Anons, I urge you to dig on Donna Zuckerberg. She could be the link between the occult and big tech.

1) She seems to have been engaged in a long-term duplicitous effort to undermine classical studies in academia. Classics has historically been one of the key foundations for Western civilization, and that includes for the founding fathers of America. It has also been one of the humanities disciplines most resistant to the onslaught of SJWism. DZ seems to have started on online publication, eidolon.pub, initially for the seemingly noble purpose of fostering greater public engagement with the classics, but then, once it was established, undertook a "palace coup" and turned it into an insanely pro-SJW lifestyle-focused outlet. I've seen a commenter on Rod Dreher's blog suggesting that there was no "Soros level conspiracy here". But if you have to SAY that there is no "Soros level conspiracy here", then maybe there IS a Soros level conspiracy here.

2) DZ routinely drops references to her brother and family in what seems to be a very calculated manner. She only mentions this obliquely or when she seems to be under attack. But she does this often. Most commonly, she hints at this fairly clearly when others attack her, and she suggests that it is absurd for women to be attacked for who their family members are. But she actually has multiple variants of this. She also routinely plays a "little old me" routine where she wonders whether any major publishing house would publish a book by someone like her, who holds no academic position.

3) DZ seems to overtly cultivate an image that attracts attacks from the most intellectual among online, more right-wing, opponents of the global elite. She seems to literally admit that she tinges her hair blue to play a role. She routinely makes offhand references to her love of cooking, so that she appears sort of a ditsy girl, an intellectual lightweight. And her right-wing opponents take the bait. I used to be in that category. I thought she was a blue-haired feminist ditz living in her brother's shadow and getting off studying "toxic masculinity" online. I think I got played.

4) She presents herself as an expert on the online use of ancient culture by "deplorable" online communities. But her writings reveal what seems to be an overt effort to misdirect her readers. In the intro to her book, for instance, she mentions both Steve Bannon and Michael Anton prominently, even seeming to set them up as her overt targets. But neither then appears in the book. Instead, she overtly attacks only three "men-focused" online factions: MRA's, PUA's, and MGTOW's. She somewhat skillfully sets up a narrative of interplay and conflict between these groups, overtly directing readers to the redpill subreddit as the focus of all such activity. But she isn't so dumb, and seems to know perfectly well that a much broader range of online forces look to the ancient world as a source of wisdom that can aid in opposing modern degeneracy and corruption. In one podcast interview, for instance, she laughs nervously as she mentions QAnon in her VERY FIRST SENTENCE.. Her book seems both directed at misleading the broader public and at cultivating a fake persona of herself that can take misguided attacks from her real intellectual opponents.

5) She makes repeated insinuations that she is a member of an actual cult, and drops repeated hints that she is interested in cannibalism. None of these are direct declarations, but some of these are quite unambiguous once you see them, and once you see these, an array of other remarks starts to take on new meaning. This is the stuff I have mainly put in recent posts, and they all contain her name.

6) I think she looks considerably like Rachel Chandler, once you focus on the head and not the persona.

I've put out around 10 or so posts that have info regarding point 5, but they are all in different breads in recent weeks, so it is best to just search her name.