Disinfo operative caught in secret influence operation after attacking Elon Musk over push to buy Twitter
Another of the deep state's disinformation operatives has been uncovered as it becomes more apparent that the so-called "mainstream media" is little more than a massive propaganda machine used by the left to attack and dismantle American culture and institutions.
Readers are likely familiar with billionaire Elon Musk's ongoing attempts to purchase Twitter, one of the biggest social media platforms on the planet and one that is rife with 'bots' and spam accounts that are used to shape narratives and drive false impressions about certain events and disfavored people. It's not clear if Musk will be successful, though he reversed course last week and announced he would be moving ahead with the planned purchase
at his original bid of $44 billion.
But after Musk first made his bid to buy the platform and in the days since he announced he would be ending his legal battle with Twitter, 'journalists,' left-leaning NGOs, Democratic politicians and far-left commentators have teed off on him like he's the second coming of Adolph Hitler or Josef Stalin -- all because Musk believes that the platform ought to be legitimately used for free speech
, which was the original intent behind its co-founder and former CEO, Jack Dorsey.
"Of all the regime scribblers and scribes flooding the internet with glorified blog posts on the awfulness of Elon Musk’s Twitter bid, a piece by Renée DiResta published in The Atlantic
stands out from the rest — not because of its force of argument, but because of the largely forgotten scandal behind its author," Revolver News reported in an exclusive
. The outlet added:
Like the now disgraced and jobless Nina Jankowicz, DiResta is a career-girl of the Disinformation Industry — a constellation of NATO and US State Department-funded NGOs and civil society groups that censor inconvenient truths, facts and narratives under the guise of protecting the public from so-called “disinformation.” And like Nina Jankowicz, it turns out that DiResta’s name is closely associated with one of the most explosive and aggressively covered-up influence operations of the century.
In her piece for The Atlantic
, DiResta essentially poo-pooed the notion of Twitter being a truly free-speech platform, lumping in terrorist propaganda with legitimate concerns about COVID-19 'science' as well as skepticism of the 2020 election. Mind you, when Trump won in 2016, the entire deep state propaganda apparatus
, fueled by Democrats angry that Americans had dared to select someone for president other than candidates that had been 'chosen,' questioned his legitimacy at the time of his victory and in the years since, all of which was 'permitted' on social platforms including Twitter.
But before "DiResta was complaining about the threat of Elon Musk’s 'free speech absolutism' in the pages of the Atlantic, she worked (among other things) as a research director for a cyber security firm called New Knowledge
," Revolver News
' report continued.
"New Knowledge’s purpose was to study the spread of disinformation, 'malign narratives' and Russian influence operations. In her capacity as Research Director for New Knowledge, DiResta submitted written testimony to the US Senate drawing attention to the danger of such Russian disinformation and influence operations, including the alleged Russian 'troll farm' Internet Research Agency — which every self-respecting disinformation operative knows to puff up as the most malign and consequential political influence operation in modern history," the report continued.
However, there is one major malign influence op that DiResta did not disclose to the Senate: One conducted by her employer, New Knowledge, to sway the outcome of a 2017 special election in Alabama against populist GOP contender Roy Moore and Democrat Doug Jones, in favor of the latter (who only served one term). The details are positively scandalous, and even The New York Times reported on it
As Russia’s online election machinations came to light last year, a group of Democratic tech experts decided to try out similarly deceptive tactics in the fiercely contested Alabama Senate race, according to people familiar with the effort and a report on its results.
An internal report on the Alabama effort, obtained by The New York Times, says explicitly that it “experimented with many of the tactics now understood to have influenced the 2016 elections.”
The project’s operators created a Facebook page on which they posed as conservative Alabamians, using it to try to divide Republicans and even to endorse a write-in candidate to draw votes from Mr. Moore. It involved a scheme to link the Moore campaign to thousands of Russian accounts that suddenly began following the Republican candidate on Twitter, a development that drew national media attention.
“We orchestrated an elaborate ‘false flag’ operation that planted the idea that the Moore campaign was amplified on social media by a Russian botnet,” the report says.
Enter DiResta, per the Times:
Mr. Morgan reached out at the time to Renée DiResta, who would later join New Knowledge and was lead author of the report on Russian social media operations released this week.
“I know there were people who believed the Democrats needed to fight fire with fire,” Ms. DiResta said, adding that she disagreed. “It was absolutely chatter going around the party.”
But she said Mr. Morgan simply asked her for suggestions of online tactics worth testing. “My understanding was that they were going to investigate to what extent they could grow audiences for Facebook pages using sensational news,” she said.
In other words, DiResta -- who earned a living as someone who researches Russian disinformation and influence operations and provided testimony to the U.S. Senate about the field of expertise "was caught red-handed acting as an advisor, if not participant, to an influence operation designed to discredit an American politician by planting false stories that he’s a beneficiary of a Russian influence operation," Revolve News
It's become clear that our American institutions, especially our media, are deep-state influence operations
, not instruments designed to keep the public informed about their leaders.
Our country is doomed if this can't be dismantled or replaced.