In August of 2022, I started writing an article about a mysterious group of algorithms I had found embedded in New York’s voter rolls. The algorithms were well-hidden and apparently designed for the purpose of hiding something. What that might be couldn’t be determined for certain. Regardless, they had no apparent legitimate purpose but could be used to facilitate election fraud. By February, it had been accepted for publication in the peer-reviewed Journal of Information Warfare (JIW). On May 17, 2023, it was published.

Like many other peer-reviewed academic journals, articles in JIW are behind a paywall. In their case, it is a moving paywall, meaning that articles are freely accessible after a certain amount of time has elapsed. For JIW, that period is one year. Meaning anyone who wants to access it before then must have a subscription or access through a university or other institution that does.

Go Ad-Free, Get Exclusive Shows and Content, Go Premium Today - $1 Trial

This is why when studies like this are published, journalists with access to the journals will report on the article. That way, the general public is made aware of the latest research in fields that interest them. I wrote two such articles about my article last week—one for Red Voice Media and the other for American Thinker. Wendy Strauch Mahoney wrote a third article for UncoverDC.com. These three articles sparked a tsunami of interest on Twitter last week.

Two days after the JIW article came out, I noticed a heavy uptick in activity on my SubStack, The Zark Files. It seemed like every few seconds, I had a new subscriber, someone was leaving a comment, or a clump of likes had just been added. What was going on? I took a look at the stats tool available in SubStack. According to it, the traffic came from Twitter. I went to Twitter and did a few searches. They revealed heavy interest in my article.

The first search result I encountered was the account of DC_Draino. When I first saw it, his post about my article had about 250,000 impressions, thousands of retweets, and hundreds of comments. That was after only a few hours. Right now, the post has 549,800 views, 15,700 likes, and 7,284 retweets. DC_Draino has 830,500 followers. Meaning more than half of his followers viewed the post.

The next post I encountered was from Rasmussen Reports. At the time I first saw it, their post had about 2.3 million views, 10,000 likes, and hundreds of comments. Right now, it has 3 million views, 21,100 likes, 10,900 retweets, and 917 comments. Not only that, but they made two follow-up tweets on the article, adding 237,400 and 334,900 views, respectively. Rasmussen has 442,600 followers. Their initial post exceed their total number of followers almost seven times over. Of greater interest is that most posts on their feed have 10,000 or less views. Sometimes, they go up to about 20,000. Only rarely do their tweets reach into the millions, and then only for the biggest stories, like when FBI director Chris Wray admitted the existence of documentation of a pay-for-play scheme involving Joe Biden.

Get Ready for Anything: Introducing the Medical Emergency Kit for Any Crisis

Other influencers got in on the act. Dinesh D’Souza commented on the article, receiving over 1,000,000 views in less than 24 hours. Dilbert cartoonist Scott Adams added his two cents for another 200,000 views. Juanita Broadderick, Kari Lake, and Patrick Byrne joined in as well, for between 200,000-350,000 views each.

Despite all this attention, the story hasn’t made a ripple in the mainstream media. None of them are talking about it, despite the fact that interest on Twitter equals or exceeds that of the stories they are covering. Scott Adams asked in his tweet, “What is the pushback on this?” The answers were damning.

One simply wrote, “it’s been debunked.” He was repeatedly asked to answer how and where but refused to answer either question. Others tried to pretend that JIW wasn’t a real journal. False, and easily proven. Someone who identified himself as a data scientist tried to suggest that the algorithms couldn’t exist because New York is a “bottom-up” state, where all data enters the rolls from the counties. Meaning all of the counties had to conspire together to create the algorithm. False again. If he’d read the article, he’d know the algorithms appear to be imposed at the state level, quite possibly without the knowledge of state officials and definitely without the knowledge of county officials.

So far, there have been no official responses from anyone in state or local government in New York. That is, apart from a couple of county commissioners who were astonished when I showed them the algorithm in their rolls and one who said he wasn’t astonished (I think he was).

The point is that election fraud remains one of the most interesting stories in America today. No matter how much the media and our government want us to forget it, America is not forgetting it. We want to know what happened, and we will find out, no matter how hard they try to stop us.

Pro-God. Pro-America. A children’s book club you can trust!