Tag: propaganda

Covert NATO initiative turns film into anti-Russia battleground

A scandal has erupted over covert NATO conferences with the Western entertainment industry. Leaked documents reviewed by The Grayzone show how NATO has sought to infiltrate film and TV for decades, with UK intel operatives taking the lead.

On May 3, The Guardian revealed that NATO has held a series of secret meetings with film directors, screenwriters and TV producers in cities from Paris to Los Angeles. The disclosure suggests NATO is seeking to employ the entertainment industry in its propaganda operations as a European war looms.

To date, NATO’s “conversations” with scriptwriters have reportedly “inspired, at least in part” three separate unstated projects, which are already in development. At a forthcoming London summit, NATO operatives are set to meet with screenwriters tied to the Writers’ Guild of Great Britain (WGGB). In email correspondence, the union told its members the event will focus on the “evolving security situation in Europe and beyond.”

Organizers claim NATO was “built on the belief that cooperation and compromise, the nurturing of friendships and alliances, is the way forward.” The alliance is actively seeking to influence film and TV projects extolling this mantra, stating, “even if something so simple as that message finds its way into a future story,” as a result of the meeting, “that will be enough.” 

But collusion between NATO and the entertainment industry has a well-established history. Over recent decades, NATO has covertly sought to employ film and television creatives as psychological operations specialists, while influencing popular culture. A core driver of this push has been Chris Donnelly, a veteran British Ministry of Defence and military intelligence operative, who led alliance expansion into Central and Eastern Europe during the 1990s.

Donnelly later developed the Integrity Initiative to cultivate support for conflict with Russia through covert networks of influential pro-war pundits and operatives. Hidden behind a seemingly legitimate think tank called the Institute for Statecraft, the Integrity Initiative only became known to the public after independent outlets like The Grayzone reported on leaked emails from Donnelly revealing its existence.

In leaked documents discussing NATO expansion, Donnelly stated, “What I needed in the 1990s and did not have” was a major international public relations firm to “scale up successful activities to have real impact,” and achieve “essential behavioural change” in audiences. To address the problem, he proposed “advertising campaigns on TV promoting change, a TV soap opera looking at the problem of corruption” and other innocent-seeming cultural products aimed at enhancing NATO control.

Keep reading

Arcadia mayor Eileen Wang admits acting as Chinese spy, running fake news website with ex-lover in shocking plea deal

The former mayor of Arcadia resigned after admitting to acting as an illegal foreign agent of China in a federal plea deal unsealed on Monday.

Eileen Wang agreed with prosecutors that she worked with the People’s Republic of China to boost propaganda with a fake news website on US soil between 2020 and 2022. She was elected to Arcadia City Council in November 2022 — the city is within LA County.

Wang worked with her then fiancé, Yaoning “Mike” Sun, on a web site called “U.S. News Center,” which claimed to be news source for Chinese Americans, according to court documents.

But in reality the pair were carrying out Beijing’s orders through the site.

Wang and Sun “executed directives” from the Chinese government, posting propaganda designed to boost China, all while reporting back to their masters with screenshots showing how many people viewed the stories, according to the plea agreement.

In one case, Wang’s spymaster ordered her to post a PRC-authored essay denying the existence of genocide and forced labor in the Xinjiang region, the plea deal states.

“There is no genocide in Xinjiang; there is no such thing as ‘forced labor’ in any production activity, including cotton production. Spreading such rumor is to defame China, destroy Xinjiang’s safety and stability,” wrote Wang’s master, according to the plea agreement.

Wang complied and her handler wrote back, “So fast, thank you everyone.”

In another case, Wang’s PRC boss commended her on page views received by a certain piece of propaganda. Wang wrote back, “Thank you leader”.

Wang pled guilty to the federal charge at her arraignment in downtown Los Angeles on Monday afternoon. She faces a maximum of 10 years in prison.

LA’s top federal prosecutor, Bill Essayli, said this is not the first time China has been caught trying to exert its influence in the United States.

“Ms. Wang is just the latest to act as an agent for the PRC and it should terrify Americans that she was able to rise to the highest levels of local office in her city,” Essayli said.

Under the terms of the plea agreement, Wang admitted that that she acted under the control of Chinese officials to promote propaganda in the U.S.

Prosecutors in 2024 charged Sun with conspiracy and acting as an illegal agent of a foreign government.

