Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

‘This is NPR’: America’s Public Media Faces Reckoning on What it is

By Jonathan Turley | February 2, 2025

“This is NPR.” That tagline has long been used for National Public Radio, but what it is remains remarkably in doubt. NPR remains something of a curiosity. It is a state-subsidized media outlet in a country that rejects state media. It is a site that routinely pitches for its sponsors while insisting that it does not have commercials. That confusion may be on the way to a final resolution after the election. NPR is about to have a reckoning with precisely what it is and what it represents.

While I once appeared regularly on NPR, I grew more critical of the outlet as it became overtly political in its coverage and intolerant of opposing views.

Even after a respected editor, Uri Berliner, wrote a scathing account of the political bias at NPR, the outlet has doubled down on its one-sided coverage and commentary. Indeed, while tacking aggressively to the left and openly supporting narratives (including some false stories) from Democratic sources, NPR has dismissed the criticism. When many of us called on NPR to pick a more politically neutral CEO, it instead picked NPR CEO Katherine Maher, who was previously criticized for her strident political views.

Some have long questioned the federal government’s subsidization of a media organization. NPR itself continues to maintain that “federal funding is essential” to its work. However, this country has long rejected state media models as undermining democratic values.

This funding is likely more important given NPR’s cratering audience and revenue. NPR’s audience has been declining for years. As a result, NPR has been forced to make deep staff cuts.

Ironically, NPR has one of the least diverse audiences. Its audience is overwhelmingly white, liberal, and more affluent than the rest of the country. Yet, while serving fewer and fewer people, it still expects most of the country to subsidize its programming.

Many of us have argued that NPR should compete with other radio companies in the free market. Notably, some Democratic members pushed to get Fox News dropped by cable carriers despite not being subsidized and ranking as the most-watched cable news network. (For full disclosure, I am a legal analyst at Fox.)

NPR and PBS are facing calls to remove the subsidy at long last. However, at the same time, pressure is coming from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). FCC Chair Brendan Carr is inquiring about NPR’s claim that it does not do commercial advertising.

Many of us have noticed that NPR has ramped up its sponsor statements with taglines about the products or firm’s clientele. Carr wrote, “I am concerned that NPR and PBS broadcasts could be violating federal law by airing commercials. In particular, it is possible that NPR and PBS member stations are broadcasting underwriting announcements that cross the line into prohibited commercial advertisements.”

The support for noncommercial radio and television stations fell under different regulations. It is hard to see the sponsor acknowledgments not as commercial advertising. It is common for for-profit outlets to have hosts read commercial sponsors.

Noncommercial educational broadcast stations-or NCEs are prohibited under Section399B of the Communications Act from airing commercials or other promotional announcements on behalf of for-profit entities.

What is interesting is that NPR stresses that the “NPR way” is actually better to reach consumers:

Across platforms, NPR sponsor messages are governed by slightly different regulations, but the guiding spirit is the same: guidelines are less about what’s ‘allowed’ and more about the approach that works best for brands to craft sponsor recognition messages that connect with people in ‘the NPR way.

It is common for law firms or companies to have hosts herald their work in given areas. It is also common to have product references.

The thrust of NPR’s pitch to advertisers is that this is a different type of pitch to attract more customers.  However, the federal government long ignored the obvious commercial advertisement.

There is little discernible difference between NPR and competitors beyond pretense when it comes to bias or promotions. What is striking is how NPR’s shrinking audience righteously opposes any effort to withdraw public subsidies. While dismissing the values or views of half the country, they expect those citizens to support its programming. What would the reaction be if Congress ordered the same subsidy for more popular competitors like Fox Radio?

I would oppose a subsidy for Fox as I do NPR. Each outlet should depend on its viewership for support. Notably, many liberal outlets continue to maintain their biased coverage despite falling ratings and revenues. The Washington Post has had to again lay off employees and has lost roughly half of its readership.

After being called in to right the ship, Washington Post publisher and CEO William Lewis delivered a truth bomb in the middle of the newsroom by telling the staff, “Let’s not sugarcoat it… We are losing large amounts of money. Your audience has halved in recent years. People are not reading your stuff. Right? I can’t sugarcoat it anymore.”

Nevertheless, writers at the LA Times and other outlets continue to argue against balanced coverage. They would rather lose readers and revenue than their bias. So be it. These outlets have every right to offer their own slanted viewpoints or coverage. They do not have a right to a federal subsidy to insulate them from the response of consumers.

It is time to establish a bright-line rule against government subsidies for favored media outlets. “This is NPR” but it is not who we should be as a nation.

February 4, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Progressive Hypocrite | , , | Leave a comment

Audit USAID… Then Shut it Down!

By Ron Paul | February 3, 2025

As of this writing, when you attempt to access the US Agency for International Development (USAID) website or social media pages you are informed that, “This site can’t be reached.” The media reports that the new Trump Administration has not only frozen USAID activities but may be planning on bringing it back under control of the US State Department. Other reports, including statements by Elon Musk, suggest that it will be closed completely.

If true, the closing of USAID may be one of the most significant changes President Trump has made among many dramatic actions in his first couple of weeks in office. Many Americans may still have the idea that USAID is a government agency delivering relief at disaster sites overseas. They may still remember the bags of rice or grain with the USAID logo on them. But that is not USAID.

USAID is a key component of the US government’s “regime change” operations worldwide. USAID spends billions of dollars every year propping up “NGOs” overseas that function as shadow governments, eating away at elected governments that the US interventionists want to overthrow. Behind most US foreign policy disasters overseas you will see the fingerprints of USAID. From Ukraine to Georgia and far beyond, USAID is meddling in the internal affairs of foreign countries – something that would infuriate Americans if it was happening to us.

When President Trump ordered a 90 day pause in USAID activities, we quickly learned just how pernicious the agency really is. The US media reported that Ukrainian press outlets were scrambling to keep their doors open when the US dollars stopped flowing. It is reported that 90 percent of the media outlets are funded by the US government!

This means that there is virtually no independent media in Ukraine, only fake news outlets willing to toe the US Administration’s propaganda line. Does anyone think these wholly US-funded “news” outlets would ever publish a story that the US government did not want published?

This is plainly immoral, but it is also dangerous. Most US mainstream media stories about Ukraine have their origins in the “reporting” of the local media. From battlefield news to casualties to the state of the Ukrainian military, the “news” from Ukraine is being written by US government-backed media outlets and then picked up by US and other western media. It is a closed propaganda loop that not only propagandizes the US citizen but also feeds false information into US government outlets – such as Congress – that rely on mainstream US media reporting for their news on Ukraine.

No wonder so many in Washington continue to support this hopeless war!

But USAID is not just in the business of disinformation. Elon Musk recently re-posted a New York Post article on X reporting that USAID funneled $53 million to EcoHealth Alliance to support gain-of-function research on coronaviruses at the Wuhan lab! Did USAID help fund COVID? Americans have a right to know.

