Millie Weaver: I'm Millie Weaver, and you're watching the Millennial Millie Show.

Millie Weaver: Elon Musk just purchased Twitter, and the left is in a downward spiral of panic and despair. Does this mean the end of free speech for leftists on Twitter? No, quite the contrary. In fact, I'm not so sure it means the beginning of free speech for conservatives on Twitter, either. Although Elon Musk recently has been giving favor with some on the right-wing because of some of his tweets, such as his tweet in favor of the Trucker Freedom Convoy. Or perhaps his tweet where he's calling out Bill Gates for his rather feminine physique by comparing him to the pregnant man emoji. He's even gone so far as now. After he's purchased Twitter, he's still placating to some on the more right-wing or moderate side, such as Tim Poole, in his tweets, so, rightly so. The left is in a panic over this. However, does this mean that the conservatives have won? I would say no. I would say that would be a huge leap to say conservatives have won, although many conservatives feel like they won and feel like this is a victory because, in a sense, it kind of is in that Twitter is no longer in the hands of some of these Silicon Valley technocratic progressives that want to push communism.

Millie Weaver: It's now just in the hands of Elon Musk, who's probably the world's richest man, owns SpaceX, owns Tesla, and he's a multibillionaire. So it's in the hands of one man who now is the kingmaker. At least the left is now acknowledging that these social media companies have the ability to influence election outcomes. Such as Mark Zuckerberg, who donated over $400 million through Truth Vote to multiple states, especially swing states, in order to fund drop boxes being placed within these cities and other activities surrounding the election. So is it possible that Elon Musk could abuse his power as well? Certainly so. Leftists have been claiming that following Elon Musk's purchase of Twitter bots following, conservative accounts have drastically increased. This is all very interesting considering the information that we laid out in the film "Shadow Gate", how we talked about IIA interactive Internet activities and how bots are used in order to engage in psychological warfare operations on the American people. Take a look at this clip.

Millie Weaver: When it was realized that then-candidate President Trump was likely to win the 2016 election. This new twist on fake news needed a boost. The Smith Mundt Modernization Act of 2012 allowed for U.S. citizens to be targets of propaganda. This opened the door for social media psychological operations to be used domestically within the U.S. However, IIA or interactive internet activities, the military nomenclature for social media influence operations still wasn't legal to use domestically, but non-attribution techniques made it possible with little or no detection. If you look closely at the writing of the act under Section two, Sense of Congress, it states the United States government should develop a comprehensive strategy to counter foreign disinformation and propaganda and assert leadership in developing a fact-based strategic narrative. And an important element of this strategy should be to protect a free, healthy, and independent press in countries vulnerable to foreign disinformation.

Millie Weaver: There's only one problem. The act makes no mention of domestic propaganda and disinformation. One could argue that this act was done to prevent Russian interference in the elections. However, if sophisticated non-attribution and misattribution technology is used to make domestic propaganda and disinformation appear as though it is foreign, then these two acts together actually made domestic propaganda and disinformation legal, opening the door to sway elections and go after political dissidents in the name of protecting a free, healthy and independent press.

Ron Paul: They say, well, we're stopping propaganda. We're going to stop this fake news. Who's going to stop the fake news and the propaganda? The government and the politicians. They're the ones who propagate all this. They're the worst producers of fake news, and they're going to be in charge of watching us?

Millie Weaver: Since the 2016 election. The use of Domestic propaganda and disinformation through the dissemination of fake news on both sides of the political aisle has escalated to the point of nearly destroying our First Amendment, the Constitution, and the social fabric of our country.

Unidentified Individuals: This is extremely dangerous to our democracy. I think you get the idea there what's going on, all these anchors and all these markets required to read this script. Really what it's doing is kind of like the Fox fair and balanced slogan. It's a way of saying we're fair. Everybody else is biased. We're fair, everybody else is biased. (slowed down speech)

Unidentified Individuals: Russian hacking and meddling in the presidential election that there was Russian meddling.

