Did someone forward you this? Subscribe here free!
Good morning, Roca Nation!
After a confusing meeting, the CDC voted to change access requirements to the MMRV vaccine (free). Trump’s new six-figure visa plan caused chaos among companies. A judge dismissed Trump’s lawsuit against The New York Times. The UK, Australia, and Canada officially recognized Palestine (free).
“The highest art of warfare is not to fight at all, but to subvert anything of value in the country of your enemy until such time that the perception of reality of your enemy is screwed up to such an extent that he does not perceive you as an enemy.” — Yuri Bezmenov, KGB defector (1984)
By Max Towey
Within 90 minutes of Charlie Kirk being shot, 3M posts about the conservative activist had flooded X. But not all were from real people. Amid the grief, the prayers, the calls for unity, and the partisan finger-pointing, a swarm of accounts lit up with calls for civil war. The question is: Who was writing them?
“We are already in a civil war, it may not look like we thought it would but we are,” @rodeorektcrypto posted the Friday after the shooting. The account’s profile picture is a man riding a bull, and its bio reads,“God is King Jesus is our Savior. Happily married to an beautiful and amazing woman/no DM’S ever- follow at own your own risk!”
As an account with 1,000 followers, you would think it might have better grammar in its bio – or more views of its posts. @rodeorektkrypto’s previous three posts each had fewer than 30 views, including its previous one: “With the spotlight on Utah right not it’s time to expose @GovCox for what he really is.” This was a quote tweet of a post showing that Governor Cox (R-UT) once had pronouns in his bio and was a never-Trumper. Such low view counts would suggest that many of its 1k followers aren’t real, or that X has deemed @rodeorektkrypto a junk account. But that’s not the only sign.
If you continue scrolling down @rodeorektcrypto’s feed, you’ll see dozens of retweets and replies daily, each on a highly inflammatory topic. X says that @rodeorektcrypto joined the site in October 2023 – the month of the October 7 attack and a year before the US election. Its location is reported as “Over Yonder.” The question is where? Russia? Qatar? Pakistan?
Similar accounts polluted the replies of many of the most viral posts about Kirk’s assassination. When Trump advisor Stephen Miller tweeted his condolences, accounts like @rodeorektcrypto came flying in.
“This is war Stephen. We are at war inside America,” @timesmith912 posted. The account has no bio, a profile picture of a dog, and a “joined” date of June 2024. Like @rodeorektcrypto, @timesmith912 is extremely active, retweeting dozens of posts per day but never tweeting itself despite also having 1k followers.
The next reply came from @LisaontheWrite: “This changes everything.” Her bio shows an AI-generated picture of a cat and a bio that reads: “Wife|Mom|Tech Writer|Florida Girl|Glamping Pro|SpaceX Fan|$TSLA Long|USA!|♡ Just a little outspoken. No DMs. 🇺🇸”
Next was @MPRattler 55, who wrote, “We must mourn, then we must fight like hell to eradicate the evil that has festered in our country far too long. Let Charlie’s death not be in vain. We cannot coexist with the scum that killed him. They must be eradicated. No mercy.” His profile picture is a portrait of St. Michael the Archangel; the bio reads, “A traveler of both time and space, to be where I have been”; the “joined” date is November 2022. Like the others, the profile has retweeted dozens of highly inflammatory political posts.
These replies were evident on nearly every viral post about Charlie Kirk that we saw on X.
It made us wonder: Are these anonymous accounts (anons) real people or bots? Why would an army of anons call for civil war at once? Are there nefarious forces behind the scenes?
In this deep-dive, we investigate through the eyes of a former KGB agent.
This full report is for paid subscribers, who fund our journalism. If you start a two-week free trial today, you’ll be automatically entered to win a free year. Once you sign up, you can access all of our articles here!
Editor’s Note
Thanks for reading. Are the bots as big of an issue as a modern Bezmenov might warn? Would removing every bot help us reverse course, or has the damage been done? Send in your takes here.
We got a bunch of replies to yesterday’s deep-dive on mRNA vaccines.
Kathy wrote:
My family’s experience highlights a troubling gap between public messaging about mRNA vaccines and the lived realities of some recipients. Following COVID-19 vaccination, my previously healthy 37-year-old son developed myocarditis that has persisted; my preexisting autoimmune condition worsened; my husband developed permanent tinnitus; and a friend suffered blood clots. These outcomes, whether rare or not, underscore the need for transparent communication about both benefits and risks of taking vaccines. Above all, people deserve full transparency which we do not feel is happening even now. Honest, evidence-based discussion would better serve public trust and patient autonomy. Where's the data with the actual number of adverse events from the vaccines available to the public?
This article was really insightful by the way.
Arturo said:
Thank you for that deep dive. Definitely one of the most interesting ones you have wrote.
I liked that you interviewed people on both sides but you didn't really mention any of the actual science occurring inside our cells when the mRNA vaccines works.
The main claim from the deniers is that pseudouridine lasts longer in the body but what biological evidence did they show? Any hard data or numbers? Did they measure half life? Clearance? Liver enzymes? Any sort of measured indicator that having pseudouridine in our body longer than expected causes biological problems because of this specific thing or that specific metabolic pathway.
I feel like this deep dive was not deep enough on the critical side.
And Maria wrote:
Thank you for writing this. I love that I can learn so much so succinctly.
Every vaccine has possible downsides, the debate should center on what is considered an acceptable “human price for knowledge.”
Obviously mRNA has useful applications, everyone agrees to that. It’s seems to me the disagreement is more about how it is being used. And though Offit would like to think there aren’t “sides” he’s already a part of one. The science of how mRNA works may be pure science, how to apply it is what becomes problematic.
And find our latest articles below in case you missed any over the weekend:
See you back here tomorrow.
—Max and Max
