Send this article to a friend:


The Twitter Files: The Corporate Media Ignores The Biggest Story Of The Decade
Tyler Durden

The biggest story of the past decade is not the covid pandemic, the January 6th protests, the war in Ukraine, the BLM riots, or even the stagflationary crisis in the US.  Behind these major events is another story, one that connects them all together in a disturbing way.  Even more important than the effects of geopolitical and economic chaos is the effect of mass censorship; without the free exchange of information and debate the public remains ignorant.  And if the public remains ignorant, crisis events have an increasing potential to explode.

Public perception of national and international affairs is a key determinant of the outcome of disasters and conflicts.  This is why governments and elitists from around the world often seek to manipulate the ways in which people digest information.  The idea is rather simple – They believe that ‘we the people’ cannot be allowed to come to our own conclusions.  They think we cannot be trusted to develop the “proper” viewpoints and we are not smart enough to understand the implications of governmental decisions.

In other words, they believe the exact opposite of what is outlined in the US Constitution.  The establishment will give numerous reasons why they need to censor, suppress, spin and misrepresent the facts of any given situation, but in the end the real rationale is that they have a vision for society that is contrary to our foundations.  They have appointed themselves the arbiters of reality to see that vision done.  As Edward Bernays, the “father of public relations” once stated in his book ‘Propaganda’:

“The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. …We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. …In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons…who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.”

This is pure authoritarianism.  It’s the stuff of nightmares and revolutions.  But for many years now a large subsection of the world has denied such a dynamic exists.  It’s “conspiracy theory” and “tinfoil hattery” to claim that a small number of elites work together in secret to control public perception and govern our society from the shadows.  After all, where is the proof?

Of course, this kind of argument is a coping mechanism for the mentally deficient.  Proof of such secretive governance and control is everywhere these days, but some people prefer willful denial.  Take for example the ongoing data drops for what is now being called “The Twitter Files.”

The mainstream media is barely responding to the information dump initiated by Elon Musk.  They seem to be far more interested in Donald Trump’s tax records.  When they are forced to acknowledge the story, they are hostile, calling the information “boring” or unimpressive.  It’s a classic psychological  tactic of typical narcissists and criminals – When they get caught, they act indifferent, as if neither the evidence nor their crimes really matter.  If getting caught doesn’t matter to them, then their crimes must not be all that bad, right?

The content of these files is astonishing, but at the same time it is true that the conclusions are not surprising.

The files simply confirm almost everything conservative and libertarian commentators have been saying for years; all those “conspiracy theories” about Big Tech censorship of conservatives turned out to be true.  Not only that, but the theory that government agencies and officials from the DNC worked with Big Tech to silence and undermine their political opponents was also true.

Twitter has long denied that they “shadow ban” users, but this was a lie.  The data shows that small groups within Twitter called “strategic response teams” suppressed up to 200 accounts per day.  Usually these were accounts of larger and more influential conservative politicians and celebrities.  And, these teams operated in coordination with Democrat officials and agencies like the FBI.  In some cases the goal was to mute a particular individual. In other cases the goal was to steer national elections.   

Internal Twitter communications show that SRT groups spent most of their time fabricating reasons why certain information was subject to TOS.  In other words, if Twitter's rules were not being violated, they made up new rules.  

The exposure of Twitter is the biggest story of the decade because it provides proof of a hidden cabal.  It shows the ugly mechanics behind the scenes and exposes a network of elites and their errand boys who were involved in direct operations to destroy the 1st Amendment for the sake of ideological supremacy.  

It's the classic definition of fascism, a definition that Benito Mussolini reiterated when he argued:  “Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power.”

And, if this brand of Fascism was happening within the halls of Twitter, then there is little doubt it is also happening at companies like Google/YouTube, Apple, Facebook, etc.  Before we had evidence, now we have confirmation.  

The corporate media argues over relevance instead of morality because they benefited from the censorship.  It's important to remember that one of the first measures Big Tech companies applied after suppressing the alternative media during the pandemic was to then amplify the corporate media.  These companies are floundering with dismal audience numbers and dwindling profits.  No one listens to them anymore.  Yet, as long as they promote the establishment narrative their opinions and disinformation are given priority on nearly every search engine and social media platform.  

Of course they aren't interested in the Twitter Files, liars are often “bored” by honest commentary and factual information.  Also, their continued existence relies on the censorship of their competition in the alternative media.

The bottom line is this:  According to the Bill of Rights, it is illegal for agents of the US government to obstruct the free speech of law abiding American citizens.  It does not matter if the action is done by using “private businesses” as middlemen.  And, if a private business is colluding with government to implement political policy then it is no longer a private business.  Twitter was participating in a form of treason, along with the agencies that they cooperated with.  It's a huge story, and one that should lead to punishment for those involved. 

our mission:

to widen the scope of financial, economic and political information available to the professional investing public.
to skeptically examine and, where necessary, attack the flaccid institution that financial journalism has become.
to liberate oppressed knowledge.
to provide analysis uninhibited by political constraint.
to facilitate information's unending quest for freedom.
our method: pseudonymous speech...
Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. it thus exemplifies the purpose behind the bill of rights, and of the first amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation-- and their ideas from suppression-- at the hand of an intolerant society.

...responsibly used.

The right to remain anonymous may be abused when it shields fraudulent conduct. but political speech by its nature will sometimes have unpalatable consequences, and, in general, our society accords greater weight to the value of free speech than to the dangers of its misuse.

Though often maligned (typically by those frustrated by an inability to engage in ad hominem attacks) anonymous speech has a long and storied history in the united states. used by the likes of mark twain (aka samuel langhorne clemens) to criticize common ignorance, and perhaps most famously by alexander hamilton, james madison and john jay (aka publius) to write the federalist papers, we think ourselves in good company in using one or another nom de plume. particularly in light of an emerging trend against vocalizing public dissent in the united states, we believe in the critical importance of anonymity and its role in dissident speech. like the economist magazine, we also believe that keeping authorship anonymous moves the focus of discussion to the content of speech and away from the speaker- as it should be. we believe not only that you should be comfortable with anonymous speech in such an environment, but that you should be suspicious of any speech that isn't.

Send this article to a friend: