Elon Musk Says "Almost Every Conspiracy Theory That People Had About Twitter Turned Out To Be True

originally posted by: nugget1

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: nugget1

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Maxmars
a reply to: chr0naut

This whole thing is a great public relations boon for the Musk empire. His image is apparently very important to him, as his press demonstrates.

But Twitter and their actions were not part of that.

Is he "using this" to aggrandize that image? Probably.

It changes nothing about what apparently has occurred in the world of "speech-respecting platforms" like Twitter.

I imagine some may think how they feel about the messenger is more important than the message ... but I won't make time for that noise ... I will not play 'celebrity' games with this.

Social media is entertainment. It is not encyclopedic, nor a speech-respecting platform. Nor a place for electoral level gauging of majority beliefs and preferences.

It gives voice to the entertaining, shocking, and outrageous, and amplifys that.



A 'like' or retweet does not mean that you believe that what is stated is true. You could 'like/retweet' something because you find it funny, or silly, or imaginative, or just want to feel included.

Then why did the gov spend so much money and manpower trying to censor Twitter and the rest of social media?

Did they, though?

If I recall, the Twitter bans on some accounts (like Trump's) began under his government.

As I recall, all of the three letter agencies have been proven to have undermined Trump's administration from day one under the direction of both political parties.

"Twitter"- I count more than three letters?

The fact that social media can convince anyone of anything is proof that critical thinking is a relic of the past

originally posted by: underpass61

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: nugget1

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Maxmars
a reply to: chr0naut

This whole thing is a great public relations boon for the Musk empire. His image is apparently very important to him, as his press demonstrates.

But Twitter and their actions were not part of that.

Is he "using this" to aggrandize that image? Probably.

It changes nothing about what apparently has occurred in the world of "speech-respecting platforms" like Twitter.

I imagine some may think how they feel about the messenger is more important than the message ... but I won't make time for that noise ... I will not play 'celebrity' games with this.

Social media is entertainment. It is not encyclopedic, nor a speech-respecting platform. Nor a place for electoral level gauging of majority beliefs and preferences.

It gives voice to the entertaining, shocking, and outrageous, and amplifys that.

A 'like' or retweet does not mean that you believe that what is stated is true. You could 'like/retweet' something because you find it funny, or silly, or imaginative, or just want to feel included.

Then why did the gov spend so much money and manpower trying to censor Twitter and the rest of social media?

Did they, though?

If I recall, the Twitter bans on some accounts (like Trump's) began under his government.

If I recall, virtually every government agency was actively working to undermine Trump's Presidency.
The very thing these Twitter drops are exposing.
The very thing this thread is about.

DERP

But did they, though? Or was that just the line that Trump fed you?

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: underpass61

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: nugget1

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Maxmars
a reply to: chr0naut

This whole thing is a great public relations boon for the Musk empire. His image is apparently very important to him, as his press demonstrates.

But Twitter and their actions were not part of that.

Is he "using this" to aggrandize that image? Probably.

It changes nothing about what apparently has occurred in the world of "speech-respecting platforms" like Twitter.

I imagine some may think how they feel about the messenger is more important than the message ... but I won't make time for that noise ... I will not play 'celebrity' games with this.

Social media is entertainment. It is not encyclopedic, nor a speech-respecting platform. Nor a place for electoral level gauging of majority beliefs and preferences.

It gives voice to the entertaining, shocking, and outrageous, and amplifys that.

A 'like' or retweet does not mean that you believe that what is stated is true. You could 'like/retweet' something because you find it funny, or silly, or imaginative, or just want to feel included.

Then why did the gov spend so much money and manpower trying to censor Twitter and the rest of social media?

Did they, though?

If I recall, the Twitter bans on some accounts (like Trump's) began under his government.

If I recall, virtually every government agency was actively working to undermine Trump's Presidency.
The very thing these Twitter drops are exposing.
The very thing this thread is about.

DERP

But did they, though? Or was that just the line that Trump fed you?

Trump promoted Trump.

No one blew the trumpet louder.

"People" took sides and became divided -- directly because of Trump's actions -- verbal and otherwise.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: underpass61

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: nugget1

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Maxmars
a reply to: chr0naut

This whole thing is a great public relations boon for the Musk empire. His image is apparently very important to him, as his press demonstrates.

But Twitter and their actions were not part of that.

Is he "using this" to aggrandize that image? Probably.

It changes nothing about what apparently has occurred in the world of "speech-respecting platforms" like Twitter.

I imagine some may think how they feel about the messenger is more important than the message ... but I won't make time for that noise ... I will not play 'celebrity' games with this.

Social media is entertainment. It is not encyclopedic, nor a speech-respecting platform. Nor a place for electoral level gauging of majority beliefs and preferences.

It gives voice to the entertaining, shocking, and outrageous, and amplifys that.

A 'like' or retweet does not mean that you believe that what is stated is true. You could 'like/retweet' something because you find it funny, or silly, or imaginative, or just want to feel included.

Then why did the gov spend so much money and manpower trying to censor Twitter and the rest of social media?

Did they, though?

If I recall, the Twitter bans on some accounts (like Trump's) began under his government.

If I recall, virtually every government agency was actively working to undermine Trump's Presidency.
The very thing these Twitter drops are exposing.
The very thing this thread is about.

DERP

But did they, though? Or was that just the line that Trump fed you?

Trump promoted Trump.

No one blew the trumpet louder.

"People" took sides and became divided -- directly because of Trump's actions -- verbal and otherwise.

What, specifically, did Trump say and/or do that was "divisive "?

originally posted by: SourGrapes

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: underpass61

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: nugget1

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Maxmars
a reply to: chr0naut

This whole thing is a great public relations boon for the Musk empire. His image is apparently very important to him, as his press demonstrates.

But Twitter and their actions were not part of that.

Is he "using this" to aggrandize that image? Probably.

It changes nothing about what apparently has occurred in the world of "speech-respecting platforms" like Twitter.

I imagine some may think how they feel about the messenger is more important than the message ... but I won't make time for that noise ... I will not play 'celebrity' games with this.

Social media is entertainment. It is not encyclopedic, nor a speech-respecting platform. Nor a place for electoral level gauging of majority beliefs and preferences.

It gives voice to the entertaining, shocking, and outrageous, and amplifys that.

A 'like' or retweet does not mean that you believe that what is stated is true. You could 'like/retweet' something because you find it funny, or silly, or imaginative, or just want to feel included.

Then why did the gov spend so much money and manpower trying to censor Twitter and the rest of social media?

Did they, though?

If I recall, the Twitter bans on some accounts (like Trump's) began under his government.

If I recall, virtually every government agency was actively working to undermine Trump's Presidency.
The very thing these Twitter drops are exposing.
The very thing this thread is about.

DERP

But did they, though? Or was that just the line that Trump fed you?

Trump promoted Trump.

No one blew the trumpet louder.

"People" took sides and became divided -- directly because of Trump's actions -- verbal and otherwise.

What, specifically, did Trump say and/or do that was "divisive "?

Make a thread about that specific.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: SourGrapes

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: underpass61

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: nugget1

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Maxmars
a reply to: chr0naut

This whole thing is a great public relations boon for the Musk empire. His image is apparently very important to him, as his press demonstrates.

But Twitter and their actions were not part of that.

Is he "using this" to aggrandize that image? Probably.

It changes nothing about what apparently has occurred in the world of "speech-respecting platforms" like Twitter.

I imagine some may think how they feel about the messenger is more important than the message ... but I won't make time for that noise ... I will not play 'celebrity' games with this.

Social media is entertainment. It is not encyclopedic, nor a speech-respecting platform. Nor a place for electoral level gauging of majority beliefs and preferences.

It gives voice to the entertaining, shocking, and outrageous, and amplifys that.

A 'like' or retweet does not mean that you believe that what is stated is true. You could 'like/retweet' something because you find it funny, or silly, or imaginative, or just want to feel included.

Then why did the gov spend so much money and manpower trying to censor Twitter and the rest of social media?

Did they, though?

If I recall, the Twitter bans on some accounts (like Trump's) began under his government.

If I recall, virtually every government agency was actively working to undermine Trump's Presidency.
The very thing these Twitter drops are exposing.
The very thing this thread is about.

DERP

But did they, though? Or was that just the line that Trump fed you?

Trump promoted Trump.

No one blew the trumpet louder.

"People" took sides and became divided -- directly because of Trump's actions -- verbal and otherwise.

What, specifically, did Trump say and/or do that was "divisive "?

Make a thread about that specific.

You made the accusation, back it up or be the liar that you are.

a reply to: Maxmars

They knew all along they couldn't keep the cat in the bag forever. But they have made themselves untouchable to the point it makes no difference to them because there is not a single thing any of us can do about it. The fact their plans are laid bare on the major platforms, including the WEF and UN websites proves they don't care who knows now.

If we ever collectively backed them into a corner they would lash out with the most devastating weapons in their disposal. If you ever wondered why nuclear war hasn't happened yet, it's because they have no need for it unless it's a last resort.

a reply to: chr0naut

Are you even paying attention?

Facebook, Twitter stocked with ex-FBI, CIA officials in key posts

"Ex", highly doubtful. So many "working" for FB and Twitter? The odds are astronomical.

a reply to: MetalChickAmy

I have given some thought in this regard. There is no denying that what you propose not impossible. But I still have some reservations about several things.

I think it unlikely that whoever participated in the engineering (or directing) of the "project" could have expected keeping "the cat in the bag" forever. And it seems reasonable that they have postured themselves as 'beyond anyone's reach" by virtue of their status and isolation within the cabal. However, I maintain a few "biases" about the reality in which these theoretical conspirators operate.

You see, there is something peculiar to their situation... they cannot, under any circumstances, trust one another. The weakest member will begin the collapse because he or she will throw anyone under the bus to save themselves. Their carelessly brazen actions have exposed them quite plainly. We may not 'officially' have names, but we now have specific actions.

The thread to their plans has begun to surface and that thread, partially concealed though it might be, is nevertheless there to be found. There is a casual hubris in their actions because they appear to believe exactly as you said... "no one can do anything about it."

But everything in history tells us that if there is anything that can be counted on in conspiracy... someone will do something about it - even if it's only covering their behind... that's where they fail again and again. I can't predict what a person is thinking, but I would expect, someone is becoming nervous right now. They should be. These people throw 'little fish' to the wolves whenever they run and hide... watch for it.

As for the plans laid bare, as you say, they have been doing that for almost a century now... it may be as crass as an "inside joke" or simply a compulsion towards vanity; but once again, it is in keeping with the "no one can do anything about it" mindset. I think what you point out is a reflection of the larger thing, being manifested sympathetically in the smaller.

We won't need to back them into a corner. They will inevitably destroy themselves. It has already begun, in my opinion. The framework of their operation is now fracturing. Globalist "resolve" is now only a matter of overt action, not subtle misdirection. Almost everything they are doing now, conforms to the increasing desperation to "get on" with their plan, despite the rising resistance and inevitability of discovery.

These are only my 'opinions' of 'possibilities' of course, when you foray this far afield, speculation is inevitable.

originally posted by: SourGrapes

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: underpass61

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: nugget1

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Maxmars
a reply to: chr0naut

This whole thing is a great public relations boon for the Musk empire. His image is apparently very important to him, as his press demonstrates.

But Twitter and their actions were not part of that.

Is he "using this" to aggrandize that image? Probably.

It changes nothing about what apparently has occurred in the world of "speech-respecting platforms" like Twitter.

I imagine some may think how they feel about the messenger is more important than the message ... but I won't make time for that noise ... I will not play 'celebrity' games with this.

Social media is entertainment. It is not encyclopedic, nor a speech-respecting platform. Nor a place for electoral level gauging of majority beliefs and preferences.

It gives voice to the entertaining, shocking, and outrageous, and amplifys that.

A 'like' or retweet does not mean that you believe that what is stated is true. You could 'like/retweet' something because you find it funny, or silly, or imaginative, or just want to feel included.

Then why did the gov spend so much money and manpower trying to censor Twitter and the rest of social media?

Did they, though?

If I recall, the Twitter bans on some accounts (like Trump's) began under his government.

If I recall, virtually every government agency was actively working to undermine Trump's Presidency.
The very thing these Twitter drops are exposing.
The very thing this thread is about.

DERP

But did they, though? Or was that just the line that Trump fed you?

Trump promoted Trump.

No one blew the trumpet louder.

"People" took sides and became divided -- directly because of Trump's actions -- verbal and otherwise.

What, specifically, did Trump say and/or do that was "divisive "?

I think it’s more what CNN, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, MSNBC, and Tiktokers said about Trump which brought on the idea that he was a divisive, racist, fascist tyrant. He always did his best, when coming from his own mouth, to denounce that which was bad and to be inviting to everyone who would have in the success of America he cultivated.

originally posted by: AlexandrosTheGreat

originally posted by: SourGrapes

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: underpass61

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: nugget1

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Maxmars
a reply to: chr0naut

This whole thing is a great public relations boon for the Musk empire. His image is apparently very important to him, as his press demonstrates.

But Twitter and their actions were not part of that.

Is he "using this" to aggrandize that image? Probably.

It changes nothing about what apparently has occurred in the world of "speech-respecting platforms" like Twitter.

I imagine some may think how they feel about the messenger is more important than the message ... but I won't make time for that noise ... I will not play 'celebrity' games with this.

Social media is entertainment. It is not encyclopedic, nor a speech-respecting platform. Nor a place for electoral level gauging of majority beliefs and preferences.

It gives voice to the entertaining, shocking, and outrageous, and amplifys that.

A 'like' or retweet does not mean that you believe that what is stated is true. You could 'like/retweet' something because you find it funny, or silly, or imaginative, or just want to feel included.

Then why did the gov spend so much money and manpower trying to censor Twitter and the rest of social media?

Did they, though?

If I recall, the Twitter bans on some accounts (like Trump's) began under his government.

If I recall, virtually every government agency was actively working to undermine Trump's Presidency.
The very thing these Twitter drops are exposing.
The very thing this thread is about.

DERP

But did they, though? Or was that just the line that Trump fed you?

Trump promoted Trump.

No one blew the trumpet louder.

"People" took sides and became divided -- directly because of Trump's actions -- verbal and otherwise.

What, specifically, did Trump say and/or do that was "divisive "?

I think it’s more what CNN, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, MSNBC, and Tiktokers said about Trump which brought on the idea that he was a divisive, racist, fascist tyrant. He always did his best, when coming from his own mouth, to denounce that which was bad and to be inviting to everyone who would have in the success of America he cultivated.

And yet, anytime I ask these fools to provide proof, all I get is crickets.

originally posted by: underpass61
a reply to: chr0naut

Are you even paying attention?

Facebook, Twitter stocked with ex-FBI, CIA officials in key posts

"Ex", highly doubtful. So many "working" for FB and Twitter? The odds are astronomical.

LOL. First word in the body text of that article "Dozens".

Facebook has 58,604 full-time employees as of December 2020.

Obviously, they are being flooded with these 24 ex-government spies.

a reply to: chr0naut

LOL, article's headline uses the words "in key posts".

Try again

originally posted by: Maxmars
a reply to: MetalChickAmy

I have given some thought in this regard. There is no denying that what you propose not impossible. But I still have some reservations about several things.

I think it unlikely that whoever participated in the engineering (or directing) of the "project" could have expected keeping "the cat in the bag" forever. And it seems reasonable that they have postured themselves as 'beyond anyone's reach" by virtue of their status and isolation within the cabal. However, I maintain a few "biases" about the reality in which these theoretical conspirators operate.

You see, there is something peculiar to their situation... they cannot, under any circumstances, trust one another. The weakest member will begin the collapse because he or she will throw anyone under the bus to save themselves. Their carelessly brazen actions have exposed them quite plainly. We may not 'officially' have names, but we now have specific actions.

The thread to their plans has begun to surface and that thread, partially concealed though it might be, is nevertheless there to be found. There is a casual hubris in their actions because they appear to believe exactly as you said... "no one can do anything about it."

But everything in history tells us that if there is anything that can be counted on in conspiracy... someone will do something about it - even if it's only covering their behind... that's where they fail again and again. I can't predict what a person is thinking, but I would expect, someone is becoming nervous right now. They should be. These people throw 'little fish' to the wolves whenever they run and hide... watch for it.

