Facebook blocks Jon Rappoport’s articles

Facebook blocks Jon Rappoport’s articles

by Jon Rappoport

February 17, 2013


I became aware of the block and censorship a few days ago, soon after I wrote and published the article: “Ruthless State of the Union: current crime boss speaks.”


That article was about Obama, and it was also about every president as far back as Nixon. It mainly described the absurdities implied by Obama’s vague notion that “we all have to work together.”

Readers began letting me know they couldn’t Facebook-share my articles. This became: no one could share any article that included: “jonrappoport.wordpress.com.”

As a reporter for 30 years, I know a little about the 1st Amendment. Criticizing the president, or the medical cartel, or any number of other institutions I’ve taken on is par for the course. If some Facebook readers are marking these articles spam or abusive, they should think again.

Lots of people these days believe it’s part of the game to try to censor their perceived opponents. “Why debate or even allow a different voice? Let’s just block it out.”

Blocking the FB posting of my article links could also be part of the Facebook management purge of political activists, particularly those who defend the 2nd Amendment and private gun ownership. This happened to a number of people at infowars.com last December, and it also happened at Natural News.

At the moment, I have a workaround in place, and my site and blog are working just fine, but the basic wider issue of blocking dissident opinion isn’t going away.

Some people have pointed out that Facebook is a private company, and therefore it has the right to define acceptable speech any way it wants to. This may be true, but blocking and censoring political viewpoints is a very bad policy. Claiming, for example, that Facebook is only for making and communicating with friends is a cop-out. If friends can’t share information about political realities, it’s a hollow situation.

Many reporters, including myself, came to the Internet because we were sick and tired of trying to convince editors at newspapers and magazines that our work should see the light of day. Editors routinely shot down (and still do) article ideas that wandered too far off the mainstream reservation.

That was the censorship we were leaving in the dust. Now, here it is again.

Every day, I read articles I don’t like. The idea of somehow censoring them would be absurd.

In this country (and other countries), we have people who believe in and support free speech. Then we have True Believers, whose cause in their minds outdistances any considerations about liberty. They would trample liberty at the drop of a hat to make the world over in their image. Finally, we have organizations who enter into covert political alliances to advance their own interests. These organizations also care nothing about the 1st Amendment.

Where is Facebook in all of this? Are they just a front for gathering personal information on a billion people? Are they just another wing of the vast surveillance apparatus that is operating from a playbook that wants androids instead of thinking citizens?

It’s time for the bosses at Facebook to step out into the light and explain, in detail, exactly how they block information and on what grounds. How are reports of spam and “abusive content” processed by their algorithms? What is their position on the 1st Amendment?

Failure to make this clear is evidence of purposeful concealment.

Perhaps an article I wrote and published last August, “Facebook, the CIA, DARPA, and the tanking IPO,” will help put this situation into perspective:

The big infusion of cash that sent Mark Zuckerberg and his fledgling college enterprise on their way came from Accel Partners, in 2004.

Jim Breyer, head of Accel, attached a $13 million rocket to Facebook, and nothing has ever been the same.

Earlier that same year, a man named Gilman Louie joined the board of the National Venture Capital Association of America (NVCA). The chairman of NVCA? Jim Breyer. Gilman Louie happened to be the first CEO of the important CIA start-up, In-Q-Tel.

In-Q-Tel was founded in 1999, with the express purpose of funding companies that could develop technology the CIA would use to “gather data.”

That’s not the only connection between Jim Breyer and the CIA’s man, Gilman Louie. In 2004, Louie went to work for BBN Technologies, headed up by Breyer. Dr. Anita Jones also joined BBN at that time. Jones had worked for In-Q-Tel and was an adviser to DARPA, the Pentagon’s technology department that helped develop the Internet.

With these CIA/Darpa connections, it’s no surprise that Jim Breyer’s jackpot investment in Facebook is not part of the popular mythology of Mark Zuckerberg. Better to omit it. Who could fail to realize that Facebook, with its endless stream of personal data, and its tracking capability, is an ideal CIA asset?

But now the Facebook stock has tanked. On Friday, August 17, it weighed in at half its initial IPO price. For the first time since the IPO, venture-capital backers were legally permitted to sell off their shares, and some did, at a loss.

