Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Business

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

Published

5 months ago

9 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Frank Wright

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:

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.

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.”

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.

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.

Before Post

Related Topics:

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

More from this author
Alberta / 53 mins ago

The beauty of economic corridors: Inside Alberta’s work to link products with new markets

Energy / 1 hour ago

Why are Western Canadian oil prices so strong?

Business / 1 hour ago

Saskatchewan becomes first Canadian province to fully eliminate carbon tax

Business

Saskatchewan becomes first Canadian province to fully eliminate carbon tax

Published on April 1, 2025

By

From LifeSiteNews

By Clare Marie Merkowsky

Saskatchewan has become the first Canadian province to free itself entirely of the carbon tax.

On March 27, Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe announced the removal of the provincial industrial carbon tax beginning April 1, boosting the province’s industry and making Saskatchewan the first carbon tax free province.

“The immediate effect is the removal of the carbon tax on your Sask Power bills, saving Saskatchewan families and small businesses hundreds of dollars a year. And in the longer term, it will reduce the cost of other consumer products that have the industrial carbon tax built right into their price,” said Moe.

Under Moe’s direction, Saskatchewan has dropped the industrial carbon tax which he says will allow Saskatchewan to thrive under a “tariff environment.”

“I would hope that all of the parties running in the federal election would agree with those objectives and allow the provinces to regulate in this area without imposing the federal backstop,” he continued.

The removal of the tax is estimated to save Saskatchewan residents up to 18 cents a liter in gas prices.

The removal of the tax will take place on April 1, the same day the consumer carbon tax will reduce to 0 percent under Prime Minister Mark Carney’s direction. Notably, Carney did not scrap the carbon tax legislation: he just reduced its current rate to zero. This means it could come back at any time.

Furthermore, while Carney has dropped the consumer carbon tax, he has previously revealed that he wishes to implement a corporation carbon tax, the effects of which many argued would trickle down to all Canadians.

The Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities (SARM) celebrated Moe’s move, noting that the carbon tax was especially difficult on farmers.

“It puts our farming community and our business people in rural municipalities at a competitive disadvantage, having to pay this and compete on the world stage,” he continued.

“We’ve got a carbon tax on power — and that’s going to be gone now — and propane and natural gas and we use them more and more every year, with grain drying and different things in our farming operations,” he explained.

“I know most producers that have grain drying systems have three-phase power. If they haven’t got natural gas, they have propane to fire those dryers. And that cost goes on and on at a high level, and it’s made us more noncompetitive on a world stage,” Huber decalred.

The carbon tax is wildly unpopular and blamed for the rising cost of living throughout Canada. Currently, Canadians living in provinces under the federal carbon pricing scheme pay $80 per tonne.

Continue Reading

Automotive

Electric cars just another poor climate policy

Published on April 1, 2025

By

From the Fraser Institute

By Bjørn Lomborg

The electric car is widely seen as a symbol of a simple, clean solution to climate change. In reality, it’s inefficient, reliant on massive subsidies, and leaves behind a trail of pollution and death that is seldom acknowledged.

We are constantly reminded by climate activists and politicians that electric cars are cleaner, cheaper, and better. Canada and many other countries have promised to prohibit the sale of new gas and diesel cars within a decade. But if electric cars are really so good, why would we need to ban the alternatives?

And why has Canada needed to subsidize each electric car with a minimum $5,000 from the federal government and more from provincial governments to get them bought? Many people are not sold on the idea of an electric car because they worry about having to plan out where and when to recharge. They don’t want to wait for an uncomfortable amount of time while recharging; they don’t want to pay significantly more for the electric car and then see its used-car value decline much faster. For people not privileged to own their own house, recharging is a real challenge. Surveys show that only 15 per cent of Canadians and 11 per cent of Americans want to buy an electric car.

The main environmental selling point of an electric car is that it doesn’t pollute. It is true that its engine doesn’t produce any CO₂ while driving, but it still emits carbon in other ways. Manufacturing the car generates emissions—especially producing the battery which requires a large amount of energy, mostly achieved with coal in China. So even when an electric car is being recharged with clean power in BC, over its lifetime it will emit about one-third of an equivalent gasoline car. When recharged in Alberta, it will emit almost three-quarters.

In some parts of the world, like India, so much of the power comes from coal that electric cars end up emitting more CO₂ than gasoline cars. Across the world, on average, the International Energy Agency estimates that an electric car using the global average mix of power sources over its lifetime will emit nearly half as much CO₂ as a gasoline-driven car, saving about 22 tonnes of CO₂.

But using an electric car to cut emissions is incredibly ineffective. On America’s longest-established carbon trading system, you could buy 22 tonnes of carbon emission cuts for about $660 (US$460). Yet, Ottawa is subsidizing every electric car to the tune of $5,000 or nearly ten times as much, which increases even more if provincial subsidies are included. And since about half of those electrical vehicles would have been bought anyway, it is likely that Canada has spent nearly twenty-times too much cutting CO₂ with electric cars than it could have. To put it differently, Canada could have cut twenty-times more CO₂ for the same amount of money.

Moreover, all these estimates assume that electric cars are driven as far as gasoline cars. They are not. In the US, nine-in-ten households with an electric car actually have one, two or more non-electric cars, with most including an SUV, truck or minivan. Moreover, the electric car is usually driven less than half as much as the other vehicles, which means the CO₂ emission reduction is much smaller. Subsidized electric cars are typically a ‘second’ car for rich people to show off their environmental credentials.

Electric cars are also 320–440 kilograms heavier than equivalent gasoline cars because of their enormous batteries. This means they will wear down roads faster, and cost societies more. They will also cause more air pollution by shredding more particulates from tire and road wear along with their brakes. Now, gasoline cars also pollute through combustion, but electric cars in total pollute more, both from tire and road wear and from forcing more power stations online, often the most polluting ones. The latest meta-study shows that overall electric cars are worse on particulate air pollution. Another study found that in two-thirds of US states, electric cars cause more of the most dangerous particulate air pollution than gasoline-powered cars.

These heavy electric cars are also more dangerous when involved in accidents, because heavy cars more often kill the other party. A study in Nature shows that in total, heavier electric cars will cause so many more deaths that the toll could outweigh the total climate benefits from reduced CO₂ emissions.

Many pundits suggest electric car sales will dominate gasoline cars within a few decades, but the reality is starkly different. A 2023-estimate from the Biden Administration shows that even in 2050, more than two-thirds of all cars globally will still be powered by gas or diesel.

Source: US Energy Information Administration, reference scenario, October 2023
Fossil fuel cars, vast majority is gasoline, also some diesel, all light duty vehicles, the remaining % is mostly LPG.

Electric vehicles will only take over when innovation has made them better and cheaper for real. For now, electric cars run not mostly on electricity but on bad policy and subsidies, costing hundreds of billions of dollars, blocking consumers from choosing the cars they want, and achieving virtually nothing for climate change.

Bjørn Lomborg

Continue Reading

Trending

X