Keep reading

AI Is Losing The PR Battle And The Consequences Could Be Huge

Lately, when watching high-profile sporting events like the NBA Playoffs, you may have noticed a rash of commercials for artificial intelligence (AI) companies. While average commercials strive to show off new products or services or recruit new customers, these AI commercials seem to have a different primary objective. They seem to target goodwill.

Heartwarming commercials show families bonding over AI-generated memories, where AI brings life to old family photos. Emotional voice-overs promise connection, creativity, and even nostalgia. These AI companies are trying to sell people a good reputation.

This strategy should tell us something. Companies don’t often spend millions trying to make you feel good about their brand unless they know, deep down, that you don’t trust it.

Despite hundreds of billions of dollars pouring into AI development, the industry is quietly losing the battle for hearts and minds. And sentimental advertising is not doing much to fix this problem.

Rare Bipartisan Agreement on AI

A new national survey from Marquette University Law School should give the AI industry serious pause. According to the poll, roughly 70 percent of Americans believe artificial intelligence will do more harm than good for society. Even more striking, the skepticism cuts across party lines.

Poll Director Charles Franklin put it bluntly: “It really is striking … there’s pretty much bipartisan skepticism … That’s an awful lot of partisan agreement, where we normally see Republicans and Democrats on opposite ends.”

In today’s political climate, bipartisan agreement on anything is rare. On AI, however, Americans seem united, just not in the way Silicon Valley might hope.

Worse yet is the fact that this poll supports similar findings on AI skepticism from numerous other surveys. A particularly damning NBC News poll from last month showed that AI’s net favorability rating ranked lower than nearly every other topic.

Keep reading

Iran Has Nuclear Energy, Not Nuclear Weapons

Last week, on May 5, 2026, President Trump told a group of young children in the Oval Office that “we have to make a journey down to Iran to take the nuclear weapon. They would have had a nuclear weapon within two weeks.”

Trump also told the children, “Iran with a nuclear weapon…maybe we wouldn’t all be here right now… I can tell you, the Middle East would have been gone. Israel would have been gone. And they would have trained their sights on Europe, first, and then us.”

According to the White House website, Trump warned Iran against having nuclear weapons on 74 occasions prior to the war.  Since the war began on February 28, 2026, Trump has discussed Iranian nuclear issues in at least 20 documented public appearances, based on the Senate Democrats’ Trump transcript archive and Roll Call’s Factbase transcript database.

Some of Trump’s more pointed claims:

About six weeks into the current war, on April 16, 2026, Trump said Iran “would have had a nuclear weapon within one month” if the U.S. had not used B-2 bombers to strike Iranian civilian nuclear energy facilities during the June 2025 war on Iran.

About one month after the war began, Trump said on March 27, 2026, “the Iranian lunatics refused to cease their pursuit of nuclear weapons” after the June 2025 war.

And on February 24, 2026, just four days before starting the current war in Iran, Trump said that Iran was “warned to make no future attempts to rebuild their weapons program, and in particular nuclear weapons, yet they continue. They’re starting it all over…”.

Trump’s statements go beyond saying ‘Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon.’ He has repeatedly claimed that Iran was weeks away from having one, that U.S. strikes stopped Iran from obtaining one, and that Iran was trying to rebuild or continue a nuclear weapons program.

But Trump’s claims are not supported by the record. In fact, official statements from U.S. intelligence, the State Department, the IAEA, and others state that Iran does not have a nuclear weapon, is not currently building one, and does not seek to build one.

Keep reading

The Most Direct Social Engineering Propaganda You’ll EVER See

A new Channel 5 drama series has delivered what many are calling peak social conditioning: a classroom scene where a teacher is berated by students for failing to instantly adopt preferred pronouns and for daring to stage Shakespeare’s A Midsummer Night’s Dream.

A clip, shared widely on social media, shows an old-school drama teacher clashing with pupils over basic biology, literature, and “respecting identities.”

In the footage, a student corrects the teacher when she uses the wrong name for a student who has decided to swap genders and adopt new pronouns: “Their name is Dee now actually,” one student explains, adding “you just deadnamed them Miss.”

The teacher responds: “I’m sorry. I’ve known you as Daphne for two years and can’t click a switch. I am trying.”

Another insufferable student fires back: “You shouldn’t have to try. You either see them or you don’t. I think you should apologise.”

The teacher then puts her foot in it again and states: “I just did, and am sure she can fight her own battles!”

