“The case against Clevinger was open and shut. The only thing missing was something to charge him with.”
- Catch 22, Joseph Heller
Facebook – Upside down
On May 18, the Nasdaq IPO of Facebook made headlines around the world. The IPO price of its share was $38; yet, at the trade opening time it was traded at $42.43, it jumped to $43, and then dropped to the starting point of $38. The underwriters supported the stock at this level and caused it to rally back to $41.50. However, by the end of the day, the stock was barely above $38. At this price, Facebook’s market capitalization is around $81 billion. It was the third-highest IPO-day valuation in history, behind only the $19.7 billion raised by Visa in March 2008 and the $18.1 billion raised by General Motors in November 2010. More than 80 million shares changed hands in the first 30 seconds of trading. By the end of the day, around 567 million shares had changed hands. This set a new volume record for IPOs; the previous one was held by General Motors. These numbers are very impressive; however, there are clear hints that we have seen a very clumsy operation by Mark Zuckerberg; it seems he isn’t exactly what he claims to be.
One way of understanding Facebook IPO is as an hysterical success, after all, Facebook barely makes any profits from its customers. Yet, most traders do not react directly to economic data; they speak about “support levels” and “expectations.” A company featuring bad economic data may still see its stock rise if there is a positive sentiment attached to it. Other way of analyzing Facebook’s IPO, is as a colossal failure. The underwriters were forced to support the stock during the trade, and at the end of the day it was barely over its base level. This creates a bad aura around this share that many expected to become the next Superman of Nasdaq. Business Insider posted a poll asking readers where they thought the $38 stock would be by the end of Friday. In the morning of the IPO day, 15% said under $35. The biggest cluster of respondents said somewhere between $40 and 55. 10% predicted the stock would reach over $90 a share. Facebook, ended the day at its starting price, below $40. Most investors will analyze this as disappointing, and would probably shun this new white-elephant. The company doesn’t sell enough, and the market sentiment towards it is not good. Yet, that is not all. There are also serious market reasons for this. Many are of the opinion that comprehensive personal databases as Facebook cannot succeed in the long term. People need privacy. Instead, it is predicted that specialized social media platforms will rise. For example, as described in The Cross of Bethlehem II: Back in Bethlehem, writing the book wouldn’t have been possible without my use of such specialized social media as a safe data storage, hiding everything in plain sight. If this tendency will continue, Facebook is expected to decline in a few years.
Considering the mechanics behind market sentiments and how these polls are done, the failure of Facebook is astonishing. Most of the abovementioned polls, and certainly the public sentiment, are driven by the media. One of the groups involved in the early analysis of the IPO was Meltwater; their digital media intelligence platform scans over 162,000 online publications worldwide in real time. I mention here their data, because they made public an important aspect of the raw data they used. Meltwater claims that there have been over 13,570 online articles of Facebook’s IPO in the 30 days that preceded the event in the US press alone. This is an astonishing number, matching the combined data for the last three large internet IPOs (LinkedIn, Zynga, and Groupon). Over 68% of the coverage was positive while over 31% was is negative. Despite this positive sentiment, the actual result of the trading was almost neutral. One can summarize that American mainstream press supported Facebook and failed in its assessment of the IPO. Was this failure an attempt to drive the market in its favor by Facebook?
If that was so, then Zuckerberg proved his failure to understand the tool he has under his hands. A hint to this was provided by the Wall Street Journal, which recently claimed that more and more hedge funds are using social media insights to build trading strategies. In other words, Facebook has the tool needed to catapult its own IPO into success; instead it apparently attempted to manipulate mainstream media. What was the Wall Street Journal referring to? The prestigious journal used the word “insight” as a euphemism for what is better described as “social media aggregation company.” One of these companies is Gnip, from Boulder, Colorado. They have been dubbed “Grand Central Station for the Social Web,” which is an excellent metaphor. They collect the data passing through open social media platforms (like Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, blog sites and many others) and analyze it. It goes down to the level of tracking single usernames. Beyond the obvious surveillance value of their activity, they can provide market trends. In other words, they can tell you what Facebook users think of the Facebook IPO. This data is provided to companies like hedge funds, which can base their investing strategies on these reports. If I am aware of this, then also the financial assessors of Mark Zuckerberg are. Facebook could have used its power—in several ways, which I won’t analyze here—to manipulate the sentiment of its users towards the issue and henceforth, the evaluation of his company by the sharpest financial sharks in the market. In other words, Facebook could have created using an array of innocent tactics a positive sentiment towards itself and influenced in such a way the market behavior in the IPO day. Instead, Zuckerberg was busy issuing pretty pictures of himself to the media.
This new image of Zuckerberg as an unprofessional toddler is a bombshell. Over the years, Mr. Zuckerberg has developed an image of a slick thief, to the extent that I have asked in the past: Is Zuckerberg Mossad? The life story of Mark Zuckerberg supports such a claim. He was born into a Jewish family; his compromise to Judaism was so significant that he had a Bar Mitzvah at the age of 13. Don’t laugh at this; this isn’t just a familiar event with good food. A Bar Mitzvah is the formal acceptance of Judaism by those born into Jewish families. It isn’t a familiar obligation, but an act of choice. Having grown up in a Communist Kibbutz, I must tell that only a minority of its kids chose to participate in such a questionable event. Yet, our Mark was happy to participate. That means Mark Zuckerberg was in an excellent position to become a formal “sayan” of the Mossad. Former Mossad officer Victor Ostrovsky, in his book By Way of Deception, described the issue of worldwide Jewish-Israeli espionage extensively. The Mossad uses “sayanim,” (“helpers” in Hebrew) or local Jews living in foreign countries as its organizational base. Did Zuckerberg become one? Let’s see. He entered Harvard, and shortly after violated its computers, stealing an important database. He belonged to Alpha Epsilon Pi, a Jewish fraternity. Then, Harvard students Cameron Winklevoss, Tyler Winklevoss, and Divya Narendra accused Zuckerberg of intentionally making them believe he would help them build a social network called HarvardConnection.com (later called ConnectU); in such a way, Mark Zuckerberg stole the technology that allowed him to build Facebook. One could claim that Mossad wanted to get formal access HarvardConnection.com technology. It is useful for monitoring and controlling social networks. Spotting Zuckerberg as a cooperative individual wasn’t hard. Giving him an informal tip on how to break into Harvard’s computers was even easier. Explaining him how to trick out the technology from Cameron Winklevoss, Tyler Winklevoss, and Divya Narendra— none of them would have cooperated with Mossad—was also easy. Afterwards, the marketing of Facebook against other social media networks was easy due to the Harvard connection, everybody wanted to share the splendor of this Ivy-League establishment. Facts speak for themselves: Zuckerberg stole technology in a method not unknown to Mossad.
He belongs to the most faithful recruitment base of that organization. Probably we will never know for sure the exact details.
Zuckerberg public statements support this conjecture. He has an odd attitude towards freedom. On September 2010, he gave an interview to the Oprah Winfrey Show. Among other things he suggested not to talk about politics or religion. “Politics” can be defined as “the peaceful solution of conflicts.” The only alternative to politics is violence and war. Religion defines ones attitude toward God and his fellow humans. As such religion is the base for our politics. There is no other choice for each one of us to be actively involved in both. Any other claim takes us straight into the criminal hands of the Big Brother; every year would become 1984. Zuckerberg may not be the Big Brother, but he is family. I care very little about Mark Zuckerberg’s formal statistics; he was born—at least in spirit—in 1984.
Once Mossad got access to the raw data, it cared very little about what Facebook did. Its interest is to let the patsy organization to work free, for as long as it cooperates with the Mossad reasonable and humble needs to violate our privacy. Yet, in two cases, Facebook backfired. Google, Facebook and Twitter played a key role in the ousting of their favorite yes-man in the Middle East: Hosni Mubarak, the Last Pharaoh of Egypt. A boomerang hit the West. The Israeli support of Mubarak was known to the protesters. Then, it backfired yesterday, when a sloppy Zuckerberg—unable of anything but stealing—ruined the company’s IPO. This failure may cost Mossad its new toy. Zuckerberg’s arrogance led him to a very Jewish attitude: “it will be OK,” meaning there is no need to make efforts. Assassinated Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin used to speak against this attitude. These key events show us that security services are failing to understand the rapid technological development we are experiencing. Our multi-faceted reality has opened way to new ways of information interactions that in a strange way are providing us with strong defenses against our institutional violators. There is hope that soon we will escape this shady version of “1984” we are trapped in. Thank you, Mark!
The author of Philosemitism and Brutality, Andrew Hamilton, expresses some strong views positing a sado-masochistic relationship between the Jewish culture and the “whites” in America. Unlike others who describe gentiles as the dominated majority who lost the competition to a tribal community endowed with better networking, superior drive, intelligence a.s.o., Hamilton thinks the white gentiles actually admire and adore the Jews (as the masochist who loves his sadist) for their brutality, superior to theirs. This may not apply to the whole mass of white gentiles but if it does obtain among the those in the upper echelons (who arrived where they are because of their own brutality and greed) it is sufficient to enhance the success of Jewish power.
So, Jewish culture is like any other, only… more so?
