The Russia hoax and COVID lies share the same deep-state fingerprints



“Conspiracy theory” is the go-to smear against those of us who questioned any aspect of the government’s authoritarian response to the COVID-19 pandemic. But as the great Austrian economist Murray Rothbard once observed, the smear serves one purpose: to divert the public’s attention away from the truth.

“An attack on ‘conspiracy theories,’” Rothbard writes in “The Anatomy of the State,” means that the subjects of a regime “will become more gullible in believing the ‘general welfare’ reasons that are always put forth by the State for engaging in any of its despotic actions.”

The democratization of information means that censorship just doesn’t work as well as it used to.

“A ‘conspiracy theory,’” he continues, “can unsettle the system by causing the public to doubt the state’s ideological propaganda.”

The more I dig into the origins of the COVID pandemic, the more “despotic” our state seems to become — and the more “conspiratorial” I get.

Unsettling the system

I am trying to put together the final pieces of the puzzle of what I consider among the greatest public policy scandals of my lifetime — not only who did it, but more importantly, why would they do it?

A few months ago, I spent a day with Matt Taibbi, the iconoclastic muckraker and “Twitter Files” reporter, for the latest episode of my BlazeTV investigative series, “The Coverup.

As he dug through the trove of emails and texts, Taibbi discovered the conspiracy to blacklist and silence Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, the subject of the first episode of “The Coverup” and now the head of the National Institutes of Health. Taibbi soon learned that the same tactics and tools — and even many of the very same deep-state actors — have their fingerprints all over both the Russia collusion hoax and the COVID cover-up.

A precedent for censorship

Recently released documents from Director of National Security Tulsi Gabbard reveal that the so-called Russia collusion hoax wasn’t just wrong — it was deliberate. The Obama administration orchestrated the fabrication, pushing U.S. intelligence agencies to leak a report suggesting Vladimir Putin had helped Donald Trump steal the 2016 election.

That leak, repeated endlessly by the press, fueled a national narrative branding Trump’s presidency as illegitimate — despite those same agencies having already dismissed the claim.

This kind of manipulation would be outrageous if it weren’t so familiar.

Five years after the COVID lockdowns stripped millions of Americans of basic liberties, we’re still uncovering how the deep state used propaganda to silence dissent. Throughout the pandemic, scientists and doctors raised alarms about the damage lockdowns would cause — and did cause. Some of the world’s most respected experts signed the Great Barrington Declaration to oppose the government’s heavy-handed response.

But the public never heard from them. Bureaucrats and media allies moved swiftly to smear, suppress, and sideline these voices using one of the oldest authoritarian tactics: control of information.

In fairness, public health agencies didn’t have to twist many arms. The legacy media followed their lead willingly — even when the guidance contradicted itself or defied basic logic.

But unlike the days of Project Mockingbird, when the CIA could shape coverage by nudging the New York Times or CBS, controlling the old guard wasn’t enough. The rise of social media — decentralized, fast-moving, and open to anyone with a computer or phone — posed a new challenge. The administration needed a more aggressive strategy to dominate the narrative.

Strong-arming social media

In episode 5 of “The Coverup,” I ask Taibbi how they pulled it off. As one of the first journalists to dig into the Twitter Files, Taibbi exposed the machinery behind the censorship regime. Americans suspected that platforms like Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube were suppressing dissent during COVID. But the Twitter Files confirmed what many feared: They weren’t acting alone. They took orders from the FBI directly.

And these weren’t polite requests, either. When the government “suggested” something, tech companies treated it as a command.

It all traces back to — surprise, surprise — the Russia hoax.

In 2017, Congress hauled tech executives into hearings and accused them of letting Russian disinformation run wild. Essentially, they were given an offer they couldn’t refuse: Allow the government to play a role in content moderation or prepare to be regulated into submission.

RELATED: On the 9th anniversary of Russiagate, the hoax is finally crumbling

  Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images

Their surrender gave U.S. intelligence agencies de facto control over what Americans could say online. The feds told platforms which posts to delete, which users to silence, and how to suppress the rest. You could post your opinion — as long as no one could see it. “Shadow bans” became the preferred method of censorship: clean, quiet, and deniable.

The silver lining

Thanks to Taibbi — and a handful of journalists who still value truth over access — we now see how the government sold Americans on fiction. Russia hacked the election. COVID came from a bowl of bat soup. Question either and you’d vanish from the digital public square.