Articles have begun appearing that question Zuckerberg’s ability to manage his company. “Experts” are saying he should import a professional team to run the business side of things and step away.

All this, despite the fact that Facebook’s first posted revenue as a public company has exceeded analysts’ predictions, according to the LA Times.

This has the earmarks of classic shakeout and squeeze play. It’s how heavy hitters gain control of a company. First, they drive down the price of the stock, then they trade it at low levels that discourage and demoralize the public and even semi-insiders. As the stock continues to tank, they quietly buy up as much of it as they can. Finally, when the price hits a designated rock bottom, they shoot it up all the way to new highs and win big.

And they hold enough shares to exert more control over the company itself.

That is how Facebook will survive. Zuckerberg’s grip on Facebook will loosen.

The company is too important as a data-mining asset of the intelligence community to let it fall into disrepair and chaos. The CIA and its cutouts will save it and gain more power over it. It’s what they’ve wanted all along.

From the time Mark Zuckerberg was a child and attended the summer camp for “exceptional children,” CTY (Center for Talented Youth), run by Johns Hopkins University, he, like other CTY students, Sergey Brin (co-founder of Google), and Lady Gaga, have been easy to track.

CTY and similar camps filter applications and pick the best and brightest for their accelerated learning programs. Tracing the later progress of these children in school and life would be a standard operation for agencies like the CIA.

When Zuckerberg founded an interesting little social network at Harvard, and then sought to turn it into a business, the data-mining possibilities were obvious to CIA personnel. Through their cutouts, as described above, they stepped in and lent a helping hand.

Now it’s time for Zuckerberg to pass the baton to his handlers, so they can maximize the economics of Facebook and utilize it to spy even more extensively.

The media will play along, pretending the eventual upswing-recovery of Facebook stock happens for fundamental reasons connected to the company’s “better level of performance.” The media take this approach to every stock and every company, to avoid letting the public know how massive manipulation actually runs these trading markets.

End of the August 2012 article.

The Matrix Revealed

People might ask, “Then why, Rappoport, do you use Facebook at all?”

That’s a legitimate question. My answer is simple. Since I began working as a reporter in 1982, I’ve used every possible opportunity and venue to put my information out there.

There’s a big difference between that and overtly supporting all those venues.

When I admire a writer, broadcaster, or organization, I say so, and I have. Even then, that doesn’t mean I have to agree with everything they say or stand for.

That’s a distinction with a meaning. It’s exactly the distinction I’m asking Facebook to clarify: what will they allow, whether they agree with it or not?

Do I expect them to spell it out in sufficient detail? No. But then that means something, too.

None of this will change one iota of what I write or say.

Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at www.nomorefakenews.com

28 comments on “Facebook blocks Jon Rappoport’s articles

  1. infinitecontactee says:

    Hmmm… I was not aware of this “revolting development”. How fascist is THAT?!!!

  2. infinitecontactee says:

    OK that was interesting. I just tried to share your link. A message box popped up reading as follows:

    “The content you’re trying to share includes a link that’s been blocked for being spammy or unsafe:


    It’s gettin’ ugly out there.

  3. dachsielady says:

    I think that NOW is the time to start being passive agressive with Facebook and Twitter and PayPal.
    Withdraw from them completely. Some good substitutes should come forward NOW.

    Your information out there at all costs, even the cost of having it abused on Facebook is too high a price to pay. Truth is, we all are just about ” informationed out ” at this dire point in our nation’s survival.

    When you put your information with Facebook, you are “using them” regardless of your motives. You know your information will be abused so your content and good intentions are abused and destroyed as well.

    What we all need now is TRUTH and TRUTH GUIDED ACTION, not more good information only to be accessed in cesspools.

  4. Annabellesmom says:

    I deleted my Facebook account last December when Facebook blocked & censored some of my favorite sites (Natural News, for example.) When I was prevented from seeing Natural News postings in my newsfeed due to the censorship frenzy, that was the last straw for me. I had always had a love-hate relationship with Facebook. Their Spanish Inquisition style of censorship finally convinced me to divorce Facebook. And yes, I came to believe that Facebook is extensively and routinely used by the CIA and NSA to spy on its users 24/7. It’s a pity we must constantly look our shoulders to see who may be spying on us. Big Brother has his tentacled hands and groping fingers in the most inappropriate places.