“It’s they not she… It’s about respecting other people’s identity,” the student lectures.

Later, students challenge the Shakespeare choice, with one suggesting “There’s a consent issue. Titania is drugged before sleeping with Bottom… It’s also anti-feminist portraying women as submissive and dependent on men… to a modern audience it could be quite triggering.”

The scene perfectly captures the absurdity: instant language policing, classic literature deemed harmful for not meeting 2020s standards, and virtue-signalling students demanding deference.

This isn’t subtle. It’s overt social engineering dressed as entertainment.

Keep reading

Among the Few Who Resist Hidden Persuasion

Most folks are caught up in points of view shaped for them by others.

These others can vary from parents, teachers, religious figures, writers of various persuasions, podcasters and ideologically driven politicians of right or left who, in their worse manifestations are wolves in political clothing — a recent example of which now resides in the “Oval Office.”

In other words, there are plenty of would-be sources of inspiration out there, but it is always a good thing to look before you leap.

It is interesting that once a charismatic ideologue becomes a powerful “world leader,” a large number of other less powerful national leaders, to say nothing of their millions of constituents, fall into line.

If there is a political or ideological interest to be served, the less powerful might offer excuses and rationalizations to accept the most barbaric of policies of the principal in power.

This is the case of those Western European leaders going along with the policies of the American-Israeli leadership cabal. A principled stand, or even a stand based on the most cursory knowledge of history, seems to be beyond these subalterns. Yet, taken one by one, they are all “normal” politicians.

‘Normal’ Politicians

Many of the politicians who rotate as elected leaders of democratic nations must learn to reflect an established party line even if it no longer reflects reality. That is, even if it means lying about the present and/or de-contextualizing the past.

Take, for example, the reaction of otherwise normal politicians to the Oct. 7, 2023, Palestinian incursion into Israel. The reaction of Israeli politicians was predictable and a good example of ideological distortion.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu described the incursion as “the worst act of anti-Semitic violence since the Holocaust.” His claim follows the national Israeli narrative that asserts nothing Jewish Israel does can justify such an attack by Palestinians. It must be due to anti-Semitism.

In truth, the 2023 Palestinian incursion and the violence associated with it, had nothing to do with the Jewishness of the majority Israelis, but everything to do with the behavior of the Israeli state: the colonialist dispossession of the Palestinians and the discrimination practiced toward them by an entity that choses to call itself a Jewish state.

The anti-semitic charge might fit into the Israel = home of the Jews narrative believed by just about all Jews in Israel and some in the diaspora, but it is nonetheless misleading.

Until now, the Israeli narrative has been accepted by the West’s “normal” politicians. They have interpreted Oct. 7, 2023, as an anti-Semitic act.

For instance, the British prime minister at the time, Rishi Sunak, called the incursion a “pogrom.”  French President Emmanuel Macron called it an “unspeakable horror” which “feeds on anti-Semitism and propagates it.”

U.S. President Joe Biden labeled the attack “unadulterated evil” and connected it to a global surge in anti-Semitism. The U.S. secretary of state at the time, Antony Blinken, condemned the incursion as a horrific dehumanization of Israelis.

Keir Starmer in the U.K., the current prime minister who was then the leader of the opposition Labour Party, termed the attack the “darkest day in Jewish history since the Holocaust.”

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz called for solidarity against a “new wave of anti-Semitism,” while European Union Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said the incursion was a unique horror and pain inflicted upon the Jewish people. 

Keep reading

“Existential”: Israel Quadruples Foreign-Influence Budget To Massive $730M

With the ranks of its foreign sympathizers plummeting all around the world and all across the political spectrum, the State of Israel is quadrupling its budget for so-called “public diplomacy,” bringing its 2026 spending on foreign influence campaigns to a massive $730 million.

With the country’s growing unpopularity threatening US financial, military and diplomatic support, Israel’s foreign minister has said an intensified effort to mold global opinion is an “existential issue.” Both inside and outside of Israel, the country’s public diplomacy effort is also referred to by its Hebrew name: hasbara. Even before the 2026 ramp-up in spending, Israel’s spending on hasbara was already striking. 

