Will Elon Musk keep the top person at Twitter who censored and banned conservatives on the Big Tech giant once he takes over?
Vijaya Gadde is responsible for the censorship and banning policies at Twitter. She is famous for this and apparently took great pride in it. In her role she allows the Ayatollah of Iran to promote hate speech on the platform but she took down the account of the leader of the free world, President Donald Trump.
Ms. Gadde through her actions has little regard for the first amendment in the US Constitution which protects free speech. The far-left Democrat Party and communists around the world praise her work. She took down Trump – the biggest and best Twitter user in history – because she and her top management colleagues just didn’t like him. She didn’t hide it.
Vijaya tweeted openly about President Trump who beat the corrupt Clinton and Obama machines and made America prosperous and the world safe again. But she didn’t like him and those who supported him.
Writing for the Jeff Bezos-owned Washington Post in 2015, Gadde argued that certain users were trying to “silence discourse in the name of free expression.”
“I’m often inspired by the vigorous debates on controversial issues that occur on Twitter, but I’ve also been seriously troubled by the plight of some of our users who are completely overwhelmed by those who are trying to silence healthy discourse in the name of free expression,” she wrote.
As Breitbart News previously profiled, Gadde has a history of donating to Democrats and even publicly defended Yoel Roth, a Twitter official responsible for fact-checking policy, when he called members of the Trump administration “Nazis.”
“No one person at Twitter is responsible for our policies or enforcement actions,” she said. “We are a team with different points of view and we stand behind our people and our decisions to protect the health of the public conversation on our platform.”
Far-left Politico reported on Gadde’s response to Musk’s purchase of Twitter:
Shortly after billionaire Elon Musk bought the powerful social media platform, top Twitter lawyer Vijaya Gadde called a virtual meeting with the policy and legal teams she oversees to discuss what the new ownership could mean for them.
Gadde cried during the meeting as she expressed concerns about how the company could change, according to three people familiar with the meeting. She acknowledged that there are significant uncertainties about what the company will look like under Musk’s leadership.
Twitter spokesperson Trenton Kennedy said Gadde became emotional when discussing her team’s impact and the pride she feels in them.
Under Gadde’s tenure, Twitter got further and further left, eventually banning the President of the United States. When confronted on Twitter’s rules that go against US free speech law three years ago, Gadde ignored the fact that Twitter was a US company and instead claimed its users were global. This appeared to be the justification for banning conservatives on the site.
Ms. Gadde was behind the company’s policies that banned huge numbers of conservatives. President Trump was banned because Twitter determined that the President was behind the violence at the US Capitol on Jan 6, 2021. Yet, the site took down the President’s tweet condemning the violence and telling people to go home.
When others shared documents from Hunter’s laptop they were banned claiming this was basically Hunter’s material and therefore the person sharing the material needed to obtain his approval before sharing, totally discounting the fact that Hunter lost that ownership when he signed a contract with a PC repairman.
Americans hope and pray that the company under Elon Musk addresses Twitter’s bias and protects free speech while censoring Twitter’s bias.
The US lied about Russia moving chemical weapons to the border of Ukraine, lied about China giving Russia arms, and lied about Putin being misled by his advisors as part of an “info war” with Russia, according to a new report from NBC News.
It was an attention-grabbing assertion that made headlines around the world: U.S. officials said they had indications suggesting Russia might be preparing to use chemical agents in Ukraine.
President Joe Biden later said it publicly. But three U.S. officials told NBC News this week there is no evidence Russia has brought any chemical weapons near Ukraine. They said the U.S. released the information to deter Russia from using the banned munitions.
It’s one of a string of examples of the Biden administration’s breaking with recent precedent by deploying declassified intelligence as part of an information war against Russia. The administration has done so even when the intelligence wasn’t rock solid, officials said, to keep Russian President Vladimir Putin off balance. Coordinated by the White House National Security Council, the unprecedented intelligence releases have been so frequent and voluminous, officials said, that intelligence agencies had to devote more staff members to work on the declassification process, scrubbing the information so it wouldn’t betray sources and methods.
The US lied about WMDs, lied about Saddam working with Al-Qaeda, and lied about Assad gassing his own people.
On the same note, they lied about Trump being in bed with Russia and lied about Jan 6 being an “insurrection.”
To suggest our intelligence community putting out phony intel is a “break” from the past is just comical. It’s also comical to suggest this propaganda was to target Putin and not con the war-weary general public into supporting the war effort.
As the war has proceeded, the administration has used intelligence to warn of possible Russian actions and draw attention to Russian military failings.
At times, the Biden administration has released information in which it has less confidence or about things that are possible rather than truly likely.
Last week, U.S. officials told reporters they had intelligence suggesting Putin is being misled by his own advisers, who are afraid to tell him the truth.
