Suspicious About Twitter

By: EricSeptember 5, 2022

Twitter is a Socialist media “microblogging” platform that I have been banned from 616 times. Assessment of Twitter:
  • The “coalition of the ascendant” reigns supreme on Twitter
  • It is a digital rendition of the Seattle CHAZ/CHOP experiment
  • The neo-liberal progressive stack rules the room – the stack includes chosenites, people of colour, genderqueers, uplifting cheesy trance DJs, prostitutes, judeo-furry otherkin, womXn, latinX, Antifaschistische Aktion glow-in-the-dark Ivy League students, celebrities, establishment politicians and oppressed Fortune 500 companies (like BlackRock and Pfizer).
The honorable Ghislaine Maxwell with Elon Musk

We know the deal with Twitter. CIA-sponsored clandestine overthrow of Bolivian government which lands Elon Musk’s Tesla exclusive rights to extract Lithium in the name of “democracy rules based international liberal world order” – that whole amalgamation was set to buy Twitter then questionably pulled out of the deal and the lawsuit is set to proceed in October, which lines up nicely to further distract the vaxxed-masses from the fake and very gay midterm selections (which will be touted as stolen/fake/democracy prevails/etc etc, no matter which uni-party candidates win). ** §

Yes, the Johnny Depp-Amber Heard trial provided interference from Russia maneuvering victoriously with their Special Military Operation to recapture Russian land from Khazaria.

The January 6 Save Democracy ™ trials – primetime coverage – to link Trump’s ketchup squirting, steering wheel grabbing to Nazi-Christo-Fascist-White-MAGA-Qanon-Terrorists (which I call taxpaying, God-fearing, working people who believe in the Constitutional Republic) – this ran perfect interference from the inflation, surging fuel prices, recession, clot-shot deathVax VAERS events, exploding capital crimes, omissions of second & part-time jobs from actual employment numbers (also the proportion of newly created federal and state level government jobs in those numbers), etc etc. We all know the deal. This is the New Normal. Make no mistake, the Musk/Twitter lawsuits/counter-lawsuits will dominate the airwaves through the fall – conveniently redirecting focus from the Vote.

That’s not the point. This is an ADHD-infused blog post I am way off the subject though I am glad you have come this far.

Twitter’s new features, very suspicious:

Describe Image for the Visually Impaired

On its face I applaud Twitter for making this option to add a written description, for context, to an image that accompanies a tweet. It is a solid idea and it is courteous to those that are visually impaired.

And that reason – wholesome on the surface – is exactly why I know it is a cover for the real intended purpose:

DATA.

CONTEXTUALIZED DATA.

Twitter, like Faceberg, TikTok, Snapchat, etc – is valuable for it is a cream-of-the-crop Big Data Farm – capturing the semantic properties of millions of users, in real-time, every moment. This data feeds the deep machine learning which determines the voracity of Artificial Intelligence. That’s it. By having the users add the description to the image, it gives greater depth and breadth to the context of the tweet – this is a stratospherically valuable feature as an input to the data sets that feed the big vacuum in the sky.

Here is an example:

This is a tweet I will reply to

And so…

As you can see it describes why adding a description is featured.

And then….

I’ve added my description – keep in mind there is yet to be any type of CIA/NSA/DHS/FBI-backed “factCheck service assigned to police these image descriptions- a clear giveaway for the Big Data grab intentions of this feature

Once tweeted…

Once the tweet reply is sent, tapping the image shows the description added. (For the record this is true about Zio-clops)

There we have it. Twitter – part of the GIFCT/GNET/ADL/RUSI/War College of London/Five Eyes/DHS “Content Hash Database” consortium is doing this for the data and to also boost the relevance and viability of those newly hired government spooks disregarded in the employment numbers. They are watching the wrong-thinkers so they can dispatch the glow-troons to arrest the unvaxxed for tweets that are a threat to the rules based democracy American Dream (financed at 33% APR).

