the Gutenberg Press and its revolutionary influence to the Internet. The Economist is about 10 years late in joining the party.
Even so … The Economist is making the wrong comparison and doing it on purpose. Blogs and websites are a far more appropriate comparison to the Gutenberg Press than "social media."
This was our conclusion then and even more so now. The powers-that-be are proponents of social media because social media is eminently controllable, trackable and traceable.
Blogs and social networks are fundamentally dissimilar. Mark Zuckerberg has a good deal of control over "his" network. Over time, it could be argued, Facebook will begin to monitor conversations and might even take steps to bar or ban speech considered offensive to the power elite that is intent on creating global governance.
Facebook, in our view, is part of this larger effort. The Internet is a fairly subversive place from the point of view of the elites and they would like nothing better than to control and neuter it. Facebook is thus a kind of Trojan horse. Using Facebook, the powers-that-be hoped to give the impression of fostering controversial conversation on the Internet without the reality.
Many news and media websites now allow Facebook to monitor and organize their feedback queues. It is unheard of for news organizations to give over control of their "letters" facility to an outside entity, especially one that is not a news organization.
But somehow Facebook has ended up as the de facto arbiter of feedback commentary throughout the English-speaking world. Very strange.
Or possibly not if you adopt our (and others) paradigm and simply accept that a handful of dynastic families own and run most of the West's important, mainstream media and much of its multinationals as well.
Look at Facebook's penetration of commentary streams from this point of view and it makes perfect sense. The one area of mainstream media where the elites did not have control was in feedback.
But now, thanks to Facebook, the powers-that-be are busily aggregating feedback replies from throughout the blogospere, including email addresses and other user information. The database that Facebook can compile will be enormous and of great use, no doubt, to its CIA handlers.
Which brings us to another issue, which is Facebook's revenue and profitability. The powers-that-be have surely provided Facebook with a neat business by allowing Facebook to build a business out of managing big media feedback streams. But as we have pointed out in the past, along with other alternative news sites, Facebook is really a vast enterprise that has no business purpose. There is no "there" there.
You can see one of our articles on this topic here: "Facebook IPO is US Intel Operation?"
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.
We were most dubious about the ultimate success of the IPO as well. In the same article, we wrote:
Google provides a service – a search algorithm. Microsoft provides computer software. Apple provides innovative and beautiful software … And what about Facebook? It sells "connectivity" – but really, that's a fairly ubiquitous thing in this era of technology togetherness.
One can connect in many ways. Thus, Facebook's barrier to entry is exquisitely thin. It can be undone at any time. Anyway, connectivity doesn't seem to us to be a very good business model. A business model, after all, involves money – invoices and payments.
What exactly is the bottom line for Facebook? As we tried to point out previously, the viewers themselves are not easily monetized. Many of Facebook's users may have double or triple accounts. Many may not use the system very often.
Essentially, the company is worth whatever information it can pilfer from its client base. And that information may be worth more to the American intelligence companies that apparently crowd around Facebook than to the private sector itself.
This is a company, then, that is fundamentally at war with its users. It provides the "thinnest" of services – social connectivity.
We are not surprised that Facebook has shed about 50 percent of its value since its IPO. It merely confirms our perception about the tremendous arrogance of US Intel and the contempt it has for average citizens.
Even were Facebook's value to double (bringing it back to the initial IPO), the fundamental contempt of the elites and their proxies has surely been reconfirmed.
The control of the stock market and the financial pornography that has accompanied its functioning over the past decades has all led to this penultimate moment when a dubious investment provided the pace for a sputtering market.
When the real history of the current globalist conspiracy is written, it will be seen that the Facebook IPO and its failure mark yet another turning point in the elite's increasing "coming out."
In this era of the Internet, much is made clear that was confused before. Facebook is not merely a company or IPO. It is also increasingly an object lesson in how elites manipulate markets and attempt to disguise their evident and obvious control.