As for the plans laid bare, as you say, they have been doing that for almost a century now... it may be as crass as an "inside joke" or simply a compulsion towards vanity; but once again, it is in keeping with the "no one can do anything about it" mindset. I think what you point out is a reflection of the larger thing, being manifested sympathetically in the smaller.

We won't need to back them into a corner. They will inevitably destroy themselves. It has already begun, in my opinion. The framework of their operation is now fracturing. Globalist "resolve" is now only a matter of overt action, not subtle misdirection. Almost everything they are doing now, conforms to the increasing desperation to "get on" with their plan, despite the rising resistance and inevitability of discovery.

These are only my 'opinions' of 'possibilities' of course, when you foray this far afield, speculation is inevitable.

You put forward a good perspective. Hiding in plain sight is a common tactic, and that's exactly what has given rise to so many conspiracy theories because people notice things and can see.

The thing I fear the most though, is regardless of how they fall, whether it is self-destruction or by us, they will ultimately take us all out with them.

originally posted by: AlexandrosTheGreat

originally posted by: SourGrapes

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: underpass61

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: nugget1

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Maxmars
a reply to: chr0naut

This whole thing is a great public relations boon for the Musk empire. His image is apparently very important to him, as his press demonstrates.

But Twitter and their actions were not part of that.

Is he "using this" to aggrandize that image? Probably.

It changes nothing about what apparently has occurred in the world of "speech-respecting platforms" like Twitter.

I imagine some may think how they feel about the messenger is more important than the message ... but I won't make time for that noise ... I will not play 'celebrity' games with this.

Social media is entertainment. It is not encyclopedic, nor a speech-respecting platform. Nor a place for electoral level gauging of majority beliefs and preferences.

It gives voice to the entertaining, shocking, and outrageous, and amplifys that.

A 'like' or retweet does not mean that you believe that what is stated is true. You could 'like/retweet' something because you find it funny, or silly, or imaginative, or just want to feel included.

Then why did the gov spend so much money and manpower trying to censor Twitter and the rest of social media?

Did they, though?

If I recall, the Twitter bans on some accounts (like Trump's) began under his government.

If I recall, virtually every government agency was actively working to undermine Trump's Presidency.
The very thing these Twitter drops are exposing.
The very thing this thread is about.

DERP

But did they, though? Or was that just the line that Trump fed you?

Trump promoted Trump.

No one blew the trumpet louder.

"People" took sides and became divided -- directly because of Trump's actions -- verbal and otherwise.

What, specifically, did Trump say and/or do that was "divisive "?

I think it’s more what CNN, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, MSNBC, and Tiktokers said about Trump which brought on the idea that he was a divisive, racist, fascist tyrant. He always did his best, when coming from his own mouth, to denounce that which was bad and to be inviting to everyone who would have in the success of America he cultivated.

Absolutely. All I saw was someone trying to improve the state of our Country and put the US first.

Another conspiracy rings the bell - - - - - 😎🚬

It has just been learned that the FBI Office that is “investigating” Hunter Biden sent many censorship requests to keep all of his bad news confidential just prior to the 2020 Election. In other words, the exact same people that were “investigating him” were making sure that he doesn’t get any bad publicity—“Only good publicity, please.” This is an outrageous disgrace, & the same group that is after me on the Boxes Hoax, the January 6th Unselect Committee Hoax, & the many past Hoaxes and Scams.

originally posted by: xuenchen
Another conspiracy rings the bell - - - - - 😎🚬

It has just been learned that the FBI Office that is “investigating” Hunter Biden sent many censorship requests to keep all of his bad news confidential just prior to the 2020 Election. In other words, the exact same people that were “investigating him” were making sure that he doesn’t get any bad publicity—“Only good publicity, please.” This is an outrageous disgrace, & the same group that is after me on the Boxes Hoax, the January 6th Unselect Committee Hoax, & the many past Hoaxes and Scams.

I know some other politician who paid for sex, from a prostitute, and made money from dubious dealings.

a reply to: chr0naut

Do you know any who haven't?

2nd line.