|Print Screen 1|
Is Facebook's unpopular feature that shows related stories intended to downplay those that might play against globalist interests? The question arises partially because only select articles have these related stories tacked onto them, causing one to consider why they were selected. Is it random every time a newsfeed is generated, or is it Facebook-targetted in some other way? Are Mark Zuckerberg's interests on display? Mark Zuckerberg's Bilderberg Group association could be a factor.
The Bilderberg Group is a secretive conclave of mega-rich elitists who wish to create a one world government. The rumors are, backed by leaks and documentation, that the ultimate goal is a worldwide system in which the rule of the elite is secured while the remainder of humanity is enslaved.
However, not all stories selected for this system are necessarily related to globalists interests. Here, we look at three that could be.
In the example above, concerning ebola, the top story deals with a sore issue which, now that the election is over, seems to have become a bit of a hot potato. The very negative top story, which details a settlement involving hush funds, is followed by three more cheerful ebola stories. Just coincidence? How are these stories selected, we might ask.
It is known there are directives to not say the word ebola at health facilities and at Chick-fil-A. However, the CDC and Obama have repeatedly treated ebola as if it were just a menstrual version of the common cold, coming on as a monthly friend as it were, for it shall pass. You know, with DEATH and onto others.
One might point out that the visit by George W. Bush didn't pull there heartstrings, but many a common citizen will just see that, think "that was nice of him," and float back into Zombieville.
And then we have the ebola dog story. Human interest tear jerker crap is actually kind of crass here, and perhaps a good argument for Facebook to stop this practice.
The final story, about Obama's fundraising efforts, might immediately beg the questions: "Didn't this guy just start a war against ISIS (and thereby Syria) without congressional go-ahead? Why the hell he gotta ask?"
Plus Obama sent the troops there without proper medical preparation, and frankly, the whole adventure is pretty mysterious and suspect.
|Print Screen 2|
Here's it is important to remember that Mark Zuckerberg once gave a keynote speech for the Bilderberg Group titled : "Privacy, or How I learned to Stop Worrying and Trust the NSA."
It's important to remember that the internet started out as a government national security project. It was the result of taxpayer monies, but has since been turned into a corporate commodity as well. Nonetheless, the NSA's extreme interest in the internet is rooted in its origins. It would seem that the least the government could do, if it is to monitor all internet activity, is to make sure it is freely available.
The Cybersecurity Bill (CISA) basically seems to further back up the user-posted piece. In fact, it gives it more punch as the user might realize they've forgotten about (or never noticed) the CISA bill.
However, the 2nd story says the Senate is trying to rein in NSA spying, which contradicts the Guardian's thesis. So now, the user might think that the older story is out of date, and the top piece is a paranoid, speculative, and (if you're a United States citizen) foreign bit of sensentionalism. However, this 2nd story could also be seen to enhance the controversy because the Senate is described as lame duck, which carries a negative connotation. Again, it is worth remembering many Facebook users react merely to titles.
The 3rd story also might serve to bolster the controversy here as Edward Snowden is presented, the most well-known proponent of a private internet.
If these stories are related by a automatic process, perhaps the top Print Screen was merely an anomaly. However, if they're related by a more deceptive process, the bottom selections might indicate an awareness that the controversy is quite public (and less shrouded in mystery than the ebola stories are), and that the public has become quite used to government spying. So, the impression is that the government should slowly retreat from this process, rather than further entrench it.
At the end of the day, many argue (and I would agree) that the government is disallowed from spying on citizens without proper due process, period (ala the 4th Amendment). So, for the impression here to be that we might be powerless to stop this ongoing infringement could be one point of these selections of related stories. Problematically, many in the United States prefer security to freedom and aren't particularly concerned with surveillance to begin with, so the gentle watering down with the confusing 2nd story about the lame duck Senate might be all that is needed to throw off the naysayers who find the Guardian piece controversial.
|Print Screen 3|
Again, if one considers Mark Zuckerberg's Bilderberg Group association, it's easy to see why the related stories were selected here. The Bilderberg Group supports globalization, and this deal enhances international cooperation on energy.
The first story builds on the two-party controversy. However, it was generated by AP, another organization with globalist interests.
The 2nd story continues the thread, coming from a liberal publication ensuring us that the GOP which was just placed in control of both houses of congress can't stop this deal.
The final piece is from the Onion. Here one might get the impression the Onion is mocking conspiracy theorists. However, a closer read may suggest the opposite.