In natural catastrophes overseas Americans have shown themselves to be extremely generous. Private volunteer assistance organizations can more effectively assist victims of disasters worldwide.

USAID needs a full and transparent audit. Americans deserve to know exactly what is being done in their name overseas. Then the agency needs to be shuttered completely, and its employees sent home. That would go a long way toward making America great again.

February 3, 2025 Posted by | Deception, Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | , , , | Leave a comment

Here’s How Much Senate’s Loudest RFK Jr Critics Have Been Paid by Big Pharma

By Ilya Tsukanov – Sputnik – 02.02.2025

The fiery viral exchange between RFK Jr and Senator Bernie Sanders on Big Pharma money in politics has cast a new light on the Trump HHS pick’s uphill confirmation battle.

Among senators grilling Kennedy hardest in this week’s grueling confirmation hearings, here’s who’s gotten the most pharma money via PAC contributions and employee donations between 1990-2024, per calculations by OpenSecrets:

  • Bernie Sanders: $1.9 mln
  • Ralph Warnock: $1.76 mln
  • Patty Murray: $1.6 mln
  • Chuck Schumer: $1.55 mln
  • Elizabeth Warren: $1.2 mln. Ironic that she’s recently accused Kennedy of “profiting from anti-vaccine conspiracies.”
  • Ron Wyden: $1.2 mln
  • Bill Cassidy: $1.2 mln
  • Mark Warner: $654,000
  • Maggie Hassan: $467,000
  • Catherine Cortez Masto: $537,000

Bipartisan Consensus

And it’s not just Democrats. OpenSecrets records, which have 307 names on file, show former GOP Senate leader Mitch McConnell got $2 mln, Mitt Romney $3.3 mln, Richard Burr $1.6 mln, the late John McCain $1.4 mln, Bill Cassidy $1.2 mln, and Roy Blunt, John Cornyn and Tim Scott $1.1 mln each over the past three-and-a-half decades.

A 2021 STAT study found that over two-thirds of Congress got a pharma check in 2020, with Pfizer alone contributing to 228 federal campaigns and over 1,000 state races. By last August alone, Big Pharma’s 2024 election PAC war chests hit $37 mln, per BioSpace.

OpenSecrets partial list of top Big Pharma donations to current and former US senators.
© Photo : OpenSecrets

Besides lobbying, lawmakers have taken advantage of their jobs to get rich off pharma-related insider trading, with a 2021 Business Insider report finding that 75 made timely investments into the federal Covid response.

Then there’s the combined payouts of healthcare industry, which includes pharma but also insurance, medical device suppliers, etc.

By these accounts, Sanders alone got $23+ mln since 1990, Warnock $14.7 mln, Warren $10.4 mln, Wyden $6.7 mln, Tim Kaine $3.3 mln, Ed Markey $2.3 mln, Patty Murray $5.8 mln, Tammy Baldwin $4.9 mln, etc.

Chart compiled by @MidwesternDoc based on OpenSecrets data on healthcare industry contributions to US lawmakers.
© Photo : X / @MidwesternDoc / OpenSecrets

Media Onboard Too

Major outlets aren’t running anti-RFK hit pieces for free. Dr. Leana Wen, author of a recent WaPo piece trashing Kennedy, received over $1.1 mln from Big Pharma over her career.

In 2021, MintPress News calculated that active Big Pharma cheerleader Bill Gates has given nearly $320 mln to media over the years to ensure favorable coverage of himself and the initiatives he’s pushing, including as it relates to the pharmaceutical industry.

February 2, 2025 Posted by | Corruption, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | , , , | 1 Comment

Did a Trump executive order just cripple the global US regime change network?

By Kit Klarenberg · The Grayzone · January 31, 2025

Among the flurry of executive orders issued by President Donald Trump in the first days of his administration, perhaps the most consequential to date is one titled, “reevaluating and realigning US foreign aid.”

Under this order, a 90-day pause was instantly enforced on all US foreign development assistance across the globe – excepting, of course, the largest recipients of US aid in Israel and Egypt. For now, the order forbids the disbursement of federal funding for any “non-governmental organizations, international organizations, and contractors” charged with delivering US “aid” programs overseas.

Within days, hundreds of “internal contractors” at the US Agency for International Development (USAID) were placed on unpaid leave or outright fired, as a direct result of the Executive Order. Washington Post contributor John Hudson has reported organization officials brand Trump’s directives on “foreign development assistance” a “shock and awe approach,” which has left them reeling, uncertain of their futures. One nameless USAID apparatchik told him, “they even removed all the pictures in our offices of aid programs,” as accompanying photographs attested.

While the Trump administration’s purge sent shockwaves through Washington’s international development corps and the Beltway Bandits which feed at its trough, the sudden severing of USAID money has sparked panic overseas. From Latin America to Eastern Europe, the US has pumped billions into NGO’s and media outlets to fuel color revolutions and assorted regime change operations, all in the name of “democracy promotion.”

Now, as the global apparatus of soft American power trumpeted by President George H.W. Bush as “a thousand points of light” goes dark, supposedly independent media outfits from Ukraine to Nicaragua are fretting about their future and panhandling for donations on their websites.

US-backed media and opposition face extinction in Ukraine

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the US has pumped billions into Ukraine to create and propel a fervently anti-Russian opposition. As former State Department Assistant Secretary for Eastern European Affairs Victoria Nuland remarked to an oil industry-sponsored meeting in Kiev in 2009, “we’ve invested $5 billion to assist Ukraine” to “build democratic skills and institutions” allowing it to “achieve European independence.”

The US flooded Ukrainian civil society with grants on the eve of the 2014 Maidan coup, birthing a network of pro-Western media outlets almost overnight. Among them was Hromadske, a liberal broadcasting entity which pushed for the overthrow of President Victor Yanukovych and rallied for the subsequent war with pro-Russian separatists in the country’s east – including through the glorification of Nazis who fought the Soviet Red Army during World War II.

With Trump’s executive order cutting off USAID programs, Hromadske has suddenly been severed from its financial tube. So too have the top Ukrainian media outlets which emerged in the wake of the Maidan coup, including Ukrinform, Internews, and a signatory of the Poynter-run International Fact Checking Network called VoxUkraine.

The Ministry of Culture and Strategic Communications and the Service of the Deputy Prime Minister for European and Euro-Atlantic Integration, both created to propagandize for war against Russia, are also among USAID funding recipients now starving for cash.

Ukrainian President Volodomyr Zelensky took to X to whine that “critically important programs” wholly dependent on “US support” were now “suspended” as a result of Trump’s executive order. He promised that “certain key initiatives” would “be financed through our internal resources,” while begging for donations from Kiev’s “European partners” to be “intensified.”

Given Ukraine’s near-total economic destruction since its proxy war against Russia erupted in February 2022, and complete reliance on USAID to pay the salaries of state employees, it is uncertain how the country’s “internal resources” can possibly be used to even vaguely offset its sudden deficit. Already, major Ukrainian media outlets are pleading for financial support from their readers just to keep their lights on.