Millions believed these lies. And under their influence, they did real damage — locking down schools, closing businesses, and sowing doubt about fair elections.

But truth has a way of leaking out.

It’s taken time, but the lies are unraveling. And that’s the silver lining. In a world where information moves faster than censors can keep up, suppression doesn’t work like it used to. So long as we have truth-tellers willing to dig and defy — like Taibbi — the regime won’t have the last word.

We won’t get fooled again.

Episode 5 of “The Coverup” premieres Thursday, July 31.

Goodbye, anons? Radical transparency is about to upend the internet



In June, Texas Patriot, a prominent anonymous account supportive of President Donald Trump, announced during the height of tensions with Iran:

F**k it. If Trump takes us to war, I’m done with him and his administration.
I voted for:
NO WARS
No taxes
Cheap gas
Cheap groceries
MAHA.
What of these things has actually happened?
I’m pissed.

This message from a popular pro-Trump account seemed significant. Was Trump’s populist base turning on him?

In our current world, however, where plausible fake engagement can be created at an almost limitless scale, true anons will lose a great deal of their power.

But shortly thereafter, Right Angle News, another popular anonymous account, asserted that Texas Patriot was actually based in Pakistan. Yet another popular anon account contested this, saying that Texas Patriot is really an American originally from Texas who now lives in Georgia. Notably, most other major accounts weighing in on the controversy, from Proud Elephant to Evil Texan, are themselves anonymous, adding further to the hall of mirrors.

Either way, Texas Patriot deleted its own account shortly thereafter, perhaps suggesting that he or she had something to hide — or at least didn’t want the scrutiny.

The question of whether Texas Patriot is, in fact, a patriot from Texas or a bad actor in Islamabad is ultimately beside the point. As Newsweek wrote of the incident:

Social media has proved useful for galvanizing the MAGA movement, with popular accounts often reacting to political developments from Trump’s feud with X owner Elon Musk to Trump’s policy agenda. If it emerged that an account alleged to be American was actually based in another country, it would impact users’ trust.

And such trust is rapidly eroding, which will accelerate as ever more sophisticated fake accounts and bot farms are exposed.

The incident was just one of many in which major social media accounts were discovered — or at least suggested — to be run by someone far different from who they were purported to be. And it previews a shift that is just now beginning, which will fundamentally change how we interact with social media content.

Bots indistinguishable from humans

When it comes to who will rule social media, the age of the anon is ending. The age of radical transparency is beginning — and yet, if designed well, radical transparency can still include a substantial and valuable space for a large degree of online anonymity.

Several reasons explain the shift. Increasingly sophisticated artificial intelligence models and bots generate outputs that, in many cases, are already almost indistinguishable from humans. For most users, they will soon become fully indistinguishable (a fact confirmed by multiple studies that have shown that most people have a poor ability to tell the difference between the two). And almost certainly, bots guided with even a minimum of human interaction will become indistinguishable from actual humans.

Many of my best friends have had anon accounts. A few are still prominent anons. It’s also noteworthy that almost every prominent ex-anon I know personally, whether doxxed or self-outed, dramatically improved their profile and professional opportunities once they were no longer anonymous.

I am not anti-anon, however. I understand why some people, especially those expressing opinions well outside of the mainstream, need to be anonymous. I also acknowledge that anonymity has been a crucial part of the American political tradition since the revolutionary era. An internet that banned anons would be an internet that is much poorer. This is why the biggest current anon accounts will be grandfathered into the coming system of radical transparency, as they have actual operators who are known to enough people that they are recognized as genuine.

I know several big anon accounts like this. I don’t know who is running them, but I have multiple offline friends I trust who do know the account holders and vouch for them. Accounts of this kind, with credible, real-world validation, will continue to have influence. But increasingly, new big anon accounts will be ignored, even if they amass a large number of followers (many of whom are fake).

As these ersatz accounts become increasingly sophisticated every day, engaging with the truly real becomes ever more important. Fake videos and photos proliferating on social media merely add to the potential for deception.

Age of radical transparency

Even accounts run by real people will not be immune to the age of radical transparency. Some are partially or wholly automated — a way for a “content creator” to maintain a cheap 24-hour revenue stream. In the future, if you want to have influence, mechanisms will be in place to prove not only that it is you who are posting but that you are posting content that is authentic, with a proven real-world point of origin. Some have even suggested using the blockchain as a method of validation.