But when Biden was asked about the disclosure later in the day — after it made headlines around the globe — he was less than definitive.
“That’s an open question. There’s a lot of speculation,” Biden told reporters. “But he seems to be — I’m not saying this with a certainty — he seems to be self-isolating.”
The degree to which Putin is isolated or relying on flawed information can’t be verified, said Paul Pillar, a retired career U.S. intelligence officer. “There’s no way you can prove or disprove that stuff,” he said.
Two U.S. officials said the intelligence about whether Putin’s inner circle was lying to him wasn’t conclusive — based more on analysis than hard evidence. Other officials disputed that, saying the intelligence was very reliable and had been vetted at the highest levels.
In another disclosure, U.S. officials said one reason not to provide Ukraine with MiG fighter jets is that intelligence showed Russia would view the move as escalatory.
That was true, but it was also true of Stinger missiles, which the Biden administration did provide, two U.S. officials said, adding that the administration declassified the MiG information to bolster the argument not to provide them to Ukraine.
Likewise, a charge that Russia had turned to China for potential military help lacked hard evidence, a European official and two U.S. officials said.
The U.S. officials said there are no indications China is considering providing weapons to Russia. The Biden administration put that out as a warning to China not to do so, they said.
The European official described the disclosure as “a public game to prevent any military support from China.”
These were all obvious lies and yet our controlled media put them all out without the slightest hint of skepticism, acting in essence as US intelligence operatives.
Tomorrow, they’ll dutifully put out more regime lies and disinformation fed to them from the exact same intelligence sources and demand those of us insisting it’s all lies get banned and censored off social media.
President Joe Biden’s chief medical advisor Anthony Fauci got called out for misinformation on COVID’s origins during a segment on BBC One’s “Sunday Morning” with Sophie Raworth on March 27, 2022.
Dr. Fauci said he was “misinterpreted.”
This is the first time a mainstream reporter confronted Fauci on his open lies about the origins of the COVID virus.
It must be nice to have an inkling of a legitimate news service.
Unfortunately, the BBC reporter did not do her research before the segment. We now know that Dr. Fauci and Dr. Dazcak initiated the call to publish the Lancet Study in February 2020 where they labeled any mention of a lab-created virus a “conspiracy” and attempted to suppress any challenges to their narrative.
US oil imports from Russia did in fact double over the past year as claimed by Fox Business host Maria Bartiromo, but don’t expect left-leaning fact check site Politifact to give her credit.
Actually, they did the opposite – they dubbed her claims “mostly false,” while proceeding to admit she was totally right.
The fact check, published Monday, took on Bartiromo’s claims from a February 22 appearance on “Jesse Waters Primetime,” where she said, “We have doubled our (oil) imports from Russia in the last year.”
The United States is “reliant on Russian oil. We have doubled our imports from Russia in the last year,” Bartiromo said on Feb. 22. “No question why President Biden is begging OPEC and others to pump more oil.”
While the Fox Business host’s statements were given a “Mostly False” rating on Politifact’s Truth-O-Meter, a TLDR synopsis at the top of the article concedes she was right, stating, “The U.S. did double the amount of crude oil imported from Russia last year.”
Further in the article, Politifact acknowledges, “The U.S. more than doubled its crude oil imports from Russia, to about 208,000 barrels a day in the first 11 months of 2021, from 76,000 barrels a day in 2020.”
According to Politifact, however, Bartiromo’s still wrong because they disagree with the point of her argument.
But Bartiromo’s broader point was about the extent of U.S. reliance on Russian oil, which remains fairly modest. Russia accounted for only about 3% of overall U.S. crude oil imports in 2021 — a 2 percentage point increase from 2020.
Politifact was raked over the coals on social media for the overtly disingenuous fact check.
Days after Twitter suspended an account for the high crime of accurately reporting that BioLab facilities in Ukraine match up with Russian targets in their ongoing operations, the US Embassy in Ukraine appears to have scrubbed various PDF fact sheets and documents from their official site.
The documents removed confirmed that, despite the fake news reported by Politifact, there are indeed Biolabs in Ukraine—at least there were.
Politifact, and several other mainstream media outlets, have attempted to debunk the claim that the US and Ukraine were working together to advance mutual interest in the domain of bioweapons production, saying that the facilities are part of the U.S. Department of Defense Cooperative Threat Reduction Program. In short, while the program identifies, collects, secures, and develops treatments for pathogens—according to official statements on the US Embassy site, these programs are not involved in bioweapons manufacturing.
However, these assurances fall on deaf ears given the fact Fauci et al, who initially and repeatedly claimed there was no gain-of-function research at Wuhan Institute of Virology, were proven to be wrong. Instead of owning up to the fact gain-of-function research was indeed conducted in Wuhan, Fauci and his partners in the media simply redefined the term.
