Study: U.S. Media’s Covid Coverage Slants Heavily Negative
Mainstream outlets stoke fear while shielding us from encouraging facts
By Brian McGlinchey | March 27, 2021
If you’ve felt the media has heavily emphasized bad news throughout the Covid-19 pandemic, your judgment now has some scholarly corroboration.
Dartmouth College and Brown University researchers have analyzed tens of thousands of Covid-19 articles and found major U.S. media outlets have overwhelmingly pushed negative narratives about the virus.
“The most striking fact is that 87 percent of the U.S. stories are classified as negative, whereas 51 percent of the non-U.S. stories are classified as negative,” according to the study by Dartmouth economics professor Bruce Sacerdote, Dartmouth’s Ranjan Sehgal and Brown University’s Molly Cook.
Thwarting Public Clarity About Covid-19
Though the study doesn’t delve deep into the societal implications, there’s little doubt excessive media negativity has contributed to public misunderstanding of the nature of the disease and the risk it poses to various segments of society.
Consider one of the study’s most glaring findings: Even when Covid-19 cases were falling nationally between April 24 and June 27, major media discussed rising caseloads 5.3 times as frequently as falling ones.
The impact was evident: A June CBS News poll found a record number of Americans felt the fight against coronavirus was going badly. Of course, news of the poll was itself another negative story, feeding a media-facilitated vicious circle of fear.
In July, a Franklin Templeton-Gallup poll found Americans had a poor understanding of the risk of Covid-19 death for different age cohorts:
- Participants said people aged 55+ accounted for a little over half of the deaths, when the actual share was 92%.
- Those under age 25 accounted for just 0.2% of deaths—participants overestimated the share by a factor of 50.
The results aren’t surprising, given the media’s compulsion to accentuate rare occasions when teens and twentysomethings fall victim to the virus.
In June, CNN served up a particularly flagrant example of Covid scaremongering: an article titled “Healthy teenager who took precautions died suddenly of Covid-19.”
The many who skimmed the headline received an anecdotal infusion of fearful misinformation. The minority who made it to the tenth paragraph would finally learn that doctors treating the purportedly “healthy” yet visibly obese teen found he had Type 1 diabetes with a blood sugar level 10 times the norm.
Two months earlier, the Centers for Disease Control announced that about 90% of those hospitalized with the virus had one or more underlying conditions. Among the most common were obesity (48%) and diabetes (28%). Rather than using this teen’s grim story to enlighten the public about who is at greatest risk, CNN aggressively pushed a perception that nobody is safe.
The media’s failure to foster understanding of Covid-19 also seems evident in the many people still seen wearing masks while alone outdoors. According to Dr. Muge Cevik, an infectious diseases and virology scientist at the University of St Andrews, “outdoor risk is negligible unless it involves close interaction or you are in a crowded or semi-outdoor environment.”
Perceptions of the Virus Influence Policy Opinions
Overly-negative Covid-19 reporting has implications well beyond individual feelings and practices: Those who’ve been led to an exaggerated perception of their personal risk are more prone to support strict government policies to counter the virus.
A recent Pew Research poll confirms that individuals’ perception of the pandemic heavily influences their opinions about various government interventions.
For example, Pew asked if limiting restaurants to carry-out service has been necessary to counter the virus. Among those who think Covid-19 represents a minor threat to the U.S. population, 21% agreed. Support soared to 66% among those who deem the virus a major threat.
Many are likely opining from a position of ignorance: How many know that a New York contact tracing study attributed less than 2% of Covid-19 case transmission to bars and restaurants?
Negative About Positives
The Dartmouth and Brown researchers found “the negativity of the U.S. major media is notable even in areas with positive developments, including school re-openings and vaccine trials.”
When schools reopen to in-person teaching—a move validated by the experience of European schools—U.S. media has been quick on the scene with a wet blanket: The study found 86% of mainstream media articles about school reopenings are negative.
The easing of government restrictions reliably attracts negative media. Iowa governor Kim Reynolds’s lifting of the state’s mask mandate in early February sparked a wave of negative reporting and opinion pieces, including a Washington Post piece that was actually titled “Welcome to Iowa: a state that doesn’t care if you live or die.”
In September, similar derision was heaped on Florida governor Ron DeSantis when he lifted major statewide restrictions.
However, when neither Florida nor Iowa experienced negative consequences, there was little media reporting of the good news that government restrictions and mandates may not be worthwhile after all.
We see a similar pattern with the media’s never-ending cycle of warning that various holidays and special events will bring a surge in contagion. From Thanksgiving to Christmas to the Super Bowl and spring break, we’re constantly presented headlines stoking fears these occasions will cause major virus spikes.
When predicted surges don’t happen, the media gives little attention to the happy news that their alarms proved false. Instead, they’re apparently hard at work drafting warnings about whatever’s next on the calendar.
It’s as if mainstream journalists feel duty-bound to stoke Covid-19 fear, while paternalistically shielding us from welcome facts that could lead us to “let our guard down.” In doing so, they negligently disregard the collateral harm they do to mental health and our quality of life.
Hope for Greater Media Balance?
The Dartmouth-Brown study on U.S. media negativity prompted The New York Times’ David Leonhardt to call for introspection: “If we’re constantly telling a negative story, we are not giving our audience the most accurate portrait of reality. We are shading it.”
That’s a welcome acknowledgment: Until recently, Leonhardt’s own Times email newsletter has mirrored the negative slant found across U.S. media.
There are hints of a growing balance. For example, in recent weeks, major outlets have finally started acknowledging that Florida’s post-reopening experience conflicts with the media-reinforced notion that shutdowns are an essential strategy.
Concluding his review of the study, Leonhardt expressed gratitude to researchers Sacerdote, Cook and Sehgal for “holding up a mirror to our work and giving us a chance to do better.” Let’s hope his sentiment proves highly contagious.
Another Climate Scientist With Impeccable Credentials Breaks Ranks
“Our models are MICKEY-MOUSE mockeries of the real world”
Dr. Mototaka Nakamura received a Doctorate of Science from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), and for nearly 25 years specialized in abnormal weather and climate change at prestigious institutions that included MIT, Georgia Institute of Technology, NASA, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, JAMSTEC and Duke University.
In his book The Global Warming Hypothesis is an Unproven Hypothesis, Dr. Nakamura explains why the data foundation underpinning global warming science is “untrustworthy” and cannot be relied on:
“Global mean temperatures before 1980 are based on untrustworthy data,” writes Nakamura. “Before full planet surface observation by satellite began in 1980, only a small part of the Earth had been observed for temperatures with only a certain amount of accuracy and frequency. Across the globe, only North America and Western Europe have trustworthy temperature data dating back to the 19th century.”