** – not to worry, whomever is “elected” will continue to fail and disappoint all of those that believe if their votes counted towards creating policy to benefit ordinary people – that one would be allowed to vote? Hahaha yeah, sure.

§ – don’t worry about $$$$ to Israel, $$$$ for the democracy Ukraine winning war, $$$$ for the military industrial complex, nor $$$$ for Patriot Act apparatus expansion – those are guaranteed forever.

Facebook, the New Evil Empire • Strategic Culture Foundation

Source: https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2021/10/07/facebook-the-new-evil-empire/

In the last few years, Facebook has become Public Enemy No. 1 in the media’s imagination, and Mark Zuckerberg is suddenly the creepy James Bond villain. Celebrated PBS filmmaker Ken Burns even ranted on a podcast that Zuckerberg was an “enemy of the state” who should be in jail.

After Facebook went down for six hours on Oct. 4, CBS late-night “comedian” Stephen Colbert joked, “Facebook did not say what might be causing the outage. Now, I’m no computer expert, but my theory is: A just God?”

It does not matter one iota that Facebook employees donated 90% of their political money to the Democrats in the last election cycle. Or that Zuckerberg donated $400 million to a “civic integrity” group that funded election monitors and health measures at the polls in 2020. It doesn’t matter how many Facebook posts they censored to please the left before the election; the outcomes weren’t favorable enough to the Democrats.

Liberal journalists compared the harm of Facebook to smoking, and Zuckerberg to a tobacco CEO. The team at “Morning Joe” used the CEO analogy after touting a poll that Zuckerberg now is less popular than Donald Trump and Donald Trump Jr.

Both sides are angry. Conservatives don’t like how much they are censored on Facebook. Liberals don’t like how conservatives are never censored enough for their tastes.

Colbert joked they’re objecting to quack medical advice; it’s where your “second cousin thinks the vaccine gives your pancreas Wi-Fi.” But they’re really upset that conservatives have used Facebook to go around the media filter. The media wants that filter imposed on Facebook. They need to “curate” information as fiercely as the “mainstream media” does.

CNN has gone so fiercely after Facebook in recent days you might think Facebook was somehow like Fox News multiplied by 100. They went live to a hearing on Oct. 5 where Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen ripped her ex-employer as “one of the most urgent threats” to the American people, and claimed that they drive children to suicide, “stoke division” and “weaken our democracy.”

The Democrats want a dramatic content crackdown. On MSNBC’s “MTP Daily,” Rep. David Cicilline trashed Facebook, saying it is “a monopoly, it has monopoly power, it’s too big and too powerful to care.” That sounds like a decent description of our federal government, which is much bigger than Facebook. But Cicilline warned Facebook is a business, so “it in fact puts profits before everything else.”

He insisted not only must the government force more competition into the digital marketplace, “We have to in fact pass legislation that will make Facebook accountable for amplifying toxic and dangerous content.”

So what is “toxic and dangerous”? Let’s start with what “fact-checkers” are flagging as false. If you look up the category of “Facebook Posts” on PolitiFact, you quickly find that out of 1,456 posts, 88% are “Mostly False” (182 posts), “False” (765 posts) or “Pants on Fire” (357 posts). Only 65 are “True” or “Mostly True.” If PolitiFact throws the “False” flag, Facebook suppresses the content.

The most recent posts demonstrate that PolitiFact is especially upset at vaccination misinformation, claims about the 2020 election being stolen and anyone disparaging President Joe Biden and liberals. For example, they provided a “False” rating for a Facebook post stating, “The White House ‘created a fake set for (President Joe) Biden to get his booster shot.’” (It was a set inside an auditorium.) Then, there’s “Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and wife Sophie faked their COVID-19 vaccinations on live television.”

The watchdogs of “toxic and dangerous” Facebook content have a tilt to the left… precisely like the “mainstream media” has a perpetual slant.