But, of course, “a rose by any other name would smell as sweet”. Meaning, whether or not officials admit to gain-of-function research, if it was being conducted there, it was taking place. Changing the name doesn’t change the reality. The same is true for US Biolabs in Ukraine.
While it is unclear if these labs were indeed conducting gain-of-function research, it is admitted that these facilities were securing biological materials that could most definitely be used in gain-of-function research. Despite the fact the mainstream media continues to assert otherwise, they have repeatedly failed to provide demonstrable evidence for their debunking claims. And therefore, the theory that Ukraine was, in fact, working with its US partners in bioweapons research is still on the table.
The Electronic Integrated Disease Surveillance System (EIDSS) is a software system which is designed to strengthen monitoring and prevention of human and animal diseases within the One Health concept, and facilitate compliance of International Health Regulations (IHR) 2005. Key system modules include Human Cases module, Vector Surveillance module, Laboratory module, Outbreak module, Administrative module, and Analysis, Visualization & Report (AVR) module with Geographic Information System (GIS) capabilities. EIDSS manages case data, case plus disease specific investigation, aggregate data with corresponding sample, and laboratory data linked to cases. The system collects and distributes data, notifies on the events in near real-time, provides access from desktop, web and mobile devices, which allows it to link together different levels and ministries of a national disease surveillance network in a secure way. EIDSS is customizable for each participating country to hold relevant content: diseases list, specific reports, disease-specific investigation forms, among others.
The Pathogen Asset Control System (PACS) is an electronic system for accounting, management, and control of biological agents. The application is designed to monitor the reception, transfer, movement, and destruction of agents, as well as other actions performed with biological materials. The system allows tracking materials of any kind. Each item in the repository is marked with a unique barcode label. The barcode technology using a barcode scanner allows fast and error-free data input and provides an extra level of pathogen asset tracking security. With the help of barcode technology, the repository process is fast, convenient, and secure. PACS offers configurable access rights and a user management system. Also, it allows users to produce a variety of custom reports.
Is it possible that some sort of cover-up is taking place?
Plausible deniability is a term that describes the tactic of ensuring any nefarious activity can be reasonably denied, assuming a readily available cover exists. This cover can be invoked upon interrogation of actors who are in the know.
Of course, the mainstream media would have you believe that there are no such things as cover-ups, at least none that involve globalists and plandemics. But war and conflicts almost always result in corrupt actors “not letting a good crisis go to waste”, like taking the opportunity to burn documents and tie up loose ends that might expose them later.
Case in point here’s alleged footage of documents being burned in Ukraine.
One of the many pressing stories that remains to be told from the Snowden archive is how western intelligence agencies are attempting to manipulate and control online discourse with extreme tactics of deception and reputation-destruction. It’s time to tell a chunk of that story, complete with the relevant documents.
By publishing these stories one by one, our NBC reporting highlighted some of the key, discrete revelations: the monitoring of YouTube and Blogger, the targeting of Anonymous with the very same DDoS attacks they accuse “hacktivists” of using, the use of “honey traps” (luring people into compromising situations using sex) and destructive viruses. But, here, I want to focus and elaborate on the overarching point revealed by all of these documents: namely, that these agencies are attempting to control, infiltrate, manipulate, and warp online discourse, and in doing so, are compromising the integrity of the internet itself.
Among the core self-identified purposes of JTRIG are two tactics: (1) to inject all sorts of false material onto the internet in order to destroy the reputation of its targets; and (2) to use social sciences and other techniques to manipulate online discourse and activism to generate outcomes it considers desirable. To see how extremist these programs are, just consider the tactics they boast of using to achieve those ends: “false flag operations” (posting material to the internet and falsely attributing it to someone else), fake victim blog posts (pretending to be a victim of the individual whose reputation they want to destroy), and posting “negative information” on various forums. Here is one illustrative list of tactics from the latest GCHQ document we’re publishing today:
Other tactics aimed at individuals are listed here, under the revealing title “discredit a target”:
Then there are the tactics used to destroy companies the agency targets:
GCHQ describes the purpose of JTRIG in starkly clear terms: “using online techniques to make something happen in the real or cyber world,” including “information ops (influence or disruption).”
Critically, the “targets” for this deceit and reputation-destruction extend far beyond the customary roster of normal spycraft: hostile nations and their leaders, military agencies, and intelligence services. In fact, the discussion of many of these techniques occurs in the context of using them in lieu of “traditional law enforcement” against people suspected (but not charged or convicted) of ordinary crimes or, more broadly still, “hacktivism”, meaning those who use online protest activity for political ends.
