The Zarnowski File: A Case Study in Live Disinformation
An investigation into the claims, tactics, and network behind the "ex-CIA whistleblower"
It gives me no great pleasure to share that online conspiracism has a somewhat new playbook: mimic the aesthetics of national security whistleblowing to launder the incredible into the credible.
A recent entry is a manifesto by Adam Zarnowski, an individual styling himself as a former CIA paramilitary officer. His post, “‘Unleash Hell’: Pulling up the dragnet,” and its companion e-book are not a disclosure, but a performance—a Live Action Role Play of whistleblowing that demonstrates key techniques of modern disinformation.
The document is a dizzying Gish Gallop through nearly every major geopolitical event and conspiracy theory of the last decade. In Zarnowski’s telling, the 2024 election was stolen by a "junta," Russia and Israel are in a secret alliance to start World War III, Havana Syndrome is linked to COVID-19, and all of it connects back to Jeffrey Epstein, QAnon, and a Mormon polygamist cult in Utah. This isn’t analysis; it’s a work of weaponized apophenia, the cognitive bias of seeing connections in unrelated data, marshaled here to construct an all-encompassing theory of global intrigue.
The narrative architecture is designed to overwhelm, not inform.
By braiding dozens of disparate threads together, Zarnowski makes his central claim functionally unfalsifiable. To debunk it, one would have to disprove not one but a hundred assertions, from the technical details of a supposed “quantum crypto algorithm” (???) used to rig elections to the backroom dealings of Mossad and the FSB. This is a classic disinformation tactic: to create a winding narrative so vast and convoluted that any single point of refutation can be dismissed as missing the “bigger picture.”
An attempt to vet the author himself through open-source intelligence (OSINT) reveals a public persona that is not just thin, but a transparent effort at strategic credentialing and reputation laundering. While "Paramilitary Operations Officer" is a legitimate, if highly specialized, role within the CIA, Zarnowski’s LinkedIn profile is a constructed identity designed to create an aura of authority. It features a scattergun approach to credentials, from an online ministry ordination to recently acquired financial licenses (Series 7, 63) that are entirely disconnected from his stated expertise in human trafficking.
His work history is filled with self-aggrandizing descriptions of low-level security jobs, such as thwarting "terroristic violence" and "drug trafficking" operations, language more suited to a character bio than a professional resume. Most damning are the timeline inconsistencies: he claims to have been a "Consultant to Law Enforcement" on organized crime as a teenager, years before he even began his undergraduate degree.
The profile is a facade, and the glaring gap between a series of unverifiable claims and the requirements for a role in elite intelligence makes it impossible to establish a baseline of credibility.
The baselessness of his core claims was confirmed by an August 4th Snopes investigation. The fact-checking outlet found no evidence that any such NSA audit occurred, noting a complete lack of reporting from credible news organizations. Furthermore, Snopes could not independently verify Zarnowski's claimed employment with the CIA and received no response when they reached out to him, the original Substack publisher, or the NSA—which, like other intelligence agencies, maintains a policy of not typically confirming or denying such information. Crucially, the investigation revealed that Zarnowski's own book frames the audit not as a fact, but as a piece of speculation: "It would be very interesting, and unfortunate, if there had been an NSA-authorized forensic audit..."
The most telling sign is the constant deferral of evidence.
For every bombshell claim—and there is one in nearly every paragraph—the proof is always elsewhere: in the free book, in a future volume, or in the hands of other, unnamed individuals. “I’m not asking you to ‘trust me’ on any of this,” he writes, before asking the reader to do exactly that by downloading a 300-page tome to find the citations. This is the “do your own research” model of conspiracism, where the author provides the conclusion and tasks the reader with finding the evidence to support it within a pre-selected, curated universe of “facts.”
Even the method of distribution serves a strategic purpose beyond simple dissemination.
By offering his "free" e-book through commercial vendor Barnes & Noble, which requires an account and full credit card and corresponding address information even for the $0.00 transaction, Zarnowski creates a subtle but effective surveillance net. This distribution method, whatever its technical justification, has a potent side effect: it functions as a sophisticated data-gathering operation. It transforms a passive audience into a list of identifiable individuals who are motivated enough to navigate a registration process. This list of names, emails, and associated metadata is an invaluable asset for any future operation, allowing for targeted messaging, recruitment, and the mobilization of a pre-vetted group of followers.
The promotional post itself is a masterclass in conspiratorial signaling.
A key red flag are references to Yahya Sinwar, the recently deposed leader of Hamas, and Louise Mensch, a figure notorious for promoting convoluted conspiracy theories that create chaos and distrust, both in the same breath (“Resistance is Louise Mensch. Resistance is Yahya Sinwar.") By positioning his work in relation to theirs—even critically—Zarnowski is placing himself on the conspiracy and terrorism map, signaling to a potentially vulnerable audience that he operates in the same world of hidden plots and popular “resistance” movements, but as the one who really understands it.