(* Editors note N.B.> Please note Andrew Hamilton’s article makes some interesting points but goes too far in collectively blaming all Jews. Some Jews certainly do succumb to this kind of brutality but he could have been more nuanced in his analysis. Having said that, it is not without merit. )
Gentiles, all Gentiles (well, almost all), love the Jews. More than that, they worship them. Why?
There are many reasons, but one is Jews’ innate brutality.
As Sigmund Freud, following French psychologist Gustave Le Bon, wrote in Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego (1922), a group “respects force,” and “What it demands of its heroes is strength or even violence.It wants to be ruled and oppressed and to fear its masters.”
What are a few things virtually synonymous with Jews?
Communism and the murder of tens of millions in Russia and Eastern Europe, “unconditional surrender,” the Morgenthau Plan, the development of the A-bomb to destroy Central Europe, terrorism, Zionism, Irgun, the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF), Mossad, contemporary war-making, endless foreign intervention and “revolutions from above,” the “Russian” and Jewish mafias, “American” mobsters like Dutch Schultz, Louis “Lepke” Buchalter, and Meyer Lansky, Murder, Inc., the ADL, SPLC, JDL and JDO, AIPAC, the US Justice Department’s Office of Special Investigations (OSI), disgusting decades-long persecutions of Ernst Zündel, John Demjanjuk, and dozens of other innocent people, assassination, torture, political correctness, “hate speech” and “hate crime” laws, replacement migration, and arbitrary imprisonment or reputational and financial ruin for exercising one’s freedom of speech or thought.
Strip away the Persecution Myth, the preposterous fairy tale of the “poor, persecuted Jew,” and one is left with Jews as they really are: wealthy, powerful, domineering, self-centered, greedy, lying, cruel, indifferent to the suffering and rights of others, socially, educationally, financially, politically, and ethnically advantaged, racist, top dog, intolerant, violent, mass murdering, genocidal.
Jews are the Bully writ large, quasi-psychotic, not right in the head. (One of their famous gangsters was nicknamed “Bugsy” for that reason.) Paradoxically, this fundamental disconnect from reality enhances rather than detracts from their power.
Jewish behavior is not constrained by internal morality or external laws. And no de facto countervailing power exists.
When present in sufficient numbers, and their power becomes consolidated, Jews distort both state and culture.
The state becomes little more than a Jewish instrument or tool, a criminal enterprise vested with the veneer of authority. The governments of the world, including transnational and international organizations, are thereby delegitimized. Force and power supplant organic forms of authority.
In the Jewish-Gentile dynamic, Jews represent the masculine principle, whites the feminine, Jews the brutal sadists, whites the adoring masochists. The greater the psychological, emotional, and physical abuse the victims suffer, the more admiring they become. And it is no false adoration.
Whites are demure, available coquettes in the presence of the psychologically commanding Jew.
Fear of the Jews
Closely related to the same Jewish evil is a diametrically opposite response: “fear of the Jews.” Some whites fail to challenge Jewish attacks upon their race, culture, religion, customs, laws, liberties, or persons not because they love Jews, but because they fear them.
Such fear is well-grounded.
Therefore, one might mistakenly imagine that, in general, fear motivates professions and acts of devotion, while secretly abhorrence trumps fealty.
But it seems likely that genuine love for and worship of Jews is a much greater contributor to Jewish success and power than fear.
Still, there remains the issue of widespread ignorance due to lies and censorship. Most whites are probably completely unaware of the truth about Jews.
If they knew it, would they hate them?
Jews assume so. That’s one reason rigid censorship goes hand-in-hand with Jewish power. (Totalitarianism is also innate to them.)
But simply because Jews are convinced the truth would harm them does not make it so. Jews entertain many crackpot notions. Conceivably, currently clueless whites could respond to the truth with heightened adoration.
Yet Jews think not. Perhaps they’re right. At any rate, censorship has become obligatory. It’s good for the Jews!
Living in America is becoming very difficult for anyone with a moral conscience, a sense of justice, or a lick of intelligence. –Paul Craig Roberts
“People without valid information are helpless, and that is where Western peoples are,” writes Paul Craig Roberts.
“The new tyranny is arising in the West, not in Russia and China. The danger to humanity is in the nuclear button briefcase in the Oval Office and in the brainwashed and militant Amerikan (sic) population, the most totally disinformed and ignorant people on earth.”
It’s well-worth following what Roberts has to say. He’s one of the most informed thinkers and writers in America.
Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury during President Reagan’s first term. He authored eight books and was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal. His numerous academic appointments testify to his scholarship.
His experience and breadth of research provide the broad perspectives found in his articles. Roberts is a no-holds-barred writer.