Recent disclosures about 2025 hasbara spending shed some light on how Israel goes about shaping public opinion. Per the Jerusalem Post, that year’s outlays included a $50 million social media ad campaign carried out on Google, YouTube, X and Outbrain. Another $40 million covered the hosting of foreign delegations. “We flew a lot of delegations to the country – whether it’s pastors, whether it’s politicians, universities,” Israeli Consul General Israel Bachar told the Jerusalem Post. “Everyone who returns from the country understands better and is more supportive. But you have to fly out a lot of people.”

“We must as a country invest much, much more,” Israeli foreign minister Gideon Sa’ar argued in December. “It should be like investing in jets, bombs and missile interceptors. In the face of what’s arrayed against us and what’s invested against us, it’s far from enough. This is an existential issue.”

An April Pew Research survey found that 60% of American adults now view Israel unfavorably — that’s up 18 points from 2022. Underscoring the mammoth challenge faced by Israel’s hasbarists, the proportion of Americans who have a very unfavorable view of Israel now stands at 28% — triple what it was in 2022. Most alarming for Israel is the cratering of support among Republicans, with 57% of those under 50 now viewing Israel unfavorably.  

The erosion of US support has taken place over a span that has included Israel’s stunningly-destructive rampage across Gaza in response to the Oct 7 2023 Hamas invasion of Israel, and this year’s US-Israeli war on Iran which has caused fuel prices to rocket higher while threatening a global economic catastrophe.

Keep reading

The Cowardice of Qualification: When Anti-War Voices Speak the Language of Empire

A respected human rights activist has spoken repeatedly against the US-Israeli aggression on Iran. She recognizes the illegality of the war and does not shy away from condemning it in clear terms. Yet, almost invariably, she feels compelled to qualify her position, reminding her audience that Iran has killed “tens of thousands of protesters” during recent anti-government demonstrations.

The number itself is highly questionable. Even widely cited figures from international reporting – such as Reuters coverage in January 2026 – place the death toll of the protests in the thousands, not tens of thousands. But the issue here is not the exact number, nor even the complex context of those protests, which began as genuine expressions of discontent but were later exploited by various external and internal actors seeking to destabilize the country.

The issue is the qualification itself.

Many who consider themselves progressive, anti-war, liberal, or even leftist seem unable to take a clear moral position on US and Israeli actions in the Global South without inserting these qualifications. The habit may appear harmless, even responsible, but in reality, it is deeply damaging. It is not a sign of nuance – it is a symptom of a deeper moral hesitation.

By qualifying their condemnation, these voices neutralize their own position. They suggest, whether intentionally or not, a form of moral equivalence: the US-Israeli war on Iran is wrong, but Iran is also guilty; the genocide in Gaza is horrific, but Palestinians are also to blame. The result is not balance – it is paralysis.

Compare this to the moral clarity of those who support war. Their position is never qualified. It is assertive, absolute, and often built on exaggeration or outright falsehoods, yet it carries conviction because it does not undermine itself.

This pattern is not new. It is deeply rooted in the history of Western political discourse. From the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, which was justified as a necessary act to save lives, to the Cold War military interventions in places like Guatemala in 1954, where regime change was framed as a defense against communism, the language of morality has consistently been used to legitimize violence.

The invasion of Iraq in 2003 offers one of the clearest examples. Saddam Hussein was presented as the ultimate embodiment of evil – the “new Hitler” – while the United States and its allies were cast as liberators.

Indeed, American officials spoke openly of being “greeted as liberators,” even as the country was plunged into chaos and extreme violence. A few years later, then-US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice described the devastation created by the Israeli war on Lebanon in 2006 as “the birth pangs of a new Middle East,” reducing immense human suffering to a necessary step in a grand geopolitical transformation.

This tradition extends even further back, to the era of colonialism, when European powers justified conquest through supposedly humanitarian missions. The abolition of slavery, for example, was frequently invoked as a moral justification for colonial expansion in Africa, recasting domination as benevolence and violence as a civilizing duty. Killing, in this paradigm, happens in the name of saving; destruction is presented as progress.

Israel has long operated within this same framework. Its wars have consistently been presented as existential and necessary for the survival of democracy and civilization itself.

Long before the emergence of Hamas, Palestinian resistance was framed through shifting labels that served the same purpose. During the 1936–39 revolt, Palestinian fighters were described in British and Zionist discourse as “terrorists,” “brigands,” and “gangs.” In later decades, the label shifted – from nationalist fighters to communists to Islamists – but the underlying logic remained unchanged: the enemy is always illegitimate, and therefore any violence against them is justified.

