by Dr. Joseph Mercola
Human behavior on social media is similar to that of
starlings in a murmuration. Masses of people react to a
stimulus, such as a social media post, seemingly as a
cohesive unit without a designated leader and, as a
result, something goes "viral"
appears to be a spontaneous event that no one can
control, but it really isn't. Curated information,
pushed ahead of other information on people's newsfeeds,
can dramatically influence crowd behavior. It's a form
of social engineering
kind of social engineering has a drawback. Financial
incentives have driven social media companies to promote
any content with high engagement. Those who seek to
censor certain types of information now struggle to
determine how to get Big Tech to change their underlying
Department of Homeland Security's Cybersecurity
Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) is the key
coordinator of illegal government censorship. Its
original directive was to defend the U.S. against
foreign cybersecurity threats. Now, CISA's primary focus
is domestic threats, i.e., Americans who challenge the
works with a collective called the Election Integrity
Partnership (EIP), which does the actual censoring. The
EIP consists of four social media monitoring groups:
Stanford Internet Observatory, Washington University's
Center for an Informed Public, the Atlantic Council's
Digital Forensic Research Lab, and Graphika
How the masters
curate the flocks.
It's Worse than
is Mass Social
for the One
In a recent essay, 1
Renée DiResta, who researches
"pathological information systems" 2 and "the spread of malign
narratives" at Stanford Internet Observatory, 3 reviewed online crowd
behavior in response to curated information.
The metaphor she uses is
that of a flock of starlings, in which thousands of birds fly in
what seems to be an impossibly coordinated dance known as
As explained by DiResta:
"In a murmuration,
each bird sees, on average, the seven birds nearest it and
adjusts its own behavior in response.
If its nearest
neighbors move left, the bird usually moves left.
If they move
right, the bird usually moves right.
The bird does not
know the flock's ultimate destination and can make no radical
change to the whole.
But each of these
birds' small alterations, when occurring in rapid sequence,
shift the course of the whole, creating mesmerizing patterns...
It is a logic that emerges from - is an embodiment of - the
The stimulus - or
information - passes from one organism to the next through this
chain of connections ...
[C]omputational biologists and computer scientists who study
them describe what is happening as,
transmission of local behavioral response to neighbors.'
Each animal is a node
in a system of influence, with the capacity to affect the
behavior of its neighbors.
Scientists call this process, in which groups of disparate
organisms move as a cohesive unit, collective behavior.
The behavior is
derived from the relationship of individual entities to each
other, yet only by widening the aperture beyond individuals do
we see the entirety of the dynamic."
Responding to Curated Bait?
According to researchers such as DiResta, human behavior on
social media is strikingly similar.
Masses of people react to
a stimulus, such as a social media post, seemingly as a cohesive
unit without a designated leader and, as a result, something goes
It appears to be a spontaneous event that no one can control. But is
As it turns out,
curated information that is pushed ahead of other
information on people's newsfeeds can dramatically influence crowd
DiResta refers to it as "nudges" or "bait."
Curated information that
gets pushed into our view ends up influencing what we think and do,
thus influencing what goes viral and what doesn't.
It's an incredibly subtle
form of influence.
At its core, it's social engineering at its
There's a nudge (curated information pushed to the front of people's
feeds), individuals react, and suddenly, en masse, large numbers of
people move in aggregate, creating a trend.
engineering and behavior modification works by steering our
attention toward a specific target.
and Directed Trends
In her essay, DiResta also describes how online platforms expanded
individuals' social networks using algorithms, connecting people
with similar interests.
Initially, this was done
for commercial purposes, but in addition to matching advertisers to
the appropriate markets, it has also had unintended consequences.
Social networks have a
tendency to become echo chambers, making "online murmurations" more
DiResta continues: 5
"After the nudges to
assemble into flocks come the nudges to engage...
Topics, for example, will show a nascent 'trend' to someone
inclined to be interested, sometimes even if the purported trend
is, at the time, more of a trickle - fewer than, say, 2,000
But that act, pushing something into the user's field of view,
the Trending Topics feature not only surfaces
trends, it shapes them.
The provocation goes out to a small subset of people inclined to
The user who receives
the nudge clicks in, perhaps posts their own take - increasing
the post count, signaling to the algorithm that the bait was
taken and raising the topic's profile fortheir followers.
