Feeds:
Posts
Comments

SMC_Facebook_2

We are going to have to rebuild within this wild-wild-west-of-information flow some sort of curating function that people agree to,” said then President Obama in Pittsburgh in October 2016.

The President continued, “There has to be, I think, some sort of way in which we can sort through information that passes some basic truthiness tests and those that we have to discard, because they just don’t have any basis in anything that’s actually happening in the world.”

In the opinion of this author, those are some of the most chilling words any president has even spoken. In all but name, Obama called for the government to establish a 1984 style ministry of truth. Perhaps more chilling, not many people took notice or seemed to care.

Perhaps the lack of attention could be chalked up to the timing of Obama’s remarks, made, as they were, less than a month before the most contentious presidential election in recent memory.

In light of the events of the last two years, and especially those of last week, a week that saw the coordinated takedown of Alex Jones by the biggest social media platforms, it’s this author’s contention that Obama’s statement ought to be seen as a declaration of war by the deep state on internet free speech.

Continue Reading »

FacebookIn the wake of the simultaneous banning of Alex Jones from a number of major social media platforms, some professed conservatives have argued that this was not a violation of the first amendment.

Why is that? As David French argued in his recent New York Times editorial, “[T]here is not First Amendment violation when a private company chooses to boot anyone off a private platform.”

Many times in this space I have argued for the right of private companies to ban whom they wish for whatever reason they wish, for the simple reason that, quite literally, it’s their business.

But when it comes to social media giants such as YouTube (wholly owned by Google), Facebook and Twitter, are these organizations as private as they make themselves out to be.

Google has many known links to the CIA, for example.

And Facebook? It would seem that it’s not free from government influence as well.

For example, just this spring, Facebook excitedly announced a partnership with the Atlantic Council, which, “would help it [Facebook] better spot disinformation during upcoming world elections,” say, for example, the November mid-terms.

So just what is the Atlantic Council? Facebook’s announcement described it as a “Washington D.C. – based think tank.” This is true but inadequate.

There are lots of think tanks based in Washington D.C., but the Atlantic Council is a special kind of think tank. You see, the Atlantic Council is NATO’s think tank. And NATO is largely funded by the US government. It would even be fair to say that NATO is part of the globalist Deep State security industrial complex.

So what you have here is a private company partnering with a public institution. A merger of state and corporate powers, if you will.

And what is the name used to describe the merger of state and corporate powers?

The merger of state and corporate powers is the classic definition of fascism.

So was Facebook’s banning of Alex Jones just Mark Zuckerberg minding his own business in his own way, or was it the result of his new found partnership with the Deep State in the form of the Atlantic Council?

We can’t say for sure, but I don’t like the smell.


%d bloggers like this: