The 20 Most Brilliant Quotes About American Culture from Zuby

posted by John Hawkins at Culturcidal

Have you ever heard of Zuby? He is, believe it or not, a British rapper (who became an American citizen) with over 700,000 mostly rightward leaning Twitter followers. Zuby drops pearls of conservative wisdom on his Twitter account the way that a clumsy baby eating spaghetti with his hands drops it all over the table. Is the name Zuby still not ringing a bell? Well, maybe you will remember him from his Joe Rogan appearance:

Of course, you may also recall when he briefly identified as female, broke the women’s deadlift record in England, then went back to identifying as male again:

Zuby has a mind like a razor blade and on a daily basis, he’s saying things a lot more Americans need to hear. With that in mind, here are Zuby’s 20 best quotes about culture. Enjoy!

20) Kids in 1995: "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me." Adults in 2021: "Words are literally violence."

19) Not being a complete degenerate is the new counterculture.

18) Pronouns in bio is a telltale sign of narcissism, weakness, neuroticism, self-righteousness, rigid leftism, desire to control, and susceptibility to groupthink - all under a faux mask of “kindness” & “inclusivity.” AKA a cacophony of red flag personality and ideological traits

17) If you're reading this, then you're probably not oppressed. Not only are you not oppressed, but it's unlikely that anybody cares about you enough to oppress you. Perhaps you're oppressed by your own mindset. That's tragic.

16) 90% of my political philosophy is:

- Leave me alone.

- Don't hurt people.

- Don't take people's stuff.

- Leave me alone.

To some, that's “far-right” now.

15) A great sign of a decadent society is one where people actively fight to have their rights removed and freedoms restricted.

14) Science is supposed to be challenged, questioned, tested, and scrutinized. That's the entire point. If that is not permissible and basic lines of inquiry are censored or taboo, then it's not science, but secular dogma.

13) I preferred it when corporations just sold me stuff, without needing to remind me every 12 minutes that they really like black people.

12) Too many people have forgotten how to mind their own business and it's creating infinite problems for everybody else.

11) You can be in favor of something but opposed to it being mandatory. You can be against something, but not in favor of it being banned. Smart people understand this.

10) The government will take your natural rights, your liberty, your job, and your hard-earned money, all without your consent. And then act like they're doing you a huge favor when they're “given” back to you. And people fall for it every time. Many even thank them.

9) A lot of people on “the left” talk like being black is a disability and it pisses me off. Then they start trying to talk down to me and lecture me with their “structural,” “systemic,” and “institutional” BS. I'm blessed. Not handicapped. I don't want your “education.”

8) Our society constantly oversimplifies things that are highly complex, whilst making the most basic things appear highly complicated.

7) There are not enough evil people in the world to screw things up by themselves. It requires large-scale complicity, via apathy or fear.

6) The notion that you can simply “identify as” whatever you wish, and that everybody must instantly accept it and play along 100% without asking any questions, is possibly the silliest idea in modern society.

5) Millions of people in the West have replaced God with Pfizer and they don't even know it... It is safer to question, criticize, attack, and mock God than the Pfizer shot. Tell me I'm wrong.

4) What used to be called a bad experience is now “trauma.”

Concern is now “anxiety.”

Feeling offended is now “harm.”

Sadness is now “depression.”

Bad memories are “PTSD.”

Stop it.

3) If you ever doubt your intelligence, remember that millions of people lived through the past 2 years and concluded the government should have more power over their lives.

2) Forget “right” and “left” for a moment... The real battle is between people who want to be left alone and those who refuse to leave other people alone. Always has been. Always will be.

1) The weird thing about the modern West is the majority of the population bows to the weakest, whiniest, most dweeby members of society. How can a handful of dorks silence and control most of the population? Stop letting these dweebs bully you.

X22 and On the Fringe-April 17

 

Hope you all had a great day! Here's tonight's news:

America’s Common Sense Foreign Policy

Sensible Americans reject the progressive foreign policy that has dragged the United States into more and more conflicts abroad . . . and at home.

by Robert Curry for American Greatness

When America was the common sense nation, quite naturally, it had a common sense foreign policy. That policy is simple to state: America minded its own business and left other people to mind theirs. That policy was followed with scarcely a misstep by America’s leaders from the time of the founders through the presidency of Theodore Roosevelt. It succeeded spectacularly. America rose among nations during the era of its common sense foreign policy. 

The election of Woodrow Wilson in 1912 brought an end to that policy and to the era of America’s peace among nations. America’s progressive elite swiftly imposed a new foreign policy that rejected the principles that had worked so well—and plunged America into 11 disastrous decades of international quagmires. 

This story is brilliantly told in the late Angelo Codevilla’s splendid new book America’s Rise and Fall Among Nations: Lessons in Statecraft from John Quincy Adams. Codevilla begins with these words: “This book contrasts the successful foreign relations under presidents from George Washington to Theodore Roosevelt with the disarray resulting from Progressive management ever since.” 

Although it was practiced by America’s leaders throughout America’s long era of peace with other nations, America’s original foreign policy was most clearly articulated by John Quincy Adams. Codevilla presents Adams’ view with simple clarity:

[J]ust as others’ business, others’ quarrels, and others’ objectives are rightfully and inescapably their own, America is the sole, sovereign judge of its own business, of what our own safety and welfare require. This, Adams argued, is international law as well as common sense.

Abandoning the principles of conduct among nations that had succeeded so well hurled America into a world of hurt. Codevilla examines those 11 disastrous decades of progressive mismanagement with originality and clarity, unfolding for our understanding the whole tragedy from World War I and World War II through Vietnam and Afghanistan.

Despite Adams’ clear statement of the principles and George Washington’s warnings against entangling alliances, America’s progressive elite has pledged young American soldiers to defend with their lives the independence of Serbia, Montenegro, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, North Macedonia, Albania, and other lands of Central and Eastern Europe—to name only one unstable region of the world. This is not what the Founders intended.

The founders had a clear understanding of the purpose of the military. Military strength was intended only to prevent others from meddling in our business. To paraphrase Teddy Roosevelt, stay out of other peoples’ business, talk softly, and carry a big stick. This remains the common sense thinking of most Americans today. 

In contrast, the progressives are playing a dangerous game by talking loudly about regime change in Russia while continuing to block the missile defense system America urgently needs to protect ourselves from nuclear missiles launched by Russians, the Chinese, and even Iranians using ships just offshore. (For more on the Ukraine crisis in the light of common sense, I recommend Brian Kennedy’s thoughtful analysis.)  

Sensible Americans reject the progressive foreign policy that has dragged America into more and more conflicts abroad and dragged Americans into more and more conflicts over foreign policy here at home. They also reject the changes to America the progressives are imposing in their top-down war on the American people.

Even in Woodrow Wilson’s day, Americans rejected his fundamental foreign policy postulate. Codevilla puts it this way:

The American people rejected the self-contradictory notion that Wilson’s League of Nations could at once insure all would go to war for each, and that it would relieve each and all, especially Americans, of the need to go to war at all.

It remains for us to do as they did and put an end to the absurdities of progressive foreign policy before it puts an end to America. Codevilla explains how it can be done. We must put an end to misrule by our progressive elite and return to a government by, for, and of the people. In order to become what America once was, in part still is, and should be, we must turn to the founders and those who, like Codevilla, understand America’s founders to learn how to get back on track.

Latest Durham Filing on Sussmann Shows the Net Is Tightening, People Are Flipping

Nick Arama reporting for RedState 

When last we left you in the saga of the Durham probe, the defense’s motion to dismiss the case against former Clinton lawyer Michael Sussmann had been denied. That means that barring a plea or further postponement, Sussmann will go to trial May 16 (as currently scheduled), on the charge of the false statement to the FBI. As I noted, that must be making the folks in Clinton-land sweat with what could be coming next.

Now, more information has come out in the latest filings in the case and if it wasn’t obvious already, these filings make it clear that this is going beyond Michael Sussmann. This is from the government’s response to multiple motions from the defense.

First, we know that the smear that was perpetrated against the Trump Organization about the supposed contact with the Alfa Bank — to make it look like Donald Trump was somehow communicating with the Russians — was not true. But the information in the most recent filings indicates that the CIA thought it may have been fabricated. The CIA concluded it was not “technically plausible” and was “user created and not machine/tool generated”:

Durham doesn’t go that far. But in another filing, in opposition to an effort by the defense to exclude an expert witness for the government, Durham says he will present an agent expert to show that the tech people behind the claim about the Alfa Bank could not have reasonably believed the conclusion about the data that they were claiming and that they passed on to the FBI.

How do we know that it is probably going to encompass more people? Durham discusses grants of immunity to different people. Durham gave immunity to “Researcher 2” to explain what had been done with the data, and that he raised concerns to the defendant about whether the data was being “unlawfully collected and used.”

Durham says that the government immunized Researcher-2 because “at least five other witnesses who conducted work relating to the Russia Bank-1 allegations invoked (or indicated their intent to invoke) their right against self-incrimination.” So they gave him immunity to uncover the facts concerning the opposition “research project” that Tech Executive-1 and the others had carried out before Sussmann met with the FBI.

Durham is fighting the effort by the defense to compel the government to give Tech Executive-1 immunity. Durham says clearly that Tech Executive-1 is not just a “witness,” but a “subject” of the investigation and continues to be so. Tech Executive-1 — whom the court has identified as Rodney Joffe — has also invoked his right against self-incrimination.

Durham alleges that there was contact between Researcher-2 and the defendant, that Researcher-2 was involved in writing a white paper related to the allegations about the Russia Bank, and then the defendant billed the Clinton campaign for the white paper’s drafting.

Durham also said they will be seeking immunity for a person employed at the “U.S. investigative firm” (Fusion GPS). Now that’s fascinating, because one would think that has to pertain to information on Christopher Steele and the dossier, the people who hired him, and/or the communications that went back and forth — who knew what when.

Durham went on at length in the filing about the Clinton campaign connection, and the evidence that Sussmann was working for them when he allegedly lied to the FBI and said he wasn’t.

All of this evidence is highly probative, insofar as it establishes that the defendant (i) represented and worked for the Clinton Campaign in connection with its broader opposition research efforts, (ii) took steps to integrate the Russian Bank-1 allegations into those opposition research efforts, (iii) coordinated with U.K. Person-1, the U.S. Investigative Firm, and Tech Executive-1 in connection with the Russian Bank-1 allegations, and (iv) carried out his September 19, 2016 meeting with the FBI in order to, among other things, further the interests of the Clinton Campaign with assistance from the U.S. Investigative Firm.

Durham points out how the Clinton campaign and Tech Executive-1 claimed privilege over the information, which would seem to prove the point that Durham was making.

Finally, the defendant’s argument that the Court should bar the Government from offering evidence that the Clinton Campaign and Tech Executive-1 have asserted the privilege over particular documents is similarly without merit. It is manifestly relevant to the charged offense that both the Clinton Campaign and Tech Executive-1 have asserted attorney-client privilege over documents involving the defendant that concern or relate to the Russian Bank-1 allegations. Such information is inherently probative because – as alleged in the Indictment – the defendant claimed he did not assemble those allegations on behalf of any client. For this reason, the Clinton Campaign’s and Tech Executive-1’s privilege claims over documents relating to the Russian Bank-1 allegations naturally undermine, and tend to refute, the defendant’s assertion to the FBI General Counsel. They are therefore highly probative.

Then there’s more about that DNS surveillance that they were doing.

The evidence at trial will also establish that the defendant carried with him to the FBI and Agency-2 two separate sets of thumb drives containing data files that were named, among other things, “log of DNS lookups for mail.trump_email.com, 851.txt,” “[Russian Phone Provider- 1]-cpwest8,” “[Russian Phone Provider-1]-eop.csv,” “[Russian Phone Provider-1]-[Healthcare Provider-1].csv,” and “[Russian Phone Provider-1]-trumporg.csv,” all apparent references to the specific source and/or destination of purported DNS lookups.

“CPwest8” was Trump’s Central Park address, “Trumporg” would be the Trump organization and “EOP” would appear to indicate the Executive Office of the President, based on Durham’s prior filings.

It looks to me like they have all they need regarding Sussmann, and so the question would be: will he and/or others flip to reveal more of the relationship? With the grants of immunity, that’s an indication that there’s more coming and that they will already have people laying out a lot of the plan. They already have at least a couple of people spilling what they know. But it sounds like Durham is getting close and tightening the net. The folks in Clinton-land must be melting down right about now.

Hunter Biden’s Laptops Scandal Exposes How Communist Influence Operations Work

One lesson from the ongoing scandal is that it lifted the curtain of foreign governments’ covert influence campaigns in the United States.

Helen Raleigh reporting for The Federalist

Hunter Biden’s abandoned laptop revealed much information, including Hunter’s shady business dealings in Ukraine and China, raising questions about the extent to which President Biden was involved in his son’s business activities. This ongoing scandal lifted the curtain of foreign governments’ covert influence campaigns in the United States. No government has conducted such influence campaigns more effectively than Communist China.

To understand China’s influence campaigns on foreign soil, one has to get familiar with a secretive Chinese government agency, the United Front Work Department (UFWD), or United Front. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) established UFWD in the 1930s, aiming to recruit famous intellectuals, writers, teachers, students, publishers, and business leaders who were not necessarily Communists. 

These recruits promoted the CCP’s agenda, influenced public opinion in favor of the CCP in territory ruled by the Nationalist Party, and helped the CCP secure the weapons, medicine, and other resources to overthrow the Nationalist-led government. Then-CCP leader Mao Zedong called the United Front a “magic weapon” for the CCP. 

When Xi Jinping came to power in late 2012, he greatly expanded the UFWD and elevated the UFWD’s status by having a politburo member, Ms. Sun Chunlan, head the UFWD. Today, the UFWD’s headquarters in Beijing is located in an unmarked but heavily guarded building next to the CCP’s leadership compound. This location says the highest power in the nation directly endorses its mission and strategy.

UFWD workers are assigned to many government branches inside and outside China, including almost all Chinese embassies, which now include staff formally working with United Front. The UFWD is tasked with helping the CCP aggressively and yet covertly dictate its messages and narratives about China. UFWD’s goal is to gather information and either win over or co-opt support for the CCP. It is to attack and neutralize potential dissent and opposition inside and outside China.

Influencing the Influencers

The UFWD’s overseas influence campaigns rely on various methods, including establishing Confucius Institutes and controlling Chinese Students and Scholars Associations on college campuses in the west. But one of its most effective methods is to cultivate politicians, prominent business people, and well-known intellectuals in the west as “friends of China.”

These “friends” then influence policies and public opinion in their home countries to favor China, while trying to minimize harm to China and silence any criticism of the CCP. This approach is called “influencing the influencers.”

The UFWD’s process of cultivating “friends” usually involves several tactics. UFWD knows how to make them feel important through excessive flattery, lavish trips to China, and access to high-level Chinese government officials. For foreign business elites and families of prominent foreign politicians, the UFWD has made sure they were rewarded financially either through bribes or preferential business terms.

John Kerry and Henry Kissinger Connections

Isaac Stone Fish, a visiting fellow at the Atlantic Council and author of “America Second,” recently wrote that one of the most influential “friends of China” the UFWD has painstakingly cultivated is Henry Kissinger, former national security advisor and secretary of the State under Presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford. Even though he retired from his government post long ago, whenever Kissinger traveled to China, he was always granted an audience with China’s top leader.

According to Fish, Kissinger has been “actively dampening criticism of the [Chinese Communist] Party amongst his massive network.” For example, Kissinger suggested the George H.W. Bush administration take “a lighter response to the June 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre.” Kissinger was also reportedly “convinced the Trump administration not to meet with the Dalai Lama — Trump was the first president since Reagan to not meet with the Tibetan spiritual leader.”

The Chinese government has also been cultivating relationships with family members of other prominent U.S. politicians. For example, Chinese companies, including some large state-owned enterprises such as the Bank of China (BOC), funded 80 percent of the Bohai Harvest RST (BHR) investment fund, which was partly owned and directed by Hunter Biden and Chris Heinz, the stepson of former Secretary of State John Kerry, through their private equity fund, Rosemont Seneca Partners.

The Chinese government authorities approved the deal to establish the fund after Hunter Biden traveled to China with then-Vice President Joe Biden in 2013. China’s apparent motive was to buy influence in the United States through the children of two of the most prominent officials in the Obama administration.

Beijing’s investment in BHR soon paid off. In 2015, the fund played a crucial role in securing approval by the Obama administration and the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) for the sale of the Michigan-based Henniges Automotive to one of China’s leading military aircraft makers, the Aviation Industry Corporation of China (AVIC). 

Wall Street Influence

In addition to prominent politicians and their families, foreign business elites are also targets of UFWD’s foreign influence campaign. Former Attorney General William Barr criticized American businesses from tech companies to Hollywood for becoming “pawns of Chinese influence.” Probably no other sector has been more influenced by Beijing than Wall Street. 

A China sovereign wealth fund, China Investment Corp (CIC), invested $3 billion in funding for Blackstone Group’s initial public offering in 2007. The Chinese government approved BlackRock, another Wall Street firm, to start a private-fund business in China in 2017. BlackRock’s CEO Larry Fink received an award from the National Committee on United States-China Relations a year later, with Kissinger and Chinese Ambassador Cui Tiankai in the audience.

Not surprisingly, Blackstone CEO Stephen Schwartzman and Fink have been the most vocal cheerleaders for Beijing on Wall Street. Schwarzman set up a Schwarzman Scholars program at Tsinghua University, one of the most prestigious universities in China, working closely with Chen Xu, the CCP secretary at Tsinghua. Chen later became the deputy head of UFWD. 

On behalf of Beijing, Fink lobbied index provider MSCI to include shares of Chinese companies traded on mainland China exchanges in its emerging-market index. Some investors were against such an inclusion, concerned about the lack of transparency in Chinese companies and the Chinese government’s strict capital control. BlackRock also offered its full support when Hong Kong-traded Chinese companies proposed to require their boards to “seek advice on major decisions from Communist Party committees,” according to the Wall Street Journal. 

During President Trump’s first term, the Chinese government turned to Schwartzman, Fink, and other CEOs of large Wall Street firms for help during the U.S.- China trade negotiations, promising to reward their efforts with more expansion of their firms in China. 

Mutually Beneficial Influence Peddling

In addition to lobbying, Wall Street firms such as BlackRock have also channeled billions of dollars into Chinese companies. Some of the companies they funded are allegedly either involved in human rights abuses of Uyghur Muslims or have close ties with the Chinese military, presenting a threat to U.S. national security. 

In his piece about Kissinger being played by China, Fish stated the UFWD’s overseas influence campaigns have been so successful that some western politicians and business elites who became “agents” of the CCP don’t even know they are agents of the CCP. 

One way to address China’s overseas influence campaign is to enforce the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), requiring “those acting as the agents of foreign principals to publicly disclose that relationship and their political or other similar activities by registering with the Justice Department.” But doing so may upset some very rich and famous American elites. Therefore, whether the Biden administration’s Department of Justice has the political will to do so remains to be seen.

Older residents of the east reluctant to hit the road

 

The small village of Serhiivka, in eastern Ukraine, was completely quiet on Sunday - hardly a person on the streets or milling around the centre of the village, where you would normally find life.

There used to be 1,500 people here, before the full-scale invasion of Russian troops into Ukraine in February, and the renewed violence around the frontlines not far from here.

Today there are only about 300 residents left, and more are leaving as Russia renews its campaign to the east and south.

The population would have already skewed older, but few of the younger people who were here have stayed. It's a phenomenon seen in villages and towns around Ukraine, as younger generations have moved to safer areas while their parents and grandparents choose to stick it out.

"I have lived here all my life, I'm not going anywhere," said Mykola Luhynets, a 59-year-old carrying a rifle and wearing the armband of the territorial defence. Luhynets signed up and took a gun in February. "I will stay in Serhiivka and defend it if necessary," he said.   

In normal times, Serhiivka is an industrial and agricultural village - many of its working-age population are either farmers or staff at the local coal enrichment factory. It could be in the line of fire if the Russian forces decided to encroach beyond Donetsk towards the city of Dnipro.

"We only have simple shelters here but we have prepared them," said Valeriy Duhelnyy, 59, the head of the village and local territorial defence units. Duhelnyy is the equivalent of the village mayor, a position he has held since 2020.

"It's hard for older people here to hit the road," he said. "And maybe some are sentimental - they have stronger emotional ties to where they live. They don't want to die anywhere but home."

More than two million older people in the east of the country are at extreme risk as a result of the Russian assault on the country, according to the charity HelpAge International. There is particular concern among charities focused on supporting the elderly that older people have been unable to move out of harm's way, or feel unable to take on the hardship of upheaval.  

Some simply do not have the money to move, or a place to go. "I'm a retiree and I don't have much, only a small pension," said Rayisa Horislavets, 66, who lives with her daughter in a small house in Serhiivka.

"I can't afford to rent an apartment somewhere safer. I can't rule out that something bad will happen here, but I just have no other options," she said. "Nobody needs me anywhere else, so I decided come-what-may I would stay here."

Horislavets used to speak regularly to her sister, who lives on the other side of the frontline that separates the territory still in Ukrainian control from the "Donetsk People's Republic" - the breakaway region where Russia has forged a separatist movement since 2014.

