The slimy @nytimes, pushing Qatari foreign disinformation: “all 3 reporters on the story had earlier this year been contacted by foreign agents for the government of Qatar about the very topics that they all happen to be reporting on together.” dailywire.com/news/50830/sch…
YOU DON’T SAY: The @nytimes “owes it to its readers to acknowledge that lobbyists for Qatar were communicating with Times reporters about the man upon whom the Times now reports.”
EXACTLY. UNBELIEVABLY HACKY. “To not include that [admission] in their report adds to suspicions that Qatar — which again, is accused of hacking Broidy — may have been the source for their ‘scoop’ on his personal and professional dealings.”
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Many have written about Saudi Arabia’s social reforms, but few in the West—especially leftist activists—understand how much the Kingdom’s war on Islamists made them possible. Before women can walk around unveiled, they had to remove Islamists who’d use physical intimidation to… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…
The task for Saudi Arabia is navigating modernity while not going completely off the rails—as America and parts of Europe have done. Like many of us, they see the woke race and gender insanity in the US, and they’re horrified. But how do you avoid it while being a 21st Century… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…
Over the last several decades, the Beltway foreign policy class of both parties became addicted to ideological abstractions, losing focus on basic national interests as statesmen from the beginning of time would’ve understood… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…
"The meaning of national interest is survival," Hans Morgenthau defined it simply in 1949. "The protection of physical, political and cultural identity against encroachments by other nation-states."
Any American would've understood this. Defining it simply is important, because… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…
By the post-Cold War period of 2000, however, the Commission on America's National Interests--a blue-ribbon panel of people like John McCain, Condi Rice, Sam Nunn, Paul Krugmann, and others-- defined it in a way that, while not terrible in itself, belfercenter.org/sites/default/…… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…
Not shocked that #TwitterFiles show the close coordination with an (lol) *hyper-vigilant* FBI, with a team of at least 80 digging through Americans’ Tweets. Very hard to solve this without flattening all the intelligence agencies, and keeping them away from domestic targets.
(I don’t think that’s something that will ever happen, btw, under normal, constitutional circumstances.) The other side of the coin is passing a Digital Bill of Rights that guarantees these companies can’t disappear users based on anyone’s whim.
There is a place for law enforcement and social media—you know, the child exploitation and illegal stuff that proliferated on Twitter while analyst goons went through your jokes with a fine tooth comb.
It wasn’t technically a lie then—people were throttled based on *associations* (interactions, etc) with people who were also throttled. Remember the “block lists”? That’s how the Left manipulated this back then. After Jack left, they began to police actual viewpoints/speech.
@PoliticalShort and I figured this out in 2018 just by talking to Twitter reps. They claimed to have 150 different metrics by which they throttled the visibility/reach of users. This way, they found a way around explicitly targeting the Right, even as it was de facto targeting.
When Jack left—and the mainstream Left’s view of speech radicalized to where control of the discourse and information flow was of great urgency—they abandoned even this fig leaf. The two issues this was based on was (1) J6 and the “threat of insurrection/etc” and (2) Trans.
Lotta thoughts on this and Trump’s role in J6… (1) This is a video he could’ve released at any time over the last year and a half, since the over-the-top prosecutions for “sedition” and “conspiracy to overthrow the government” began.
The outrageous scope of prosecutions only makes sense as part of a political campaign to transform opposition to Democrats as a serious homeland security and terrorism issue. This was—or should have been—obvious to everyone on the Right on JANUARY 6 (when I tweeted as much).
In many or all cases, DOJ and courts used defendants’ political views—or personal *analytical* views of the fairness of the 2020 election—as part of the case against them; made renouncing those views as part of potential plea agreements. Insane civil liberties violation.