From 1990 to 2014, Nakamura worked on cloud dynamics and forces mixing atmospheric and ocean flows on medium to planetary scales. His bases were MIT (for a Doctor of Science in meteorology), Georgia Institute of Technology, Goddard Space Flight Center, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Duke and Hawaii Universities and the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology.
He’s published 20+ climate papers on fluid dynamics.
There is no questioning his credibility or knowledge.
Today’s ‘global warming science’ is akin to an upside down pyramid which is built on the work of a few climate modelers. These AGW pioneers claim to have demonstrated human-derived CO2 emissions as the cause of recently rising temperatures and have then simply projected that warming forward. Every climate researcher thereafter has taken the results of these original models as a given, and we’re even at the stage now where merely testing their validity is regarded as heresy.
Here in Nakamura, we have a highly qualified and experienced climate modeler with impeccable credentials rejecting the unscientific bases of the climate crisis claims. But he’s up against it — activists are winning at the moment, and they’re fronted by scared, crying children; an unstoppable combination, one that’s tricky to discredit without looking like a heartless bastard (I’ve tried).
Climate scientist Dr. Mototaka Nakamura’s recent book blasts global warming data as “untrustworthy” and “falsified”.
DATA FALSIFICATION
When arguing against global warming, the hardest thing I find is convincing people of data falsification, namely temperature fudging. If you don’t pick your words carefully, forget some of the facts, or get your tone wrong then it’s very easy to sound like a conspiracy crank (I’ve been there, too).
But now we have Nakamura.
The good doctor has accused the orthodox scientists of “data falsification” in the form adjusting historical temperature data down to inflate today’s subtle warming trend — something Tony Heller has been proving for years on his website realclimatescience.com.
Nakamura writes: “The global surface mean temperature-change data no longer have any scientific value and are nothing except a propaganda tool to the public.”
The climate models are useful tools for academic studies, he admits. However: “The models just become useless pieces of junk or worse (as they can produce gravely misleading output) when they are used for climate forecasting.”
Climate forecasting is simply not possible, Nakamura concludes, and the impacts of human-caused CO2 can’t be judged with the knowledge and technology we currently possess.
The models grossly simplify the way the climate works.
As well as ignoring the sun, they also drastically simplify large and small-scale ocean dynamics, aerosol changes that generate clouds (cloud cover is one of the key factors determining whether we have global warming or global cooling), the drivers of ice-albedo: “Without a reasonably accurate representation, it is impossible to make any meaningful predictions of climate variations and changes in the middle and high latitudes and thus the entire planet,” and water vapor.
The climate forecasts also suffer from arbitrary “tunings” of key parameters that are simply not understood.
NAKAMURA ON CO2
He writes: “The real or realistically-simulated climate system is far more complex than an absurdly simple system simulated by the toys that have been used for climate predictions to date, and will be insurmountably difficult for those naive climate researchers who have zero or very limited understanding of geophysical fluid dynamics. The dynamics of the atmosphere and oceans are absolutely critical facets of the climate system if one hopes to ever make any meaningful prediction of climate variation.”
Solar input is modeled as a “never changing quantity,” which is absurd.
“It has only been several decades since we acquired an ability to accurately monitor the incoming solar energy. In these several decades only, it has varied by one to two watts per square meter. Is it reasonable to assume that it will not vary any more than that in the next hundred years or longer for forecasting purposes? I would say, No.”
You can read Mototaka Nakamura’s book for free on Kindle. Arm yourself with the facts, and then spread them — facts such as those highlighted below (all lifted from the book):
“[The models have] no understanding of cloud formation/forcing.”
“Assumptions are made, then adjustments are made to support a narrative.”
“Our models are mickey-mouse mockeries of the real world.”
SOLAR FORCING
Solar output isn’t constant, IPCC. And the modulation of cloud nucleation is a key consequence. During solar minima, like the one we’re entering now, the sun’s magnetic field weakens and the outward pressure of the solar wind decreases. This allows more Cosmic Rays from deep space to penetrate our planet’s atmosphere. These CRs have been found to nucleate clouds (Svensmark et al). And clouds are a crucial player earth’s climate.
As Roy Spencer, PhD. eloquently writes:
“Clouds are the Earth’s sunshade, and if cloud cover changes for any reason, you have global warming — or global cooling.”
The COLD TIMES are returning, the mid-latitudes are REFREEZING in line with historically low solar activity, cloud-nucleating Cosmic Rays, and a meridional jet stream flow.
Both NOAA and NASA appear to agree, if you read between the lines, with NOAA saying we’re entering a ‘full-blown’ Grand Solar Minimum in the late-2020s, and NASA seeing this upcoming solar cycle (25) as “the weakest of the past 200 years”, with the agency correlating previous solar shutdowns to prolonged periods of global cooling here.
Furthermore, we can’t ignore the slew of new scientific papers stating the immense impact The Beaufort Gyre could have on the Gulf Stream, and therefore the climate overall.
Tara Reade: ‘Enemy’ leader or dissident like me, media’s playbook is the same – demonize, dehumanize, delegitimize
By Tara Reade | RT | March 27, 2021
Whether you are an American citizen daring to oppose the leadership or the leader of a nation designated ‘adversarial’, the methods of character assassination Washington’s PR machine hits you with are not much different.
“Nothing would fundamentally change” if he got elected, Joe Biden told a group of billionaires at a fundraising event during the 2020 presidential campaign. Like the saying goes, when someone tells you who they are, believe them.
As I stood up to tell my own history with Joe Biden, his multi-million-dollar public relations machine pushed back hard. The playbook used on every single survivor that tries to come forward about a powerful person rarely varies.
Silence, attack the character, terrorize the supporters, dehumanize and repeat. These tactics are also used on foreign countries and leaders we want to attack and demonize.
Last week however, it backfired quite gloriously.
You see, our political machine needs to be seen as justified when it attacks someone, be it a dissident at home or a foreign leader we don’t like. And what better way to justify it, to manufacture consent, than to dehumanize, demonize, simplify, take all complexity away, until the target du jour is seen as little more than a comic-book villain to be smacked down with a resounding KA-POW?
Use simple words. ‘Killer’, ‘bully’, ‘strongman’, ‘tyrant’, ‘thug’. Paint your opponent in the simplest, darkest colors possible. Then, you can be the superhero figure… provided you can put together a coherent phrase.
