The Good, Bad and Ugly - part two: the Return of Renee

Saving the best (worst?) for last, a strange confluence of events brings clarity to the confusion

I have to admit that when I headed out Saturday evening for a walk-to-drink and decided to take in Friday’s episode of America This Week with Matt and Walter I assumed it probably would be a rather tedious display of Jewvoidance regarding Gaza, the ADL or anything else they would rather spend a year in Abu Ghraib than two hours discussing here. But, damn, was I the fuck wrong about that - from the beginning:

Renee F@cking DiResta - I nearly fell out of my Fila sneakers. If you're new here and/or not that familiar with my writings, Ms. DiResta is the primary focus of commonality between that and the work of Taibbi and the Twitterfilers over the last year.

And I have to say that I staked out that ground first, and that our common view that she is vitally important to the larger matter of censorship/disinformation is basically the end all commonality between us on her and those issue. But I will definitely get to all of that.

More:

First, if you want to have an expanded understanding of these UCPs, watch this video, which I embedded at the end of my Tip of the Iceberg article on Twitter/ADL (and the first part of the movie version). Who is he talking about, exactly? 🤭🤫

Second, Walter says Renee is open about her resume, which is not consistent with my experience of her, at least since she started Russiagating in 2017. And by that I mean she seemed to have dropped the fact that she wrote her college thesis at SUNY Stony Brook on propaganda used in the 2004 Russian presidential election. That is an absolutely critical bit of information, considering her involvement in analyzing claimed Russian disinformation propaganda starting a dozen years later, to me a suggestion of ethno-predisposition.

Instead she's told the story of being brought into the government sphere because of work she did on childhood vaccine internet disinformation in CA as a concerned mother, to do work on ISIS, etc, before moving into the Russia business when that heated up under Trump. So which story did she tell Walter? And if she did tell the this story, did he just decide to leave that out here?

But before that Matt answered the question I posted in a piece last week on his winning some investigative journalism prize worth, I assume, $33k to him, give or take:

Matt also says he's working on something deeper regarding the New Knowledge/Hamilton 68 connection - maybe this time it’ll move on from ex-FBI Clint Watts and get into the Jewess Laura Rosenberger and her connections to people like DiResta and Emily Horne at Twitter, and maybe even finally mention the Jewnatic Andrew Aaron Weisburd. What am I saying, there's simply no way…

Now we know - it's gonna be all Watts all the time. Taibbi is probably right about him being a frontman, but what is a frontman? A face on something and not the actual decisionmaker, so who are the decision-makers? Me, I think you have to start with Rosenberger, the founder of ASD that created Hamilton 68 and high-level person in the Obama State Dept and NSC as well as the Biden NSC.

I should say that I have no reason to believe that DiResta ever was employed by the CIA - it’s not in her website bio - although she may well have done some contract analytical work for them pre-Neo Knowledge. But Walt throws that in that way because he's reinforcing a narrative, just as Matt is - it's the intelligence agencies, stupid.

I had already read Taibbi's article on this “smoking gun” earlier, and here is the memo that he includes in that (which may not be what they're referring to here); note that it’s an internal email within the Atlantic Counsel and no one of outside that organization is part of it:

As for the EIP mission statement, here is the first paragraph on their website:

The Election Integrity Partnership was founded in 2020 as a non-partisan coalition to empower the research community, election officials, government agencies, civil society organizations, social media platforms, and others to defend our elections against those who seek to undermine them by exploiting weaknesses in the online information environment.

Contrary to what Matt says there, there is nothing unconstitutional about the government monitoring public speech that is or might be disinformation, or of any other kind, and contracting with an outside entity to do so. When you engage in public speech you have to assume anyone can be listening. What they do with that is all that matters.

I'm not going to get bogged down in the details of the 104-page report, which I've downloaded and started to skim through. The one thing I want to point out is that this of course is all happening in 2020, which means Trump's DHS led by his appointees; Biden’s (Jew) Mayorkas isn’t part of this.

Which means, with regard to the EIP, operating against the interests of their boss or bosses. So who would these people in CISA be? Here's a possible suggestion from about a month after that memo, from an article on CNN (written by someone named Zachary Cohen - yep, Cohen, and he is CNN’s National Security Reporter in DC):

A whistleblower is alleging that top political appointees in the Department of Homeland Security repeatedly instructed career officials to modify intelligence assessments to suit President Donald Trump’s agenda by downplaying Russia’s efforts to interfere in the US and the threat posed by White supremacists, according to documents reviewed by CNN and a source familiar with the situation.

One would assume that there would be an effort to track these people down and prosecute them, if they were operating against the will of their superiors and in violation of the constitution, or at least fire them - if they were careerists one would assume some are still there. But I haven’t heard anyone talking about that, just about “the government”. This is one part of this narrative that just doesn’t compute to me.

Of course if it wasn’t the government pushing for censoring rightwing voices (which obviously is the GOP’s concern here), then we don’t have that complication. DHS outsourcing of informational activities like this would hardly be a surprise in the era of neoliberalism.

What matters in the context of this discussion is how the theorem holds together holistically, and oddly it's Walter who pokes some holes that don't really get filled very well, starting here:

So why would Facebook, Google/YouTube and Twitter pick up the phone when crypto-Jewess DiResta, who had worked at a Silicon Valley venture capital firm and for Jane Street Capital on Wall St. before that, calls from Stanford, part of a project significantly funded by the Silicon Valley Jewish oligarch Craig Newmark? Companies run by the Jew Mark Zuckerberg, the Jews Sergey Brin and Larry Page (and Brin sister-in-law Jewess Anne Wojcicki at YT), and in 2020 effectively by the Jew Jesse Cohn of the Jew Paul Singer's Elliott Management? Companies that had been working with the ADL and SPLC for years on censoring “hate speech”? Jeez, I simply can't imagine why…

Here Walter asks an absolutely critical question, and then Matt stumbles around trying to come up with an answer, Walt helps out, and they settle on an answer that has rather limited accuracy:

In fact this goes back much farther than Trump and even Assange and Snowden. Youtube was purchased by Google in 2006, and they immediately started purging content, I think mostly related to “hate speech”, apparently with the able assistance of the ADL/SPLC. If you look at their guideline on that (currently), you can see how amazingly broad it is:

In my personal experience, I became aware that I was being shadow-banned more than five years ago, and that was just in Youtube comments, where some of my comments were being rendered invisible to everyone but me when I was logged into Youtube (even I couldn't see them if I wasn't). That because I was talking about Jews, and no one told me, there was no notification or appeal process - I was just being erased from view.

But that’s very narrow, in the broader sense this goes back even farther, in my mind at least to 9/11 and the earliest days of 9/11 doubters, people who were questioning the story both unquestioned in and promulgated by the mainstream media. Then came Iraq and the WMD lies, and even the later acknowledged truth wasn’t actually true. By then there was a growing mass of people who knew at least something about the neocons.

Then came 2008, the Wall St.-created crash that led to the Great Recession, but not to meaningful prosecution or regulation under the new president. by 2011 we had the rise of Occupy and the Tea Party (which Matt mentioned), and the neocon wars expanded to Libya and Syria. And bin Laden - how many people believed the story of his death during that raid and dumping the body at sea? One could also throw in the Boston bombing, Uncle Ruslan and Graham Fuller, I suppose.

Then in the 2016 election and the prospect of another Clinton v Bush contest a significant part of the electorate was primed and pumped for oppositional candidates promising something, anything, that might change things, and Trump and Sanders stepped up to the plate, as problematic as both turned out to be.

The convergence of this change in reality combined with the internet as a means of communicating the possibilities was what set the stage. When Matt points to Trump he’s right, because he was a product of all this and he had the patina of a real threat, which was Reaganesque American traditionalism redefined as white nationalism redefined as neo-nazism, all condensed into two words: America First.

But these guys simply will not go all the way there, so they’re left trying to define their donut without being able to even describe the big hole in the middle.

I included this because it’s just more bullshit, frankly. First, I know that Grayzone did a lot of work on this stuff going back years before the Twitterfiles, they weren’t the only ones, and I have quoted from that work extensively in a number of my pieces here on the subject.

But second, I also did that before the Twitterfiles emerged, before I knew anything about that, and more specifically before anyone associated with them ever mentioned Renee DiResta (which I think happened in March, weeks after Shellenberger and Weiss appeared with her on Sam Harris’ podcast). Just look at these three articles, the first before the Twitterfiles started, and the second and third before I even looked into that:

A week after that last piece I did my first piece on Twittergate after a brief look at the story, and that included the role of Jesse Cohn of Elliott Management in the crucial 2020-21 Twitter period, something these guys have yet to address in any way, to my knowledge. Just like there’s been no mention of the Israeli Gilad Lotan’s involvement with DiResta.

What these guys are talking about is the “it’s the government, stupid” narrative, basically blaming the Clintonite Dems for everything via the intelligence agencies, that in turn picked up by Jordan’s House Special Committee on Avoiding the Real Problem, for obvious political reasons. Yes, Walter, we wouldn’t know about that - because it’s a significantly-fabricated story and not simply a real thing that journalists and other people could have just gone out and discovered. It’s not a lesson in investigative journalism, it’s a lesson in creative writing - leave out what you don’t like, leave in what you do, and that becomes the whole story.

Sorry about that tantrum, let’s get back to Walter posing inconvenient questions:

Jeez, I feel like the lone crackpot here! 😅

Anyway, to start with, these three companies, the new media giants with their Jewish leadership, were all likely working with the ADL and/or the SPLC for years before this, on the cleansing of undesirable content. Outsourcing isn’t exactly a new idea, and outsourcing to and coordinating with blood brothers isn’t either, unfortunately.

Where they spin this to of course is the government, and of course the specific topic ends up being covid, the Great Distraction. In reality, once one identifies the motivations which underlie all of this, the ethnic motivations, the targets are hardly difficult to decipher: anti-Trump, anti-Putin, anti-Russia, anti-nazi, anti-antisemite, etc.

And one has to admit that the targeting is so easy in a world that is in fact filled with “disinformation”. On the subject of covid, my separation from core elements of the alternative community on the internet became hardened over the pandemic, because their behaviors were absolutely predictable and rarely truly fact-based. That repeated itself with the 2020 election and claims of massive fraud; I knew that no matter the particulars, if Trump lost it would be claimed to have been stolen, from the grassroots up.

This kind of behavior justifies censorship, even if those justifications aren’t nearly legitimate or the censorship even constitutional. In a very real and general sense, censorship didn’t start with the censors, it started with the censored. Denying that is just bullshit. What matters are the specifics, the important information that wasn’t/isn’t bullshit which got/gets censored exactly because it isn’t bullshit.

The question that Walter asks is how they could make that determination, and the obvious answer is that they couldn’t, no one could, so they censored it all - for covid the standard was the CDC and WHO, and any deviation was censorable. (As for expertise on Russia/Putin, remember that DiResta wrote her thesis on that! 😂)

The advantage in that was that they took down the people who were also real threats to them in areas which had nothing to do with covid or vaccines - it was an excuse to censor, and that excuse essentially got somewhat-legitimately created by a lot of the people who ended up censored. Unfortunately, a bunch of other people, or other more worthwhile content by the same people, got censored too. Part of the plan, one could assume.

Walt continues with an example:

Let’s start with RFK - who didn’t know that he was an anti-vaxx nutter (or one of the vaccine-hesitant with flaws, if you don’t like that characterization 😉) long before covid? That got established in 2005 in a very public way. So he starts taking advantage of the pandemic to sell his prior work, such as that was, and then in turn takes advantage of all that to sell himself, as a presidential candidate. So someone had to point him out, really?

“They” didn’t need that British NGO, which I have previously detailed in terms of its Jewish elements and goals, to tell “them” about RFK, any more than I needed the Twitterfilers to tell me about DiResta. It was out there, and RFK much more so than DiResta, of course.

But where RFK really hit the rocks was when he could be defined as an antisemite, and the tip of that spear was just before he appeared in front of Jordan’s committee, when he slandered the dastardly Finns for their high level of covid immunity; I covered that hearing here:

When Matt said, “there’s a mystery at the middle of this thing”, he’s right, because there’s a big hole in the middle that’s of his own creation - his starchamber is really just the Birchers’ fantasy illuminati once they purged the Jews from their official worldview 50 years ago. Watch G. Edward Griffin’s The Capitalist Conspiracy, Matt, and you’ll have better standup material.

In this case the totalitarian system that Walter thinks he’s “on the right side of” is Jewish power and influence - he loves himself some Jews by all appearances, and he certainly has worked for and with a whole lot of them. And the reality is that he’s living in a dream world. “Imagine no Taibbi, imagine if there had been no Matt Taibbi and imagine if there had been no Twitterfiles”. That only means anything if Taibbi is right in his created-but-not-so-creative narrative, and I absolutely don’t think he is.

Then Walter goes into theyisms and it’s not clear exactly who he’s talking about, since it’s apparently not the government (he links “them” to the government there, so something else). He says things will start to break down, but aren’t they already? The example he uses is Soviet economics, and what about the insane level of debt the US has incurred in this decade so far? What about the $106B that’s been proposed to send off to the Jew in Ukraine and the Jew in Israel to be used to kill goy Russians and Palestinians? Doesn’t that define insanity, at least economically?

Which gets me to one final point - these guys go through this entire hour and a half discussion (pre-literature talk) without ever uttering the words “Gaza”, “Palestinian”, “Israeli” or “Jew”. I know that the whims of opportunity have created another swing through their wheelhouse, that being censorship in the way they define that. But still that seems like avoidance to me at this point, when that matter completely dominates international news, mainstream and alternative.

Or should I say Jewvoidance…

The bottom line on all this is simple. If Matt & Co. are right and all this results in a prohibition on government involvement in censorship, then the assumption is that this kind of censorship will at least slow and maybe stop altogether. How has that gone so far, with this reporting and that Louisiana court ruling? Do you have the practical, real-world sense that the censors are on the retreat, that free speech is blossoming around us?

But if I’m right and they’re wrong, then censorship won’t slow down and almost certainly will increase - and the government will quite possibly be prohibited from doing anything about it, even if in the future it wants to. Remember, what this is really about is neoliberalism, and the rise of billionaire ethno-oligarchs who not only control the government but also control the public town square. The real matter is neutralization of government operating on the behalf of the people and not for/by the C-People.

Or maybe Renee is the one who’s right… 🤔🤭

Place your bets, folks.