Elon Musk said ‘this is war’ after a plan to ‘kill Twitter’ (now X) was exposed by two journalists. The Center for Countering Digital Hate is considered an ‘ally’ of U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer, and its founder is now advising Kamala Harris.
The world’s most successful African-American, Elon Musk, has declared “this is war” after a plan to “kill Twitter” (now X) was revealed.
Leaked documents published by Twitter files journalist Matt Taibbi and Paul Thacker show how an NGO linked to both Kamala Harris and the British Prime Minister Keir Starmer in a “real foreign election interference story.”
As Taibbi and Thacker reported on October 22: “Internal documents from the Center for Countering Digital Hate – whose founder is British political operative Morgan McSweeney, now advising the Kamala Harris campaign – show the group plans in writing to “kill Musk’s Twitter” while strengthening ties with the Biden/Harris administration and Democrats like Senator Amy Klobuchar, who has introducedmultiple bills to regulate online ‘misinformation.’”
Following the publication of the report, X owner Elon Musk responded with three explosive words:
The Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) is a pro-censorship pressure group and “ally of Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s Labour Party,” according to the joint report. McSweeney, who founded the group, has ties so close to the Democratic Party that Politico has called Labour and the Democrats “sister parties.”
The leaks expose a partnership between the U.K. Labour Party and the Democrats to make good on a plan that has been months in the making – to rid the globalists on both sides of the Atlantic of Elon Musk’s free speech platform.
In the U.S., says the report, the CCDH has run “multiple successful boycotts of media figures across the spectrum” in the past – with attempts to shut down The Federalist and Zerohedge U.S. cutout Stop Funding Fake News. McSweeney’s group sought directly to shut down Substack over claims it had published “misinformation” about the so-called COVID-19 mRNA “vaccines.”
The same tactics are now being used against X, the report continues: “Now, CCDH’s growing Washington office is working on similar plans to ‘kill’ the online presence of Democratic rivals like Musk by attacking X’s advertising revenue.”
Whilst Donald Trump was banned from the platform whilst serving as president, Musk’s tenure has seen the rocket launching billionaire clash directly with U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer over the Labour leader’s draconian “two-tier” policing.
Musk had described Starmer as wanting “Soviet Britain,” expressing alarm at Britons “arrested for posting on Facebook.” It seems that war had already been declared on Musk, and his remark was more an acknowledgement of hostilities already well underway.
This is the second attempt on the life of the platform. The move follows efforts in 2023 by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) to “kill this platform,” which pressured advertisers to defund X – leading to an estimated loss of $22 billion.
Since the acquisition, The @ADL has been trying to kill this platform by falsely accusing it & me of being anti-Semitic
In a September 4, 2023 post, Musk claimed that the league was “trying to kill this platform by falsely accusing it & me of being anti-Semitic.” Musk threatened to sue the Anti-Defamation League – for defaming him, and for the massive loss of revenue resulting from its defamatory campaign.
Evidence of ties to the “Deep State” in the plot to “kill Twitter” has been uncovered, showing how the CCDH’s chairman is also on the Atlantic Council.
As Mike Benz reported in July 2023, “The Chairman of CCDH’s Board is Simon Clark, straight outta the Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Lab. Atlantic Council has 7 former CIA directors on its board and is funded by the UK Foreign Office (and the US State Dept and US Department of Defense.”
Benz, a well-known critic and analyst of the Deep State, showed that the “anti-disinformation” group’s former communication chief was a “self-described CIA operative.”
His evidence shows that the U.K. government-backed censorship group is also linked through the Atlantic Council to Biden family connection Burisma.
“The Atlantic Council was also directly partnered with Burisma and had a direct partnership with DHS to censor Trump supporters ahead of the 2020 election,” Benz said in a post on October 22, adding that the Atlantic Council has “7 CIA directors on its board.”
Interesting.
In our case, they would potentially be on the hook for destroying half the value of the company, so roughly $22 billion.
The plot to silence the world’s leading free speech platform reveals a deep network of UK and US government coordination through its many proxies to destroy any challenge to its narrative control.
An in-depth report by Zerohedge, which survived a shutdown attack by the CCDH last year, shows a breathtaking network of covert and overt operations with enormous power in the U.S. going back years.
Zerohedge published evidence of a 2020 campaign by the CCDH directing state attorneys general to deplatform the “Disinformation Dozen” of twelve leading COVID “vaccine” critics – including Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
As Zerohedge notes, “However, these are only the visible parts of the British invasion. McSweeney’s Labour Together has been operating in the U.S. for several years through CCDH.”
Yet this transatlantic conspiracy goes beyond the business of limiting speech – and defunding those who defend its freedom. Reports now show direct interference in the U.S. presidential election.
The Trump-Vance campaign has filed a Federal Election Commission complaint against Starmer’s ruling Labour Party after it publicized moves to “recruit and send … far-left party members” members to canvass for Kamala Harris “in critical battleground states.”
In a statement titled “The British Are Coming!” Trump-Vance campaign co-manager Susie Wiles said“the failing Harris campaign is seeking foreign influence to boost its radical message” – charging that this amounts to “election interference.”
The move comes alongside reports comparing both Trump and Elon Musk to Hitler. Musk responded to the charge in Germany’s Der Spiegel with a humourous tweet which was immediately used by CNN to re-Hitlerize him.
Well, I did Nazi that coming! Those fools will Goebbels anything down …
The exposure of this second plot to “kill Twitter” shows Elon Musk, Robert F. Kennedy, and now Trump and Vance themselves, directly targeted by a globalist “Grand Atlantic Alliance” and its covert and overt agents.
This amounts to a mission not only against these men, but against regime-critical media from across the political spectrum. This is a scandal which reveals the mechanism by which permanent rule is intended to be secured.
With Musk’s declaration, the first shots have been fired in a war for the future of freedom of speech – and for the nature of the free world itself.
Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.
“So we’re going to have an order on that pretty soon – we can’t do that to our farmers and leisure too, hotels, we’re going to have to use a lot of common sense on that.”
President Donald Trump said Thursday that changes are coming to his aggressive immigration policies after complaints from farmers and business owners.
“Our great Farmers and people in the Hotel and Leisure business have been stating that our very aggressive policy on immigration is taking very good, long time workers away from them, with those jobs being almost impossible to replace,” Trump wrote in a social media post Thursday morning. “In many cases the Criminals allowed into our Country by the VERY Stupid Biden Open Borders Policy are applying for those jobs. This is not good. We must protect our Farmers, but get the CRIMINALS OUT OF THE USA. Changes are coming!”
Later Thursday, Trump made it clear that businesses need workers.
“Our farmers are being hurt badly. They have very good workers – they’re not citizens, but they’ve turned out to be great. And we’re going to have to do something about that,” the president said.
He added: “We can’t take farmers and take all their people and send them back because they don’t have, maybe, what they’re supposed to have.”
Just how Trump may change his approach to immigration enforcement remains unclear, but he said he wants to help farmers and business owners.
“You go into a farm and you look and people, they’ve been there for 20 or 25 years and they work great and the owner of the farm loves them and you’re supposed to throw them out. You know what happens? They end up hiring the criminals that have come in, the murderers from prisons and everything else,” Trump said.
Trump said changes would be coming soon, but gave little detail on how policies could change.
“So we’re going to have an order on that pretty soon – we can’t do that to our farmers and leisure too, hotels, we’re going to have to use a lot of common sense on that.”
In a later post on Truth Social, Trump said illegal immigration had destroyed American institutions.
“Biden let 21 Million Unvetted, Illegal Aliens flood into the Country from some of the most dangerous and dysfunctional Nations on Earth — Many of them Rapists, Murderers, and Terrorists. This tsunami of Illegals has destroyed Americans’ Public Schools, Hospitals, Parks, Community Resources, and Living Conditions,” the president wrote. “They have stolen American Jobs, consumed BILLIONS OF DOLLARS in Free Welfare, and turned once idyllic Communities, like Springfield, Ohio, into Third World Nightmares.”
He added that deportations would continue: “I campaigned on, and received a Historic Mandate for, the largest Mass Deportation Program in American History. Polling shows overwhelming Public Support for getting the Illegals out, and that is exactly what we will do. As Commander-in-Chief, I will always protect and defend the Heroes of ICE and Border Patrol, whose work has already resulted in the Most Secure Border in American History. Anyone who assaults or attacks an ICE or Border Agent will do hard time in jail. Those who are here illegally should either self deport using the CBP Home App or, ICE will find you and remove you. Saving America is not negotiable!”
For years, Canada’s political class sold us on the idea that carbon taxes were clever policy. Not just a tool to cut emissions, but a fair one – tax the polluters, then cycle the money back to regular folks, especially those with thinner wallets.
It wasn’t a perfect system. The focus-group-tested line embraced for years by the Trudeau Liberals made no sense at all: we’re taxing you so we can put more money back in your pocketbooks. What the hell? If you care so much about my taxes being low, just cut them already. Somehow, it took years and years of this line being repeated for its internal contradiction to become evident to all.
Yet, even many strategic conservative minds could see the thinking had internal logic. You could sell it at a town hall. As an editorial team member at an influential news organization when B.C. got its carbon tax in 2008, I bought into the concept too.
And now? That whole model has been thrown overboard, by the very parties had long defended it with a straight face and an arch tone. In both Ottawa and Victoria in 2025, progressive governments facing political survival abandoned the idea of climate policy as a matter of fairness, opting instead for tactical concessions meant to blunt the momentum of their foes.
The result: lower-income Canadians who had grown accustomed to carbon tax rebates as a dependable backstop are waking up to find the support gone. And higher earners? They just got a tidy little gift from the state.
The betrayal is worse in B.C.
This new chart from economist Ken Peacock tells the story. He shared it last week at the B.C. Chamber of Commerce annual gathering in Nanaimo.
Ken-Peacock- B.C. Chamber of Commerce annual gathering in Nanaimo.
What is shows is that scrapping the carbon tax means the poor are poorer. The treasury is emptier.
What about the rich?
Yup, you guessed it: richer.
Scrubbing the B.C. consumer carbon tax leaves the lowest earning 20 percent of households $830 per year poorer, while the top one-fifth gain $959.
“Climate leader” British Columbia’s approach was supposed to be the gold standard: a revenue-neutral carbon tax, accepted by industry, supported by voters, and engineered to send the right price signal without growing the size of government.
That pact broke somewhere along the way.
Instead of returning the money, the provincial government slowly transformed the tax into a $2 billion annual cash cow. And when Mark Carney won the federal election, B.C. Premier David Eby, boxed in by his own pledge, scrapped the tax like a man dropping ballast from a sinking balloon. Gone. No replacement. No protections for those who need them most.
Filling the gas tank, on the other hand, is noticeably cheaper. Of course, if you can’t afford a car that might not be apparent.
Spare a thought for the climate activists who spent 15 years flogging this policy, only to watch it get tossed aside like a stack of briefing notes on a Friday afternoon.
Who could not conclude that the environmental left has been played. For a political movement that prides itself on idealism, it’s a brutal lesson in realpolitik: when power’s on the line, principles are negotiable.
But here’s the thing: maybe the carbon tax model deserved a rethink. Maybe it’s time for a grown-up look at what actually works
With B.C. now reviewing its CleanBC policies, here’s a basic question: what’s working, and what’s not?
A lot of emission reductions in this province didn’t come from government fiat. They were the result of business-led innovation: more efficient technology, cleaner fuels, and capital discipline.
That, plus a hefty dose of offshoring. We’ve pushed our industrial emissions onto other jurisdictions, then shipped the finished goods back without attaching any climate cost. This contradiction particularly helped to fuel the push to dump carbon pricing as a failed solution.
The progressives’ choice was made once the anti-tax arguments could no longer be refuted: to limit losses it would be necessary to deep six an unpopular strand of the overall carbon strategy. This, to save the rest. That’s why policies like the federal emissions cap haven’t also been abandoned.
To give another example, it’s also why British Columbia’s aviation sector is in a flap over the issue of sustainable aviation fuel. Despite years of aspirational policy, low emissions jet fuel blends remain more scarce than a long-haul cabin upgrade. The policy’s designers correctly anticipated that refiners would never be able to meet the imposed demand, and so as an alternative they provided a complex carbon credit trading scheme that will make the cost of flying more expensive. For those with a choice, nearby airport hubs in the United States where these policies do not apply will become an attractive alternative, while remote communities that have no choice in the matter will simply have to eat the cost. (Needless to say, if emissions reduction is your goal this policy isn’t needed anyways, since the decisions that matter in reducing global aviation emissions aren’t made in B.C. and never will be.)
I’m not showing up to bash those who have been genuinely trying to figure things out, and found themselves in a world of policy that is more complicated and unpredictable than they realized. Simply put, the chapter is closing on an era of energy policy naïveté.
The brutally honest action by Eby and Carney to eject carbon taxes for their own political survival could be read as a signal that it’s now okay to have an honest public conversation. Let’s insist on that. For years now, debate has been constrained in part by a particular form of linguistic tyranny, awash in terminology designed to cow the questioner into silence. “So you have an issue with clean policies, do you? What kind of dirty reprobate are you?” “Only a monster doesn’t want their aviation fuel to be sustainable.” Etc. Now is the moment to move on from that, and widen the field of discourse.
Ditching bad policy is also a signal that just maybe a better approach is to start by embracing a robust sense of the possibilities for energy to improve lives and empower all of the solutions needed for tomorrow’s problems. Because that’s the only way the conversation will ever get real.
Slogans, wildly aspirational goal setting and the habit of refusing to acknowledge how the world really works have been getting us nowhere. Petroleum products will continue to obey Yergin’s Law: oil always gets to market. China and India will grow their economies using reliable energy they can afford, having recently approved the construction of the most new coal power plants in a decade amid energy security concerns. Japan, which has practically worn itself out pleading for natural gas from Canada, isn’t waiting for the help of last-finishing nice guys to guarantee energy security: today, they are buying 8% of their LNG imports from the evil Putin regime.
Meanwhile, we’re in the worst of both worlds: our courageous carbon tax policy that was positioned as trailblazing not just for B.C. residents but for the world as a whole – climate leadership! – is gone, the poorest are puzzling over why things feel even more expensive, and nobody knows what comes next.
Ken-Peacock- B.C. Chamber of Commerce annual gathering in Nanaimo.
