Some who claim to be Democrats have stated pretty definitively that @AOC is backed, favored, influenced, or funded by Russia. Well, that was worrisome, so I just went and took a look for myself.

I Googled "Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Russia," and the results were disturbing.
⬇

Three top results confirmed the rumors.

The only problem with that is, ALL THREE are conservatively-biased, at least two propagate both misinformation and disinformation, and one was used by the 🇷🇺Russians as a weapon in the cyber attack on the United States.
⬇

Fox News is an 👀entertainment channel. More than half of its content is false/misleading. Its bias is far right.

The article confirming the rumor that Putin favors @AOC is an 👀opinion piece: foxbusiness.com/politics/alexa…
⬇

Trump cited Fox approximately 48 times in tweets attacking the Russia investigation: nytimes.com/interactive/20…
⬇

As of 2016, many Democrats actually trusted Fox News entertainment channel for NEWS.

Is that STILL HAPPENING?
⬇

The next source is the Washington Times. The owner of the Washington Times is a cult leader named Sun Myung Moon. Have you heard of the Moonies? en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moonie_(n… and en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unificati…
⬇

Washington Times' owner Moon has also been listed as a member of the Council for National Policy, whose members have backed and/or included Trump, Pence, Bannon, DeVos, Cruz, and other extremists.

Some of the #CNP's organizations and members are tied to Russia.
⬇

The Washington Times article that maligns @AOC is, like the Fox News entertainment article, an 👀opinion piece.

"Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez a Socialist Republican? - Washington Times
Washington Times › news › jan › alexan..." washingtontimes.com/news/2019/jan/…
⬇

The Washington Times opinion piece (falsely) characterises @AOC as ignorant. The writer compares her to Lenin, Marx, Hitler (we're talking nutso-cuckoo stuff). It links AOC's progressive/Democratic socialist ideals with Marxism and Nazism. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Types_of_…
⬇

Geez, the Washington Times article goes even further into La-La Land by injecting a blurb about the Green Party, which is something from years ago that's completely unrelated to the Green New Deal.

#GreenNewDeal vox.com/energy-and-env…
#GND
⬇

And finally, the writer Washington Times piece inserts verbiage designed to raise reader's fears throughout, referencing killings, burning things down, open borders, taking your money...

How stupid does the writer think his readers are?

Don't answer that.
⬇

I mean, are you kidding me right now? Are Democrats buying this hogwash?

But wait! There's more...
⬇

🇷🇺Oh, Russia.

Russia, Russia, Russia.

Still messing with us.

Using Russia Today, nka RT:
⬇

RT (FOX Russia Today) is a weapon. Instead of bullets, it shoots disinformation. Instead of forcing us to do Putin's will physically, it messes with our minds and confuses us.

RT.com is Russian state media pointed at Americans.
⬇

RT intersperses legit journalism with disinformation & propaganda. Take this piece: "A conspiracy theory is born: US comedian calls Ocasio-Cortez 'a Russian tool'" rt.com/usa/444439-oca…

It seemed like a well-sourced op piece just criticizing a comedienne to me. You?
⬇

Consider this: who's the article really about, a comedienne I've never heard of (sorry 😳) or one of the most dynamic and powerful political figures in the United States?

rt.com/usa/444439-oca…
⬇

So on first read, would you say the piece leaves one with a positive, negative, or neutral sense of who @AOC is, are you left a little wary?
rt.com/usa/444439-oca…
⬇

Look at the article as if it's about @AOC, and re-read from that lens. What buzzwords/phrases are being associated with her?
rt.com/usa/444439-oca…
⬇

14 incidents of the word "Russia" or variants of it. Imagine if a professor assigned a short piece and required you to use a specific word 14 times. Seems like a lot to me.

Notice what color she's wearing in the photo? A red! Commie!
⬇

The bottom line, though, is that consciously or (more likely) unconsciously, you see AOC associated with key themes repeatedly.

💭Did you notice the writer sneaked in a reference to the Green Party, which has 📢nothing to do with AOC or the #GreenNewDeal?
⬇

Our subconscious minds register all those connections as associations with AOC, even when the words read as if denying she's those things.

For example, DON'T think of elephants.
You must not think of elephants.
You can't think of elephants.
⬇

Were you able to NOT think of elephants?

Our subconscious minds don't "hear" the negatives, so we read those as,

Think of elephants
Think of elephants
Think of elephants

Sneaky stuff, huh? Welcome to psychological warfare.
#NLP

Notice the other words, phrases, or patterns:

Putin
Active measures
Bots, trolls
Split the Democratic Party, divide Democrats
Take over America
⬇

Notice what the writer chooses to paraphrase:

"Ocasio-Cortez says Democrats should focus on issues relevant to voters rather than Trump-bashing and Robert Mueller’s probe. And she also wants to challenge fellow Democrats through primaries. Kirkman thinks otherwise, but..."
⬇

I could go on for ages about manipulation tactics, but I think I've made my point.

Now. Are YOU one of those who thinks Russia is behind, supporting, in favor of, etc... @AOC? Where did you learn that? Was it a legitimate news source?
⬇

If you do have a source, you can check out its bias and credibility on a number of sites:

adfontesmedia.com
⬇

mediabiasfactcheck.com
⬇

snopes.com

You can also Google the site plus the words credibility, bias, or who owns, etc.

Oh, Wikipedia, Sourcewatch, and RationalWiki are good aggregates, but are subject to deception as they're crowdsourced, so be wary.

If you find a source that checks out, please return and share.

Interesting. Look at the bottom tweet on the last screenshot. How is the extremist Washington Times able to expand while other media sources are downsizing?

Thread