The post is also filled with other classic disinformation tactics: escalating the grandiosity of the claims by now linking a Utah cult to the fall of Kabul; using the psychological tactic of DARVO (Deny, Attack, and Reverse Victim and Offender) to frame himself as the true victim; and teasing that he holds back even more shocking secrets, a method to keep his audience perpetually hooked and waiting for the next "disclosure."
His posture is one of reluctant heroism. Zarnowski claims that speaking out is “WAY out of my comfort zone” and that he is putting a “huge target on my back.” He borrows the language of genuinely ideologically motivated figures like Daniel Ellsberg or Edward Snowden to manufacture a sense of high stakes and personal sacrifice. Yet, the tone quickly pivots from this feigned reluctance to a call for a “global fucking revolution” and the formation of a “rebel alliance.” The document begins as a “call for calm” and ends as a call to arms. This is not the language of a sober analyst seeking democratic accountability, but of a political actor seeking to inspire a potentially violent movement.
The operation extends beyond simple text into direct, long-term engagement with those who might be ensnared by it, and my own experience serves as a case study. Months ago, a persona named "Alyx," presenting as a grassroots Kamala Harris supporter, initiated contact on TikTok. After a period of unsolicited promotion of my work, they moved our communications to Signal, persistently working to draw me closer to the orbit of the "Election Truth Alliance"—a group whose work, promoted by seemingly-opaque actors, raised my suspicions.
This cultivation effort culminated in my inclusion in a private Signal group that bore the hallmarks of an infiltration or entrapment operation. The discourse seemed engineered to identify and ensnare activists opposed to the current administration, encouraging them toward reckless, undemocratic action. After raising my concerns about the group's nature to Alyx and receiving only placating responses, I distanced myself, concluding they were either a witting participant in an operation, or dangerously naive.
The situation reignited this week.
After I publicly dismissed the Zarnowski story as "bullcrap," I forwarded my commentary to Alyx. The response was immediate and tactical, confirming my deepest suspicions.
The interaction followed a clear progression inconsistent with genuine activism:
First came elicitation: probing questions about my methods ("Did you use any tools or talk to anyone?"), flattery designed to get me to reveal my capabilities, and repeated requests for me to compile a full dossier on Zarnowski—an attempt to turn my analysis into their intelligence product.
When that failed, the objective shifted to information control: a direct request from the group to delete my critical Twitter (X) post to protect the narrative of the "ThisWillHold" Substack that had platformed the story.
When I refused, the final probe was for vulnerability: an offer of payment. After their repeated requests for a full breakdown of my analysis, I stated that such work "costs time (money)" and that "I don't work for free." This prompted an immediate pivot from my interlocutor, who replied, "I was about to ask you what's your cashapp lol"—a casual but direct offer of payment to see if my work, or my silence, could be purchased.
This is not the behavior of a grassroots activist.
Activists debate, they argue, they present counter-evidence. They do not typically run multi-stage, multi-platform influence campaigns to map a critic's methods, censor dissent, and probe for financial leverage. The long-term cultivation followed by a rapid, tactical response to my public criticism reveals a coordinated, patient, and resourced operation.
Individuals and groups operating with such tactics do not have the public's best interests at heart, and readers should exercise extreme caution in their online interactions, especially with those who appear too eager to be an ally.
Zarnowski has produced not a work of investigative journalism, but a piece of political mythology. It offers a simple, all-encompassing explanation for a world that feels chaotic and out of control. It assures the reader that everything is connected, that a secret history exists, and that they, the reader, are now among the initiated. While the narrative is powerful, it is ultimately obviously a work of fiction.
So, who does this fiction benefit–Cui bono?
The narrative's design points to several possibilities. The most likely architect is a hostile foreign intelligence service. The goal is pure destabilization. By attacking all sides—the Trump administration, the Democratic party, the CIA, Israel—the narrative erodes all institutional trust, making the political landscape ungovernable. A second possibility is a domestic radical faction that seeks to justify a revolutionary overthrow by painting the entire system as irredeemably corrupt. Finally, it could be a hybrid operation, where a foreign state funds and directs a network of domestic private actors to execute the campaign, providing plausible deniability.
In every scenario, the goal is the same: to create a narrative so corrosive that it paralyzes democratic discourse and funnels disillusioned citizens into controlled channels. The Zarnowski manifesto is not a key to understanding a hidden reality; it is a weapon designed to shatter the one we share.
It is another dispatch from a world of alternate facts, a carefully constructed forgery of dissent.
I fell for this.
Thank you for explaining why I should not fall for it .
If ETA is an op, they've played a very patient game publicly hedging everything almost to an annoying degree.