There should be a simple way of blocking the worst AI slop accounts, foreign bad actors who post highly packaged clickbait, or those who shamelessly steal content made by others. Most Americans would probably prefer not to engage with unverified foreign accounts when discussing U.S. politics. Certainly, I would be willing to pay for a feed that only showed me real, verified accounts from America, along with a limited list of paid, verified, and non-anonymous accounts from other parts of the world.

I am interested in having discussions with real people about real content and the real opinions they have. I want accounts mercilessly downrated if they produce inauthentic content presented as real. I want accounts downrated that regularly retweet unverified slop. If X, or any other online platform, can’t consistently provide that, I’ll look elsewhere — and so will many others.

Anonymity breeds toxicity

My desire for authenticity is not a left-wing attempt to police “disinformation” — that is, whatever the left doesn’t want said. It’s far more serious. It’s not about getting “true” facts but a feed that is filled with actual people producing their own content representing their own views — with clear links to the sources for their claims.

Anonymity has, naturally, always been accompanied by a slew of problems: It can lead to echo chambers or aggressive exchanges, as users feel less pressure to engage rationally.

The lack of personal stakes can escalate conflict, which is amplified by AI. Modern AI can generate thousands of unique, human-like posts in seconds, overwhelming feeds with propaganda or fake news. The increasing influence of state actors in this fake news ecosystem makes it even riskier.

RELATED: Slop and spam, bots and scams: Can personalized algorithms fix the internet?

  Vertigo3d via iStock/Getty Images

Anonymity also emboldens individuals to act without fear of repercussions, which often has downsides. The online disinhibition effect, a psychological phenomenon first described by psychologist John Suler in 2004, suggests that anonymity reduces social inhibitions, leading to behaviors individuals might avoid in face-to-face settings.

Everyone has met the toxic anon online personality who turns out to be quite meek and agreeable in person. One friend of mine who had an edgy online persona eventually closed her anon account (with tens of thousands of followers) and recreated her online presence from scratch as a “face” account. Her tweets are no longer as fun or spicy as they had been, but her persona is real — and presents who she really is. And she eventually landed a great public-facing job, partly based on the quality of her tweets.

Dwindling era of anon accounts

Anons could play a leading role in the old social media world where bots were mostly obvious, and meaningful provocations were, in large part, created by real people through anonymous accounts. In our current world, however, where plausible fake engagement can be created on an almost limitless scale, true anons will lose a great deal of their power. They will be replaced as top influencers by those who are willing to be radically transparent.

Truly transparent identities should include verifiable information, such as email addresses, phone numbers, or government-issued IDs for account creation. While such information does not need to be publicly shared, it should be given to the social media company connected to the account.

Raising the barrier for AI-driven impersonation, while not foolproof, deters malicious actors, who must invest significant resources to create credible fake identities.

For anons unwilling to trust their private information to one of the major online platforms, third-party identity verifiers dedicated to protecting user privacy could carefully validate their identities while keeping them anonymous from social media companies. Such third-party brokers themselves would have their prestige checked by the accuracy of their verification procedures. This method would still allow for a high degree of public anonymity, bolstered by a backend that guarantees authenticity.

A new internet age

In the future, pure online anonymity will not be banned — nor should it be. But in the coming age of radical transparency, a truly anonymous account — one whose owner’s real-world identity is neither known within i own trusted circles nor verified by a reliable third party — will have little to no value.

The next internet age will value not just what you say, but more importantly, that others know you are the one who is saying it.

Editor’s note: A version of this article appeared originally in The American Mind.

This Newly Implemented Online Speech Code Just Gave European Censors Another Weapon

For failure to appropriately monitor content under the Digital Services Act, a company could face fines up to 6 percent of its global revenue, ADF lawyer Jeremy Tedesco said.

NYT ‘Disinformation’ Experts Blame Online Conservatives, Not Rioters, For LA Riots

Rioters came too prepared — some with preprinted signs, some with safety masks — to believe they arrived without organization.

The Republican Party won’t be saved by excuses



Texas conservatives have long trusted the Republican Party to stand firm on core values: secure borders, parental rights, the Second Amendment, and limited government. We’ve delivered them power in Austin. But too many GOP lawmakers now serve corporate donors and media elites — not the grassroots conservatives who put them in office.

