The greatest damage in the West right now is being caused by self-anointed experts claiming to "combat disinformation," and NGOs funded by billionaires and the US/UK Security State dedicated to "anti-disinformation campaigns": @AtlanticCouncil, @DFRLab, @ISDglobal, @OCCRP, etc.
This whole "disinformation" industry is a sham. The claimed expertise is fraudulent. It's a thinly disguised scam to justify official decrees of Truth and Falsity -- controlled by establishment centers of power -- and then censor and punish based on them:
That absurd spectacle of Dept. of Homeland Security appointing that deranged #Resistance fanatic as Disinformation Czar was just one piece of this censorship regime uniting state and corporate power, funded by oligarchs, to shield propaganda from dissent:
And it wouldn't be possible without the vulgar use of corporate employees they call "reporters" whose only function is to troll the internet looking for establishment critics to silence: @oneunderscore__, @BrandyZadrozny, @TaylorLorenz, @RMac18, @MikeIsaac: censorship activists.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Many of Israel's "Palestinian prisoners" are people never convicted in court. They're imprisoned as part of Israel's military tribunals with a near-100% conviction rate, or just administratively detained.
And: they live in the West Bank, which Israel *illegally occupies*:
I've seen some objecting to the release of some "prisoners"because they attacked *not civilians,* but Israeli soldiers or police.
Is it prohibited - morally or legally - for people to attack foreign *soldiers or police* who are part of an illegal occupying force on their land?
In 1984, a studio film called "Red Dawn," starring Patrick Swayze, depicted heroic Americans doing everything possible to defend the US by trying to kill as many occupying Russian soldiers as possible: exactly what Ukraine was venerated for doing.
For months, many conservatives were demanding release of the manifesto of the Nashville shooter (we hired counsel to force this as well).
I don't believe they wanted to read it because they supported her grievances, but rather to understand what radicalized her to violence.
There are an endless number of things we consider bad, but also study to understand its causes: crime, terrorism, dictators, wars, extremism, diseases, serial killers.
That only Al Qaeda or 9/11 supporters want to read the Bin Laden letter is anti-intellectual idiocy.
There's no way to understand World War II or the rise of Nazism without understanding German grievances over the Treaty of Versailles imposed on Germany after WW1.
That those studying bin Laden's grievances are pro-Al-Qaeda is as dumb as claiming only Nazis would study this.
We'll also cover X's newly announced policy, unveiled just now by Elon Musk, that several phrases frequently used by some pro-Palestinian activists and journalists regarding Israel will be strictly banned.
It comes as Musk was widely accused of endorsing an anti-Semitic tweet.
The @ADL congratulates Musk on the new policy banning various phrases used about Israel:
It's amazing how this attack on Israel caused many Americans with an intense affinity for it to instantly revert back to the most childish and repressive post-9/11 behaviors.
The Guardian removed the bin Laden letter because people were realizing the same things Ron Paul said:
Ron Paul took this message into the deepest red districts in Iowa and South Carolina:
Neocons are using your money to fight foreign wars not in your interests. These wars *increase* the risk of anti-American terror attacks, etc.
And he came in second in 2008 and 2012.
Ron Paul's point: don't listen to the lies from the US Govt and US media about why there's anti-American hatred leading to 9/11: "They hate us for our freedoms."
Listen to them, he said, about why they hate us.
The @guardian removed that latter so people couldn't hear it.
Here's the NYT detailing the huge gap between Israel's claims about the hospital and what the evidence shows.👇
Please stop absurdly claiming the NYT is anti-Israel. They have editorialized in favor of Israel for decades, and almost all its op-ed columnists are 100% pro-Israel.
Journalists covering or commenting on a war have only one job: sort truth from lies.
It's not to cheer one side. It's not to promote or conceal news based on who it helps.
All governments lie. They especially lie in wars. Journalism is about identifying official lies.
The last 7 years in the West -- since Brexit and Trump -- has been the story of Western elites controlling political speech online to shield their propaganda from dissent.
If newspapers are deleting their own history because it's being read, you know something is deeply wrong.
Bin Laden's 2002 to the US expressed 3 main grievances: 1) US sanctions regime on Iraq that killed 100,000s of Iraqi children; 2) US support for Israeli violence; 3) US troops on sacred Saudi land.
Many doubted that he cared about Palestinians, but that's what he cited.