Their post is now curated into their friends' feeds; they are
one of the seven birds their followers see.
take shape among particular flocks... even as very few people
outside of the community have any idea that anything has
Marx is trending for you, #ReopenSchools for me, #transwomenaremen
for the Libs Of TikTok set.
The provocation is
delivered, a few more birds react to what's suddenly in their
field of view, and the flock follows ...
We often deploy the phrase 'it went viral' to describe our
online murmurations. It's a deceptive phrase that eliminates the
how and thus absolves the participants of all responsibility.
A rumor does not
it spreads because
we spread it, even if the
system is designed to facilitate capturing attention and to
encourage that spread."
Companies Are in a Catch-22
While having something go viral can be beneficial for a given cause,
it can also be disastrous if and when people react to something they
don't fully understand.
The curating of
likeminded individuals into networks also has the drawback of
limiting opposing views, which might create a better balance, from
entering into that network.
Many today insist that the answer to "misinformation" going viral is
content curation, moderation and censorship.
But that's putting the
cart before the horse, since it's the design of the algorithms on
social media that create these networks and online murmurings in the
Social media companies profit by increasing engagement, thus they
encourage expanding social networks with likeminded ideas and
nudging networks into mass responses.
High engagement means
more exposure for advertisers, and hence greater ad revenue for the
social media company.
According to DiResta, a better solution would be to,
"move beyond thinking
of platform content moderation policies as 'the solution' and
prioritize rethinking design."
"For example, Twitter might choose to eliminate its Trending
feature entirely, or in certain geographies during sensitive
moments like elections - it might, at a minimum, limit nudges to
surfacing actual large-scale or regional trends, not simply
Instagram might enact a maximum follower count... These are
substance-agnostic and not reactive...
We might re-evaluate
how platforms connect their users or how factors that determine
what platform recommenders and curation algorithms push into
This could potentially have a far greater impact than battling
over content moderation as a path toward constructing a
healthier information ecosystem." 6
Who Is Renée
Here, I'm going to change course a bit and ask you to consider
DiResta's essay within the context of what she's really talking
about, which is social engineering through better and more palatable
forms of censorship.
If you didn't catch that
angle, it's in part because of the sections I chose to quote, but
it's also because you probably don't know who DiResta is.
While her essay comes across as well-reasoned, readers would do well
to consider whom she works for, who's in her network, and why she
might be proposing what she's proposing.
According to DiResta, social media algorithms have created a
landscape in which "misinformation" flourishes and spreads like
Worse, it's a landscape
in which wrong-thinkers end up forming lasting ties - and join
together with other wrongthinkers to form much larger groups that
support each other.
designed years ago - when amoral recommendation engines
suggested, for example, that anti-vaccine activists might like
to join QAnon communities - created real ties," she writes.
In addition to the
suggestions quoted above, she also suggests another option:
"A mass exodus from
the present ecosystem into something entirely new... the
I've previously written
about how the globalist cabal behind
The Great Reset intends to
drive us into digital identity, a social credit score, digital twins
and an increasingly virtual reality.
So, she actually tips her
hand when suggesting a mass migration into the metaverse, because
that's where the globalist cabal ultimately wants us.
A New World
So, who is DiResta?
She's the research
manager for the Stanford Internet Observatory, founded in June 2019
to promote internet censorship policies and conduct real-time social
media narrative monitoring.
She's a Mozilla Fellow in
Media, Misinformation and Trust, an adviser to Congress and the
State Department, and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).
CFR is financed in part by the
Rockefeller, Ford and
Carnegie foundations, 10 and has influenced U.S. foreign policy ever
since its inception 95 years ago.
Almost all U.S.
secretaries of defense have been lifetime members, as have most CIA
This is of crucial
importance, considering the CFR's goal, from the start, has been to
bring about a totalitarian one world government, a New World Order (NWO)
with global top-down rule.
"[The CFR's goal
all-powerful one-world government...
This lust to
of the United
States is pervasive
of its membership...
In the entire
there is no term
meaning so deep as
In 1950, the son of one of the CFR's founders, James Warburg,
said to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee:
"We shall have world
government whether or not you like it - by conquest or consent."