Unidentified Individuals: That Russia meddles.

Unidentified Individuals: The Russian meddling.

Unidentified Individuals: Russia's meddling.

Unidentified Individuals: Russia was meddling.

Millie Weaver: The only thing that can stop this is the full and complete exposure of the fake news industrial complex Dynology, which developed a classified tactical, psychological operations management tool through government contracts, commercialized it, and made it publicly available as the shadow net, a military-grade psyops tool that used Jungian psychology as a weapon, hence the use of one's own shadow against them.

Millie Weaver: Ironically, the whistleblowers, the producers of the Shadow Gate documentary, and myself came under such an attack. It is to first discredit, distract and demoralize them, ultimately dividing them from their support to destroy their morale as a psychological weapon of war. It is extremely effective against the enemy as a commercialized product. It is extremely effective against a political opponent.

Millie Weaver: One can't help but wonder if Elon Musk's purchase is just the ultimate Game of Thrones move in order to take out the conservative-owned tech companies that have started up as a result of all the censorship on the pre-existing social media platforms. Donald Trump, for one, has indicated that he will not be going back on Twitter despite Elon's purchase of Twitter. Elon's response was then to share the image Trump had shared where true social is shown to be beating Twitter in the Apple Play Store. Although Elon couldn't help but resist to take a jab at Truth Social. (shows image of Elon Musk's tweet) "Truth Social (terrible name) exists because twitter censored free speech."

Millie Weaver: Hence now that Twitter is owned by Elon Musk, Musk is saying he's not going to censor his speech except for that 20%. Therefore true social no longer has a reason to exist. That is the logic that he's essentially conveying. Now, Musk keeps trying to reassure people that are panicking over this new acquisition that he's going to remain fair and neutral. He said (shows image of Elon Musk's tweet). "For Twitter to deserve public trust, it must be politically neutral, which effectively means upsetting the far right and the far left equally." He keeps restating this. However, is he really and truly going to remain politically neutral when he has been a pretty political person? When it comes to a carbon tax, climate change, universal basic income, a hard stance on vaccines being safe and effective, and neuralink, which is transhumanist in nature, are all pretty left-leaning political ideologies that Elon Musk has expressed throughout his time period on Twitter. Is Elon Musk going to refrain from pushing his ideology on the users of Twitter? We'll find out.

Millie Weaver: Well, there's another very important issue surrounding social media. It's not just censorship that is attacking the American people, but it's data collection and the invasion of American privacy. If all of our data is just being collected and sold to third-party companies and NGOs so that they can then put it into their predictive algorithms and A.I. programs where they can then predict election outcomes.

Millie Weaver: That is a major vulnerability for the American people. If this information, this data that's being collected, is then going to be put into a social credit score system used to digitally put us in stockades. That is also another big problem. Big Tech definitely has a dominant position within the political apparatus right now that should concern everyone. This is absolutely a tech war. Elon's move has dealt a blow to conservative-owned tech companies such as Getter, True Social, and even Gab. Gab was even unverified after Musk took ownership of Twitter. (shows image of Elon Musk's tweet) "A social media platform's policies are good if the most extreme 10% on the left and right are equally unhappy. Attacks are coming thick and fast, primarily from the left, which is no surprise. However, I should be clear that the right will probably be a little unhappy too. My goal is to maximize area under the curve of total human happiness, which means the 80% of people in the middle."

Millie Weaver: What's even more concerning is that censorship and content moderation is now being talked about amongst conservatives on Twitter after Elon Musk's acquisition, as though they think now leftists should be censored or banned in some way, shape, or form. You can't make this stuff up.

Unidentified Individuals: Troll activity seems to slow down for a while, and then when the moment is right, in this case, right before the 2016 election, a percentage of these accounts surge into action and try to influence society.

Millie Weaver: However, if you actually read the academic paper, who let the trolls out? (shows image of "Who Let The Trolls Out paper) It says, "Although the exact methodology used to determine that these accounts were state-sponsored trolls is unknown, based on the most recent Department of Justice indictment." Wait a minute. But then, how does this paper go on to make any claims about who was running these troll farms? "The dataset appears to have been constructed in a manner that we can assume essentially no false positives. While we cannot make any postulations about false negatives."

Millie Weaver: Say what? In other words, because of non-attribution and misattribution technology, these trolls could have been coming out of Virginia, where Dynology is, where Clear Force is, and where the 91st Cyber Brigade of the National Guard deployed the shadow net last year? Furthermore, if you look at who has funded this academic paper (shows an image of Who Let The Trolls Out paper), it says, "This project has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation. Which is the European Union 2020 flagship initiative aimed at securing Europe's global competitiveness." Hmm. I wonder which presidential candidate in 2016 was pro-EU?

Hillary Clinton: That's why we are discussing possible negotiations with the European Union.

Unidentified Individual: In any case, we need to work with us. We need to engage, probably under the new administration. Under the new administration, because we know that a Trump administration is, unfortunately, supporting this unilateral action.

Millie Weaver: However, if we consider the very likely scenario that these trolls are IIA and that the contractors like Leonie, like Dynology, like McChrystal, are operating, then this data becomes very intriguing. If we look at the troll farm activity during the Charlottesville riots, we see that 190 accounts were created between July 2017 and August 2017 during the run-up to the infamous Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville. Taken together, this might be evidence of coordinated activities aimed at manipulating users' opinions on Twitter with respect to special events. I was there at Charlottesville observing what, at the time, I called a deep state operation, which I now recognize as an IIA operation.

Unidentified Individual: I'm an Internet troll. That's all we're here to trigger George Soros to send me my check. I'm an outside agitator.

Millie Weaver: This guy, I recognized him. He was at the RNC.

Unidentified Individual: I'm kind of a free agent, you know? I kind of bounce around. I got a few friends from every group. I'm kind of on my own. I don't know. I just want to be able to I don't want to have these loyalties to one group, you know, so I can do whatever I want to do.

Millie Weaver: I Just wanted to say one quick thing on Charlottesville. I said that this looks like the deep state was involved in it because it looked like it was a huge setup.

Millie Weaver: So much for foreign propaganda and influence. We're actually looking at domestic propaganda and influence to control our elections.

Unidentified Individual: If you can make a conversation into a two-sided thing instead of a three-sided or four-sided or whoever-sided thing, it becomes much easier to control it, right? If there's two very clearly opposing points of view, black and white. Now, it's easier to control the narrative because people get locked into one of those points of view or the other.

Millie Weaver: The bigger picture is that these big tech social media companies are being used to run psychological operations on citizens of nations, not just America, but even in other countries such as the Philippines. The spokesman for presidential front runner Ferdinand Bongbong Marcos Jr on Tuesday questioned what he said was Facebook's censorship and interference on a sovereign act after the networking social media site suspended his personal account.

Millie Weaver: So politicians in other nations are being banned, and election outcomes are being influenced by social media across the board. And big tech billionaires like Mark Zuckerberg have been using their money in order to further sway the election outcomes. Like in Michigan's 2020 election, this private organization with ties to Zuckerberg's CTCL gained access to absentee ballots and edged public officials out of the election process. The Biden administration's response to Elon's purchase didn't quite seem to go too favorably. Jen Psaki was questioned about it during a press briefing.

Unidentified Individual: The breaking news, Twitter agreeing to let Elon Musk purchase. Do you have a response to that? And does the White House have any concern that this new agreement might have President Trump back on the platform?

Jen Psaki: Well, I'm not going to comment on a specific transaction. What I can tell you is a general matter; no matter who owns or runs Twitter, the president has long been concerned about the power of large social media platforms. What they have, the power they have over our everyday lives has long argued that tech platforms must be held accountable for the harms they cause. He's been a strong supporter of fundamental reforms to achieve that goal, including reforms to Section 230 and acting antitrust reforms requiring more transparency.

Millie Weaver: So now they're concerned about the power these social media companies hold. They didn't seem too concerned after the 2020 election was stolen. And these social media companies were used to drown out any political dissent or speech regarding the 2020 election.

Jen Psaki: And he's encouraged that there's bipartisan interest in Congress. In terms of what hypothetical policies might happen, I'm just not going to speak to that at this point in time.

Millie Weaver: So here they are admitting that the Biden administration has been working with these social media companies to censor Americans.

Jen Psaki: Well, I think we engage regularly with all social media platforms about steps that can be taken, that is continued, and I'm sure it will continue. But there are also reforms that we think Congress could take.

Jen Psaki: In terms of actions, Alex, that we have taken or we're working to take, I should say, from the federal government, we've increased disinformation research and tracking within the Surgeon General's office. We're flagging problematic posts for Facebook that spread disinformation.

Millie Weaver: So what does Biden do? He sets up a disinformation governance board to combat mid-term fake news, headed by a Russian expert who called Hunter's laptop a Trump campaign product and spoke out against free speech. Notice they're acknowledging the midterm elections and how they have to make sure that they can combat misinformation leading up to them. Oh, and who's Nina Jankowicz, this supposed Russian expert? What does she have to say?

Nina Jankowicz: Color revolutions have earned a bad rap, though. Mostly thanks to Vladimir Putin because they brought in democratically-minded governments that threatened Russian influence in the region. And now we're seeing the same narrative cropping up here in the United States. We should still have the confidence that our votes will be counted fairly and accurately. I do. And as a reminder, there's only one candidate who is tweeting about rigged election results. So, in short, color revolutions aren't dirty. They're expressions of democratic will, and they should inspire us all.

Millie Weaver: (shows an image of Nina Jancowicz's tweet) She also told NPR last week that she shudders to think about more free speech on social media platforms after Elon Musk's purchase of Twitter. Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas did not disclose any of the powers that will be handed to this dystopian board that will oversee truth, a.k.a. what many have dubbed the Ministry of Truth. He did say that the board would be used to tackle misinformation ahead of the midterms, especially in Hispanic communities.

Millie Weaver: What reality are we living in where it's okay to create this board of misinformation? And now we're talking about censorship, content, and moderation. What information is real, what information is true, and what information's allowed to exist? Elon Musk is even talking about this. 20% of people that are going to be unhappy on the far left or far right; what does that all entail? So let's look at the IIA picture here. On one hand, we have the left, which is pushing the Black Lives Matter narrative that there's a major problem with police racially targeting African-American men and killing them.

Unidentified Individual: Protesters turned out in droves, many for the first time to call for change in a system they say discriminates against black Americans.

Millie Weaver: Then we have the blue lives matter on the right pushed by conservatives, where you're beefing up and trying to get more funding and resources to the police.

Unidentified Individual: With violence against police officers on the rise, a growing number of states are passing so-called Blue Lives Matter laws to classify violence against officers as a hate crime.

Millie Weaver: In IIA, it's important to have a false dichotomy.

Unidentified Individual: False dichotomy is also known as false bifurcation or the "either-or fallacy." Basically, what this is, is claiming that there are only two options when in fact, there are more.

Millie Weaver: So that both sides are fighting against each other, and neither side is actually putting forward a valid solution.

Unidentified Individual: A protest in support of police was met by counter-protesters. Angered by incidents of police violence as they marched towards the six-eight precinct in Bay Ridge, the two sides clashed.

Millie Weaver: When you make it all about race, or you make it all about just blindly supporting the police in everything they do, you're excluding important conversations that need to be had to protect American rights and civil liberties. The left and the right are coming together to talk about police brutality and people having their rights violated as a whole. And in excluding those discussions, you're allowing for the establishment bulking up and beefing up the police while using technological advancements in algorithms and A.I. to further control the American population. They are now even saying, and they have articles written on this, about how we need to move towards having algorithms make decisions, whether or not someone gets released on bond or risk assessments. Whether or not a police officer should use deadly force or should be concerned about their safety. Based on these algorithms, they're saying that this is the solution to the racial bias that these police officers are inflicting on people.