  5. Anonymous says:

    I’m sharing the crap out of this at face book ..

  6. Emery says:

    Why would anyone waste their time on Facebook? Its a corporate CIA data mining operation.

  7. sickandtired says:

    Jon, I too tried posting a link to this and got the same “spammy” message. So I went to your FB page – https://www.facebook.com/pages/Jon-Rappoport/108820229160887?fref=ts and left the following just to see what would happen “I tried posting a link to your page and told by FB they would not because it was “spammy”. Isn’t that, in a way, slander?” After all, Jon, spam has a negative connotation.

  8. Jon,
    Here is my answer from FB, after reporting this situation when I was blocked. I think we need more people to complain like razy. If you do not have a FB account, get one, so we can get more people to revolt on this horrid state.
    I post your stuff alot. Just this past week and had no problem.

    Haters…Did that to me too. I have to be careful where I post my blog link, cause people who are commenting or on the page can call out your blog in just 2 clicks!

    ” Flag this message
    Re: Blocked from Adding Content
    Monday, February 18, 2013 2:19 AM
    From: “The Facebook Team”
    Add sender to ContactsTo: **me** 🙂
    Thanks for taking the time to submit this report. While we don’t currently provide individual support for this issue, this information will help us identify bugs on our site.

    To get answers to common questions and help from other people on Facebook, visit:


    The Facebook Team”

  9. Eugene Semon says:

    Jon, at some stage you and I have to get together on dissent from HIV causes AIDS paradigm. Tons of funny business here too and we need to meet with (my dear friend) Michael Ellner in NYC to sort it all out.



  10. I tried posting this piece to FaceBook… denied.

  11. Kathy says:

    No worries – we know where to find you! FB is a nice place to share pictures with out of town family & friends, but believe it has been bought out by the powers that be to sell their message only. http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-02-15/facebook-gets-a-multi-billion-dollar-tax-break

  12. Incognita says:

    I’ve been Fakebitch free for close to half a year and the minute I closed my account I felt immense liberation, and the feeling has not ebbed – honest to God I have negative desire to be on that site! Too much hive mind mentality, eerie synchronicity, creepiness, superficiality and high school highly disturbing catty games. Actually I closed my account on the same day as Prince Harry, just how I remember which day it was.

    Strange occurrences, synchronicity in my life. I stepped out of the script of what I fear would have been total individual annihilation, especially/even spiritual, a few years back and I’ve seen the forest for the trees in the interim, incredibly surreal the events that have unfolded, occurrences that would have sent me spiraling into the depths of Hades had I taken a bite of the devil’s cake. This thing even affects my dreams. Feel like I am under attack by the 666 cube. I actually experience two diametrically opposed realities, and no I am not schizophrenic.

  13. Chris says:

    Not to mention I’ve seen kids spend literally days on Facebook just pissing their days away, it gives the illusion of “oh, gotta keep uup with everyone!” as if advancing my station in life is only validated by Facebook. And yeah. I can believe ‘they’ use it to spy. Deleted mine few years ago and never looked back. I try to spread the word of THIS site as much as possible to avoid any links or blocks. We all appreciate and thank you, Jon!

  14. Ryan Ashton says:

    Hi Jon,

    I admire your work tremendously and nearly always agree with you. I think, however, that I may have to disagree with you here. You write:

    “There’s a big difference between that [using a venue merely for disseminating information] and overtly supporting all those venues. ”

    I agree that there is a difference, but I’m not so sure it’s big enough to warrant unrestricted use of such venues. There’s no way around the fact that if you use Facebook (and related venues), then you are supporting them. It’s analogous to buying a product from a store like Walmart. No matter how small your purchase nor how you intend to use what you buy, a sales transaction with them fuels whatever practices they represent. With Facebook, the mere fact that one has an account (nevermind the user’s activity) fuels the interests Facebook represents. While I agree that using Facebook does not equal “overtly” supporting the venue, there remains the question of whether or not your support is benign.