According to Kiev’s foreign-funded Institute of Mass Information, around 90% of the country’s media is “dependent on American grants.”

Contra 2.0 gravy train paused in Nicaragua

Similar bleating has emanated from US-financed organizations in Nicaragua, where since the re-election of popular leftist Sandinista Front in 2006, Washington has pumped tens of millions of dollars into right-wing media outlets and opposition groups.

In tandem, these foreign-funded fifth columnists routinely disseminate disinformation, while inciting violence against the government and its supporters, and influencing Western media reporting on the country.

As The Grayzone reported, a USAID-funded Nicaraguan opposition outlet called 100% Noticias led a campaign of violent incitement throughout 2018, when a failed US-backed coup attempt left hundreds dead in the country. While the outlet repeatedly featured calls for the murder of President Daniel Ortega, its director, Miguel Mora, told The Grayone’s Max Blumenthal he wished for a US military intervention of the country to topple the elected government. When the Nicaraguan government finally shuttered the station and prosecuted Mora, Washington responded with accusations of repression and threats of heavy sanctions.

On January 21, an anti-Sandinista “news” operations called Nicaragua Investiga warned that Trump’s order “threatens to deal a severe blow” to the country and its anti-Ortega crusade, “which depends heavily on the financial and technical support provided by agencies” such as USAID. This backing, the outlet declared, was a “fundamental pillar” in the Nicaraguan right-wing’s efforts to undermine and depose the anti-imperialist President.

“Civil society organisations that rely on this assistance would be forced to reduce or cease their activities,” Nicaragua Investiga warned. The outlet further lamented that “uncertainty reigns over how and when assistance will be restored, and whether organizations critical of Daniel Ortega’s regime that still survive outside the country will be able to maintain their operations.”

Not coincidentally, Nicaragua Investiga was among the local outlets which largely depended on US government grants for their existence.

Has the US balked at balkanizing the Balkans?

Across the West Balkans, USAID, self-avowed CIA front the National Endowment for Democracy, George Soros’ Open Society Foundations and the panoply of NGOs and media outlets have infiltrated every conceivable sphere of public life. Following the 1992 – 1995 civil war, Bosnia and Herzegovina was methodically transformed into a de facto EU and US colony, with all basic functions of the state hijacked by foreign interests.

Some concern about the imperial project found its way into mainstream media at the time. The New York Times warned in 1998 that US domination of Bosnia “raised troubling questions about how the state will work without continued infusions of outside aid and direct international supervision.” A senior foreign government advisor angsted over Washington’s lack of exit strategy in the country, or any plan to end “Bosnia’s culture of dependency.” Today, at least 25,600 Western-funded NGOs are active in Sarajevo.

The pause in “foreign development assistance” has placed countless jobs and beneficiary organizations at risk of permanent erasure across the Balkans. On January 30, Balkan Insight – an outlet exposed by The Grayzone as a tentacle of British intelligence – published an illuminating investigation into how the aid pause “has immediately affected a range of organisations in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Albania, Kosovo, North Macedonia, Montenegro and Serbia.”

From 2020 until the end of 2024, Washington has funnelled a staggering $1.7 billion into the West Balkans, “supporting civil society organisations and state institutions and projects ranging from human rights and media to energy efficiency,” with next to no demonstrable social benefit. Now, “all projects have been halted… until the evaluation period is over.” Expenses up until January 27 will be covered, “while everything after that has to be stopped.” Already, layoffs and huge pay cuts have been enacted at recipient entities.

Nameless NGO workers consulted by Balkan Insight fretted that the US financing freeze would not be temporary. One source speculated the Executive Order could be “just a soft way of cutting these funds permanently.” The outlet noted Washington “has supported thousands of activities” in the region, and “the precise number of affected projects” remains “unknown”. When reporters contacted local USAID offices seeking clarity on the cuts, they were redirected in every instance to the agency’s Washington headquarters.

USAID base camp “responded by sending a link to its press release” on the funding pause. “President Trump stated clearly that the US is no longer going to blindly dole out money with no return for the American people,” it bluntly declared. “Reviewing and realigning foreign assistance on behalf of hardworking taxpayers is not just the right thing to do, it is a moral imperative.” Evidently, the new administration is not remotely concerned that entire sectors of local economies in the Balkans have been effectively shuttered.

Even in Albania – a doggedly pro-US country with an influential DC lobby – 30 Washington-subsidized projects have been suspended, including bankrolling of “courts, prosecutor’s offices and the ministries of Defence, Education and Sports, and Finance.” In Macedonia – where “most” US funding is distributed via USAID and NED – $72 million allocated to 22 projects is “now on hold.” Six wider regional USAID-backed initiatives in the Balkans, which also covers Macedonia, “worth some $140 million”, are likewise mothballed. In local terms, these sums are monumental.

Georgia not on the Trump admin’s mind

The Republic of Georgia has been the site of a series of color revolution efforts since the start of 2023, all in response to the government’s successful push to compel the more than 25,000 foreign-financed organizations in the country to disclose their funding sources. Western-backed NGOs and activist groups have been at the forefront of all these attempted putsches. Unsurprisingly, this shadow army of previously US-funded foot soldiers are furious about the Trump administration’s “foreign development assistance” cutoff.

By contrast, the Georgian government appears delighted. Parliamentary leader Mamuka Mdinaradze has even suggested the highly controversial law on foreign funding transparency “might not be needed at all anymore” after Trump’s executive order. Indeed, with untold foreign-sponsored chaos agents suddenly out of money, the color revolution coast is now clear in Tbilisi.

On January 30, local English language publication Georgia Today published a leader mourning that, “as the future of their funding hangs in the balance, aid organizations are already laying off or furloughing staff,” and “some programs” in Tbilisi “may struggle to restart after this temporary shutdown, with many potentially disappearing permanently.” It went on to note USAID financing “has been a cornerstone of the country’s development since 1992, with over $1.9 billion in assistance provided to date.”

Prior to the funding pause, USAID alone was “investing in 39 programs across the country, with a total value of $373 million and an annual budget exceeding $70 million.” These efforts overwhelmingly focused “on promoting economic reforms” and “fostering private sector investment,” which is to say facilitating foreign financial rape and pillage of Georgia.

While domestic critics of Trump’s Executive Order have lambasted Washington’s resultant loss of expansive “soft power” influence in the Global South, such retreat can only be to the enormous benefit of target countries. As a LeftEast essay noted, foreign-funded NGOs have for decades “eroded Georgian citizens’ agency and the country’s sovereignty and democracy.” Its authors explained, “Activists in Georgia know all too well what is expected of them and which behaviors are punished and rewarded: being critical of the government on Facebook will net you more grants than being out in the community helping people… Donors even monitor activists’ social media profiles, and there can be consequences for posting the wrong things.”

However, the relief could be premature for populations that have suffered decades of US “foreign development assistance,” and the attendant coups and unrest it has paid for. The “pause” on US aid may indeed be a temporary measure, or, spending on soft power could be redirected to harder options with even more grave repercussions across the world.

