Famous figures who should immediately be banned by Facebook

Famous figures who should immediately be banned by Facebook

by Jon Rappoport

April 12, 2018

Don’t hesitate. These persons are a danger to the community. Facebook should ban them immediately, before their dangerous word-viruses infect the brains of a billion users.

“We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.” (John F Kennedy, 1962)

Outrageous. Ban him. Everyone knows unpleasant facts and competitive values make people feel unsafe. These are micro-aggressions, and anyone who supports them should have his Facebook page taken down.

“We are in the same tent as the clowns and the freaks—that’s show business.” (Edward R. Murrow, CBS news anchor)

Ban Murrow. He is attacking his own profession and making a mockery of it. By extension, he can be seen to prefer some other kind of news. Who knows what that is? Mainstream news is real news. Other news is fake.

“Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people, who have a right…to that most dreaded and envied kind of knowledge, I mean, of the characters and conduct of their rulers. Rulers are no more than attorneys, agents, and trustees, of the people; and if the cause, the interest, and trust, is insidiously betrayed, or wantonly trifled away, the people have a right to revoke the authority that they themselves have deputed, and to constitute other and better agents, attorneys and trustees.” (John Adams, 1765)

Adams is proposing nothing less than the right of the people to remove their rulers. In some cases, this would be useful, but as a general proposition, it is incendiary. His statements would trigger many people. Adams is committing hate speech. Ban him.

“The moment we no longer have a free press, anything can happen. What makes it possible for a totalitarian or any other dictatorship to rule is that people are not informed; how can you have an opinion if you are not informed? If everybody always lies to you, the consequence is not that you believe the lies, but rather that nobody believes anything any longer. This is because lies, by their very nature, have to be changed, and a lying government has constantly to rewrite its own history. On the receiving end you get not only one lie—a lie which you could go on for the rest of your days—but you get a great number of lies, depending on how the political wind blows. And a people that no longer can believe anything cannot make up its mind. It is deprived not only of its capacity to act but also of its capacity to think and to judge. And with such a people you can then do what you please.” (Hannah Arendt, 1974)

She is implying that the mainstream press is lying to the people. This is forbidden. Establishment news is our only source of vetted truth. Everything else must be filtered by fact checkers. Take down her Facebook account. Ban her.

“At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed that all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to say this, that or the other, but it is ‘not done’ to say it, just as in mid-Victorian times it was ‘not done’ to mention trousers in the presence of a lady. Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness. A genuinely unfashionable opinion is almost never given a fair hearing, either in the popular press or in the highbrow periodicals. (George Orwell, 1972)

We know all about Orwell. He champions the idea that mainstream authority, and the press, are perverting truth on an ongoing basis. He might well represent independent media. He needs psychiatric treatment. Ban him.

“Private property … has led Individualism entirely astray. It has made gain not growth its aim. So that man thought that the important thing was to have, and did not know that the important thing is to be. The true perfection of man lies, not in what man has, but in what man is.” (Oscar Wilde)

This is a borderline case. We’re not sure where Wilde stands on the issue of private property. Is he completely against it? If so, leave his Facebook account alone. We’re submitting this quote to the fact checkers.

“He who dares not offend cannot be honest.” (Thomas Paine, 1776)

A troublemaker. Offending people triggers them. They feel unsafe. They suffer. Has Paine posted photos of family picnics, birthday parties? No. He prefers to disturb the community. Ban him.

“Goebbels was in favor of free speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you’re really in favor of free speech, then you’re in favor of freedom of speech for precisely the views you despise. Otherwise, you’re not in favor of free speech.” (Noam Chomsky)

This is the old view of free speech. Now we know that a preferred set of values determines the kind of speech allowed vs. the kind of speech that should be blocked. Take down Chomsky’s Facebook account.