He’s not a partisan writer. “If I had time to research my writings over the past 30 years, I could find examples of partisan articles in behalf of Republicans and against Democrats. However, political partisanship is not the corpus of my writings.”
Roberts has been a severe critic of the media, though he has contributed to the mainstream media like the Wall Street Journal.
He says, “Anyone who depends on print, TV, or right-wing talk radio media is totally misinformed. The Bush administration has achieved a de facto Ministry of Propaganda.”
Commenting on “Americans who rely on the totally corrupt corporate media have no idea what is happening anywhere on earth, much less at home.”
Focusing on Israel, Roberts ridicules the myth that Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East.
“In truth, Israel is a fascist state, one that has been in violation of international law and Christian morality during the entirety of its existence. Yet, in America Israel is a hallowed icon,” he observes.
”Like Bush, Cheney, and Obama, millions of American ‘Christians’ worship Israel and believe it is ‘God’s calling’ for Americans to die for Israel,” Roberts adds.
“Washington cannot exist without conflict. Now that the ‘Muslim threat’ is wearing thin, Washington is stirring up a conflict with China,” argues Roberts.
“China will be presented by Washington and its prostitute media, especially the New York Times, Washington Post, and Murdoch’s collection of whores, as the rising threat to America,” Roberts predicts.
“The US government relies on secret evidence in its cases against alleged terrorists, claiming that national security would be threatened if the evidence were revealed. This is abject nonsense,” concludes Roberts.
“To the contrary, not presenting evidence jeopardizes the security of each and every one of us. Once the government can convict defendants on the basis of secret evidence, even the concept of a fair trial will disappear.”
Roberts challenges mainstream dogma about 9/11:
Having bought the government’s 9/11 conspiracy theory, Americans just want someone to pay. They don’t care who as long as someone pays.
“No more humiliating affront has ever been suffered by a major power than the US suffered on 9/11,” Roberts recalls.
”Yet, absolutely no one, not even some lowly traffic controller, was scapegoated and held accountable for what is considered to be the most extraordinarily successful terrorist attack in human history, an attack so successful that it implies total negligence…”
Occasionally intelligent, well-founded but unpopular views can be found on the internet. Those who have missed Paul Craig Roberts should enjoy the benefit of an awakening, rising above the mindless masses through his wisdom.
“I am Muhammad Ali,
a free name –
it means beloved of God –
and I insist people use it
when people speak to me
and of me.”
By GILLIAN WONG and ISOLDA MORILLO
The Associated Press
At least 34 Buddhist monks, nuns and others in Tibet have set themselves on fire to protest Chinese rule.
China has released a documentary accusing the Dalai Lama of orchestrating a wave of self-immolations by Tibetans, its most elaborate attempt so far to shape international opinion about the protests against Chinese rule.
The documentary, shown globally by state broadcaster China Central Television, features police surveillance footage of the fiery protests. Mostly lone Tibetans are seen ablaze on small town roads before being blasted by security forces with fire extinguishers or covered with blankets.
Tibetans interviewed describe contacting monks living in exile and sending them photographs of would-be protesters — evidence, the documentary says, of collusion. A narrator quotes comments supposedly made by the Dalai Lama in support of the self-immolations together with footage of Tibetans being treated in hospitals for severe burns.
All told, the piece, titled “The Dalai Clique and Self-Immolation Violent Incidents,” marks the government’s most extensive effort to cast blame on the exiled Tibetan spiritual leader for protests that have touched Tibetans emotionally and presented an image problem for Beijing.
At least 34 Buddhist monks, nuns and Tibetan lay people have set themselves on fire in the past 14 months in what Tibetans see as an act of sacrifice to highlight China’s repressive policies on religion and culture.
A spokesman for the self-proclaimed Tibetan government-in-exile in Dharmsala, India, said he had not seen the documentary but denied that the Dalai Lama or exiled Tibetans have been instigating the protests. Instead, he said, Beijing’s policies are causing the protests.
“When the government stops this oppression inside Tibet, the self-immolations will stop. That’s what we hope and believe will happen. But it’s in their hands,” said the spokesman, Tashi, who like many Tibetans uses one name.
“They want to kind of foist their message, a one-sided message, on the rest of the world,” said David Bandurski, a researcher with Hong Kong-based China Media Project.
“If they want to be part of the conversation internationally and influence public opinion, they have to see themselves as part of a kind of dialogue, but they’re not really interested in that kind of dialogue,” he said.
Tsering Woeser, a Tibetan poet and activist, said she found the documentary a disappointing elaboration on the hardline position the government has taken since it poured heavy security into Tibetan areas after a mass uprising against Chinese rule in 2008.
Tibet in Flames