Similarly, in 1975 CFR
insider Admiral Chester Ward wrote that the
goal of the CFR was,
"submergence of U.S.
sovereignty and national independence into an all-powerful
one-world government." 12
According to Ward, the
sovereignty and independence of the United States is pervasive
throughout most of its membership," and "in the entire CFR
lexicon, there is no term of revulsion carrying a meaning so
deep as 'America First'."
With Ward's last comment
in mind, published in 1975, it's interesting to contemplate who has
Trump's America First agenda, and why.
Many Americans, even if
they don't like or support Trump personally, agree that taking care
of America and Americans' interests first is a rational decision for
any leadership, and they've been hard-pressed to rationalize how an
anti-America First policy can be good for the nation.
Well, Ward gives us the answer.
Those who oppose America First
policies do so because they're working on behalf of a network that
seeks to eliminate nationalism in favor of a one-world government...
DiResta is a CFR member and a "misinformation specialist."
her essay becomes an interesting example of subtle NWO propaganda.
While some of her
suggestions seem like they would have beneficial effects, what's
missing is a discussion of how a redesign of the algorithms on
social media platforms can censor people and views even more
You Are the
Designated Enemy in World War III
What else do we know about DiResta?
Well, we know she's part
of The Lancet Commission on 'Vaccine Refusal, Acceptance and Demand.'
At the end of 2021, she
co-authored an article 13 in The Lancet, along with
and Dr. Peter Hotez, among others, in which they discuss,
of vaccine misinformation on COVID jab uptake...
In doing so, they present what they call in
coordinated, evidence-based education, communication, and behavioral
intervention strategy that is likely to improve the success of
COVID-19 vaccine programs across the U.S."
She also has an integral role in the
Department of Homeland
Security's (DHS) move to establish a domestic censorship bureau.
In November 2022, the
Foundation for Freedom Online published an extensive article
detailing this transition, and the key players involved.
As explained by
Foundation for Freedom Online: 15
"This story has two
main institutional sides:
Together, this network forms
the DHS public-private censorship network..."
On the government side,
the Cybersecurity Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), a
sub-department of the DHS, is the key coordinator.
When it was
founded in 2018, its directive was to defend the U.S. against
foreign cybersecurity threats like Russian hackers and foreign
Since then, and especially in the last three years, CISA has morphed
into a government entity focused almost solely on domestic threats,
meaning Americans who challenge the government narrative - a
narrative that, again, is in favor of a one-world government and
firmly against American nationalism.
On the nongovernmental side, a collective called the Election
Integrity Partnership (EIP) is the main hub.
The EIP consists of
four social media monitoring groups:
Stanford Internet Observatory
Washington University's Center for an Informed Public
Council's Digital Forensic Research Lab
DiResta is directly connected to CISA's censorship directorate
Stanford Internet Observatory - where she's a top
lieutenant and directs research on misinformation and malicious
narratives - which is part of the EIP.
She's also given a number of
lectures at CISA disinformation summits. 16,17
But there's more...
Foundation for Freedom
Online writes: 18
"The prominent role
Renée DiResta plays in EIP - a government-partnered Internet
censorship consortium - is particularly worrisome and
Before DiResta became
research manager at the Stanford disinfo lab, she was research
director for a now-notorious, scandal-laden and disgraced
political hatchet firm known as New Knowledge LLC.
In December 2018, the New York Times exposed that DiResta's
Democrat donor-funded small cybersecurity firm, New Knowledge,
had clandestinely created thousands of fake 'Russian bots' (user
accounts generated with a virtual private network (VPN) to
simulate a Russian IP address) on Twitter and Facebook then mass
subscribed those fake 'Russian bots' to opposition Republican
Senate candidate Roy Moore's campaign.
DiResta did this - or at least the small firm where she was a
director did this - in the heat of the Nov. 2017 Alabama special
election, which substantially decided the party control of the
It was a race in
which Moore narrowly lost, and for whose loss New Knowledge - in
its own report - took credit.
At the time, mainstream news genuinely thought Roy Moore was
being backed by Russians. But it was just DiResta's professional
disinformation firm interfering in the election."
Secure a One World Government
Foundation for Freedom Online continues: 19
"One common thread
connecting these four entities is that each of their directors
were involved in aggressively alleging (unsubstantiated) claims
from January 2017 through early 2020 that Russian interference
had helped Donald Trump win the 2016 election by using
inauthentic bots and troll accounts on social media ...