Many of us recognize this pattern, yet instead of exposing its fallacies, some continue to operate within it, searching for a “balanced” position while still presenting themselves as anti-war or even pro-Palestinian. They acknowledge Israeli crimes but feel compelled to condemn Palestinian “terrorism.” They oppose Israeli policies yet insist on distancing themselves from Hamas and the others, as if Palestinian resistance exists outside the historical and political reality that produced it. They speak of “extremists on both sides,” as though figures like Itamar Ben-Gvir and a Palestinian fighter in Gaza can be meaningfully compared.

Keep reading

Genocide Doesn’t Happen Without Language to Incite It

How is information made legitimate, and when is it appropriate for journalists to introduce skepticism? What happens when only one side of a conflict is given the legitimate voice, always repeated and rarely questioned, even when those sources have proven many times to have promulgated lies?

Military studies scholars and analysts understand that there is always a long genesis of historical, political and economic factors that can eventually erupt into conflict. In many ways, US establishment media seemed unwilling or unable (but likely both) to narrate a more complex, historically accurate account of the war on Gaza.

The Intercept (4/15/24) reported that editorial directives at the New York Times and CNN, two of the most important news sources in the US, advised reporters to avoid certain “taboo” words, such as “genocide” and “massacre.” Yet between October 7 and November 24, 2023, the Times used the word “massacre” 53 times—referring to Israelis killed by Palestinians, but only once to refer to a Palestinian killed by Israel (Intercept, 1/9/24).

From November onward, as deaths in Gaza piled up, the Times habitually avoided using emotionally fraught terms for Palestinians. Another term, “ethnic cleansing,” was also barred from use, along with “refugee camps” and “occupied territories.”

As the Times source who leaked the directives said, “You are basically taking the occupation out of the coverage, which is the actual core of the conflict.”

US news outlets were crippled by these verbal restrictions, incapable of offering an accurate explanation of what was happening in Gaza by imposing such constraints on humanitarian language, and international principles and laws.

Keep reading

Our Post-Truth, Post-Trust World

That we inhabit a post-truth world seems to accepted wisdom. But that’s only half of it. We also live in a post-trust world. In a post-truth world, everything is shaped by the implicit goals of the entity claiming to state the “truth,” as the entire point of claiming to state the “truth” is to persuade the target populace to agree to something favorable to the issuer of the claimed “truth.”

In other words, the “truth” as something that has no intentional spin of self-interest no longer exists. What is passed off as “truth” is spin intended / designed to serve the interests of those doing the spinning.

This is the definition of propaganda and marketing, which are pure expressions of self-interest, and they’ve been around since the dawn of civilization, as persuading others to do what serves your private interests is much lower cost / more profitable than having to modify their behaviors with force.

The first step in the con of propaganda and marketing is to win the trust of the mark. This is a fascinating process, as some people are willing believers and others are skeptical, and so the trust campaign must speak to both the skeptics and those primed to embrace the message for reasons that have less to do with the entity issuing the message and more to do with their internal beliefs.

The trick with skeptics is to present persuasive evidence–the “facts.” These can be first-person accounts, scientific studies, or something presented as self-evident. The con artist presents the facts as if they are objective and the mark is invited to “decide for yourself:” the con artist claims he has no intent to persuade.

This is humorously illustrated in Melville’s classic novel The Confidence-Man.

The rise of the collection of data and the scientific method introduced the idea of “objective truth” that was based on facts collected from observations that were repeatable by anyone able to isolate the same variables. In other words, these truths could be verified by anyone using the same tools to collect data that isolated the same variables, so it wasn’t a private truth, it was a public truth everyone had to accept as fact.

The power of “objective fact” was too good to pass up, and so manipulating the metrics of data collection and analysis became the new territory of developing trust and establishing “truth” to serve private interests. Sample sizes were kept small, subjects were selected for their likelihood of yielding the desired data, and analytic tools weeded out outliers that undermined or contradicted the pre-selected “results.”

As McLuhan observed, The medium is both the message and the massage, and so the synthetic media that broadcast the human voice and visual images captured our attention and imagination in ways the written word could not. Now we have AI, which mimics human speech so engagingly that we attribute it with human characteristics: intelligence, emotions, empathy, etc.

With social media and smartphones, these media/ AI technologies have scalable visibility and virulence: they are ubiquitous (everywhere) and extremely contagious / virulent, spreading quickly through vast populations.

Keep reading