WASHINGTON, D.C. — The
Washington Post has released another broadside against Elon Musk, this time condemning him for mildly criticizing a Twitter executive instead of just doxxing her and her family.
"It's sickening, Elon offering a short statement of disagreement with a powerful, high-level executive — does he have no soul?!" cried editor Sal McNally. "
If he had any sliver of integrity, he would do what we here at the Washington Post do: publish her home address online and then show up at her family's doorstep."
The kerfuffle began over Elon Musk stating he disapproved of Twitter's decision to bury damaging stories about Biden in the run-up to the 2020 election. While the decision itself has been retrospectively panned, even by Twitter's then-CEO Jack Dorsey, the person who made the decision turned out to be a female minority who makes a mere $17 million per year. As such, all direct criticism of her has been deemed proof of misogyny and racism.
The
Washington Post came down especially hard on Mr. Musk as the newspaper had just spent the last week demonstrating how professionals approach people they disagree with. "It's really just being a good citizen 101," said 53-year-old reporter Taylor Lorenz. "If you don't like what someone is doing, you simply hunt down her and her family, ambush them at their homes, publish their personal information online, delete it after the pushback and pretend it never happened. Then, when they complain about what you did, claim to be the victim! There are standards!"
At publishing time, the
Washington Post was publishing several important Op-Eds about the evils of billionaires buying media companies and how you really can't trust dank memes.
Mandy is absolutely triggered by Twitter's possible takeover by Elon Musk. She attends a Twitter-sponsored therapy session to help her cope.
*
So why do I think these companies are fake? We'll start with Musk's links to Mike Griffin. Griffin wash head of NASA from 2005 to 2009, but on Musk's page we learn that Griffin also worked for In-Q-Tel, the venture capital arm of the CIA! That is probably the biggest red flag on the entire page. Curiously, that information has been scrubbed off Griffin's own page. What exactly is In-Q-Tel? In-Q-Tel invests in high-tech companies for the sole purpose of keeping the Central Intelligence Agency, and other intelligence agencies, equipped with the latest in information technology in support of United States intelligence capability. That is the key to unlocking this whole mystery, so I suggest you read it several times, to let it sink in. * I suggest that not only did In-Q-Tel “invest” in all of Musk's companies, it actually created them, and him. We know the CIA creates many front companies, since the mainstream admits it. But it is usually assumed they do this to facilitate domestic covert operations of various sorts. But we have tripped over much evidence companies are created for reasons even more fundamental to the American way. That is to say, a significant part of the US infrastructure is an illusion*—an illusion created to facilitate a variety of treasury dips by the very wealthy. Actually, the mainstream press has already reported on a small part of these thefts and grafts. See, for example, Matt Taibbi's Rolling Stone reports on the big banks, especially this 2013 report entitled “Everything is Rigged”. However, even Taibbi has not yet seen that it is not only via rigging that the rich are becoming richer. It is also via manufacturing fake companies, fake portfolios, and fake projects, by which the treasury can be milked and bilked of billions of dollars of subsidies, grants, and other monies.
Nevertheless, we are told Musk invested 100 million of his fortune into SpaceX. Which brings us to his fortune. At age 24, right out of college, Musk invested $28,000 of his dad's money in a company called Zip2. We are told this company developed an internet city guide for newspapers then going online in 1995. That story is so full of holes it looks like prairie dog town. You can't start a company with $28,000, at least not one that you then sell four years later for 341 million to Compaq.* We are told Zip2 “provided online publishing for media companies” and had a contract with the New York Times,but the NYT had been computerized since 1976 and online since 1981. By 1995 it would have already had all the “customized portals” it needed. Compaq also had no use for internet city guides and online publishing portals in 1999, so this sale looks manufactured. I am not the only one noticing that. Take the last link to Quora . com [Link] and you will see that a lot of people are asking questions about Elon Musk. It looks to me like this Zip2 story is being told to explain the genesis of Musk's fortune. The same can be said for Musk's alleged involvement with Paypal. At age 28 Musk founded another company, using 10 million from his 22 million profit from selling Zip2. This company, X . com [Link] immediately merged with Confinity, which contained Paypal. So Musk had absolutely nothing to do with founding Paypal, and even according to the mainstream story was only used for his money. He came in on the merger and was only 28, so why would he have been made CEO? No answer. Also no answer to how he was able to leave the merger just three years later with $165 million. That's a three-year return on investment of 1500 percent. If Paypal was already so profitable in those early years, enough to buy out Musk to the tune of $165 million, why bring him in in the first place? With big early investors like Deutsche Bank and Nokia, why would Confinity allow Musk to waltz in and soak up a large part of those profits? In other words, with money from a source like Deutsche Bank, why did they need Musk's paltry 10 million? My guess is all these companies are Intelligence fronts, and Intelligence just inserted Musk into the story later.
The thing about Miles Mathis, it's hard to dismiss him. That demolition of Musk seems totally believable to me.
Dear Elon, Is it 40000 or 60000 satellites busy going into orbit? Of course these would never be for any spying activity despite the blatant commercial involvement of the CIA, or would they?