Each of the four entities comprising EIP is also deeply
connected to the US military and foreign policy establishment...
It is very helpful to
understand EIP's network and operations in depth, because it was
through EIP that DHS built the infrastructure for its current
role as government coordinator of takedowns and throttling of US
citizen speech online."
To get a better grasp on
this censorship network, please refer to the original article, as I
only have room to provide an overview summary here.
In a nutshell,
the EIP was created by the DHS/CISA as a way for government to
circumvent the law and shield its illegal censoring of the American
public behind the veneer of private corporations and nongovernmental
In an Atlantic Council interview, the leader of EIP, Alex Stamos
(former security chief at Facebook), admits that the DHS-EIP
partnership was set up to outsource censorship that the government
could not do due to "lack of legal authorization." 20
They coordinate the take-down of undesirable content using a
real-time chat app that the DHS, EIP and social media companies all
Specific platforms, such as
Facebook and Twitter, also have
their own special portals where government officials can point to
content they want removed. 21
in Elections and Controls COVID Narratives
The EIP first sprang into noticeable action to control the outcome
of the 2020 presidential election, but controlling elections is far
from its only focus.
With the 'emergence' of
quickly turned to all things COVID.
Foundation for Freedom
Online explains: 22
"...after the 2020
election, EIP changed its name and re-branded as an entity
called the 'Virality Project' (VP).
VP did the exact same
government censorship job EIP did, except censoring COVID-19
instead of censoring elections...
VP ended up censoring, with its government partners, 66 unique
social media narratives going viral online concerning COVID
during the 2021 calendar year. Not 66 posts. 66 entire
That had the effect
of impacting millions of posts and potentially altering the
entire political trajectory of the American citizenry's response
to the COVID pandemic."
the Information Battlefield
Based on what we know about
DiResta, we can now begin to see how her
starling essay is an exposition on,
the social engineering role of
Big Tech in the past
the drawback of Big Tech's financial
motivations when it comes to censoring NWO counternarratives
how the NWO cabal wants Big Tech to shift methods in the future to
limit the reach of undesirable content
It would behoove us to take
A great deal of the propaganda war involves people and organizations
that say they're one thing but do the complete opposite.
example, DiResta is the head of policy for Data for Democracy,
while at the same time taking part in a plot to directly circumvent
the democratic election process.
From her membership in CFR, we can glean the intent behind such
She is working on behalf of those who seek
to establish a one-world government. To that end, she also works
with organizations specializing in censorship on behalf of the
Illegal government censorship is bad enough, but it doesn't end
As discussed in "Censorship
Wasn't Enough, They Want to Destroy Us," when censorship
and deplatforming fails, the gloves come off and more destructive
cyberwarfare tactics are deployed.
Our government is
literally waging war against the American public, and while
information control is the preferred measure, they don't shy away
from more aggressive tactics.
The idea of government waging war on its own citizens seems
completely irrational and inexplicable,
until you realize that the CFR has controlled U.S. foreign relations for nearly a century, and
its primary goal has always been to undermine U.S. sovereignty and
abet the creation of a one-world government.
Today, there's a vast network of individuals and organizations that
work together to achieve this aim, including a long list of
Before anything can change, the public needs
to understand the battlefield and what the battle is really about.
The battle, really, is about the surrender of the U.S. unto a
one-world government and, in a circuitous way, DiResta's essay -
with her background exposed - helps us understand how the war is
They always have a goal, and a plan for getting there.
Then, they fashion the narratives needed to implement that plan.
Now that the ultimate end goal is clear - the
establishment of a
one-world government - it becomes much easier to determine how a
given narrative is being used to further that goal.
As we move
forward, as many as possible need to become adept at identifying how
different narratives are being used to curate the flock and make
people move in a desired direction.
1, 4, 5, 6, 7 Noema
Magazine November 3, 2022
Renée DiResta November 5, 2022
Renée DiResta Bio
8, 11, 12 Wakeup-World
August 31, 2016
Foundation Grants to CFR
Lancet December 11, 2021; 398(10317): 2186-2192
14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 22 Foundation
for Freedom Online November 9, 2022
Lee Fang October 31, 2022
May 17, 2018