February 1, 2025 Posted by | Corruption, Deception, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Why the Mainstream Media Is in Trouble

By Jacob G. Hornberger | FFF | January 31, 2025

As most everyone knows, the mainstream media is hurting, big time. For many years, subscriptions and advertising revenue have been plummeting. Some of the big papers have been able to survive only by having some multimillionaire bail them out with his own money and be willing to absorb the ongoing financial losses.

Why is this? I submit that one big reason is that most Americans simply do not trust the media. They have come to see the media as just an unofficial mouthpiece for the federal government, especially the national-security branch of the government, the branch that rules the roost.

A good example of this phenomenon relates to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The official narrative is that the invasion was an unprovoked war of aggression, much like the U.S. government’s unprovoked invasion of and war of aggression against Iraq.

But the undisputed evidence establishes beyond any doubt whatsoever the contrary. The evidence establishes that after the dismantling of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact, NATO remained in existence, which was quite unusual, to say the least. That’s because the ostensible reason that NATO was brought into existence was to supposedly protect Western Europe from an attack by the Soviets.

Even worse, NATO began moving eastward, absorbing former members of the Warsaw Pact, and moving inexorably in the direction of Russia’s border. And this occurred in violation of promises made by U.S. officials to Russian officials that that would never happen.

Throughout the absorption process, Russian officials continually stated, “Stop it. Stop bringing your missiles, troops, weapons, tanks, and military bases closer to our border.” But U.S. officials, operating through NATO, refused to stop it. They just kept moving eastward until they finally threatened to absorb Ukraine.

As they proceeded with their absorption campaign, U.S. officials knew exactly what Russia’s reaction would be. It would be the same reaction that the U.S. had when the Soviets installed their nuclear weapons in Cuba. If the Soviets had refused to remove those nuclear weapons, the U.S. would have invaded Cuba, just as the Russians invaded Ukraine to prevent Ukraine from being absorbed into NATO.

How in the world can NATO’s absorption campaign not be considered a provocation? If that’s not a provocation, I don’t know what is. And let’s not forget: The U.S. government did much the same thing in 1979, when it provoked the Soviets into invading Afghanistan, with the aim of giving them “their own Vietnam.” National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski proudly confessed that they did that. Thus, when tens of thousands of Russian soldiers were dying on the Afghan battlefield, U.S. officials were exultant, just as they are exultant over the “degrading” of Russia’s army in Ukraine through the deaths of tens of thousands of Russian soldiers.

Yet, in account after account in the mainstream media, one continues to find the official narrative about Russia’s supposed “unprovoked” invasion of Ukraine. Given such, why would anyone trust any newspaper that continues to repeat that official narrative rather than printing only the truth about what the U.S. government and NATO did to provoke the invasion and, at the same time, condemning the official narrative?

Consider, for example, the New York Times. On January 14, 2025, it published an op-ed by Lloyd J. Austin III, the secretary of defense, and Anthony J. Blinken, secretary of state, stating: “President Vladimir Putin of Russia appalled the world with his full-scale invasion of Ukraine almost three years ago. He planned to topple Ukraine’s democratically elected government, install a Kremlin puppet regime and expose the West as weak, divided and diminished…. The United States and its allies and partners must continue to stand by Ukraine and strengthen its hand for the negotiations that will someday bring Mr. Putin’s war of aggression to an end.”

Not one word about what the U.S. and NATO did to provoke the invasion with their absorption campaign.

Yesterday, January 30, the Times published this comment by longtime columnist Nicholas Kristof about Tulsi Gabbard’s confirmation hearing: “Asked who she blames for the Ukraine war, Gabbard said bluntly, ‘Putin started the war in Ukraine.’ After her past blather about Russia’s “legitimate security concerns” and in a hearing full of her evasions, that was a reassuring acknowledgment of a reality that should be obvious to all.” [Links in original.]

So, Gabbard’s pointing to Russia’s “legitimate security concerns” regarding  having U.S. nuclear weapons, troops, and tanks on its border is nothing more than “blather.” I’m willing to bet that Kristof and the Times would not call the U.S. government’s “legitimate security concerns” during the Cuban Missile Crisis “blather.”

Also yesterday, the Times posted a news story about Gabbard’s confirmation hearing, stating, “Russia experts and intelligence experts have frequently remarked on Ms. Gabbard’s history of taking positions that defend Russian interests or cast the United States as a villain. She blamed NATO and the Biden administration for provoking Russia’s full invasion of Ukraine nearly three years ago by failing to respect ‘Russia’s legitimate security concerns.’” [Links in original.]

So, pointing out the truth about the U.S. government’s wrongful conduct equates to “defending Russian interests.” Also, notice how the Times conflates the United States and the U.S. government, as if they were one and the same thing. The fact is that the U.S. government sometimes is a villain. Example: The unprovoked U.S. invasion of and undeclared war of aggression against Iraq. Does pointing out that villainous conduct constitute “defending Russian interests.” Moreover, notice how the reporter implicitly disparages Gabbard for pointing out what NATO did to provoke Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

Of course, the distrust of the mainstream media didn’t start with its repetition of the official narrative about Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. It goes back much further — for example, to Operation Mockingbird, when much of the mainstream press was willingly and eagerly becoming assets of the CIA in an effort to save America from the Russians and the “godless communists” who were supposedly coming to get us.

And it also stretches back to the Kennedy assassination, when the mainstream media blindly accepted the ludicrous lone-nut official narrative and refused to conduct any serious investigation that would contradict that narrative.

Consider, for example, when the Assassination Records Review Board discovered in the 1990s that there had been two brain examinations as part of the JFK autopsy, the second of which could not possibly have been JFK’s brain. Wouldn’t you think that that would be something that the mainstream press would want to investigate, even if just a little bit? Nope. Nothing here, folks. Let’s move on. A lone-nut did it. That’s all you need to know.

Or consider the enlisted men who were released from vows of secrecy during the House Select Committee on Assassinations in the 1970s. They stated that they secretly carried the president’s body into the Bethesda morgue in a cheap shipping casket more than an hour before the official entry time of the Dallas casket into which the president’s body had been placed at Parkland Hospital in Dallas.

Wouldn’t you think that some mainstream newspaper would want to investigate that? After all, why would enlisted men make up such a story? Nope. Let’s move on, folks. Nothing to see here. A lone-nut did it. That’s all you need to know.

The Internet, obviously, has been the mainstream media’s worst enemy. That’s because people were now able to discover websites, podcasts, videos, and other such things that were willing to tell them the truth about the villainy of their own government. The mainstream media has been having trouble ever since.

January 31, 2025 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering | , | Leave a comment

‘Conspiracy Theory’ Now Fact: Greater Israel Has Arrived

By Kit Klarenberg | Mint Press News | January 28, 2025

Ever since Tel Aviv’s 1948 creation, much has been said and written about ‘Greater Israel’ – the notion Zionism’s ultimate end goal is the forcible annexation and ethnic cleansing of vast swaths of Arab and Muslim lands for Jewish settlement, based on Biblical claims this territory was promised to Jews by God. The mainstream media typically dismisses this concept as antisemitic conspiracy theory, or at most the fringe fantasy of a minuscule handful of extremist Israelis.