The title page of one of these documents reflects the agency’s own awareness that it is “pushing the boundaries” by using “cyber offensive” techniques against people who have nothing to do with terrorism or national security threats, and indeed, centrally involves law enforcement agents who investigate ordinary crimes:
No matter your views on Anonymous, “hacktivists” or garden-variety criminals, it is not difficult to see how dangerous it is to have secret government agencies being able to target any individuals they want – who have never been charged with, let alone convicted of, any crimes – with these sorts of online, deception-based tactics of reputation destruction and disruption. There is a strong argument to make, as Jay Leiderman demonstrated in the Guardian in the context of the Paypal 14 hacktivist persecution, that the “denial of service” tactics used by hacktivists result in (at most) trivial damage (far less than the cyber-warfare tactics favored by the US and UK) and are far more akin to the type of political protest protected by the First Amendment.
The broader point is that, far beyond hacktivists, these surveillance agencies have vested themselves with the power to deliberately ruin people’s reputations and disrupt their online political activity even though they’ve been charged with no crimes, and even though their actions have no conceivable connection to terrorism or even national security threats. As Anonymous expert Gabriella Coleman of McGill University told me, “targeting Anonymous and hacktivists amounts to targeting citizens for expressing their political beliefs, resulting in the stifling of legitimate dissent.” Pointing to this study she published, Professor Coleman vehemently contested the assertion that “there is anything terrorist/violent in their actions.”
Government plans to monitor and influence internet communications, and covertly infiltrate online communities in order to sow dissension and disseminate false information, have long been the source of speculation. Harvard Law Professor Cass Sunstein, a close Obama adviser and the White House’s former head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, wrote a controversial paper in 2008 proposing that the US government employ teams of covert agents and pseudo-”independent” advocates to “cognitively infiltrate” online groups and websites, as well as other activist groups.
Sunstein also proposed sending covert agents into “chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups” which spread what he views as false and damaging “conspiracy theories” about the government. Ironically, the very same Sunstein was recently named by Obama to serve as a member of the NSA review panel created by the White House, one that – while disputing key NSA claims – proceeded to propose many cosmetic reforms to the agency’s powers (most of which were ignored by the President who appointed them).
But these GCHQ documents are the first to prove that a major western government is using some of the most controversial techniques to disseminate deception online and harm the reputations of targets. Under the tactics they use, the state is deliberately spreading lies on the internet about whichever individuals it targets, including the use of what GCHQ itself calls “false flag operations” and emails to people’s families and friends. Who would possibly trust a government to exercise these powers at all, let alone do so in secret, with virtually no oversight, and outside of any cognizable legal framework?
Then there is the use of psychology and other social sciences to not only understand, but shape and control, how online activism and discourse unfolds. Today’s newly published document touts the work of GCHQ’s “Human Science Operations Cell,” devoted to “online human intelligence” and “strategic influence and disruption”:
Under the title “Online Covert Action”, the document details a variety of means to engage in “influence and info ops” as well as “disruption and computer net attack,” while dissecting how human beings can be manipulated using “leaders,” “trust,” “obedience” and “compliance”:
The documents lay out theories of how humans interact with one another, particularly online, and then attempt to identify ways to influence the outcomes – or “game” it:
We submitted numerous questions to GCHQ, including: (1) Does GCHQ in fact engage in “false flag operations” where material is posted to the Internet and falsely attributed to someone else?; (2) Does GCHQ engage in efforts to influence or manipulate political discourse online?; and (3) Does GCHQ’s mandate include targeting common criminals (such as boiler room operators), or only foreign threats?
As usual, they ignored those questions and opted instead to send their vague and nonresponsive boilerplate: “It is a longstanding policy that we do not comment on intelligence matters. Furthermore, all of GCHQ’s work is carried out in accordance with a strict legal and policy framework which ensures that our activities are authorised, necessary and proportionate, and that there is rigorous oversight, including from the Secretary of State, the Interception and Intelligence Services Commissioners and the Parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee. All our operational processes rigorously support this position.”
These agencies’ refusal to “comment on intelligence matters” – meaning: talk at all about anything and everything they do – is precisely why whistleblowing is so urgent, the journalism that supports it so clearly in the public interest, and the increasingly unhinged attacks by these agencies so easy to understand. Claims that government agencies are infiltrating online communities and engaging in “false flag operations” to discredit targets are often dismissed as conspiracy theories, but these documents leave no doubt they are doing precisely that.
Whatever else is true, no government should be able to engage in these tactics: what justification is there for having government agencies target people – who have been charged with no crime – for reputation-destruction, infiltrate online political communities, and develop techniques for manipulating online discourse? But to allow those actions with no public knowledge or accountability is particularly unjustifiable.
“As far as I'm concerned, it's a damned shame that a field as potentially dynamic and vital as journalism should be overrun with dullards, bums, and hacks, hag-ridden with myopia, apathy, and complacence, and generally stuck in a bog of stagnant mediocrity.” -Hunter Thompson