“…Facebook and the tech industry are located in Silicon Valley, which is an extremely left-leaning place…” (Mark Zuckerberg)

Do not post this statement on Facebook. It transmits the wrong impression. Facebook censorship is based on true ideals and premises, not left-leaning values. Issue Zuckerberg a warning. If he persists in this language, suspend his account. Keep in mind that Facebook only has 2 billion users. There are 7.5 billion people on Earth. Why is Zuckerberg so far behind in securing the goal of EVERYONE having a Facebook account?

Exit From the Matrix

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, Exit From The Matrix, click here.)

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. 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 NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

18 comments on “Famous figures who should immediately be banned by Facebook

  1. Kenneth T. says:

    For every action (or spoken word) there is a not entirely an equal response. Freedom of speech can not be denied *** I believe the Bill of Rights guarantees this.
    Of course, that being said, if what is said upsets someone, they have every right to tell me about it.

    Facebook is nothing less than a thorn in the side of society.

  2. truth1 says:

    So many good quotes. What I find most disturbing is how the average person has gone along i with banning free speech, which as far as I know, is the quickest way I know to martial law and death camps.

  3. Jodrphine Lee says:

    Well since Suckerberg was finally called out ……..Facebook had important questions to answer. These senators didn’t do their homework. Half of them were ‘democrat’ !

  4. Reblogged this on John Barleycorn and commented:
    Cancelled all Google accounts, Facebook, and Twitter. Life is good.

  5. Erika says:

    When you have a public that CANNOT REASON, and has to have someone do that FOR THEM, then it is OBVIOUS that they are a danger to themselves and others…especially when they get flawed or false information.

    Don’t believe me?


    Ideas CAN kill, we have seen that, history shows that.

    You are operating from the false assumption that the American populace is much more capable of reason than it actually is..

    I just sat an listened to some guy argue about god’s existance because the bible says he does..how do you know the bible is true?
    because it says it is true. He spent a half an hour trying to understand that people needed actual evidence and reason..and he still could not get the fact that not everyone accepts the bible as valid evidence and kept quoting the bible to back up his point.

    It is NOT just religious folk either, most of the people i come in contact with have the attention span pf gnats, and cannot follow more than a two line argument.
    Their eyes literally start glazing over if you make an argument that is over two statements long.

    When you have a population that is that infantile, then you necessarily have to limit their information.

    • From Quebec says:

      Erika, if they had limited their information, you would not know how infantile they are.

      And, for your information, the people they ban on Facebook are usually either republican, patriot and pro Trump. Never will they ban a stupid leftist idiots. And it is good, since we realize who we are against. You can’t fight what you can’t see.

      • Erika says:

        Again, that is not true…it is widely publicized as fact when it is not true.

        Youtube does not ban right wing cranks like Alex Jones, neither does Flakebroke.
        In fact Yourtube REFUSES to take Alex Jones down, which makes me think he may be an intel shill…

        Almost all Alt Right pundits AND most of the conspiracy cranks- are funded by billionaires.

        A billionare started the current conspiracy genre with the crazy kook John Birch Society whose REAL aim was to REVERSE THE NEW DEAL and turn the US into a country run by an oligarchy of billionaires (and they succeeded)…sure they pretend to support American “freedoms” , but their real purpose is to turn taxpayer dollars over to billionare pockets by getting their boys into office e.g.Trump Tax cuts…so that welfare whores like Boeing and Lockheed can funnel more money from my pockets for into Major shareholders pockets (major shareholders joint board members on multiple Fortune 500 boards) and for useless toys and deployments..

        BTW US has 8000 military installations worldwide WHICH SUBSIDIZE GLOBALIZATION FOR Said fortunate 500 board members enrichment, by forcing client states to adopt Crony Capitalism.

        The US and it’s NATO allies have so far genocided 1.5 BILLION people on this planet for the American Oligarchy (a criminal syndicate) in the last 60 years.
        Where do they get the money? Taxpayer’s pockets- normal “Defense” WAR Department funding, and raiding social security and social program funding on a regular basis.

