Elon Musk declares ‘war’ over plot to ‘kill’ X by NGO linked to Kamala Harris, Keir Starmer

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 introduced multiple bills to regulate online ‘misinformation.’”

Following the publication of the report, X owner Elon Musk responded with three explosive words:

This is war https://t.co/tesncwEoXE

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October 22, 2024

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.

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

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) September 4, 2023

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.

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) September 4, 2023

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 …

I bet their pronouns are He/Himmler! https://t.co/Lwlh0wKvW4

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October 21, 2024

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.

Up Next

California may lose two more refineries, would have to rely on gas from abroad

Don't Miss

Switzerland is No Longer Neutral

Todayville

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.

Follow Author

Canada Greenlights Mass Culling of 400 Research Ostriches Despite Full Recovery from Bird Flu Months Ago

Crime / 4 hours ago

U.S. Charges Sinaloa Cartel Leaders With Narco-Terrorism After Record Fentanyl Seizure

Health / 4 hours ago

RFK Jr. Says Trump Just Did What No Democrat Ever Had the Guts to Do

Agriculture

Canada Greenlights Mass Culling of 400 Research Ostriches Despite Full Recovery from Bird Flu Months Ago

Published on May 13, 2025

Todayville

Nicolas Hulscher, MPH

Federal court upholds CFIA’s reckless cull order—setting a dangerous precedent for the unscientific mass depopulation of genetically important animals.

In March, I interviewed Katie Pasitney of Universal Ostrich and Connie Shields to discuss the alarming implications of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) order to cull 400 research ostriches at Universal Ostrich Farm in British Columbia over bird flu:

Canada Orders Mass Culling of 400 Research Ostriches Over Bird Flu, Refuses to Test Surviving Birds for Natural Immunity

Nicolas Hulscher, MPH

·

Mar 11

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) has ordered the culling of 400 ostriches at Universal Ostrich Farm in British Columbia, citing concerns over H5N1 bird flu. However, this decision is not based on sound science and could have serious consequences for both food security and medical research.

Read full story

Universal Ostrich Farm is a research facility focused on studying the unique antibody-producing capabilities of ostriches. Their research has demonstrated potential in neutralizing viruses, bacteria, and even COVID-19, making it an important contribution to medical science.

In December 2024, the CFIA claimed that two deceased ostriches—which had been lying outside for over 16 hours—tested positive for H5N1 via PCR testing. Just 41 minutes after receiving these results, the CFIA signed an order to cull the entire flock.

The CFIA initially granted the farm an exemption, recognizing the birds as “genetically important.” Later, without clear justification, they reversed this decision, ordering their destruction.

Despite the importance of this research, the CFIA has refused to conduct further testing on the birds and has banned the farm from conducting its own tests, under threat of heavy fines and possible imprisonment. Why is the Canadian government refusing to study the potential antibodies ostriches have developed against H5N1 bird flu?

On January 31, 2025, a court granted a temporary stay of execution, halting the cull. However, the CFIA is appealing this decision, which means the culling could still proceed.

Today, we have received news that the reckless mass cull order will proceed despite their ostriches having already recovered months ago and developed natural immunity against H5N1:

Official Announcement: Federal Court Decision in Universal Ostrich Farms Inc. v. Canadian Food Inspection Agency

Dear friends and supporters,

We are absolutely devastated to share today’s Federal Court decision, issued on May 13, 2025. The court ruled in favour of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA), upholding their order to destroy our beloved ostriches and rejecting our plea to save them.

The court’s decision accepted the CFIA’s justification under the Health of Animals Act and their use of the Stamping-Out Policy, which mandates the destruction of animals to control disease outbreaks, regardless of their health status. The court confirmed the CFIA’s approach, prioritizing trade obligations over the welfare of our animals.

In addition, we’ve been ordered to pay $15,000 in CFIA’s legal costs. You can read the full decision here: (2025 FC 878). https://saveourostriches.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/JR-T-294-25-and-T-432-25-Final.pdf

We are heartbroken by this outcome and uncertain about the future of our farm. As we navigate this incredibly difficult time, we ask for your patience and continued support. If you are able, please consider making a donation to help us manage the financial and emotional toll this has taken.

Thank you,

Universal Ostrich Farm

http://SaveOurOstriches.com

This deeply misguided decision sets a dangerous precedent for the Canadian government to recklessly depopulate animals at will.

By upholding the CFIA’s reckless cull order, despite the ostriches’ recovery and natural immunity, the court has prioritized trade protocols over scientific inquiry, animal welfare, and the advancement of life-saving medical research.

Nicolas Hulscher, MPH

Epidemiologist and Foundation Administrator, McCullough Foundation

www.mcculloughfnd.org

Please consider following both the McCullough Foundation and my personal account on X (formerly Twitter) for further content.