The phone connection to her sister died about two weeks ago, Horislavets said. But the relationship had already deteriorated, after her sister began telling her that she thought the news about Russia's attacks on Ukraine was fake.    

"She told me not to believe anything I see in our media, that it is the Ukrainians doing all the damage," Horislavets said. "I told her there are witnesses, we see what is happening in Kharkiv and elsewhere, but she doesn't believe me."

Her story is not uncommon in eastern Ukraine, where frontlines have divided families and Russian propaganda has convinced many on the Russian side that the atrocities and attacks reported in international media are fake - that Ukraine is the aggressor.

So far, Serhiivka has been peaceful. The remaining residents hope it will stay that way, though they are preparing the best they can for worse. They have seen the destruction of Kharkiv to the north and Mariupol to the south, and the grinding war not far from their doorstep in Donetsk.

Horislavets said that when that conflict began, she had taken care for her sister, who lived there.

"When bad things came to their home we supported them," she said. "Now bad things come to our home, and they do not support us." She would like to speak to her sister again. "Of course, she is my sister," she said. But not right now. "We would only fight."  

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-61135091?xtor=AL-72-%5Bpartner%5D-%5Bbbc.news.twitter%5D-%5Bheadline%5D-%5Bnews%5D-%5Bbizdev%5D-%5Bisapi%5D&at_campaign=64&at_medium=custom7&at_custom3=%40BBCWorld&at_custom2=twitter&at_custom4=21E85A7A-BE74-11EC-8860-7AD54744363C&at_custom1=%5Bpost+type%5D    

 

Twitter Board of Directors Own Almost No Shares of Stock in Company

Elon Musk Notes “their economic interests 

are simply not aligned with shareholders”

In the ongoing public battle over Twitter as a speech platform, one actual user of Twitter, Chris Bakke, wanted to see who exactly these Board of Directors are, who are attempting to stop Elon Musk from purchasing it.

Chris Bakke then noted how little of the actual stock is owned by the company’s Board of Directors.  Sans Twitter Founder Jack Dorsey, the combined ownership of the entire board equates to 77 shares of stock, worth around $3,200 bucks.

The Board of Directors [SEE BoD LINK HERE] consists of academics, tech executives, business and policy wonks, and a random baroness who doesn’t even use the service.  These are the people who are making fiduciary decisions for all Twitter stock owners without any financial stake in the decisions they make for the company.

(TWEET LINK)

BOARD MEMBERS – (2) Bret Taylor, Independent Board Chair; Co-CEO, Salesforce (former Google exec). (3) Parag Agrawal,CEO, Twitter. (4) Mimi Alemayehou, Senior Vice President for Public – Private Partnership at Mastercard. (5) Dr. Fei-Fei Li, Professor at Stanford (former Google exec). (6) Egon Durban, Co-CEO, Silver Lake. (7) Robert Zoellick, Former Chairman of the Board of Directors of AllianceBernstein Holding L.P. (8) Patrick Pichette, General Partner, Inovia Capital; Former Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, Google. (9) Martha Lane Fox, Founder and Chairperson, Lucky Voice Group; Former Co-Founder and Managing Director of lastminute.com; Crossbench Peer, House of Lords. (10) Omid Kordestani, Former Executive Chairman, Twitter (former Google exec). (11) David Rosenblatt, CEO, 1stdibs.com, Inc. (former Google exec). (12) Jack Dorsey, Co-Founder, Twitter; CEO and Co-Founder, Square.

Further evidence the motivations behind the Twitter board have nothing to do with stewardship for their shareholders.  Again, this is yet another datapoint highlighting the background structure of Twitter that Musk is exposing.

Twitter is not making a decision to decline the generous offer by Elon Musk because of stewardship or fiduciary responsibility to shareholders.  The financials of Twitter as a non-viable business model highlight the issue of money being irrelevant.  Twitter does not and cannot make money.  Growing Twitter only means growing an expense. Growing Twitter does not grow revenue enough to offset the increase in expense.

There is only one way for Twitter to exist as a viable entity, people are now starting to realize this.

What matters to the people behind Twitter, the people who are subsidizing the ability of Twitter to exist, is control over the global conversation.

Control of the conversation is priceless to the people who provide the backbone for Twitter.

Once people realize who is subsidizing Twitter, everything changes.

That’s the fight.

{Go Deep}