When you have to be led up to even the simplest of name-calling, and your opponent responds with calm, saturnine wit, even the most steadfast media support can’t save your façade from cracking.
After Joe Biden’s “Putin is a killer” (though what he actually said technically was “uh-huh”) interview many Americans chose to side with Putin, refusing to fall for the villainization anymore. The exchange put the two presidents in stark contrast – and made it impossible to see Putin as a simple, dumb ‘strongman’ next to Biden with his inane “uh-huh”.
The comic-book juxtaposition starts to flake when the ‘supervillian’ is so obviously more coherent and more in control than the ‘superhero’. And Biden and his administration are obviously aware – feeling too insecure about Putin to agree to a live debate. A live discussion would be an unmitigated disaster for Biden. That said, ordinary Americans want to hear from Russians and know their views. But balance of ideas is not high on the Democratic agenda. The likes of Rachel Maddow will keep raking in thousands of dollars daily to eviscerate everything Russian – even as fewer and fewer people believe them.
For a day or so after my recent on-air interview with RT, my social media feed filled up with blue-check Democrats like Edward Isaac Dovere from the Atlantic, posting all my past pro-Russia blogs and trotting out the old Russian-asset narrative. Last time that came up was 2019 when I first came forward about Joe Biden. Back then, Dovere’s online attacks resulted in death threats from strangers.
This time was different. No death threats and little harassment. I had positive feedback, with some people admitting they shared my affinity for Putin. In fact, I made the executive decision to answer all my trolls with President Putin quotes. That seems to quiet them down. One problem with American culture is the cult of personality. It is not emotionally healthy to hero-worship or demonize leaders. They are humans and to elevate them to superhuman status does not serve the greater good.
There are clear signals that Americans are craving balance in the media. The public shift may be because the Democratic Party has devolved with obvious, smug hypocrisy. An example of this is the boorish lineup planned for Kamala Harris’s World Summit discussion on Girl & Women’s Empowerment with none other than Bill Clinton.
Tara Reade is an author, poet, actor and former Senate aide, author of Left Out: When the Truth Doesn’t Fit In.
Stoltenberg Comes Clean on China ‘Opportunity’ for NATO
By Finian Cunningham | Strategic Culture Foundation | March 28, 2021
In an unguarded moment, NATO’s secretary-general Jens Stoltenberg let the cat out of the bag when he described the rise of China as both a challenge and “an opportunity”. What he was admitting unintentionally is that a confrontational policy toward China gives the military alliance some badly needed new purpose.
Stoltenberg was giving an exclusive interview to Deutsche Welle to mark the first ministerial NATO summit attended by the Biden administration. The two-day summit held on March 23-24 at NATO headquarters in Brussels involved in-person participation of U.S. secretary of state Antony Blinken as well as other foreign ministers of the 30-nation military alliance.
The NATO meeting comes as the United States and its European allies are ramping up a coordinated policy of sanctions against China and Russia over alleged human rights issues. This week saw an unprecedented coordination by the U.S., Canada, Britain and the European Union in implementing new sanctions against Beijing and Moscow. It is no coincidence that this provocative development comes after high-profile international meetings, both in-person and via videoconferencing, by the Biden administration calling for allies to adopt a more adversarial and unified position toward China and Russia.
The Biden administration has changed tack from the predecessor Trump “America First” policy to vigorously advocate for a “revitalized” transatlantic relationship. Washington views a more unified U.S.-Europe axis as a more effective strategic way to challenge China and Russia. And NATO is providing a renewed coordinating vehicle.
But in seeking unity, the Biden administration is by necessity having to push a much more aggressive policy toward China and Russia, portraying them as greater threats. This means the American military alliance takes on greater responsibility for spearheading Washington’s policy. A NATO joint statement this week affirmed the alliance’s unity in the face of Russian “aggression”. Moscow slammed the statement, saying that Russia threatened no nation, and that NATO was trying to justify its existence.
Senior Russian lawmaker Leonid Slutsky said that NATO’s claims about being a defensive alliance are a “blatant lie”, pointing to wars and interventions it has launched in former Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria.
America’s top diplomat Antony Blinken this week claimed that China’s rise and Russia’s attempts to destabilize the West were “threats” that required NATO to come together. Blinken added disingenuously that the U.S. won’t force its allies into making an “us or them choice” with China. That’s exactly what the U.S. is doing.
Jens Stoltenberg and other European leaders have been swooning over the “new chapter” in transatlantic relations under the Biden administration. After four years of dealing with vulgar-mouth Donald Trump and his relentless hectoring over military budgets, some European leaders are sighing with relief at Biden’s seemingly dulcet assurances that “America is back”.
Of course people like Stoltenberg, a former Norwegian prime minister who has been the civilian head of NATO since 2014, are reliant on pushing a stronger alliance for their comfy livelihoods and no doubt for future sinecures at corporate-funded think-tanks. Stoltenberg is constantly striving to find a new vision and mission for NATO, an organization founded over 70 years ago at the start of the Cold War, and which has been expanding ever since despite the official end of the Cold War three decades ago. The buzz phrase he uses is to make the alliance “future-proof” – that is to find a permanent pretext for the U.S.-led military organization to continue its existence regardless of real-world security needs.
In his interview with Deutsche Welle this week, Stoltenberg commented on the rise of China. He said, inferring something menacing: “China is coming closer to us, investing in our critical infrastructure.”
Well maybe that’s because China is the world’s biggest trading partner with the European Union and a major foreign direct investor in European nations which have become bankrupt from decades of neoliberal capitalism and austerity.
Stoltenberg went on: “There’s no way we can avoid addressing the security consequences for our regional alliance of the rise of China and the shift in the global balance of power.”
And then the usually cautious, wooden Stoltenberg let it slip: China, he said, provided “a unique opportunity to open a new chapter in the relationship between North America — the United States — and Europe.”
Voila! So the real strategic value of China being presented as a “threat” or an “adversary” is to give a new purpose to the U.S.-led NATO bloc which subordinates Europe to Washington’s geopolitical objective of hegemony. The emphasis here is on China “being presented as a threat” and not what the real relationship actually is, that is, one of a vital economic partner. (Same for Russia and its vast energy partnership with Europe.)
The United States in pursuit of global dominance by its corporations and its capitalist order must, by definition, thwart a multipolar global political economy which the rise of China and Russia embody.
The fiendish political problem, however, is that Washington and its European surrogates cannot justify such a stance based on the normal and natural relations that exist. For in doing that, they would be seen as obnoxious, unwarranted aggressors. It is imperative therefore to conflate China and Russia as “security threats” to the presumed Western “rules-based order”.