Millie Weaver: This is their Hegelian dialectic, so to speak. Some departments are also considering drone surveillance and body cameras equipped with facial recognition technology. This video from the maker of an A.I.-powered body cam demonstrates how the technology could be used to find a missing child, not shown how they could use it to track suspects. Meanwhile, cities across the country have embraced a predictive policing approach that focuses not on high-risk people but on high-risk places, putting entire neighborhoods under watch. Problem. Reaction. Solution. The solution is technology in policing, which should scare us all.

Unidentified Individual: Robocop. He is OCP's newest soldier in their Revolutionary Crime Management program.

Unidentified Individual: Excuse me, Robo. Any special message for all the kids watching at home?

"RoboCop": "Stay out of trouble."

Millie Weaver: The 1950s sci-fi story by Philip K Dick, the Minority Report, has come to life in our time. Police departments have already been using it in what are called heat lists. Predictive programs are designed to use risk assessment in pre-determining whether or not a crime is going to occur and or who is likely to commit it. Like the dystopian artificial intelligence law enforcement referred to in Shadow Gate one. The scary thing here is, is that they've done overviews and studies of the system, and they found that oftentimes there are people that get flagged as high risk when they themselves have never even had a criminal record.

Unidentified Individual: Police in Santa Cruz, California, are getting closer to the sci-fi future. Using this algorithm, a complicated math equation similar to the one that predicts earthquake aftershocks to predict crime.

Millie Weaver: If you can imagine the Atlantic Council working with Facebook to put you in Facebook jail, then it's not a stretch to imagine that Clear Force could work with the police to put you in a real jail. Since when is the government allowed to just spy on any and everything you do? Why are we just giving our data to these social media platforms so they can sell it to other companies? These companies that use it for nefarious purposes, such as rigging elections and predicting how the public will respond to particular events. These are massive vulnerabilities that, as Americans, we need to think about when we are choosing which social media companies that we're going to support and which technological devices we're going to own and use on a daily basis.

Millie Weaver: Use promo code Millie at mypillow.com in order to enjoy up to 66% off of your MyPillow products. Your support helps support true journalism and the ability for patriots like me to continue doing the awesome journalistic work that we do. You can also get a special discount on your QuxTV boxes at QuxTV using promo code Millie, M-I-L-L-I-E, in order to save up to $15 off. Support the fight for freedom and the fight against censorship. I'm Millie Weaver signing off.

Millie Weaver: Some people have asked why the box? Why not just make an app, right? Well, the box gives us several advantages. For one, Qux design their own hardware and software all the way down to the kernel with over-the-air firmware update capabilities. So when you get your Qux Universal Media Box, there's nothing inside until it's plugged in. Then it begins to upload software inside the box. It's a tamper-proof software seal. This lets you know that no one else prior to you has had access to your device. This is possible only because Qux controls the keys to the kingdom end-to-end 256-bit AES encryption. Qux offers the highest level of security and privacy available to consumers on an enterprise level. And because Qux doesn't use any third-party software, what happens inside Qux is invisible to big tech. Even your internet service provider can't see what's going on inside your box. The box creates a digital footprint designed to blend in with ordinary online traffic. Nothing unusual to see, while at the same time having only one point of entrance into the private network. Your device Qux sets up a boundary that separates what's happening inside the Qux network from the rest of the internet. You can see out, but no one can see in. It's the Qux hardware camouflage.

Millie Weaver: This invisibility, along with other security features, making shopping, private messaging, and other features such as the buy button possible without vulnerabilities to unauthorized access or private information. There's nothing like it on the market. The Qux private network allows you to start making your home and online activity uniquely private and secure. So the real question is, why not the box?