They canceled Tucker, now they’re coming for us… but you can fight back. Cancel Fox Nation and instead click here to subscribe to Revolver. Or give the gift of Revolver—simply select the annual subscription and select “This is a gift” on the next page. If you want to give extra during this critical time, you can make a one-time or recurring monthly donation — whether it’s $1 or $1,000, every bit goes towards the battle to save our great nation.

You might remember Nina Jankowicz, who was involved in a Department of Homeland Security program aimed at suppressing, punishing, and censoring political dissidents. However, her “theatrical” and very biased past caused complications, leading to the quiet dismantling of both Nina and the DHS program. Now, Nina is back in the spotlight as she attempts to sue Fox News for defamation. Jankowicz stated in her lawsuit that she faced threats of violence due to how Fox News portrayed her and her responsibilities.

In other words, Nina is test-driving the left’s “stochastic terrorism” obsession in the courts. Revolver wrote about this extremely dangerous and totalitarian attempt to stifle free speech and end free expression here, in a piece entitled, “Behold, the Regime Unveils Its New Catchphrase for All Political Dissent: Stochastic Terrorism”. Be sure to read it.

Last year, Revolver put together an eye-opening piece titled, “Here’s Everything the Media Won’t Tell You About Nina Jankowicz, Biden’s New Minister of Truth.” It’s an in-depth exposé on Biden’s plans to censor political dissidents with his DHS “Ministry of Disinformation” and the Harry-Potter-obsessed woman he tapped to run it.

Revolver:

But the establishment of the DHS’s Ministry of Disinformation wouldn’t be a proper intelligence community project unless it was absurd as well as dystopian. For the absurdity, we need to look no further than Nina Jankowicz, the disinformation wizard appointed to protect the American people from dangerous speech about illegal immigration and Russia.

So, who exactly is Nina Jankowicz? Certainly, not a person with any concerns about preserving freedom of speech or expression. A quick look at her Twitter history is enough to dispel that. When Facebook permanently banned Donald Trump from its service, Nina was in the wings complaining that this punishment was not harsh enough. Through a metaphor, Nina explained that only mass bans on hundreds or thousands of accounts would be enough to “fix” the disinformation “problem.”

It’s as if Nina wakes up every morning and thinks, “How can I stifle dissenting opinions today?” She’s like a superhero, but instead of fighting for justice and liberty, she fights to silence anyone who dares to challenge the progressive regime.

The Revolver piece continues:

Jankowicz loves to chastise the peasant masses for thinking they deserve free speech on Big Tech platforms. Didn’t they read the terms of service? Don’t they know this platform is owned by a private corporation?

Of course, when it came to actual real news stories, Nina, who the left calls an “expert on disinformation,” was among the first to call it “fake news.”

Nina is less  of an “expert” and more of an “activist.”

Revolver:

As is virtually always the case, the woman shrieking about “disinformation” hidden in every shadow and behind every potted plant is herself an avid purveyor of politically-motivated lies. In 2020, Jankowicz joined every other shill of the Deep State in calling Hunter Biden’s obviously-real laptop a “Russian influence op.”

However, these days Nina’s role has changed significantly. She’s tapped into her old “theatrical days” and is portraying herself as a victim.

Nina recently sat down for an interview with NPR and lamented over how Fox News unleashed a hurricane of hurt, tossing her around like a rag doll with their portrayal of her as the quirky, tune-belting, liberal jester that she absolutely, unabashedly is.

WBUR:

CHAKRABARTI: So there was something buried in the tape that we played of all those Fox News attacks on you, which I’d like you to explain. The Mary Poppins reference, what was that all about?

JANKOWICZ: Well, Meghna, in a past life, used to do a lot of musical theater. And long before I was appointed to the Biden administration to lead the Disinformation Governance Board, I tried to reach out to younger people, to different audiences on all sorts of social media platforms, including TikTok.