        They never ban the real KOOKS, the billionare funded Alt Right.

        I KNOW about it because i am not silly enough to actually rely on Youtube or Flakebroke for my news, nor do i listen to the compromised NPR, but actually READ, especially other countries news, media watch websites..etc

        Us “stupid leftists idiots” know some history, we know about death squads trained and funded by US government in south America, we know about democratically elected foreign heads of state ASSASSINATED by US government, we know about the US goverment (with the UK ) fire bombing Fallujah with white phosphorus, among other WAR crimes.

        We :” Stupid leftist idiots” also know that the Democratic Party are shills for the same Oligarchs. We know that Hillary Clinton committed a WAR CRIME regarding Libya and Gaddafi. (Gadaffi was repeatedly SODOMIZED by NATO soldiers posing as “rebels” until he died- his real crime? nationalizing the oil fields)

        But we “stupid leftist shills” didn’t hear about this on Youtube or Flakebroke or any other flatulent intel shill outlet.
        But then if it isn’t on popular intel shill websites then “it doesn’t exist”, right?

  6. Reblogged this on amnesiaclinic and commented:
    Clever – except it might well happen.

  7. From Quebec says:

    I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it. Evelyn Beatrice Hall

  8. Larry says:

    Now hold on, Rappoport – the next thing you’ll be claiming is the Russians did NOT use Facebook to sway the American electorate to vote for Donald Trump!


  9. the postman says:

    “Fact checking” is an idiotic idea on its face because no person or organization can or should be an arbiter of truth–not even scientific organizations. Why? Because, to further that particular example, science is no longer science once it disallows being challenged. This is because the testing of a fact, a theory or an hypothesis is a part of real science. Without this feature, science becomes merely pseudo-science. Likewise, the same can be said of history. Once a historical belief can no longer be challenged, the very process of discovering the historical truth becomes “pseudo-history” or perhaps “historical propaganda” but it can no longer be called “history”. And since news is but history in the making, it too is something that cannot simply be asserted without allowance for dissenting views… Fake news is a media outlet like CNN caught staging an interview with a company contractor pretending that he’s a Trump protester. Fake science is an organization like NIST or NOAA refusing to openly share their in-house data that later becomes the basis for domestic or foreign policy. Fake history is disguising a Malthusian agenda as a grass-roots, conservation movement!!! — the Postman ( truthbetold.strangled.net )

  10. Ri-chard says:

    Jon, the following is an account of the history of the snakes in the swamp not taught in government run school systems. that is unless you tool classes on international business and law taught by a Jesuit. This is not a good read for those suffering from cognitive dissonance. However, I’m hoping your readers will be stimulated to research these indisputable facts.and determine what corrective actions should be taken and who to call on for enforcement of those actions.

    There was a time before the year 1066 the people of England held Allodial title to their land. Not even the king could take the land for not paying a tithe/tax. William the Conquer came in 1066 and stole the Kings Title and took the land of the people. From William I, 1066, to King John, 1199, England was in dire straits. It was bankrupt. The King invoked the Law of Mortmain, the dead man’s hand, so people couldn’t pass their land on to the church or anyone else without the King’s permission, (modern day probate?). Without Mortmain the King would lose the land he controlled. The Vatican didn’t like that because the King owed a lot of pounds to the Vatican. (WHY?)

    (1). King John refused to accept The Vatican’s representative, Stephen Langton, whom Pope Innocent III installed to rule England (religious or in fact?) (2) In 1208 England was placed under Papal interdict(?). (Interdict means a prohibition.)

    King John was excommunicated and in trying to regain his stature he groveled before the Pope and returned the title to his kingdoms of England and Ireland to the Pope as vassals, and swore submission and loyalty to him. King John accepted Langton as Archbishop of Canterbury, and offered the Pope a vassal’s bond of fealty and homage. Two months later, in July of 1213, King John was absolved of excommunication, at Winchester, by the returned Archbishop of Canterbury, Langton. On October 3, 1213, by treaty, King John ratified his surrender of his kingdoms to the Pope, as Vicar of Christ who claimed ownership of everything and everyone on earth as tradition.

    Question 1. Where in the Bible did Jesus give any man this kind of power over all men and land? He didn’t. He did not create a religion nor did he create the office of Pope.
    Question 2. Can you have a third party break a contract between you and another person under duress..? Don’t those of you who are forced into a contract reserve all your rights under modern UCC 1-207 and claim UCC 1-103?

    The contract (treaty of 1213) was between two parties. Now the Barons of England would not put up with being slaves anymore so they took to the sword and made King John sign the Magna Charta. So doesn’t this act of the Barons violate the principle of natural law, when they created the Magna Charta, as having no force and effect upon a contract between two parties? Well Pope Innocent III, the other contracting party thought so, for he declared the Magna Charta to be: “. . .unlawful and unjust as it is base and shameful. . . whereby the Apostolic See is brought into contempt, the Royal Prerogative diminished, the English outraged, and the whole enterprise of the Crusade greatly imperiled.” Quoted from G.R.C. Davis: Magna Charta. Trustee of the British Museum. London. 1965.

    The Pope, in order to introduce strife in England and Ireland that would help him, used Jesus teachings to his advantage that is verified in the Gospels by two of His Apostles. So St. Levy (Mark 2:14; Luke 5:27), alias Matthew, cites Jesus at Matthew 10::34-36 and Luke 12:49, 51-3. Nothing reveals the antithesis of government and religion more clearly than these facts.
    Question 3. What did the contract of 1213 A.D. create? A TRUST or CONTRACT. Only the two parties, the King’s heirs and the Pope, can break the contract. For the Trust /Contract cannot be broken as long as there are heirs to both sides of the contract.

    At this time in history we now know who controlled the Kings of England and the land of the world. For Now we have the Pope claiming the whole Western Hemisphere besides Europe. The Holy See of Antioch ruled all the easterly side and the Holy See of Alexandria ruled the western side, so there was a conflict. (3)

    So, on with the story. The King’s explorers had come to America to claim dominion over land by deceiving and murdering the natives, the American Indians. The King operated under the treaty of 1213 and everything was going along okay until the 1770’s when the bunch of rogues called the “Founding Fathers” decided they wanted the benefits but not pay the taxes to the King. They, being lawyers, and professional educated men, didn’t know they were still under the Pope’s control? Their lies and fraud now would affect the American colonies and the people who lived on the land.

    Those common people who fought in the American Revolution were unaware that the 1213 treaty still ruled despite the fact they THOUGHT the Magna Charta was a viable piece of work.(4) The Declaration of Rights in 1689 declared the Rights of the British subjects in England. At the end of the English Declaration it stated at Section III ” …that should any of the Rights just mentioned be in violation of the HOLY ALLIANCE (1213 Treaty), …it is as if this Declaration was never written”.

    So we know that the English Declaration didn’t fly, so what makes you think the 1774 Declaration of Rights in this British Colony would work. Weren’t these people doing the same thing as the Barons did in 1215 A.D. to King John? A contract is a contract. Look at Article 1, Section 10, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution. Can anyone obligate a contract? Were the “founding fathers” trying to obligate a contract between two parties that still have heirs living today?

    Question 4. How important is the “ultimate benefactor”, the Pope, The HOLY SEE, in the scheme of things? Move through history till modern times and pull Public Law 88-244, which follows Public Law 88-243 – the institution of the law- merchants Uniform Commercial Code. Are you shocked that the Pope is listed in this Public Law? […]

    [Ed note: truncated]

  11. JB says:

    Its good to see Jon referencing Hannah Arendt. Every parent should introduce their child to her writings. And then Eric Hoffer. And then…

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.