Texas may be a red state, but the last legislative session told a different story. Thirty-six Republican state lawmakers joined Democrats on critical votes that gutted conservative priorities. They campaign as fighters and govern as cowards — folding at the first whiff of media pressure or lobbyist resistance. That’s not leadership. That’s betrayal.

When Texas Republicans falter, they don’t just fail their state — they fail the country.

Governor Greg Abbott’s Operation Lone Star generates headlines, but the border remains wide open. Despite the efforts of the Trump administration, cartels continue to move drugs and people freely across Texas soil. Ranchers continue to live in fear. Families bury loved ones lost to fentanyl. Texans demand action, but Austin delivers press releases.

Yes, regardless of the federal government’s efforts — and the Trump administration is certainly a refreshing change from Joe Biden —Texas has the constitutional authority to act. Where’s the declaration of invasion? Where’s the full mobilization? Leadership doesn’t mean deploying troops for photo ops. It means taking responsibility and enforcing the law.

It isn’t ‘culture war nonsense’

Parents across Texas want transparency. They want to know what their kids are learning, reading, and hearing in school — especially on issues of sex and gender. Some lawmakers have stepped up. Too many haven’t. They call it “culture war nonsense” while siding with school boards and bureaucrats who treat parents as threats.

Legislators who can’t stop minors from receiving irreversible medical procedures without parental consent don’t belong in conservative office. That’s not compromise. That’s surrender.

Don’t dismiss the Second Amendment

After every shooting, moderate Republicans float “reasonable restrictions.” But the Constitution doesn’t hedge. It says “shall not be infringed.”

Texans don’t want red-flag laws. They want their rights respected. When figures like Rep. Dan Crenshaw entertain policies that chip away at due process, they don’t look pragmatic. They look weak. If you won’t defend gun rights without apology, step aside.

Meme bills and muzzled dissent

Texas Republicans now flirt with speech regulation. One bill would have required registration for anonymous political memes — all in the name of fighting “disinformation.” That’s not governance. That’s control.

Conservatives believe in protecting anonymous speech because we remember what it’s for: dissent. Critique. Satire. These aren’t bugs in the system — they’re essential features. If Austin lawmakers wants to mirror D.C.'s, voters will start treating them the same way.

Contempt for the base

The real issue isn’t just policy. It’s culture. The GOP establishment in Austin feels more at home with lobbyists than with the voters who knock doors and fund their campaigns. Primary challengers get dismissed as “fringe,” even as the grassroots base grows louder — and angrier.

RELATED: Red state, blue ballot: Dems use direct democracy to flip states

 Photo by Ben Sklar/Getty Images

Calls for term limits are rising. The appetite for bold reform is real. If Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) can deliver conservative wins in Florida, why can’t Texas? Why are we still making excuses?

This isn’t just about Texas

Texas shapes the national Republican Party. It drives presidential races and defines what the GOP stands for. When Texas Republicans falter, they don’t just fail their state — they fail the country.

As state Rep. Brian Harrison has shown, the last legislative session exposed serious cracks in the GOP foundation. Conservatives must respond: organize locally, show up at the Capitol, primary the cowards. An “R” isn’t a free pass. If you govern like a Democrat, expect to be treated like one.

Secure the border. Empower parents. Protect the Second Amendment. Defend free speech. Or get out of the way.

Texas doesn’t need more Republicans. It needs better ones.

New Database Exposes Extent Of Federal Thought Control Money Machine

'These actions affected the civil liberties of American citizens'

WATCH: Former Biden Disinformation Czar Nina Jankowicz Refuses To Reveal Who Funds Her Nonprofit, the American Sunlight Project

Former Biden misinformation czar Nina Jankowicz refused to reveal the donors of her self-described transparency group, the American Sunlight Project, including whether liberal megadonor George Soros is among them.

The post WATCH: Former Biden Disinformation Czar Nina Jankowicz Refuses To Reveal Who Funds Her Nonprofit, the American Sunlight Project appeared first on .

After Media’s Covid ‘Oopsie,’ I Don’t Want To Hear The Word ‘Misinformation’ Ever Again

Media gave air cover to censors by constructing artificial boundaries around acceptable thought and calling everything else 'misinformation.'