Never mind that the Western “rules-based order” has seen NATO powers trashing rules and order by invading countries all around the world, waging criminal wars and subversions, killing millions of people and unleashing terrorism and other security threats stemming from collapsing nations and mass migration.
Forget about China, or Russia, being an alleged threat. They are in actual fact an “opportunity” for NATO and U.S. imperialism, which the alliance ultimately serves, to find an excuse for their criminal existence and conduct. Just ask the secretary-general Jens Stoltenberg (who, as the jokes goes, is more secretary than he is general).
Congress, in a Five-Hour Hearing, Demands Tech CEOs Censor the Internet Even More Aggressively
By Glenn Greenwald | March 26, 2021
Over the course of five-plus hours on Thursday, a House Committee along with two subcommittees badgered three tech CEOs, repeatedly demanding that they censor more political content from their platforms and vowing legislative retaliation if they fail to comply. The hearing — convened by the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s Chair Rep. Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-NJ), and the two Chairs of its Subcommittees, Mike Doyle (D-PA) and Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) — was one of the most stunning displays of the growing authoritarian effort in Congress to commandeer the control which these companies wield over political discourse for their own political interests and purposes.
As I noted when I reported last month on the scheduling of this hearing, this was “the third time in less than five months that the U.S. Congress has summoned the CEOs of social media companies to appear before them with the explicit intent to pressure and coerce them to censor more content from their platforms.” The bulk of Thursday’s lengthy hearing consisted of one Democratic member after the next complaining that Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Google/Alphabet CEO Sundar Pichai and Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey have failed in their duties to censor political voices and ideological content that these elected officials regard as adversarial or harmful, accompanied by threats that legislative punishment (including possible revocation of Section 230 immunity) is imminent in order to force compliance (Section 230 is the provision of the 1996 Communications Decency Act that shields internet companies from liability for content posted by their users).
Republican members largely confined their grievances to the opposite concern: that these social media giants were excessively silencing conservative voices in order to promote a liberal political agenda (that complaint is only partially true: a good amount of online censorship, like growing law enforcement domestic monitoring generally, focuses on all anti-establishment ideologies, not just the right-wing variant). This editorial censoring, many Republicans insisted, rendered the tech companies’ Section 230 immunity obsolete, since they are now acting as publishers rather than mere neutral transmitters of information. Some Republicans did join with Democrats in demanding greater censorship, though typically in the name of protecting children from mental health disorders and predators rather than ideological conformity.
As they have done in prior hearings, both Zuckerberg and Pichai spoke like the super-scripted, programmed automatons that they are, eager to please their Congressional overseers (though they did periodically issue what should have been unnecessary warnings that excessive “content moderation” can cripple free political discourse). Dorsey, by contrast, seemed at the end of his line of patience and tolerance for vapid, moronic censorship demands, and — sitting in a kitchen in front of a pile of plates and glasses — he, refreshingly, barely bothered to hide that indifference. At one point, he flatly stated in response to demands that Twitter do more to remove “disinformation”: “I don’t think we should be the arbiters of truth and I don’t think the government should be either.”
Zuckerberg in particular has minimal capacity to communicate the way human beings naturally do. The Facebook CEO was obviously instructed by a team of public speaking consultants that it is customary to address members of the Committee as “Congressman” or “Congresswoman.” He thus began literally every answer he gave — even in rapid back and forth questions — with that word. He just refused to move his mouth without doing that — for five hours (though, in fairness, the questioning of Zuckerberg was often absurd and unreasonable). His brain permits no discretion to deviate from his script no matter how appropriate. For every question directed to him, he paused for several seconds, had his internal algorithms search for the relevant place in the metaphorical cassette inserted in a hidden box in his back, uttered the word “Congressman” or “Congresswoman,” stopped for several more seconds to search for the next applicable spot in the spine-cassette, and then proceeded unblinkingly to recite the words slowly transmitted into his neurons. One could practically see the gears in his head painfully churning as the cassette rewound or fast-forwarded. This tortuous ritual likely consumed roughly thirty percent of the hearing time. I’ve never seen members of Congress from across the ideological spectrum so united as they were by visceral contempt for Zuckerberg’s non-human comportment:
But it is vital not to lose sight of how truly despotic hearings like this are. It is easy to overlook because we have become so accustomed to political leaders successfully demanding that social media companies censor the internet in accordance with their whims. Recall that Parler, at the time it was the most-downloaded app in the country, was removed in January from the Apple and Google Play Stores and then denied internet service by Amazon, only after two very prominent Democratic House members publicly demanded this. At the last pro-censorship hearing convened by Congress, Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) explicitly declared that the Democrats’ grievance is not that these companies are censoring too much but rather not enough. One Democrat after the next at Thursday’s hearing described all the content on the internet they want gone: or else. Many of them said this explicitly.
At one point toward the end of the hearing, Rep. Lizzie Fletcher (D-TX), in the context of the January 6 riot, actually suggested that the government should create a list of groups they unilaterally deem to be “domestic terror organizations” and then provide it to tech companies as guidance for what discussions they should “track and remove”: in other words, treat these groups the same as ISIS and Al Qaeda.
Words cannot convey how chilling and authoritarian this all is: watching government officials, hour after hour, demand censorship of political speech and threaten punishment for failures to obey. As I detailed last month, the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that the state violates the First Amendment’s free speech guarantee when they coerce private actors to censor for them — exactly the tyrannical goal to which these hearings are singularly devoted.
There are genuine problems posed by Silicon Valley monopoly power. Monopolies are a threat to both political freedom and competition, which is why economists of most ideological persuasions have long urged the need to prevent them. There is some encouraging legislation pending in Congress with bipartisan support (including in the House Antitrust Subcommittee before which I testified several weeks ago) that would make meaningful and productive strides toward diluting the unaccountable and undemocratic power these monopolies wield over our political and cultural lives. If these hearings were about substantively considering those antitrust measures, they would be meritorious.
But that is hard and difficult work and that is not what these hearings are about. They want the worst of all worlds: to maintain Silicon Valley monopoly power but transfer the immense, menacing power to police our discourse from those companies into the hands of the Democratic-controlled Congress and Executive Branch.
And as I have repeatedly documented, it is not just Democratic politicians agitating for greater political censorship but also their liberal journalistic allies, who cannot tolerate that there may be any places on the internet that they cannot control. That is the petty wannabe-despot mentality that has driven them to police the “unfettered” discussions on the relatively new conversation app Clubhouse, and escalate their attempts to have writers they dislike removed from Substack. Just today, The New York Times warns, on its front page, that there are “unfiltered” discussions taking place on Google-enabled podcasts:
New York Times front page, Mar. 26, 2021
We are taught from childhood that a defining hallmark of repressive regimes is that political officials wield power to silence ideas and people they dislike, and that, conversely, what makes the U.S. a “free” society is the guarantee that American leaders are barred from doing so. It is impossible to reconcile that claim with what happened in that House hearing room over the course of five hours on Thursday.
FBI Prepares Massive TV and Movie Propaganda Blitz to Rehabilitate Its Image and Viciously Smear Its Political Targets
By Eric Striker | National Justice | March 27, 2021
It is broadly assumed that TV and movie production in the United States is generally free of government meddling, but this is not true in the case of America’s secret police.
A little known law passed in 1954 at the urging of then FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover makes it illegal to display the FBI seal, the FBI initials, and the words “Federal Bureau of Investigation” in commercial popular culture without expressed permission from the Bureau’s propaganda office, the Investigative Publicity and Public Affairs Unit (IPPAU).
In order to obtain permission to portray the FBI on film, writers and producers must give propaganda agents full veto power over their content.
A cache of documents obtained in 2017 by journalists under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) found that the FBI uses this power liberally to sanitize its image. Various other federal agencies like the CIA and ICE do not have this power.
In 2010 terrorism thriller Unthinkable, the IPPAU forced producers to cut a scene showing FBI and CIA agents torturing a man together. In the “revised” version, the CIA agent still tortures the man, but laughably, the FBI agent present protests against the action the entire time, even citing the Geneva Convention as reason for refusing to participate.
The FBI sends “advisors” to rewrite scripts in all productions about them, often cutting out instances of them violating people’s civil rights, talking down to local cops, or engaging in various heinous activities. The result is preferential media treatment most law enforcement groups do not enjoy: the popular portrayal of every single FBI agent as a hero saving the world while we sleep without ever needing to break any rules is deliberately constructed fantasy.
The Trump-era and the Coming Propaganda Offensive
The thuggish and corrupt behavior of the FBI after the 2016 election has, naturally, caused it to suffer an enormous credibility crisis that is only getting worse.
In an attempt to mitigate this, then FBI Director James Comey solicited Jewish television mogul Dick Wolf to create a series of programs to help manufacture public opinion in their favor.
In an interview on the 2017 reality TV show in question, Inside The FBI: New York, Wolf told reporters: “(Comey) feels strongly that this type of positive programming about the Bureau will help educate people about the multitude of areas the Bureau covers and the diversity of its agents and operations. The opportunity to work together was too good to resist.”
The show was co-produced by special agent Anne C. Beagan, who in her capacity as an IPPAU operative went on to supervise Wolf’s fictionalized FBI crime drama, FBI , which began airing in 2018, as well as its spinoff FBI: Most Wanted which began in January 2020.
As if three FBI public relations projects masquerading as TV shows weren’t enough, CBS announced this week that yet another spinoff is in the works: FBI: International.
These shows were all greenlit for new seasons in 2021-2022, meaning that audiences will be inundated without pause with realistic looking fiction glorifying federal agents.
Agent Beagan, who retired last year after a decade of covertly and overtly influencing the media, has also founded her own production company, Anne Beagan Productions, which promises to help create scores of new FBI themed shows and films.
Inverting Reality Through Hyperreality
In FBI, by far the most popular in the young franchise, comical narratives are spun showing FBI agents thwarting villainized portrayals of, you guessed it, white men. “White supremacists” and far-right boogeymen are the most recurring bad guys in the series.
In case you thought the IPPAU would intervene out of inter-agency solidarity, multiple episodes of FBI show an ethnic stew of female-led enlightened agents checking the excesses of caricatured Immigration Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers, who are shown as a gang of ignorant, racist, murderous thugs out to hurt brown people.
In FBI’s pilot, a bomb goes off in a non-white neighborhood, which investigators initially believe to be part of a gang war between blacks and MS-13. As the story progresses, shrewd agents discover that the culprit is a suit and tie paleo-conservative who planted the bombs in a conspiracy to frame non-whites as violent and dangerous.
In “Crossfire,” a white veteran from Staten Island brainwashes a young Somali Muslim into helping him assassinate state officials. “This Land Is Your Land” features militia members working with a Russian to create biological weapons.
ICE gets special interest. In “Most Wanted,” a federal deportation officer is shown massacring his family and then going on the run. Season 2’s “American Dreams” features a white supremacist hijacking a school bus, with a side plot featuring ICE racially profiling an FBI agent’s daughter and trying to deport her.
While critics have given the show mixed ratings, it is popular with liberal audiences, garnering 8-10 million views per episode.
FBI, in conjunction with mass media, undoubtedly plays a role in manipulating public perception, particularly in Blue America. Last February, 47% of Democrats said “white nationalists” were America’s number one national security threat, compared with just 3% of Republicans and 29% of the population overall.
In a May 2019 survey, only 48% of Republicans said the FBI was doing a good job, with 28% rating them poorly. This number has probably eroded further following the selective and mass prosecution of Capitol protesters compared to the total lack of consequences for murderous violent Antifa rioters over the summer.
The FBI, Hollywood and television corporations seem to think the solution to this is to keep doing exactly what has made them such a polarizing institution while drowning the country with their egoistic sense of themselves.
They are vicious and cowardly tyrants. When this dark moment in America is finally over, they will be categorized alongside the KGB and Stasi, where they belong.
Matt Hancock’s UK Health Security Agency would be the worst April Fool’s ever – except he isn’t joking
By Neil Clark | RT | March 27, 2021
The UK Health Secretary confirmed this week that a new ‘UK Health Security Agency’ was being set up on April 1, thus marking the next stage in Britain’s transformation into a repressive bio-security state.
Back in 1957, the BBC’s flagship current affairs programme Panorama (well, it was then) showed a short three-minute film of a family in Switzerland harvesting spaghetti from a family ‘spaghetti tree.’ People rang up the BBC switchboard afterwards for advice on growing their own spaghetti. They should have paid closer attention to the date of the broadcast. The first of April. Yes, it was an ‘April Fool.’ One of the best in history.
The first of April is also the date that the UK’s new ‘Health Security Agency’ is being established but this time it really is no laughing matter. If only Matt Hancock was joking when he said he was setting up a “dedicated, mission-driven national institution for health security.” But, unlike his namesake, the great comedian Tony Hancock, Matt isn’t remotely funny. The establishment of the UKHSA should give us all sleepless nights. It’s actually more terrifying than the scariest Hammer horror movie. Well, Hancock’s video announcing the news was, at any rate.