And I made a parody video of Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious about information laundering, which is when disinformation origins are obscured. Either, you know, through the mainstream media or sometimes a foreign government will plant stories within influencers or things like that. So I was trying to explain this during COVID, I made a silly video, one that was, you know, intentionally self-deprecating. I’ve written parody songs like this all my life, and the video did moderately well. It had, I think, a couple of thousand views on TikTok. It did a little bit better on Twitter, but the right wing went absolutely ballistic about this video.

This is the absolutely cringeworthy video Nina is totally “not embarrassed” about making:

More:

The idea that somebody like me could have a sense of humor or, you know, hobbies to engage in just made them, you know, just lose their minds, apparently. And I just want to state for the record that I’m still proud of that video. I wouldn’t have taken that video back. And I don’t think having hobbies or a sense of humor or being earnest about something is disqualifying for any sort of job.

Some might argue that’s not a “sense of humor,” it’s more like a desperate cry for help. The interview continues:

CHAKRABARTI: Right. And so, in fact, I mean, you say that during the period of this onslaught that you’d been featured in more than 250 broadcast segments on Fox. And hosts and guest guests, repeated false and false information about you more than 400 times. … It began right after the Biden administration made public about the DHS Disinformation board. At what point did you realize that this wasn’t just like a 24-hour news cycle thing — that it was a major campaign against you?

JANKOWICZ: Yeah, well, there were a couple of, you know, different waves of it. I initially thought, you know, perhaps this will die down. Over the weekend. We had announced to the board on a Wednesday and thought that perhaps by Monday things would die down. But Fox just kept harping on me. And I think, you know, it shows how beneficial a strategy like this is for their bottom line.

It’s absolutely mind-boggling that Nina doesn’t find it remotely “newsy” that the US government is conjuring up a “Ministry of Truth,” and to add a cherry on top, they’ve selected a dancing bear to lead the grand spectacle. Nina’s tale of woe drags on:

Picking a main character, a villain, if you will, and just reminding the audience of them again and again, contriving these narratives that I had committed treason because it gets their viewers enraged, which keeps them engaged. And I think it’s a tactic to distract from real issues in our society. And frankly, it’s a tactic that harms our national security as well. The fact that this board doesn’t exist is a detriment to our national security and to the safety and security of the homeland. … The lack of coordination in the Department of Homeland Security, which is a large government body that was already working on disinformation.

Ahh yes, any attack on Nina is a threat to national security. And while Nina was protecting our nation’s security, she was making sure to protect your civil liberties:

The point of this board was to bring all those forces together, to make sure they were coordinated, to make sure that we were, you know, appropriately spending taxpayer dollars and to protect privacy, civil rights and civil liberties.

Amazing! Nina is basically the Mother Theresa of Disinformation. She planned to silence and censor you for your own good, you silly bigots. Thank you, Nina, for graciously taking it upon yourself to censor us for our own good. How could we possibly survive without your enlightened guidance and Mary Poppins’ show tunes?

The interviewer then shared a quote from Fox News host Laura Ingraham and asked Nina to reply. In response, Nina fact-checked Laura Ingraham’s subjective opinion and boldly proclaimed that the globalist neocon Wilson Center is proudly nonpartisan:

LAURA INGRAHAM [Tape]: Part angry feminist, part frustrated karaoke singer Jankowicz is the last person who should be trusted with distinguishing between fact and fiction. She’s a graduate of Bryn Mawr College. It’s kind of a caricature of the modern left university. She worked at the liberal Wilson Center, a think tank Globalist, of course.

And as an expert in Eurasian affairs, you would think that Ms. Jankowicz would have authored articles maybe on the importance of preserving free expression in repressive regimes, right? Well, not quite. But she did publish this gem: Malign Creativity: How gender, Sex and Lies Are Weaponized against Women Online. Oh, can’t wait to read that.

CHAKRABARTI: Nina, why do you think that you became the primary target here rather than the disinformation board itself? I mean, Fox hosts and contributors also talked about the board, but not with the vitriol, I would say, that they talked about you.

JANKOWICZ: I think it’s easier to be angrier at a person than it is to be angry at an inanimate board about which you have no information. So they were filling the vacuum with stories that were completely made up about me. And at the time, I should also mention, you know, not only have I lived this authentic life online, I’ve basically grown up on the Internet. I am, you know, a proud millennial. I was a week away, a couple of weeks away from giving birth at the time.

So I was this very, very pregnant, very female, very authentic, easy to dunk on face of the board. And again, I think that mobilized people in a way that just talking about this concept of a disinformation governance board didn’t. So, yeah, and I should also add that almost everything that Laura Ingraham said in that little segment that you played is false. The Wilson Center is not liberal. It is proudly nonpartisan.

If the Dominatrix of Truth decrees the Wilson Center to be “proudly nonpartisan,” then it is, you ignorant bigots! Nina also wants you to know that she was pregnant and therefore a wilting Damsel-in-Distress when Fox News mocked her — a point she makes more than once in the interview.

Nina then continues her whining, this time crying over Laura’s mockery of a paper she once wrote.

And while I was there, I advised, you know, Republicans and Democrats in Congress about disinformation. She talked about my paper Malign Creativity, which looks at how gendered abuse is used against women, both in the domestic situation and foreign politics.

Gendered abuse! The horror! The nation must protect it’s supply of wilting Damsels-in-Distress from criticism so they can serve in high-ranking positions in the government. Otherwise, mean words might force millennial digital natives off the Internet into squalid non-digital refugee camps of the mind, which is probably even worse than being forced to take refuge from a war-torn country or a natural disaster! Emphasis ours:

CHAKRABARTI: Today we’re talking about how disinformation changes an individual’s life and how it can have a profound, in fact, impact on policy and government itself.

Now, Nina, you mentioned just before the break about how you were very pregnant at the time, expecting a child and this stuff is coming at you, I imagine 24/7, both on Fox all day long, all night long on social media. Was there anywhere you could go online or in real life to escape the attacks?

JANKOWICZ: Well, I guess I’ll just start by saying that without the support of my family, in particular my husband and my friends, throughout this ordeal, it would have been much, much more difficult. And I’m lucky to be surrounded by people who understand online abuse, perhaps because it’s been something that I’ve studied for a number of years. But, you know, the online attacks are pretty incessant. And even as I mentioned before, continue to this day. And I used the Internet very, very freely, very effusively, very authentically before all of this happened.

And until recently, I didn’t really fully grasp how much my online behavior has changed because of all of this. I recently started using Bluesky, which is a new Twitter alternative, and it’s a very kind of fun vibe on there. But I find myself not replying to tweets or as they call them on there, skeets. Not sharing other people’s content. Because I’ve become really wary of spreading the abuse that I’m subject to. So on Twitter, for instance, basically since last year, if I share another woman’s research or an article from someone that I find interesting, they are almost certainly subject to abuse.

If I reply to somebody is thread talking about a new baby they had, people have gone after them. I mean, it’s not even just about colleagues. Anything that I share is almost certainly going to be attacked. And so no, online, I don’t really have a place anymore where I can feel freely express myself. And I think that’s what’s really important to understand about online abuse. You know, a lot of people who believe that online abuse doesn’t have a real impact on people’s lives. It changes how we express ourselves. And everybody has that same right to free expression.

Throughout the interview, Nina also twists herself into a pretzel decreeing herself to be against censorship:

Basically just putting good information out there. So if somebody was trying to defraud Americans who are getting benefits after a natural disaster, we would attempt to communicate in a way that reached those Americans and responded to the bad information, the false information. I think everybody should want more information out there. It had nothing to do with censorship. It had nothing to do with arbitrating the truth.

And certainly I wasn’t going to be involved in any effort like that. That is something that I have stood up against, throughout my career in places like Russia, Belarus and Ukraine. It’s not something that I support, and I never would have taken a job that had anything to do with censorship.

And:

But the idea, you know, that the board would be censoring individual Americans is just completely ridiculous. As we’ve seen from hearings recently, not only does the Biden administration communicate with social media companies, the Trump administration communicated with social media companies about content that they saw online. And this isn’t threatening social media companies and saying, you must take this down. It’s saying, hey, we saw this piece of content that might violate your terms of service. Right. And saying you should perhaps be aware of this.

And:

You know, I have always maintained that removing speech is not the answer to countering disinformation. All of my work has focused on the importance of equipping people with the tools they need to navigate today’s information environment so that they can assess information on their own. It has also focused on government coordination and transparent communication in the face of disinformation threats.

So you will not find in my work anywhere where I advocate for removing the speech of individual citizens. It’s just not something I’m in favor of. In fact, I deride it. I call it playing whack a troll. It’s not something that I think that we should do. So I don’t think that the government should be involved in that.

And to the extent that the government does, again, flag content for individual social media platforms to take a look at, again, the ones that are making those choices are the social media platforms based on their terms of service that we all sign up to when we sign up to share baby pictures and cat pictures and look at funny memes.

There are rules governing those platforms, and if individual people don’t like it, they can move to platforms that have fewer rules on what you can share and what you cannot.

Yet she’s also against “free speech, absolutist policies on social media platforms”:

And so when I see free speech, absolutist policies on social media platforms, it really worries me. And I’ve said this for years because when we allow abuse, ultimately someone is being silenced and I refuse to let that happen. But still, you know, it changes how I express myself. And that’s really unfortunate for women, for marginalized communities.

When you’re the Disinformatrix of Truth, you’re allowed to sadomasochistically torture logic.

Nina is also very concerned about the horrible idea of self-censorship, but she’s solipsistically only concerned about chilling effects on the speech of… young women. She does not have the self-awareness to care about chilling effects on the speech of conservatives, or even just regular, non-woke Americans. Nor does the possible chilling effect of setting up a Ministry of Truth to counter “disinformation” ever cross Nina’s narcissistic mind.

When I have done all of this work, even before DHS, when I’ve been researching online abuse, when I’ve spoken to young women in focus groups, I’ve done for my research about the ways that they self-censor and their worries about having an online existence and what it means for their future.

Speaking of navel-gazing, did Nina mention she was pregnant?

You know, in the weeks that this was the hardest before I resigned from DHS, I was, as you said, very pregnant. I had to walk around with a hat, sunglasses and a mask on because I was on Fox News every hour on the hour and just basically a sitting duck. And I was afraid of, you know, going to my prenatal appointments that were weekly at that point, that somebody would recognize me and berate me or worse.

Believe it or not, there’s one thing that’s worse than Nina resigning from her government job to take care of her family and raise her newborn baby, and that is the notion that she stop talking:

I just think about, you know, if I were to stay silent right now, if I were to stop talking about what has happened to me, and stop talking about the very legitimate work that I’ve done for years, before any of this happened to me, it would be letting the bad guys win.

Are you wondering if there’s a Russia, Russia, Russia angle? Of course there is:

And so this sort of undermining of a woman like me who was active in national security and active in public life, who spoke her mind, is actually very deliberate, as well. And then one final thing, I’ll say, Meghna, that I found very interesting as somebody who studies Russia, is that when Russia picked up this story, because of course they did it, it played on everything they love.

… They basically lifted Fox News as coverage entirely. They showed entire clips from Fox News programs on Russian state propaganda. They basically didn’t even have to write a story. They just lifted the exact same talking points, the exact same voiceovers, and translated them into Russian and showed clips from Tucker Carlson, from Laura Ingraham on Russian state propaganda. So, you know, in some ways it really felt like Fox was doing Russia’s dirty work for it in this campaign. And that’s how much this this campaign against me and the board came, you know, from Russia’s disinformation playbook.

Who would dare undertake to undermine NINA JANKOWICZ, A WOMAN ACTIVE IN NATIONAL SECURITY? Russia, of course. Russia is out to get Nina and stop her from speaking her truth!

Surviving that kind of “torture” and having a healthy pregnancy definitely makes Nina a real-life wonder woman. After all, there are women who give birth in rice fields and keep on working who wish they had the type of stamina Nina does. We don’t know how she does it. A woman of this caliber ought to be parachuted onto the front lines of the war between Ukraine and Russia immediately.

SUPPORT REVOLVER— DONATE — SUBSCRIBE — NEWSFEED — GAB — GETTR — TRUTH SOCIAL — TWITTER