In reality, as The Guardian admitted in 2009, the idea of a Greater Israel has long-appealed to “religious and secular right-wing nationalists” alike at a state and public level in Tel Aviv. They have the shared objective of “[seeking] to fulfill divine commandments about the ‘beginning of redemption’, as well as create ‘facts on the ground’ to enhance Israel’s security.” The outlet acknowledged this motivation was a key contemporary driving force in mainstream Zionist entity politics, which “effectively turned the Palestinians into aliens on their own soil.”

The Nation has described the push to establish Greater Israel as “the central ideological goal” of Benjamin Netyahu’s Likud Party, which has dominated Israeli politics in recent decades. In July 2018 too, the Zionist entity passed the “Nation State of the Jewish People” law. It enshrines “the development of Jewish settlement as a national value.” Meanwhile, the state is legally obligated “to encourage and promote” the “establishment and consolidation” of settlements, in illegally occupied territory.

A proposed map of ‘Greater Israel’

This is based on the Jewish people’s “exclusive and inalienable right” to territory as far away from present Israel as Saudi Arabia. Old Testament terms such as “Judea and Samaria” are also employed. Markedly, this text is absent from the legislation’s official English translation. Zionist entity chiefs may not have wanted to make their irredentist, settler colonial ambitions quite so obvious at the time. Fast forward to today though, and Zionists at every level are wholly unabashed about their grand expansionist plans in West Asia.

The Syrian government’s fall has raised all manner of questions, concerns, and uncertainties locally and internationally. Can the country survive in its present form? Will Western-backed ‘former’ ultra-extremists be able to run a government? May the Iran-led Axis of Resistance, which inflicted such harm to the Zionist entity and its Western puppet masters throughout 2023/4, be under threat? The list goes on. But one thing is certain – Israel is seeking to profit handsomely from the chaos. If successful, the results will be revolutionary.

‘Defensive Position’

On December 8th, a triumphant, smart-casual-bedecked Benjamin Netanyahu made a public address from an Israeli Occupation Force observation point, in the illegally-occupied Golan Heights. Taking personal credit for Bashar Assad’s ouster, he hailed “a historic day” for the region, which offered “great opportunity.” The Israeli leader bragged that the Zionist entity’s “forceful action against Hezbollah and Iran” had “set off a chain reaction” of upheaval, showing no sign of abating. Nonetheless, he warned of “significant dangers”.

One of those hazards, Netanyahu declared, was “the collapse of the Separation of Forces Agreement from 1974.” This largely forgotten accord was signed by Damascus and Tel Aviv following the 1973 Yom Kippur War. Both sides agreed not to mount hostile military operations of any kind against one another from their shared Golan Heights border. Perhaps surprisingly, it was scrupulously adhered to for 50 years. Now, though, Assad’s fall has sparked a Syrian military withdrawal from the area, and, in turn, the IDF is moving in.

Netanyahu announced orders had been given to the IOF to push deep into the demilitarized zone created by the Agreement, which is legally and historically Syrian territory. He claimed this was merely a “temporary defensive position until a suitable arrangement is found.” Yet, ever since, it has become increasingly unambiguous that for the Zionist entity, Assad’s departure not only greenlights the tearing up of longstanding diplomatic agreements, but the entire map of West Asia as we know it.

For the time being, the IOF has captured strategically invaluable Mount Hermon, Syria’s tallest mountain, from which Damascus can be seen just 40 miles away. Concurrently, hundreds of Zionist entity airstrikes have obliterated what remained of Syria’s military infrastructure, leaving the country completely defenseless from any and all incursions by air, land, and sea. The stage is plainly set for a major escalation and attempt by Israel to absorb further territory, at its behest. Who or what could stop them?

IOF militants unfurl an entity flag on Mount Hermon

On December 10th 2024, while testifying at his long-running trial for industrial scale corruption in office, Netanyahu used the occasion to hint strongly at Assad’s defeat heralding a major reshaping of the region afoot. “Something tectonic has happened here, an earthquake that hasn’t happened in the 100 years since the Sykes-Picot Agreement,” the Israeli leader said, referencing the 1916 treaty under which Britain and France carved up the Ottoman Empire.

In an ironic twist, destruction of the Sykes-Picot Agreement, which divided West Asia into artificial boundaries under Western colonial rule, was a regular feature of ISIS propaganda. The group cited the pact as a symbol of Western oppression against Islam, presenting its demise as a religious duty. With figures associated with ISIS now taking charge in Damascus, that vision could now be achieved, a prospect both serving Israel’s long-term goals, and aligning with Netanyahu’s long-standing ambitions.

‘Living Room’

In recent weeks, Israeli media has undergone a significant tonal shift. Historically, even critical Israeli news outlets and journalists have been careful to frame the Zionist entity’s most egregious actions – ranging from military operations against neighboring countries to settlement expansion and land confiscation – in terms of “security” and “defense”. However, in the days leading up to Tel Aviv’s invasion of Lebanon on October 1st 2024, The Jerusalem Post published a strikingly candid explainer guide for its readers, enquiring, “Is Lebanon part of Israel’s promised territory?”

The outlet leaned on a Brooklyn-based Rabbi to “graciously” explain in detail how, based on multiple passages in Jewish scripture, “Lebanon is within the borders of Israel,” and Jews are therefore “obligated and commanded to conquer it.” The article was subsequently deleted after mass backlash and condemnation. But lessons from the debacle evidently weren’t learned in some quarters.

On December 4th – four days before the Syrian government’s fall – The Times of Israel published an op-ed on how “Israel’s exploding population” urgently required “Lebensraum”, a notorious German concept meaning “living room”, typically associated with the Nazis. The piece noted the Zionist entity’s population was projected to grow to 15.2 million by 2048, meaning Tel Aviv’s territory rapidly needed to be greatly expanded – perhaps not to the size of Russia, but certainly considerably.

This extremist rant was likewise purged from the web, due to widespread public outcry and mockery. Yet, since Assad’s fall, the term “Greater Israel” abounds readily in Zionist media, and seizure of territory from Tel Aviv’s neighbors is openly and eagerly discussed on primetime entity TV. Geopolitical analyst and founder of The Cradle Sharmine Narwani tells MintPress News that in a sense, the blatant nature of these discussions is a welcome development, as it lays bare Tel Aviv’s most extreme ambitions. However, she warns, attempts to expand the entity’s borders could backfire in catastrophic ways:

“The good news is, Israel has completely dropped all its masks. The bad news is it will go for land grabs everywhere. But this will be done opportunistically, and without much forethought or strategic planning. In the end, which country besides the US will be able to support Israel publicly? Tel Aviv will corner itself because the dominant Western discourse and EU law are still premised on human rights and ‘rules’. Allowing Israel these land grabs will also sink the Western-led global order.”