Stakeholder Globalism • American Mind

Source: https://americanmind.org/salvo/stakeholder-globalism/

Armed security personnel stand guard on the rooftop of a hotel, next to letters reading “Davos” surrounded by snow, near the Congress Centre on January 25, 2018 in Davos, eastern Switzerland. / AFP PHOTO / Fabrice COFFRINI (Photo credit should read FABRICE COFFRINI/AFP via Getty Images)

At the end of the twentieth century, the triumph of capitalist democracy convinced many that the field of human advancement had been cleared of adversaries. In the ensuing decades, Westerners were shocked to discover that field had filled with technological challengers.

As Cambridge historian David Runciman notes in How Democracy Ends, “the information technology revolution has completely altered the terms on which democracy must operate.” Capitalism is becoming less democratic and democracy less capitalist. Surveillance cameras are embedded in more places; cell phones track our movements; programs log our keystrokes.

The resulting information is fed into databases and assembled into profiles of unprecedented depth and fungibility. The decline in personal privacy might be worthwhile if it were matched by comparable levels of democratic choice and transparency. But for the most part, it is not. Unauthorized opinions are increasingly censored online, while giants like Amazon, Apple, and Google bar disfavored customers and businesses from their marketplaces.This shifting relationship between capitalism and democracy has not gone unnoticed by the West’s sharpest critics. At his first press conference in 20 years, Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid was asked about the Taliban’s commitment to freedom of speech. Journalists, Mujahid suggested, should ask the “promoters of freedom of speech” at Facebook why his government is banned from posting on Instagram and WhatsApp.The irony is rich.

In the heady millenarian days at the “end of history,” Silicon Valley imbued Big Tech with the wide-eyed spirit of the idealistic counterculture. Today, however, these former cultural nonconformists have become global gatekeepers. Twitter’s decision to suspend President Trump after the unrest at the Capitol opened the floodgates for tech companies and other services to ban political dissidents from their platforms.What is becoming clear is that there was a crucial flaw in the end-of-history vision.

What if the capitalists lose interest in democracy or find it inconvenient?

An intriguing concept almost unused in journalism but common in political discourse is a “globalist state” whose members have given up part of their sovereignty in return for a say in their neighbors’ affairs.Big Tech is at home in this globalized schema. Like most billionaires, Mark Zuckerberg regards the concept of nationalism with open hostility. The “struggle of our time,” Zuckerberg suggested, pits the “forces of freedom, openness and global community against the forces of authoritarianism, isolationism and nationalism. Forces for the flow of knowledge, trade and immigration against those who would slow them down.”Those who seek a grand conspiracy theory to explain this phenomenon will be disappointed. What we are dealing with here are often marginal reforms—a trickle rather than a flood. From western Europe to sub-Saharan Africa, policy-makers are moving many policy fields “upwards,” to the international or supranational arena, and “downwards” to NGOs and private companies.

This has been accompanied by a modest measure of structural change which has allowed powerful bureaucracies in the UN more control over national affairs.One influential advocate of this outlook is the former British prime minister Theresa May. Speaking to the House of Commons on the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, May described the events unfolding in the region as a “major setback” for UK foreign policy, adding: “We boast about Global Britain, but where is Global Britain on the streets of Kabul?” May found it “incomprehensible” and “worrying” that the UK was not able to bring together an alternative peacekeeping alliance.Globalism is best conceptualised less as a fantastic conspiracy so much as an emergent phenomenon among elites with overlapping interests, the goal of which is to deterritorialize politics. Members of the professional and managerial elite—journalists, economists, humanitarian aid workers, technologists—have adopted a very different attitude to borders than sectors of society who are bounded to their community’s territory.

As Zygmunt Bauman observed in the 2000s, territorial allegiances have become a class-specific property.Why history hasn’t endedIt would be difficult to exaggerate the significance of this change. For many hundreds of years, nationalism was the bedrock of international relations. Foreigners were routinely considered to be outsiders and could not be full members of the moral community.Over the past couple of decades, however, we have seen a dramatic reversal of this rule: pre-political ties are expanding to include larger groups, nations, families of nations, and perhaps even all humans. As a result, elite positions on global issues actually tend to be highly incoherent, and the need to consult “stakeholders” often leads to more liberal policy outcomes.A case in point here is the British government’s failure to stem the flow of illegal immigrants crossing the Channel in record numbers.

In 2019, the British Home Secretary, Priti Patel, campaigned on a platform of opposition to mass immigration, withdrawal from key human rights laws, and hostility to illegal entrants and bogus asylum seekers. Her views accurately reflected the opinions of the great majority of Conservative members, as well as great swathes of the electorate. They were not, however, acceptable within 10 Downing Street, so she failed to muster the support necessary to “take back control.”This state of affairs illuminates one of the central paradoxes of Western politics.

Although the technical capacity of states to control immigration has increased rather than diminished, and border control is widely held to be common sense by the majority of the population in every country, most Western governments are reluctant to implement effective enforcement of their own immigration laws. There is a gap between what politicians say and what politicians do, because immigration policy is considered above the pay grade of the masses. It is the domain of the globalist managers.

The withdrawal of the elites: Globalism belongs to a species of liberal thinking that deplores barriers to trade and disapproves strongly of borders. ‘’Openness,” “inclusion,” “diversity”: the globalist is, in his own eyes, a defender of enlightened universalism against the exigencies of geography. The key articulators of this movement now include not only Silicon Valley but also the military-intelligence complex, NGOs, and non-institutionalised protest groups whose global operations are facilitated by smartphones.Globalism has ushered in a period of massive wealth redistribution, from the lower middle class to the superrich, and from towns to cities. Today, a large firm in a modern city can source its capital in Shanghai, locate its industrial plant in Wolfsburg, and tap information from a database in Bangalore. Moreover, thanks to improvements in transport technology and infrastructure, businesses can hire large numbers of overseas graduates whose skills could not be realistically recruited from the domestic labor market. This explains why big business and its agents of opinion are without exception supporters of “Global Britain.”Meanwhile, at the lower end of the labor market, foreign workers are increasingly used to fill jobs that are considered too degrading for the native population to undertake.

Whether that is a good or a bad thing is a matter for some debate, but it is beyond question that the wealthy now prefer employing cheap labor from abroad. Today, as David Edgerton argues in The Rise and Fall of The British Nation, “a new anti-egalitarian snobbism is permissible, and a certain reactionary chic possible.”This is a formidable combination. And it is easy to see why elites don’t want to give up on it, at least not yet.

However, these policies must be debated with the utmost honesty if we are to do what is best for our country and for the planet. There is no denying that a gap has opened up between civilians, soldiers, governments, and corporations: the “we” feeling seems no longer to have a voice among our leaders.Contrary to what many have said, globalism does not rid the world of the nation state. It does, however, delimit it. Once in a position of power, globalists will hive off the functions of the state and farm them out to a complex range of extra-governmental organizations and semi-independent bodies. Their key function is to push “the rules of the game” beyond the reach of democratic politics, the strategy of deterritorialization. To a large extent, therefore, conflicts over territorial sovereignty have replaced many of the more familiar ideological battles of the twentieth century.

DHS deploying Big Tech to spy on Americans through social media

Americans who are on social media are being warned that the federal government appears to be planning to hire “big tech” to spy on people and report on whether they could – or should – be considered “dangerous.”

Source: DHS deploying Big Tech to spy on Americans through social media

Poll: Big Tech’s Public Image Has Severely Deteriorated — Occidental Dissent

I’ve already stated my view of Big Tech. Destroying Big Tech is now our top priority. The Hill: “Americans’ perceptions of big tech companies have steadily deteriorated over the past 18 months as titans like Facebook, Twitter and Amazon receive an avalanche of bipartisan criticism, according to a new poll.A new Gallup poll released Thursday shows that…

Poll: Big Tech’s Public Image Has Severely Deteriorated — Occidental Dissent