It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Facebook and Twitter are Government "Tools"-Admitted on NPR

page: 1

log in


posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 04:29 PM
Here is the link to the transcript of the story on the 3/8/11 edition of Morning Edition on NPR

A few highlights from the interviewee, James Lewis, director of technology and public policy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

SHAPIRO: Fine, thanks. So how much do these forces - Facebook, Twitter, WikiLeaks - influence America's global agenda?
Mr. LEWIS: I think they've become an essential tool, and it's a tool that we're not always sure what the best way to use it will be. The U.S. can't direct it but it can benefit from it.

Mr. LEWIS: You know, I think the State Department is more like a cheerleader. They think Facebook or Twitter is wonderful and sometimes they'll encourage them to do things. But the tools themselves are actually kind of neutral and so a lot depends on what the people in the country want to do. It's a way to amplify any opposition, it's a way to reinforce it, but it doesn't create

Hmm...I wonder if this is an admission to the fact that the social media use in the Middle East uprisings is being taken advantage of (or perhaps ultimately directed) by the State Dept (read: PTB.)

SHAPIRO: You know, this feels like a very new world that we're talking about, but on the other hand I think of something like the East India Company and I wonder whether this is not a tale as old as time, that an organization that is not a country has tremendous influence on the global stage.

The mention of the East India Company is very revealing in this context as it was heavily connected to the Rothschilds, who are still very much in control of current events on the world stage.

Mr. LEWIS: I don't think Twitter or Facebook or Google or any of these, I don't think they have a political agenda...And that means it's sort of a dance for the State Department - you want to work with the companies to get them to enable the things we like, but at the same time we haven't been bashful about going and saying maybe you should take that guy off Facebook, maybe you should take that guy off YouTube. Can't always do it, but it's definitely a balancing act between the things we like to encourage and the things that could cause us harm.

Here he is plainly stating that the State Dept. at least tries to have a say in who should be removed form FB and YT-those people who go against the agenda. Perhaps those people who get too close to the truth of what is really going on in the world. The US can't have that, it would be 'destabilizing."

This is as close to the truth as I've seen out in the MSM. Disclosure without really saying it out loud. Very interesting.

edit on 15-3-2011 by coyotepoet because: spelling

posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 04:33 PM

change is the only constant, those who think chaos can be stabilized and kept from destabilizing r in for a nasty awakening


log in