‘Primary Target’

Academic David Miller concurs the Zionist mask is off once and for all. Gravely, he tells MintPress News, “the fact that the CIA backed regime in Damascus is openly saying it is no threat to Israel is another indication regime change in Syria is a planned attempt to destroy the Axis of Resistance, and finally genocide all Palestinians.” Furthermore, he believes the writings of Zionism’s founder Theodore Herzl make clear seizing Lebanese and Syrian territory was Israel’s plan all along.

This malign objective, Miller adds, was echoed in many statements of countless prominent Zionists over decades, and “even codified and published as the Yinon Plan.” Little-known today, this extraordinary document was published in February 1982 in Hebrew journal Kivunim, under the title “A Strategy for Israel in the 1980s”. Its title is derived from author Oded Yinon, a shadowy former Israeli Foreign Ministry official and advisor to Zionisty entity leader Ariel Sharon.

Some sources claim the Yinon Plan provided a precise blueprint for major future events in West Asia, such as the illegal 2003 Anglo-American invasion of Iraq, Syrian dirty war, and rise of ISIS. It may be an exaggeration to suggest the Plan precisely portended all these developments, but nonetheless, much of the document’s contents are eerily prescient. Moreover, while many of its proposals failed to subsequently materialise, we are left to ponder whether they may now do so in future.

For example, the Plan noted there was significant potential for “domestic trouble” to erupt in Syria between “the Sunni majority and the Shiite Alawi ruling minority” – the latter constituting a “mere 12% of the population” – to the extent of “civil war”. While Damascus’ “strong military regime” was considered formidable, Yinon declared “the dissolution of Syria into ethnically or religiously unique areas” and destruction of its military power should be “Israel’s primary target” on its Eastern front, “in the long run”.

The Plan envisaged similar outcomes for other countries in Israel’s immediate vicinity. Lebanon was to be broken up into “five provinces” along religious and ethnic lines, partition “[serving] as a precedent for the entire Arab world.” Yinon wrote, “this state of affairs will be the guarantee for peace and security in the area in the long run,and that aim is already within our reach today.” Four months later, the Zionist entity invaded Beirut, carrying out ethnic cleansing, massacres, and land theft along the way.

Israel’s June 1982 invasion of Lebanon

Once the Zionist entity’s immediate neighbors were neutralized, Iraq was to be crosshaired “later on”. Baghdad, “rich in oil” while “internally torn” between its Sunni and Shiite population, was “guaranteed as a candidate for Israel’s targets.” Its destruction was “even more important for us than that of Syria,” due to its “power” and strength relative to other regional adversaries. Yinon hoped the then-ongoing Iran-Iraq war would “tear Iraq apart and cause its downfall”, preventing Baghdad from ‘[organizing] a struggle on a wide front against us”:

“Every kind of inter-Arab confrontation will assist us in the short run and will shorten the way to the more important aim of breaking up Iraq into denominations as in Syria and in Lebanon… It is possible that the present Iranian-Iraqi confrontation will deepen this polarization.”

‘Permissive Approach’

Yinon also considered it a “political priority” to regain control of the Sinai peninsula, over which the Zionist entity had fought its Arab neighbors since inception, before relinquishing all claims to the region to Egypt under the March 1979 Camp David accords. He slammed these peace agreements, and looked forward to Cairo “[providing] Israel with the excuse [emphasis added] to take the Sinai back into our hands,” due to its vast “strategic, economic and energy” value:

“The economic situation in Egypt, the nature of the regime and its pan-Arab policy, will bring about a situation after April 1982 in which Israel will be forced to act directly or indirectly in order to regain control over Sinai… for the long run. Egypt does not constitute a military strategic problem due to its internal conflicts and it could be driven back to the post 1967 war situation in no more than one day.”

We are now well-past April 1982. In the intervening time, successive Israeli governments have demanded Egypt allow the IOF to relocate Gaza’s population to the Sinai. Netanyahu is particularly taken with the prospect. In the immediate wake of October 7th 2023, official Israeli government and Zionist think tank policy papers openly advocated driving Palestinians into the neighbouring desert. It has been reported entity officials begged the US to pressure Cairo into allowing this mass displacement.

For the Zionist entity, this strategy’s appeal is self-evident. On top of emptying Gaza for settlement, forcing Palestinians into Sinai would inevitably create mass chaos and tensions there, which could in Yinon’s phrase provide “the excuse” for Tel Aviv to militarily occupy the region, in the manner of the West Bank. Just as a “temporary defensive position until a suitable arrangement is found” of course, as Netanyahu said of the IOF’s brazen creation of a prospective beachhead on Mount Hermon.

In December 2024, Haaretz observed Netanyahu was “angling for a legacy as the leader who expanded Israel’s borders”, and “wants to be remembered as the one who created Greater Israel.” Simultaneously, neoconservative Brookings Institute vice president Suzanne Maloney wrote for Empire house journal Foreign Affairs that the incoming Trump administration “will surely take a permissive approach to Israeli territorial ambitions.” After all, recent developments showed “a maximalist military approach yields spectacular strategic dividends along with domestic political benefits” for the Zionist entity.

We must hope, as Sharmine Narwani prophesied, Netanyahu’s megalomaniacal reveries of Greater Israel are just that, and come to nothing. Despite understandable mass anti-imperialist mourning over the Assad government’s demise, Tel Aviv faces a panoply of intractable internal problems. Contrary to claims of Tel Aviv’s population “exploding”, tens of thousands of dual-citizenship residents are routinely fleeing due to Resistance attacks, while its economy has perhaps permanently been relegated to the doldrums, the entity entirely dependent on US financial largesse to endure.

January 30, 2025 Posted by | Deception, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Timeless or most popular, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Leave a comment

Ukraine wants EU to replace lost US aid

RT | January 30, 2025

Ukrainian lawmakers have appealed to non-US donors to fund local media outlets and NGOs following the suspension of Washington’s foreign assistance programs that has reportedly drastically impacted the sector.

Last week, President Donald Trump halted cash flows from the US and ordered a 90-day review of aid schemes. Many affected programs were run by USAID, Washington’s soft power agency that distributes billions of dollars each year for projects that promote US interests around the world, under the premise of humanitarian development. It spent over $60 billion in 2023 alone.

Ukrainian recipients of American grants were hit “worse than it may seem,” a statement by the parliamentary committee on humanitarian affairs said on Wednesday. Lawmakers anticipate that it will take up to six months for US funding to fully resume, and have urged EU donors to step in.

“Given the constraints on public funding, grants remain virtually the only way for cultural and media projects to function,” the statement said.

Oksana Romanyuk, executive director of a Kiev-based media research non-profit, warned that 90% of news outlets in Ukraine rely heavily on foreign grants. With USAID operations frozen, many of them are now soliciting emergency donations.

The Ukrainian MPs described foreign assistance as “an important part of our path to democratic development and sustainability”. They empathized that USAID was funding projects for children, with thousands of minors attending schools that depend on American taxpayer dollars.

