The ‘Kill Musk’s Twitter’ Directive: A Modern 1776 Stand Against a Global Plot for Censorship and Election Interference

Behind the Directive: More Than a Vendetta Against Musk

The CCDH’s “Kill Musk’s Twitter” directive, leaked in October 2023, may sound like a simple attempt to target Musk’s social media platform, X. But the directive is only one piece of a larger campaign that reveals a highly coordinated censorship apparatus operating across borders. At the heart of this operation lies the CCDH, with its chairman, Simon Clark, connected to the Atlantic Council–a well-known vehicle for U.S.-U.K. intelligence interests. Together, these connections suggest CCDH may act as an intermediary, or “cut-out,” designed to funnel influence between governments to control dissent.

Morgan McSweeney, a Labour Party insider working closely with the Harris campaign, is also a founding member of CCDH, bringing the operation directly into the political sphere. These ties point to a larger, organized attempt to suppress narratives that threaten the political establishment, particularly during sensitive election cycles. The Trump campaign’s recent FEC complaint, which highlights British political operatives like McSweeney meddling in US elections, further underscores the stakes of this directive.

Targeting RFK Jr.: BlackOps and the “Disinformation Dozen”

One of the most troubling revelations from the leaked Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) memo is its mention of “BlackOps” tactics aimed at maligning prominent figures like RFK Jr., a U.S. presidential candidate. The directive, initially reported on October 20 by journalists Paul Thacker and Matt Taibbi, also contained information on a leaked memo showing CCDH CEO Imran Ahmed talking about a “BlackOps” targeting RFK Jr.² Unlike typical counter-disinformation efforts, BlackOps refers to covert, often illegal intelligence or paramilitary operations characterized by plausible deniability.

Historically, BlackOps have been associated with actions like surveillance, digital sabotage, and even assassinations, making their use in the political arena especially disturbing. For the Kennedy family–whose legacy is already scarred by politically motivated assassinations–the specter of BlackOps carries profound, dark implications.

The memo brands RFK Jr. as part of the “Disinformation Dozen,” marking him as a target for covert tactics intended not only to silence but to discredit and isolate him from public discourse. This isn’t merely about suppressing dissenting opinions; it’s a concerted effort to neutralize RFK Jr.’s voice, potentially impacting his influence on the election and public opinion. The revelation that BlackOps tactics are being directed at a U.S. presidential candidate underscores an urgent need for transparency around government-media collusion and potential foreign interference.

The violent tone in CCDH’s leaked directive–such as the order to “KILL MUSK’S TWITTER”–reveals an aggressive stance that starkly contradicts the organization’s public mission of “countering hate.” When attempting to create an image for “Kill Musk’s Twitter” to illustrate the theme of censorship and suppression, even OpenAI’s policy flagged the term as violating its safety standards. When prompted, the AI responded:

ChatGPT:

The phrase ‘Kill Musk’s Twitter’ and related imagery suggest violent or aggressive themes, particularly when depicting attacks on a platform or specific individuals, even in a symbolic or metaphorical way. Our content policy is designed to avoid generating imagery or language that could imply harm, aggression, or targeted hostility toward individuals or entities, even within the context of information warfare or censorship discussions.”

This AI response underscores the disturbing nature of the language used in CCDH’s directive, which raises universal safety concerns across big tech platforms. If the phrase “Kill Musk’s Twitter” is considered too aggressive even in metaphorical use due to safety standards, it calls into question CCDH’s legitimacy as an organization purportedly dedicated to fighting hate. It is profoundly ironic that CCDH, a group claiming to “counter hate,” is exhibiting behaviors more consistent with a hate group–employing extreme, aggressive rhetoric and targeting individuals with what are historically dangerous tactics.

The implications of CCDH’s tactics extend beyond RFK Jr. and Elon Musk, revealing a coordinated approach that aligns with strategies used in 5th generation warfare. This “infowar” approach, where narratives are aggressively controlled and dissent is preemptively labeled and suppressed, represents a direct threat to democratic processes. By using BlackOps tactics to malign a U.S. presidential candidate, CCDH may be crossing legal lines, potentially violating the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), election interference statutes, and First Amendment protections.

The exposure of these tactics not only calls for accountability from CCDH but also underscores the urgent need to investigate whether foreign organizations are influencing U.S. elections and silencing dissent through covert operations. When CCDH’s internal language calls for “killing” a social media platform and “neutralizing” political figures, it reveals a level of aggression and hypocrisy that demands immediate scrutiny. This directive goes beyond any standard content moderation and shows CCDH actively working to undermine the safety and integrity of open discourse–a threat that reaches into the core of democratic freedoms.

The August 10, 2021 Meeting: A Bombshell Blueprint for Manipulating “Election Integrity” Narratives and Election Interference

The CCDH’s directive didn’t emerge in a vacuum. On August 10, 2021, the Biden-Harris administration held a significant meeting with the U.K. Foreign Office to discuss strategies for controlling “disinformation.” Documents released by America First Legal (AFL) reveal this meeting was not only politically motivated but explicitly aimed at shaping narratives around “election integrity”–a term that here translates to manipulating election-related information to bias public perception.¹

^{View the America First Legal press release on this powerpoint here, and view the powerpoint itself here.}

According to American First Legal,

This meeting was attended by high-level staff from the White House, the NSC, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Departments of State, Treasury, Defense (DOD), Homeland Security (DHS), and Health and Human Services (HHS), the U.S. Agencies for International Development (USAID) and Global Media (USAGM), as well as high-ranking officers in the Army, Navy, and Air Force. “

These whole-of-government efforts reflect a broad-scale “masterclass in censorship” driven by foreign entities and their U.S. counterparts, resulting in unprecedented foreign interference in U.S. democratic processes.

Around election periods, this censorship machine intensifies. In the U.K., a “Central Election Cell” was established by the Conservative-led government (CDU) to amplify suppression of “unfavorable” narratives and drive targeted election-time censorship. Similarly, during the U.S. 2022 Midterm elections, the Biden-Harris administration set up a “National Election Command Post” within the FBI, amplifying suppression efforts across key platforms to secure control over election-related information. These parallel setups on both sides of the Atlantic illustrate a coordinated, international effort to control discourse around elections–a move that would be an unmistakable interference if conducted by external powers.

Furthermore, these revelations have spurred U.S. lawmakers to act. Representative Nancy Mace, the chairwoman of the House Cybersecurity Subcommittee, recently called for measures to prevent the “deep state” censorship that marred the 2020 election from influencing the 2024 race.⁴ This call to action, paired with mounting evidence of foreign entities colluding with U.S. agencies, raises urgent questions about the extent to which these government-initiated suppression efforts have shaped past elections and could potentially shape the upcoming one.

The August 10 meeting didn’t occur in isolation; rather, it exemplifies a global strategy where international bodies collaborate with U.S. and U.K. actors to control public narratives. The PowerPoint presentation from this meeting prominently features NATO, the G7, and the European Union as major players in this global push for information control. NATO’s hybrid warfare-focused Hybrid CoE (Center of Excellence) was particularly active, underscoring the alliance’s shift toward treating social media as a digital battlefield where dissenting voices must be “neutralized”.

For those seeking more on NATO’s global role in election and narrative control, Mike Benz has extensively documented NATO’s stance on influencing election outcomes worldwide. In his many lectures, Benz explains how NATO increasingly views popular political movements that challenge established powers, whether on the left or right, as threats to “democratic institutions.” This shift frames democracy not as a government “by the people,” but as a set of values aligned with select institutions like the mainstream media, certain government agencies, and international corporate-political alliances. By operationalizing this viewpoint, NATO and its allies are increasingly defining “election integrity” as a matter of preserving the established order rather than fostering an open democratic process.

This orchestration of narratives extends worldwide, raising concerns that global entities are reshaping democracy in service of a political elite, at the expense of authentic public discourse. Platforms like X, which allow uncensored discourse, have become direct targets because they represent a breach in this carefully engineered information ecosystem.

The Criminalization of Speech: The UK Online Safety Act and Its Global Impact

The UK Online Safety Act 2023 is perhaps the most dangerous development in this global censorship plot. Ostensibly designed to protect the public from harmful online content, the Act grants the UK government unprecedented power to regulate speech on social media and other platforms. The key to this legislation is its focus on platforms that have significant UK user bases or pose risks to UK users, even if they are based abroad.

While these platforms are not physically within the UK, the Online Safety Act makes way for extraterritorial measures, giving OFCOM, the UK communications regulator, broad authority to enforce compliance. If platforms fail to mitigate what the government considers “illegal” or “harmful” content, they could face severe penalties. More troubling, however, are the provisions for international cooperation in law enforcement, meaning that UK authorities could request the extradition of individuals, including US citizens, if they are deemed to have violated the Act.

This means that an American citizen could face extradition and criminal prosecution under UK law, even if the speech in question is protected by the First Amendment in the US. The potential for such cross-border enforcement poses a grave threat to free speech, setting a precedent that governments can collaborate to suppress dissent worldwide.

“Tanks with Tweets”: NATO’s Declaration of Hybrid Warfare Against Social Media

In 2019, NATO formally acknowledged the potent influence of social media on modern conflict, famously declaring that “NATO must remain prepared for both conventional and hybrid threats: From tanks to tweets.” This shift positioned platforms like Twitter (now X) as critical fronts in a new kind of warfare–an infowar, or 5th generation warfare, where battles are waged through the control and manipulation of information. By equating tweets with weapons, NATO transformed digital spaces into warfare zones, opening the door for governments to justify social media control in the name of public security.

5th generation warfare, or information warfare, relies on controlling narratives, shaping public perception, and targeting dissent without traditional physical confrontations. The Biden-Harris administration’s weaponization of agencies like the DHS and CISA reflects this strategy, as these agencies have classified so-called “misinformation” as a domestic threat. By doing so, they align with NATO’s framework of hybrid warfare, which integrates digital influence as a core component of modern security and underscores the strategic value placed on controlling social media narratives.

This narrative control extends into the health sphere, where the militarization of public health rhetoric illustrates the application of infowar tactics. Dr. Peter Hotez, a prominent advocate for vaccine mandates, recently called for a “militarized approach” against so-called “anti-vaxxers”–a term applied broadly to those advocating for bodily autonomy and informed medical choice. This shift to military language in healthcare debate signals a broader trend of criminalizing dissent, reframing challenges to dominant narratives as threats to national security. By using infowar tactics, authorities transform public discourse into a controlled landscape, where dissenting perspectives on health and policy are treated as dangerous.

Platforms like X, where free speech can still occur in a relatively open forum, represent a breach in this controlled digital ecosystem, making them high-value targets in the information warfare landscape. X‘s position as a digital public square places it squarely in the crosshairs of a global effort to subdue dissenting voices under the pretense of national and global security. The framing of social media as a 5th generation warfare battleground illustrates the lengths to which governments and international bodies will go to retain narrative dominance, transforming platforms that allow unfiltered dialogue into virtual battlegrounds for digital control.

The Twitter 1.0 Censorship Machine Musk Inherited

When Elon Musk took over Twitter, he inherited more than just a platform for open discourse–he took control of a censorship machine embedded with weapons-grade artificial intelligence systems capable of mass information control. These AI systems, including advanced natural language processing (NLP) algorithms, were not only designed to flag “misinformation” but to automatically suppress entire categories of speech, regardless of their accuracy or public interest.

A groundbreaking investigation by journalist Kris Ruby, known as the Ruby Files, reveal that Twitter 1.0 routinely labeled factual posts about vaccine injuries, pandemic policies, and other sensitive topics as “misinformation,” ultimately resulting in the deplatforming of millions of users under a false pretense of content moderation findings show that these suppression mechanisms were far from incidental.³ The NLP algorithms used within Twitter 1.0 operated based on extensive lists provided directly by entities like the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), which worked closely with law enforcement and even government agencies. This collaboration created a feedback loop of suppression, where external organizations influenced AI-driven policies within Twitter, turning it into a tool for narrative control. The partnership between Twitter’s AI systems and external bodies like CCDH enabled a level of surveillance and speech adjudication that most users were unaware of, shifting the platform from a space of open dialogue to one where external bodies had control over permitted discourse.

One of the most alarming aspects of this system was its tendency to flag criticism of COVID-19 policies as hate speech. Ruby’s investigation revealed that terms like “mask” were automatically tagged with terms like “Nazi,” generating anti-Semitic flags for users who merely questioned or criticized pandemic mandates. This automated tagging created false narratives around user intentions, leading to wrongful accusations of hate speech. Such associations could theoretically have implications for criminalizing speech, as it wrongly flagged users as engaging in anti-Semitic behavior, potentially subjecting them to additional scrutiny or even legal consequences. The system was thus not only suppressing discussion but actively stigmatizing users, marking them with digital labels that implied malicious intent, regardless of the actual content of their posts.

This influence extended into the political sphere, where Ruby’s investigations reveal that the same AI mechanisms were deployed to suppress “election misinformation” ahead of U.S. elections. The algorithms, powered by government-supplied lists, automatically flagged and removed content that questioned or contradicted official narratives around election integrity. In this context, Twitter’s AI systems acted as silent gatekeepers, influencing public perception by filtering politically sensitive content before it could reach a broad audience. This quiet election interference via censorship underscores the extent to which Twitter 1.0 had become embedded in a broader, coordinated effort to shape public opinion, functioning in alignment with governmental interests rather than independent moderation.

Moreover, these efforts reflect a systematic disregard for transparency, as these AI tools were deployed without any user knowledge or consent. While ostensibly combating harmful misinformation, these algorithms effectively created digital profiles of individuals whose views were deemed “dangerous,” whether on vaccines, elections, or political affiliations. As a result, many were deplatformed, shadowbanned, or digitally defamed based on opaque criteria controlled by unaccountable entities working outside Twitter’s walls. The Ruby Files emphasize that, unbeknownst to most users, Twitter 1.0 was not merely moderating content but actively shaping the narratives its users could discuss–a shift that had profound implications for freedom of expression and the potential criminalization of speech.

When Musk acquired Twitter, he inherited this deeply embedded censorship infrastructure, requiring a complete overhaul to restore transparency and reestablish the platform as a genuine space for open discourse. These revelations suggest that Twitter’s prior AI-driven practices were not just tools for content moderation but mechanisms of influence, operating under the guidance of external interests and affecting democratic processes on a global scale, resulting in the digital defamation and deplatforming of millions.

The Targeting of GreenMedInfo: Health Freedom as a Threat

GreenMedInfo, an ad-free, reader-supported site focused on natural health, became a key target for suppression due to its dedication to independent, science-backed health information.⁵ Since its founding, GreenMedInfo has curated nearly 100,000 peer-reviewed studies, reaching over 200 countries with 250 million views and distributing over a billion free emails each year. As a leading resource for those exploring alternatives to conventional medicine, GreenMedInfo champions transparency in health choices and upholds the ethical principle of informed consent–a right rooted in the Nuremberg Trials, which established individuals’ rights to full disclosure in medical decisions.

Ironically, GreenMedInfo’s unwavering commitment to informed choice and transparency has led organizations like NewsGuard and the Institute for Strategic Dialogue to label it as “far-right.” This tactic echoes the practices of historical far-right regimes, which relied on censorship as a primary tool and accused dissenting voices of the very tactics they themselves deployed. In labeling GreenMedInfo as “far-right” without evidence, these entities exemplify a larger agenda to discredit any outlet challenging dominant narratives–particularly those advocating for medical freedom and informed choice. This bias not only sidelines GreenMedInfo from the public sphere but also deprives individuals of the information needed to make autonomous health decisions, equating the promotion of health freedom with extremism.

Learn more about ISD and Newsguard’s agenda by reading our exposé on the topic here.

In response, GreenMedInfo founder Sayer Ji issued an open letter to media organizations that amplified defamatory narratives against the “Disinformation Dozen,” a group of health advocates, including Ji, falsely accused of spreading harmful misinformation. Ji’s letter calls on these media outlets to retract false claims, investigate foreign dark money influences, and restore journalistic integrity. His letter highlights an alarming trend of “black operations” targeting U.S. citizens, where covert foreign influence networks manipulate public opinion and attempt to shape U.S. election outcomes. This coordinated suppression echoes X‘s ongoing struggle as it emerges as one of the last major platforms upholding open discourse.

Like GreenMedInfo, X embodies the promise of free speech, offering access to unfiltered, diverse perspectives in a landscape where censorship increasingly threatens the independence of public discourse. GreenMedInfo’s ranking among the world’s top 5 ad-free, independent, non-partisan media sites positions it firmly within the Fifth Estate–a vital space where information flows freely outside government and corporate control.⁶ Yet, as independent voices like GreenMedInfo and X face mounting censorship, the very concept of the Fifth Estate is under siege, suggesting a systematic effort to sanitize information, consolidate viewpoints, and eliminate alternative narratives.

Without platforms like GreenMedInfo and X, public discourse risks becoming an echo chamber limited to state-approved perspectives on critical issues from health to politics. The suppression of independent outlets not only threatens individual autonomy and informed choice but also erodes the foundation of democracy, limiting the public’s ability to engage with diverse, uncensored information essential to a free society.

The EU Digital Services Act and Financial Warfare Against X

The EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA) introduces immense financial penalties for platforms that fail to comply with its strict content regulations.⁸ For X, non-compliance could mean fines of up to 6% of its annual revenue, an amount that could potentially force the platform to shut down. This economic threat is designed to compel platforms to adhere to a globally regulated standard for speech. Under such pressure, even X, the world’s last major platform for free discourse, could face shutdown unless it bows to EU demands.

Adding to the economic squeeze on X is the Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM), an ad alliance that worked to demonetize X in retaliation for its stance on free speech. Musk’s lawsuit against GARM exposed the group’s coordinated efforts, forcing it to suspend operations.⁷ The collapse of GARM following the lawsuit reveals that even private entities recognize the legal and ethical boundaries they overstepped in demonetizing dissenting platforms.

X as the Bastille of Digital Democracy: Defending Free Speech in the Information Age

Today, X stands as the world’s #1 news app–a digital Bastille in a landscape where censorship increasingly dominates. Much like the historic fortress symbolized the breaking point of authoritarian control and the dawn of liberty, X has become the last stronghold of digital democracy, where diverse voices converge to uphold a fundamental truth: the right to speak freely. In replatforming millions of voices that were silenced elsewhere, X has emerged as one of the final bastions of unregulated dialogue, where the free flow of information and the expression of individual thought are still protected.

In a world where centralized forces work tirelessly to enforce a single, sanitized narrative, X serves as a critical outpost–one of the few platforms where unfiltered speech and Constitutionally protected liberties still hold sway. The recently exposed “Kill Musk’s Twitter” directive signifies more than just an attack on one company; it represents a coordinated, global attempt to criminalize speech, silence dissent, and impose controlled narratives across borders. This directive is a stark reminder that as governments and corporations align to dictate public discourse, fundamental democratic freedoms hang in the balance.

X is not merely a social platform; it is the last major digital public square where First Amendment principles find sanctuary, offering a space for those who dare to question, challenge, and resist. Digital democracy depends on a free exchange of information and a broad coalition of voices united around core values like free speech. By supporting X and other independent platforms, individuals wield the power to push back against this wave of digital authoritarianism, safeguarding the right of citizens everywhere to engage freely in public discourse. In defending X, we defend a cornerstone of democracy–the power to think, speak, and be heard without fear of suppression.

