The Daily Bell

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 RD 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 model is
simplicity itself and involves little creative content. This is
probably one reason why Facebook is constantly getting into trouble
over its privacy policy. The company really has nothing to offer
but user-driven data.

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.

Reprinted
with permission from The
Daily Bell.

February
1, 2012

Copyright
© 2012 The
Daily Bell