The new agency –which Britain needs right now as much as a hole in the head– brings together the work of Public Health England, NHS Test and Trace and the Joint BioSecurity Centre.
Hancock says the body will be mission driven, but what will be the mission?
“I want everybody at UKHSA, at all levels, to wake up every day with a zeal to plan for the next pandemic.”
Yes, that’s right. We’re at the tail end of Covid – but it’s time to plan for the next Covid to come along. Has a government agenda ever been so transparent? Of course, Hancock is only echoing Bill Gates when he talks about the ‘next pandemic’. Back in January the software multi-billionaire, who has been able to gain so much influence with his foundation’s funding of academics, scientists and public health organisations, outlined his strategy for dealing with the ‘next pandemic,’ which, he warns, could be “ten times more serious” than Covid. And, guess what, his strategy calls for “mega-diagnostic platforms,” mass vaccinations and governments spending lots of taxpayers’ money.
Compare Gates’ proposals with what Hancock says and the new “Securing Our Health” webpage introducing the UKHSA and you can see quite clearly where the ‘inspiration’ for all this is coming from. Hancock, as he’s done throughout 2020 and 2021, is following a global script.
As I highlighted in a recent OpEd, the ‘War on Covid’ is the new ‘War on Terror.’ Civil liberties were stripped away, post 9-11, in the ‘War on Terror’ and now we have the latest phase of the project. Like the War on Terror, the War on Covid/War on Viruses is never meant to end. In fact we don’t really need new viruses to come along. Covid variants will work quite nicely, if Gates’ ‘ten times more serious’ virus is delayed in traffic.
In a piece for Bloomberg this week entitled ‘We Must Start Planning for a Permanent Pandemic,’ Andreas Kluth spelt it out very clearly for those who still don’t get it: “For the past year, an assumption –sometimes explicit, often tacit– has informed almost all our thinking about the pandemic: At some point, it will be over, and then we’ll go “back to normal. This premise is almost certainly wrong. SARS-CoV-2, protean and elusive as it is, may become our permanent enemy, like the flu but worse.”
The establishment of the UKHSA at a time when deaths with Covid have dropped to low numbers is a clear sign that the UK government plans no ‘back to normal.’ Perhaps the scariest sentence in the UKHSA policy paper is “We need to consider how best to engage with citizens and drive behaviour change in the 21st century.”
What ‘behaviour change’ can that be, I wonder? Requiring people to wear face masks and maintain ‘social distance’ from one another permanently? Don’t forget Home Secretary Priti Patel declared last May that social distancing was ‘here to stay.’
Many thought she misspoke, but ten months later and ‘social distancing’ is still here.
Then there’s the list of the new agency’s five core functions. Number One, again with echoes of the ‘War on Terror,’ is “Prevent.” This means “Anticipating and taking action to mitigate infectious diseases and other hazards to health before they materialise, for example through vaccination and influencing behaviour.”
Yes, you read that right. “BEFORE they materialise.” We will need to be vaccinated against viruses and hazards to health that haven’t yet materialised! What a bonanza for Big Pharma that would be!
Hancock’s announcement comes in the same week as Boris Johnson – the dishevelled charlatan who promoted himself as a ‘libertarian’ to get elected but who’s turned out to be the most dictatorial prime minister in our history – saying that pubs could require Vaccine Passports, once everyone had been offered a vaccine.
With us still in lockdown, and the Coronavirus Act extended for a further six months, the architecture for permanent digital slavery is being constructed – and it’s all being done under the guise of ‘protecting’ us. But who will protect us from our protectors? That really is the question we should all be asking.
Neil Clark is a journalist, writer, broadcaster and blogger. His award winning blog can be found at http://www.neilclark66.blogspot.com.
Canadian Gov’t’s Move to Hire Influencers to Tout its Work is a ‘Form of Propaganda’: Journalist
Sputnik – 27.03.2021
A website called Blacklock’s Reporter revealed on Thursday that Canada’s Department of Health wants to hire celebrities and digital influencers “to say nice things” about its work on social media. According to Canadian independent journalist Leigh Stewart, this spin operation shows that the Liberal government lacks honesty and transparency.
Sputnik: The news about the government’s online endorsement campaign appeared after several controversial stories involving Minister of Health Patty Hajdu, some of them pandemic-related, surfaced online. What do you think about it as a journalist, and as a taxpayer?
Leigh Stewart: It doesn’t surprise me that the government would be willing to pay people to give them praise, or promote what they are dishing out. It’s a form of propaganda. It reminds me what they did in 2019: paid influencers to promote the election (Trudeau’s election) until they scrapped it when people realised the social media influencers that were chosen had a Trudeau bias. We never did get that money back.
Sputnik: According to another news outlet – The Post Millennial, the influencers will not be required to tell their audience that the Trudeau government will be paying them – something which is illegal, according to the Canadian government’s own website. It’s also unclear how much money the bloggers will be receiving. Do you think Canadians deserve to know how their tax dollars are being spent on celebrity endorsements?
Leigh Stewart: The government has never been transparent. If this current government was honest, they wouldn’t need to pay celebrities to praise them, that would come naturally. Canadians should definitely know where their tax dollars are going, it’s a mockery to the hard working Canadians to not be informed, personally I think it equates to theft.
Sputnik: It’s likely that a lot of that “positive content” about the government will be COVID-related. Do you think the handling of pandemic-related issues by the Department of Health during the past year has been adequate and effective?
Leigh Stewart: Health Canada needs all the help they can get, seeking praise for their decisions surrounding the coronavirus. Nothing they have put in place, whether it be lockdowns, wearing masks, has worked. We are in the same place we were a year ago and not much has changed. I think the lockdowns are doing more harm than good, with the help of big tech and corporations, especially for small business. Anyone who speaks out against the current government and their solutions backed with zero evidence is silenced, or presented with a summons to court. I think their goal is to abolish the middle class. Get a majority of people on government assistance (Canada has the highest unemployment in the G7) and inflate prices so eventually, people cannot afford to live.
Canadians don’t need a babysitter to tell them what to do, last time I checked we had a freedom of choice. If you don’t want to wear a mask, go ahead. If you want to keep your small business open, go ahead. There should be absolutely nothing wrong with people making the choices that they feel are best for them.
Sputnik: Ontario premier Doug Ford said that the authorities will be watching the daily case numbers, as the COVID infection rate has increased in your province. All of that may sound as if the authorities are preparing for another lockdown, while the previous one has not been fully lifted. Do you think people would readily accept the new restrictions?
Leigh Stewart: I think a lot of people are getting fed up. In the beginning it was only 15 days to flatten the curve and here we are, a year later, only now the narrative has changed. It’s now about waiting for a vaccine. Which health officials say you will still have to wear a mask, even if you receive one. The Premier of Ontario Doug Ford is relying on medical health professionals to tell him what to do, when I’m not convinced they actually do know what they are doing. Locking down again hurts small business and even Ford has admitted that himself.
Iran takes United Nations ‘rights report’ apart, belies it bit by bit
Press TV – March 27, 2021
Iran has provided the United Nations with a detailed letter exposing all instances of falsification and deviation from the UN Human Rights Council’s standards in a recent controversial HRC report about the Islamic Republic.
Ali Baqeri-Kani, head of the Iranian Judiciary’s High Council for Human Rights, forwarded the letter recently to the world body’s Secretary General Antonio Guterres and High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet.
The message sought to “clarify the ambiguous allegations and accusations” leveled against the country in an earlier report by Javaid Rehman, the UN’s so-called special rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Iran.
The rapporteur had thrown a flurry of accusations against the country, blaming it for a raft of self-proclaimed but unproven human rights abuses.
Among other things, he had alleged in his report that women were being treated in Iran as “second-class citizens” and attacked the Islamic Republic’s COVID-19 response.
UK, US, Saudi, Israeli footprints
Iran’s response noted how the report had been compiled based on information provided by anti-Iran counter-revolutionary and terrorist groups as well as fugitive and dangerous criminals , whom the report had glorified as “human rights defenders.”
It identified the alleged “sources” of the report as “organizations affiliated with governments hostile to the Iranian nation” such as the British, American, and Saudi governments as well as organizations linked to the Israeli regime.
The letter underlined those regimes’ own longstanding record of deadly human rights violations against the Iranian nation and other peoples around the world.
It further blasted the rapporteur for trying “to paint a black picture of the situation [of human rights in Iran] instead of stating the realities” and opting for “silence in the face of the biggest cause of violation of the rights of the Iranian nation.”
By the latter, the message was referring to the US’ long-drawn-out inhumane sanctions against Iranians, which have been illegally blocking their access to food and medicine among other vital items.
Elsewhere, the message asked how the report had failed “to reflect the views of the Islamic Republic” and “provide sufficient time for clarifications and responses to allegations and accusations.”
The Islamic Republic essentially discredits Rehman’s very mandate to report on Iran, calling the permission the result of a non-consensual resolution forced upon the Council by a few political actors.
Tehran also strongly disapproves of the way the Council tolerates such politicization of the human rights issue.
COVID VACCINE: THE NEW SACRED COW
Computing Forever | March 27, 2021
Source articles:
http://www.computingforever.com
KEEP UP ON SOCIAL MEDIA:
Gab: https://gab.ai/DaveCullen
Subscribe on Gab TV: https://tv.gab.com/channel/DaveCullen
Minds.com: https://www.minds.com/davecullen
Subscribe on Odysee: https://odysee.com/@ComputingForever
Support my work here: https://computingforever.com/donate/
Support my work on Subscribe Star: https://www.subscribestar.com/dave-cullen
Follow me on Bitchute: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/hybM74uIHJKf/
Buy How is This a Thing Mugs here: https://teespring.com/stores/computing-forever-store
Crashing Saudi Oil Economy Explains Urgent Yemeni Peace Offer
By Finian Cunningham | Strategic Culture Foundation | March 26, 2021
After six years of blowing up Yemen and blockading its southern neighbor, the Saudi rulers are now saying they are committed to finding peace. The move is less about genuine peace than economic survival for the oil kingdom.
The Saudi monarchy say they want “all guns to fall completely silent”. Washington, which has been a crucial enabler of the Saudi war on Yemen, has backed the latest “peace offer”. Secretary of State Antony Blinken this week endorsed the initiative from the Saudi rulers, saying he had spoken with them “on our work together to end the conflict in Yemen, facilitate humanitarian access and aid for the Yemeni people”.
The Saudi foreign ministry stated: “The initiative aims to end the human suffering of the brotherly Yemeni people, and affirms the kingdom’s support for efforts to reach a comprehensive political resolution.”
Can you believe this sickening duplicity from the Saudis and the Americans?
So, after six years of relentless aerial bombing in Yemen causing the world’s worst humanitarian crisis, according to the United Nations, the Saudis and their American military supplier, seem to have developed a conscience for peace and ending suffering.
The real reason for trying to end the conflict is the perilous state of the Saudi oil-dependent economy. Saudi Aramco, the state-owned oil, gas and petroleum industry, recently announced that its profits have slumped by nearly half in 2020 compared with the year before. Down from $88 billion to $49 billion.
Given that its oil economy provides nearly 90 per cent of state budget that is a stupendous hit on the Saudi finances. The Saudi rulers rely on hefty state subsidies to keep its 34 million population content. With income from the oil industry nosediving that means state deficits will explode to maintain public spending, or else risk social unrest from dire cutbacks.
Saudi Arabia remains the biggest oil exporter, but due to the Covid-19 pandemic and world economies going into recession crude oil prices have plummeted. At one point oil prices fell to around $20 a barrel. The Saudi economy needs an oil price of around $70 a barrel to reel in a profit.
The upshot is the Saudi war in Yemen has become a critical drain on state finances and potentially jeopardizing the superficial stability of the absolute monarchy.
Of further alarm is the increasing missile and drone attacks by the Houthi rebels in Yemen on key Saudi locations, including the capital Riyadh.
The Yemeni rebels are escalating airstrikes on Aramco installations at its headquarters in Dhahran and Dammam in Eastern Province, as well as in the cities of Abha, Azir, Jazan, and Ras Tanura. The targets include oil refineries and export terminals. The Saudis claim they have intercepted a lot of the missiles with U.S.-made Patriot defense systems. Nevertheless, the mere fact that the Yemenis can hit key parts of the Saudi oil economy over a distance of 1,000 kilometers is a grave security concern undermining investor confidence.
The first major strike was in September 2019 when Houthi drones hit the huge refinery complex at Abqaiq. That caused Saudi oil production to temporarily shut down by half. It also delayed an Initial Public Offering of Aramco shares on the stock market as investors took fright over political risk.
At a time when the Saudi oil economy is contracting severely due to worldwide circumstances, an additional debilitating threat is the intensifying campaign of Houthi airstrikes. They are taking the war into Saudi heartland.
The Biden administration has condemned the Houthi missile attacks on Saudi Arabia as “unacceptable”. Such American concern is derisory given how Washington has been providing warplanes, missiles and logistics for the Saudis to indiscriminately bomb Yemen causing tens of thousands of deaths. The Americans also enable the Saudis to impose a blockade on Yemen’s sea and airports, which has prevented vital food and medicines from being supplied to the country. Nearly 80 per cent of Yemen’s 30 million population are dependent on foreign aid deliveries. The blockade is a war crime, a crime against humanity, and the Americans are fully complicit.
President Joe Biden has said he is ending U.S. military support for Saudi Arabia’s war in Yemen. It was an election promise. However, it is not clear what military support the U.S. has actually stopped, if at all. The Saudi bombing of food depots continues and the blockade on the country could not be maintained without essential American logistics.
More cynically, the Biden administration realizes that the Saudis started a war back in March 2015, when Obama was president and Biden was vice-president, that has turned into an un-winnable quagmire whose horrendous human suffering has become a vile stain on America’s international image.
That’s why Biden and his diplomats have been urging the Saudi rulers to sue for peace. Now it seems the Saudi monarchy realizes that the reckless war launched by “defense minister” Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has come with a price that they can’t afford to sustain if they want to preserve their rickety house of cards, known as the House of Saud.
On the latest peace proposal, the Yemeni rebels have rejected it out of hand. They say it contains “nothing new”. The Houthis say the only way to end the war is for the Saudis and their American sponsors to end the aggression on their country. There is no “deal”. It is a case of the Saudis and the Americans just getting out.
Meantime, the airstrikes on Saudi oil infrastructure are going to continue with ever-increasing damage to the royal coffers. Thus, the Saudi rulers have no choice but to unconditionally surrender in this criminal war. They are facing a humiliating defeat as the Yemenis take revenge and Uncle Sam washes his hands of blood.
Featured Video
No More Ukraine Proxy War? You’re a Traitor!
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
A New Era Of Mass Armies Approaches
BY IAN WELSH | SEPTEMBER 29, 2023
The army, or a part of it at the war college, has perked up and noticed some of the lessons of the Ukraine war, and that it’s a war that the US military could not fight. They’ve missed a lot of things, or felt they couldn’t/shouldn’t write about them, but they’ve figured some stuff out and written about them in a new report, “A Call to Action: Lessons from Ukraine for the Future Force” by Lieutenant Colonel Katie Crombe, and Professor John A. Nagle.
The entire thing is worth reading, but I’m going to pull out three of the main points. The first is that a volunteer US military can’t fight a real war.
The Russia-Ukraine War is exposing significant vulnerabilities in the Army’s strategic personnel depth and ability to withstand and replace casualties.11 Army theater medical planners may anticipate a sustained rate of roughly 3,600 casualties per day, ranging from those killed in action to those wounded in action or suffering disease or other non-battle injuries. With a 25 percent predicted replacement rate, the personnel system will require 800 new personnel each day. For context, the United States sustained about 50,000 casualties in two decades of fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. In large-scale combat operations, the United States could experience that same number of casualties in two weeks. (emphasis mine)
Blog Roll
Recent Comments
Bill Francis on Chris Minns Defends NSW “Hate… Sheree Sheree on I was canceled by three newspa… Richard Ong on Czech–Slovak alignment signals… John Edward Kendrick on Colonel Jacques Baud & Nat… eddieb on Villains of Judea: Ronald Laud… rezjiekc on Substack Imposes Digital ID Ch… loongtip on US strikes three vessels in Ea… eddieb on An Avoidable Disaster Steve Jones on For Israel, The Terrorist Atta… cleversensationally3… on Over Half of Germans Feel Unab… loongtip on Investigation Into U.S. Milita… loongtip on Zelensky’s Impossible De…
Aletho News- Government Bodies Humiliated by Promoting Junk Climate Scares from Retracted Nature Paper
- 6 Palestinians Killed in Israeli shelling of shelter in Gaza, including children
- The three narratives: Gaza as the last moral frontier against Israel’s policy of annihilation
- Kuwait set to sign multibillion-dollar port deal with China
- EU blocks protesting farmers in Brussels using barbed wire, tear gas and water cannons
- Western media peddle Russia’s ‘abduction’ of Ukrainian children to prolong the proxy war
- How Policies From The Bi-Parisian Foreign Policy Establishment Led To Trump’s Venezuela War
- No More Ukraine Proxy War? You’re a Traitor!
- Sexual Blackmail Makes the World Go ‘Round
- Powerful Israeli Strikes on South Lebanon and Bekaa
- If Americans Knew
- Palestinian ingenuity shines through adversity – Not a Ceasefire Day 70
- Amnesty: ‘Utterly preventable’ Gaza flood tragedy must mobilize global action to end Israel’s genocide
- Israel Propagandists Are Uniformly Spouting The Exact Same Line About The Bondi Beach Shooting
- Ha’aretz: Free the Palestinian Activist Who Dared to Document Israel’s Crimes in the West Bank
- Garbage Is Poisoning Gaza
- Palestinian journalist recounts rape and torture in Israeli prison
- Gaza is crumbling, but its people persevere – Not a Ceasefire Day 69
- Pro-Israel billionaire Miriam Adelson green-lights a Trump 3rd term
- Australians Being Massacred Shouldn’t Bother Us More Than Palestinians Being Massacred
- Garbage, stench, sewage, and rats plague Gaza – Not a Ceasefire Day 68
- No Tricks Zone
- New Study: 8000 Years Ago Relative Sea Level Was 30 Meters Higher Than Today Across East Antarctica
- The Wind Energy Paradox: “Why More Wind Turbines Don’t Always Mean More Power”
- New Study Reopens Questions About Our Ability To Meaningfully Assess Global Mean Temperature
- Dialing Back The Panic: German Physics Prof Sees No Evidence Of Climate Tipping Points!
- Astrophysicist Dr. Willie Soon Challenges The Climate Consensus … It’s The Sun, Not CO2
- Regional Cooling Since The 1980s Has Driven Glacier Advance In The Karakoram Mountains
- Greenland Petermann Glacier Has Grown 30 Kilometers Since 2012!
- New Study: Temperature-Driven CO2 Outgassing Explains 83 Percent Of CO2 Rise Since 1959
- Climate Extremists Ordered By Hamburg Court To Pay €400,000 In Damages
- More Evidence NE China Is Not Cooperating With The Alarmist Global Warming Narrative
Aletho News 