    Given your superb analysis of why not voting in major elections is beneficial, I would connect the boycott of Facebook to similar arguments. If I am pro-abortion (which I happen to be), one might argue that voting for a candidate who will preserve abortions is prudent irrespective of whatever else comes with that presidential “package.” My reply to this, and one I think you may endorse, is that the mere participation in a phony, corrupt “election” where one only has the illusion of choice is far more detrimental than the mere prospect of preserving abortions for a handful of years. In other words, by participating in a staged display of “democracy,” one gives this corrupt enterprise legitimacy; one sanctions it; one, ultimately, perpetuates it. Given this, the best response to the prospect of voting is to boycott the entire system. The boycott demonstrates that one does not compromise on certain principles. The boycott shows that the pretense of legitimate rule by globalists is rejected. Whatever rule the globalists achieve is by way of force, not consent.

    In like manner, a boycott of Facebook demonstrates a refusal to compromise on principles of censorship (not to mention principles of privacy, thoughtful communication, and meaningful relationships). I appreciate attempts by folks like Kimberly who posted previously about emailing Facebook to reason with them, but I see this as analogous to writing your congressman. These attempts to sway the practices of large-scale operations like Facebook and government are not only futile but add legitimacy to those operations. The only thing these organizations fear is the loss of your participation–they could care less if you merely voice “concerns.” By writing them, you in effect are saying, “Hey, just so you know, I’m giving you my attention right now and I care enough about what you do that I’m taking time away from my real life to talk to you.” Just like advertisements, it is your attention that these organizations want. The truly liberated individual is the one who is extraordinarily precise about who or what wins his/her time and attention. Facebook’s entire business is antithetical to what I find worthy of my time and attention. Learning that it is also in the business of censoring some of the finest reporting on Earth only adds to my reasons for continuing to boycott it.

    Thanks again for your insightful work, Jon. I am pleased that I do not need Facebook to read your articles 🙂


  15. John says:

    The Facebook slogan says “Connect and share with the people in your life”. They just don’t tell you how many people are going to be sharing your life after you connect.

    Back in 2004, Zuckerberg admitted that he was harvesting personal information from the “dumb f**ks” using his network for resale to third parties:


    “Even after you remove information from your Facebook profile or delete your account, copies of that information may remain viewable elsewhere to the extent it has [already] been shared with others…”


  16. Anonymous says:

    [Facebook…], I spent part of my youth in a totalitarian system behind the iron curtain in the cold war and I know how data mining that time was working using mind control, snitching, denunciation, checking all possible social connections. So the same working principles FB uses, nothing new maybe just more efficient technology.

  17. […] restricts the usage of individuals who point out that it might have indirect links to the CIA. See here. I did not believe this at first, but I then tried to edit my profile with the phrase […]

  18. […] couple of days ago, famed researcher and highly respected journalist, Jon Rappoport was banned from sharing his articles on Facebook. In this instance of blatant censorship, Jon’s banned […]

  19. Ivy Mike says:

    Facebook: you providing free reality-show content to sponsor marketing efforts to your friends.

    So get off. I did 2 years ago. Here’s how:

    1. Most important step: Delete all friends.
    2. Delete (not merely “inactivate,” look that up) your account, which won’t actually delete for 2 weeks, so you’re tempted to come back.
    3. With all your friends deleted, you can’t go back.
    4. Enjoy a Twitbook free life. Meet real people and play music and talk about books you read and share food and drink wine and sing.

  20. Josh says:

    Copy and Paste. Then replace “.com” with (dot)com and their blocks don’t notice… for now

  21. […] couple of days ago, famed researcher and highly respected journalist, Jon Rappoport was banned from sharing his articles on Facebook. In this instance of blatant censorship, Jon’s banned […]

  22. Axiom says:

    Ax Eye Om on Facebook , is spreading the word !

  23. Axiom says:


  24. Axiom says:


  25. david halsall (@crustysurfer) says:

    i have just sent the complaint in the message box back to FB.. i will update you with news of the answer i get… should be interesting, (if i get one that is!)

  26. […] couple of days ago, famed researcher and highly respected journalist, Jon Rappoport was banned fromsharing his articles on Facebook. In this instance of blatant censorship, Jon’s banned […]

  27. […] couple of days ago, famed researcher and highly respected journalist, Jon Rappoport was banned from sharing his articles on Facebook. In this instance of blatant censorship, Jon’s banned […]


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s