According to media reports, senior officials in the Department of State have lobbied Secretary Marco Rubio to make exemptions for their preferred aid programs, arguing that they are essential for US interests. Meanwhile, at least 60 senior USAID officials reportedly have been placed on paid administrative leave.

January 30, 2025 Posted by | Corruption, Deception, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | , , | 1 Comment

Ukrainian media in funding crisis after US cash cut

RT | January 29, 2025

Multiple Ukrainian media outlets have issued appeals for emergency cash donations after US President Donald Trump suspended Washington’s foreign aid programs. USAID, the organization that funnels billions of dollars to international causes deemed worthy by Washington has been put on hold, pending reviews, and up to 60 senior staff have reportedly been suspended on full pay.

Nine out of every ten media outlets in Ukraine have been impacted by Washington’s decision, Oksana Romanyuk, executive director of the Institute of Mass Information in Kiev has claimed.

”Unfortunately, almost 90% of Ukrainian media outlets were surviving on grants,” the head of the media-focused NGO told Hromadske Radio. Romanyuk described Trump’s decision as a threat to democracy in Ukraine, claiming that “oligarchs” may seize control of a media landscape “weakened” by the halt in American funding.

Hromadske is among the outlets soliciting private donations in the wake of aid freeze. Established in November 2013, just before the Maidan protests started, Hromadske received its seed funding directly from the US embassy in Kiev and George Soros’ Open Society Foundation. The broadcaster played a pivotal role in criticizing the government during the violent coup that overthrew a democratically elected president and put Ukraine on course for division and conflict.

In a statement announcing the suspension of some of its projects, Hromadske praised the US Agency for International Development (USAID) as one of the most generous donors of “independent media” and NGOs in Ukraine. The investigative journalism organization Bihus.info also acknowledged that much of its work has been funded by the US.

The campaign for emergency funding also extends beyond traditional news outlets. Detector Media, a self-styled watchdog ‘combating online disinformation,’ has warned that hundreds of organizations are facing shutdown without USAID support, and urged private citizens and business owners to donate.

Irina Vereshchuk, the deputy chief of staff to Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky, has called the suspension of US non-military assistance “unexpected and unpleasant”. Kiev will hold “consultations with our American partners” to resume the flow of money while implementing measures to “stabilize the situation” in the interim, she promised on Tuesday.

January 29, 2025 Posted by | Corruption, Full Spectrum Dominance, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | , , , | Leave a comment

NY Times, Again, Tries to Normalize Injecting Kids With Neurotoxins

By Jefferey Jaxen | January 26, 2025

Normalizing neurotoxic vaccine adjuvants has been a bread and butter staple for corporate media for over a decade. 15 years ago it was local KEYE TV CBS Austin who, with a straight face and The Science™-like authoritative tone, told you that injecting mercury ‘helps kids.’

Now, our friends at the New York Times just ran the headline, Yes, Some Vaccines Contain Aluminum. That’s a Good Thing.

In the article, the NY Times admits, “… aluminum adjuvants are found in 27 routine vaccines, and nearly half of those recommended for children under 5.”

Meanwhile, back in reality, aluminum adjuvants are literally toxic to the human body, causing cellular and nerve death. The corporate media and public health experts will tell you that the aluminum is just in the shots for a little bump… just to kick up the inflammation a notch.

Aluminum adjuvants also cause immune dysregulation, and are used in labs to induce autoimmunity in mice.

Yet aluminum adjuvants are included in 27 shots for children under 5 boasts the NY Times.

Harmful… helpful… or both?

To settle some of the controversy, attorneys representing the Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN) asked the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to produce the studies relied upon to claim injected aluminum is safe.

It took HHS (CDC’s parent agency) nearly three and a half years to come up with its final response in 2022, stating it could not locate a single study.

ICAN’s attorneys also sent the same request to the NIH, which responded the same way, conceding that no records were found.

If the science is ‘robust’ and ‘settled’… where is it?

As far as amounts, we know it’s just a small, precise amount of neurotoxin to kick off inflammation in the body… right?

Back in 2021, top aluminum researchers measured the aluminum content of thirteen infant vaccines and compared it to what the manufacturer’s data claimed was in the shots. The researchers found the following:

If researchers were able to independently verify the neurotoxic aluminum content in test samples, surly the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is actively monitoring them to ensure both efficacy and safety. Right?

In 2021, ICAN submitted a petition asking the FDA to:

“… publicly release documentation sufficient to establish that the aluminum content in each Subject Vaccine is consistent with amount provided in its labeling”

The FDA has yet to release said documentation.

Until manufactures are able to switch the current class of vaccine tech over to next- generation mRNA platforms, the aluminum-adjuvanted shots appear to need defending at all costs.

Disingenuous corporate media outlets and public health experts are using the public’s lack of understanding on this subject to construct hit-pieces in the run-up RFK Jr’s confirmation hearing this Wednesday and Thursday.

Meanwhile, another longtime staple of deceptive media has made a sudden comeback this week as the inaccurate and ignorant slur ‘anti-vax’ is being slung across headlines.

No real journalist would use that word… especially now post-pandemic in the wake of failed shot mandates and delayed compensation for harms caused by the COVID shots in the CICP.

The ‘anti-vax’ industry talking point has become an intellectually lazy attempt to neutralize opposition to greater inconvenient truths. No serious person uses it anymore and expects to not endure rightful scorn and ridicule. It most likely is having the opposite effect whenever it is floated.

January 28, 2025 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science | | Leave a comment

They Think We Are Stupid, Volume 13

By Aaron Kheriaty, MD | Human Flourishing | January 27, 2025

Everything you need to know about our ruling class’s opinion of you. As always, these headlines are presented without commentary.

January 27, 2025 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , | Leave a comment

The CIA Report: Why a Low Confidence Finding is the Height of Hypocrisy

By Jonathan Turley | January 27, 2025

Every modern president seems to promise transparency during their campaigns, but few ever seem to get around to it. Once in power, the value of being opaque becomes evident. We will have to wait to see if President Donald Trump will fulfill his pledges, but so far this is proving the cellophane administration. Putting aside his constant press gaggles and conferences, the Administration has ordered wholesale disclosures of long-withheld files from everything from the JFK investigation to, most recently, the CIA COVID origins report. That report is particularly stinging for both the Biden Administration and its media allies.

Newly-confirmed CIA Director John Ratcliffe released the report, which details how it views the lab theory as the most likely explanation for the virus. Expressing “low confidence,” the agency still favored that theory over the natural origins theory, which was treated as sacrosanct by the media and favored by figures like Anthony Fauci. (Other recent reports have contradicted the equally orthodox view on the closing of schools, showing no material benefit in terms of slowing the transmission of COVID).

Even a low-confidence finding shows the height of hypocrisy in Washington where politicians and pundits savaged any scientist who even suggested the possibility that the virus was man-made and likely originated in the Wuhan lab near the site of the outbreak.