1776 All Over Again: Free Speech Under Siege in the Last Stronghold of the Five Eyes

At its core, the “Kill Musk’s Twitter” directive and the global censorship agenda it reveals are about far more than controlling a single platform. They signify a broader assault on the foundational principles of free speech, targeting the last remaining stronghold in the Five Eyes intelligence alliance that still enshrines freedom of expression as a Constitutional right: the United States. The other members of this alliance–Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand–have increasingly adopted restrictive speech policies, leaving the U.S. as the final defender of unregulated public discourse within this influential network.

As global bodies like NATO and the United Nations push for international frameworks to censor, deplatform, adjudicate, and even criminalize speech under the guise of combating “disinformation,” we are witnessing a return to the very seditious libel laws that helped ignite the American Revolution. In the 18th century, such laws were wielded by the British Crown to silence dissent in its colonies, penalizing any criticism of government authority as a crime against the state. The fight for independence was driven by a conviction that individuals have an inherent right to speak truth to power without fear of retribution. Now, over two centuries later, these ideals are under renewed threat–not from a distant monarchy, but from an emerging international governance framework aiming to suppress dissent on a global scale.

This return of “seditious libel” is disguised in the modern language of “misinformation” and “public safety,” but the implications remain the same: a chilling effect on open dialogue, especially on matters of public policy and governance. The United States, with its First Amendment protections, stands as the last major bastion of free speech against this rising tide of international speech regulation. Will Americans stand by and allow a new, globally coordinated censorship regime to subvert this fundamental freedom, or will they resist, invoking the spirit of 1776 to defend the right to speak and question freely?

The stakes could not be higher. The creation of international laws to restrict speech would effectively erase national boundaries around freedom of expression, subjecting American citizens to foreign standards and creating a world where questioning authority becomes a punishable offense. The fight for X, therefore, is about much more than one platform or one directive; it’s about preserving the very essence of democratic freedom against a new kind of technocratic, imperial control.

Will we allow these forces to reimpose the chains of seditious libel, or will we once again stand for the right to speak, challenge, and live freely? This is a defining moment, not just for American democracy, but for the principle of free expression worldwide. The answer we choose will echo across generations, determining whether the ideals of 1776 endure in the digital age.

© 10-29-24 GreenMedInfo LLC. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of GreenMedInfo LLC. Want to learn more from GreenMedInfo? Sign up for the newsletter here //www.greenmedinfo.com/greenmed/newsletter.

References

1. America First Legal. “Foreign Collusion in Biden-Harris Government Censorship Regime.” America First Legal, 2024. https://aflegal.org/exclusive-america-first-legal-obtains-new-internal-cdc-documents-revealing-foreign-collusion-in-biden-harris-government-censorship-regime/.

2. Racket News. “Election Exclusive: British Advisors Influence U.S. Censorship Policy.” Racket News, October 20, 2023. https://www.racket.news/p/election-exclusive-british-advisors?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web.

3. Kris Ruby. “The Ruby Files.” Ruby Media Group. Details on Twitter’s NLP algorithms and suppression of vaccine injury content. Accessed 2023.

4. Nancy Mace, House Cybersecurity Subcommittee. Statement on 2024 Election Interference Prevention. October 2024.

5. GreenMedInfo. “Exposé on Global Censorship of Health Freedom Sites.” GreenMedInfo, 2024. www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/expos-global-elite-target-greenmedinfohealth-sites-institute-strategic-dialogue-c2.

6. GreenMedInfo. “Fifth Estate Under Siege: Silencing Independent Voices.” GreenMedInfo, 2024. www.greenmedinfo.com/content/fifth-estate-under-siege-how-media-bias-and-government-collusion-threaten-info.

7. CNBC. “Ad Group Suspends GARM after X Lawsuit.” CNBC, August 8, 2024. https://www.cnbc.com/2024/08/08/ad-group-suspends-garm-after-of-x-elon-musks-antitrust-lawsuit.

8. The Verge. “EU’s Digital Services Act and Potential Fines for X.” The Verge, October 17, 2024. https://www.theverge.com/2024/10/17/24272716/x-twitter-digital-services-act-violation-fines.