Business

The ESG Shell Game Behind The U.S. Plastics Pact

Published on May 12, 2025

Todayville

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Jack McPherrin and H. Sterling Burnett

In recent years, corporate coalitions have increasingly taken center stage in environmental policymaking, often through public-private partnerships aligned with environmental, social, and governance (ESG) goals that promise systemic change.

One of the most prominent examples is the U.S. Plastics Pact (USPP). At first glance, the USPP may appear to some as a promising solution for reducing plastic pollution. But in practice, it has encouraged companies to make changes that are more cosmetic than environmental—and in some cases, actively counterproductive—while increasing their control over the market.

The USPP, launched in 2020, consists of more than 850 companies, non-profits, research institutions, government agencies, and other entities working together to create a new “circular economy for plastics.” Dozens of major retailers and consumer goods companies—including Coca-Cola, Danone, Kraft Heinz, Target, and Unilever—have signed on as “Activators,” pledging to eliminate certain plastics, shift to recyclable packaging, and increase the use of recycled plastics.

Yet, rather than curbing plastic production or reducing waste, the USPP has led many companies to simply transition from polystyrene to polyethylene terephthalate (PET). This shift has been encouraged by claims that PET is more widely recyclable, easier to sort, and better aligned with existing U.S. recycling infrastructure.

However, polystyrene is more moldable, is recyclable, and has insulation properties that PET doesn’t. In addition, PET is approximately 30 percent heavier than polystyrene, meaning more material is required for the same functional use. Moreover, PET requires more energy and is more expensive to produce than polystyrene. And PET’s denser packaging increases transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions and raises costs even more—though these higher costs don’t bother USPP participants, as they simply pass them on to consumers.

Only 5 to 6 percent of all plastics in the United States are recycled. Even for PET products, the overall recycling rate remains low. Just one-third of PET bottles are recycled, while the recycling rate for many other PET products such as thermoforms is less than 10 percent. Most PET products end up in landfills.

This ineffective, costly, and counterproductive shift was not accidental. It reflects the broader incentives baked into ESG scoring systems that reward superficial compliance over substantive outcomes.

ESG frameworks reward companies financially and reputationally for achieving certain narrow targets such as reductions in single-use plastics or increases in the use of packaging that is technically recyclable. However, these metrics often fail to accurately assess total plastic use in a product’s lifecycle, associated emissions, and real-world recovery. A package that uses more plastic and energy—and therefore generates more emissions—may still earn high sustainability marks, so long as the plastic is recyclable in theory. This is a textbook example of greenwashing.

A closer look at the USPP reveals that some of the world’s top plastic users and producers—Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, and Nestlé—are among the Pact’s strongest backers. These corporations, which produce billions of PET containers per year, benefit substantially from signing onto agreements such as the USPP, adopting ESG standards, and pledging support for various green goals—even if they do not deliver any green results. In fact, a 2022 report found that a large majority of retail signatories to the USPP actually increased their consumption of virgin plastic from 2020 to 2021.

Many of these same companies fund the non-profit that organized the USPP: the Ellen MacArthur Foundation. This creates a feedback loop in which large companies shape sustainability standards to their own advantage, defining which materials are “acceptable,” reaping the rewards of ESG compliance, and marginalizing smaller firms that lack the resources to adapt.

For example, by promoting PET as the preferred packaging material, the USPP conveniently reinforces the existing supply chains of these multinational bottlers, while sidelining other materials such as polystyrene that may be more cost-efficient and suitable for specific applications. Smaller manufacturers, who can’t easily switch packaging or absorb the added costs, are effectively squeezed out of the marketplace.

The USPP has not built a circular economy. Rather, it has constructed a closed circle of corporate sponsors that gain reputational boosts and higher ESG scores on the backs of consumers, despite increasing energy and plastics use.

The USPP unites ESG financiers, government agencies, nonprofits, and the largest corporate polluters in a mutually beneficial arrangement. This system rewards compliance, deflects scrutiny, manipulates public trust, eliminates free-market competition, stifles innovation, and increases costs to consumers—all while creating more waste.

Policymakers and consumers alike must recognize that ESG-aligned coalitions such as the U.S. Plastics Pact are nothing more than corporate lobbying groups disguised as sustainability initiatives. They do not improve environmental quality, but they do profit immensely from the illusion of doing so.

Jack McPherrin ([email protected]) is a Research Fellow for the Glenn C. Haskins Emerging Issues Center and H. Sterling Burnett, Ph.D., ([email protected]) is the Director of the Arthur B. Robinson Center on Climate and Environmental Policy, both at The Heartland Institute, a non-partisan, non-profit research organization based in Arlington Heights, Illinois.