This follows a recent disclosure in the Wall Street Journal of a report on how the Biden administration may have suppressed dissenting views supporting the lab theory on the origin of the COVID-19 virus. Not only were the FBI and its top experts excluded from a critical briefing of President Biden, but government scientists were reportedly warned that they were “off the reservation” in supporting the lab theory.

As previously discussed, many journalists used the rejection of the lab theory to paint Trump as a bigot. By the time Biden became president, not only were certain government officials heavily invested in the zoonotic or natural origin theory, but so were many in the media.

Reporters used opposition to the lab theory as another opportunity to pound their chests and signal their virtue.

MSNBC’s Nicolle Wallace mocked Trump and others for spreading one of his favorite “conspiracy theories.” MSNBC’s Kasie Hunt insisted that “we know it’s been debunked that this virus was manmade or modified,”

MSNBC’s Joy Reid also called the lab leak theory “debunked bunkum,” while CNN reporter Drew Griffin criticized spreading the “widely debunked” theory. CNN host Fareed Zakaria told viewers that “the far right has now found its own virus conspiracy theory” in the lab leak.

NBC News’s Janis Mackey Frayer described it as the “heart of conspiracy theories.”

The Washington Post was particularly dogmatic. When Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark) raised the theory, he was chastised for “repeat[ing] a fringe theory suggesting that the ongoing spread of a coronavirus is connected to research in the disease-ravaged epicenter of Wuhan, China.”

Likewise, after Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) mentioned the lab theory, Post Fact Checker Glenn Kessler mocked him: “I fear @tedcruz missed the scientific animation in the video that shows how it is virtually impossible for this virus jump from the lab. Or the many interviews with actual scientists. We deal in facts, and viewers can judge for themselves.”

As these efforts failed and more information emerged supporting the lab theory, many media figures just looked at their shoes and shrugged. Others became more ardent. In 2021, New York Times science and health reporter Apoorva Mandavilli was still calling on reporters not to mention the “racist” lab theory.

In Kessler’s case, he wrote that the lab theory was “suddenly credible” as if it had sprung from the head of Zeus rather than having been supported for years by scientists, many of whom had been canceled and banned.

As these figures were attacking reports, Biden officials were sitting on these reports. Figures like Fauci did nothing to support those academics being canceled or censored for raising the theory.

The very figures claiming to battle “disinformation” were suppressing opposing views that have now been vindicated as credible. It was not only the lab theory. In my recent book, I discuss how signatories of the Great Barrington Declaration were fired or disciplined by their schools or associations for questioning COVID-19 policies.

The suppression of the lab theory proves the ultimate fallacy of censorship. Throughout history, censorship has never succeeded. It has never stopped a single idea or a movement. It has a perfect failure rate. Ideas, like water, have a way of finding their way out in time.

Yet, as the last few years have shown, it does succeed in imposing costs on those with dissenting views. For years, figures like Bhattacharya (who was recently awarded the prestigious Intellectual Freedom Award by the American Academy of Sciences and Letters) were hounded and marginalized.

Others opposed Bhattacharya’s right to offer his scientific views, even under oath. For example, in one hearing, Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.) expressed disgust that Bhattacharya was even allowed to testify as “a purveyor of COVID-19 misinformation.”

Los Angeles Times columnist Michael Hiltzik decried an event associated with Bhattacharya, writing that “we’re living in an upside-down world” because Stanford University allowed dissenting scientists to speak at a scientific forum. Hiltzik also wrote a column titled “The COVID lab leak claim isn’t just an attack on science, but a threat to public health.”

One of the saddest aspects of this story is that many of these figures in government, academia and the media were not necessarily trying to shield China. Some were motivated by their investment in the narrative while others were drawn by the political and personal benefits that came from joining the mob against a minority of scientists.

The CIA report does not resolve this debate, but it shows that there is a legitimate debate despite the overwhelming message of the media and the attacks on scientists. Of course, the same media and political figures responsible for this culture of intimidation have simply moved on. The value of an alliance with the media is that such embarrassing contradictions are not reported. At most, these figures shrug and turn to the next subject for groupthink and mob action.

January 27, 2025 Posted by | Deception, Fake News, Full Spectrum Dominance, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , , | Leave a comment

Did Trump Halt Aid to Ukraine?

By Larry C. Johnson | SONAR 21 | January 24, 2025

Yesterday, there were a number of “headlines” in the US media claiming all foreign aid was stopped—except for Israel and Egypt. But the Pentagon weighed in today denying that it affects Ukraine:

“A Pentagon official confirmed that Trump’s executive order freezing foreign aid applies only to development programs, not security assistance to Ukraine.” -VOA

When I spoke with Judge Napolitano and Nima today, I had not seen these reports. However, while Trump’s order does not curtail security assistance (i.e., weapons, vehicles and ammunition) already in the pipeline, it does freeze the assistance funds that flow through State Department channels:

The Trump administration has reportedly frozen USAID projects as part of its foreign assistance audit

The Trump administration has frozen projects in Ukraine that were funded through the US Agency for International Development, Reuter reported on Friday, citing a USAID official.

The official told the news agency that USAID officers responsible for projects in Ukraine were told to stop all work. The projects that were frozen reportedly include support for schools and healthcare, including maternal care and the vaccination of children.

So part of the Ukrainian grift machine is shut down for the next three months. That is a start in the right direction.

Even if the US under the Trump administration continues to funnel weapons to Ukraine, this does not solve Ukraine’s fundamental weakness — i.e., the lack of trained soldiers. The New York Times published a bizarre piece of illogical nonsense today under the title, Ukraine Is Losing Fewer Soldiers Than Russia — but It’s Still Losing the War. This is simply a pile of fetid horse manure. I am not even going to waste time deconstructing the lies the permeate this piece of propaganda. Let’s deal with facts:

  1. Russia has at least an 8:1 advantage in artillery shells since 2022.
  2. Russia has air supremacy and is able to drop massive glide bombs on Ukrainian positions, while Ukraine has not comparable capability.
  3. Russia has more drones and has deployed drones guided by fiber optic cable and artificial intelligence. Ukraine has no such capability.
  4. Russia has more tanks and armored personnel carriers.

But we also have hard numbers from Ukrainian sources about a Ukrainian / Russian exchange of dead soldiers. Check out this graphic:

Yes, you are reading that correctly. Russia received the bodies of 49 soldiers and, in turn, delivered the remains of 757 Ukrainian troops. In other words, for every dead Russian soldier there were 15 dead Ukrainians. That data tells you everything you need to know about the true extent of Ukrainian losses and exposes the prevarication of the New York Times reporters.

However, the Times makes one damning admission:

Western intelligence agencies have been reluctant to disclose their internal calculations of Ukrainian casualties for fear of undermining an ally. American officials have previously said that Kyiv withholds this information from even the closest allies.

Yes, the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency are not reporting the real Ukrainian losses because of politics. Just one more example of the politicization of intelligence. … Full article

January 26, 2025 Posted by | Corruption, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »