Tag: propaganda

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

The US took out Iranian leaders and facilities with surgical precision – but the Islamic Republic is winning the propaganda war… with comedy Lego videos

Long before the first blast ripped through the night, the target was mapped out.

The Americans and Israelis knew that this building near the city of Isfahan was a key node of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Aerospace Force. Inside, men planned and coordinated Iran‘s ballistic missile and drone attacks.

The mid-March operation was layered and surgical. First came observation. RQ-170 Sentinels – a highly classified, low-observable ‘stealth’ unmanned aerial system – had tracked a surge in activity at the facility. Vehicles roared in and out; crews scrambled from hangars; communications spiked. An Iranian attack was imminent.

Then came the invisible assault: EA-18G Growler jets choked Iranian radar with jamming, while AGM-88 HARM missiles hunted down any communications systems still emitting signals, destroying some and forcing others to go dark. With the site effectively blinded, F-35I Adir stealth fighters slipped into position, backed by heavier firepower: B-2 Spirit bombers carrying the massive GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator.

When the kinetic strike came, it was swift, decisive and awesome.

The GBU-57 does not explode on impact; instead, it punches deep into its target before detonating. That night, buildings pancaked inward, their roofs buckling as reinforced steel layers imploded, crushing underground command centres. By dawn, all that remained was a charred ruin, its most senior personnel little more than a smear of blood amid shattered concrete.

In the days that followed, Iran’s missile activity in the region slowed. Follow-up surveillance confirmed a ‘functional kill’ – a critical gap in Iran’s ability to plan and execute missile operations.

In so many ways, the Iran War is 21st-century conflict epitomised.

Never has warfare been so forensically and professionally conducted; never so surgical. Swathes of the enemy leadership taken out in minutes; cyber-war neutering Iranian facilities in seconds. Never has a regime of terror been so utterly, and precisely, shattered from the air.

On the ground, Israel’s infiltration of Iran’s security forces is equally extraordinary. I am told by sources it is so pervasive that when confusing or seemingly counterproductive orders are issued, the default assumption is that they’ve come from commanders who are Mossad agents. The systematic degradation of Iran’s security apparatus is unprecedented.

And yet the Iranian regime believe they have won. The Supreme National Security Council of Iran called the war an ‘undeniable, historic and crushing defeat’ for the enemy. It’s what you’d expect them to say. But many in the West are taking them at their word.

We must ask why.

Keep reading

Senior BBC Iran reporter exposed as opposition activist

After a top reporter at the BBC drew outrage for publishing a quote demanding Iran be nuked, she’s been revealed as a dedicated regime change activist whose career was launched by a CIA-founded propaganda network. Serious questions remain about the BBC’s editorial process. 

On April 6, 2026, horrified social media users began drawing attention to an extraordinary statement allegedly provided to the BBC by a twenty-something Iranian:

“About them hitting energy infrastructure, using an atomic bomb, or leveling Iran – my honest reaction is that I’m okay with all of these.”

Three hours later, as the uproar grew, the quote suddenly vanished from the BBC’s article. It had been replaced by a far less controversial criticism of the Iranian government. The episode raises serious questions about the BBC’s editorial process, as well as the background and motivations of the author responsible for the article.

Who is Ghoncheh Habibiazad?

At the ripe old age of 27, Ghoncheh Habibiazad has already achieved more than most British journalists will in their lifetime. After just four years in the field, she has already risen to the position of ‘Senior Reporter’ at BBC Persian – a prestigious and influential role which requires a “minimum of 8 – 10 years of experience in journalism,” according to a BBC job listing.  

Following four years of higher education on the Iranian government’s dime, Habibiazad graduated from the University of Tehran in 2020, and immediately began aligning herself with her country’s enemies. In October 2021, she was brought on as an intern at Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL), a CIA propaganda project founded by notorious spymaster Allen Dulles which nominally separated from the Agency in the 70s. During her time at the network’s studio in Prague, Habibiazad’s LinkedIn page notes that she conducted such groundbreaking investigations as “an article on “hidden disabilities”” while “working remotely for Radio Farda,” an RFE/RL subdivision that serves as Washington’s official Persian-language mouthpiece.

The same month she began interning for RFE/RL, Habibiazad joined forces with Marjan TV, another outlet founded by expat regime change activists. She would spend the next year and half developing social media content for the outlet and its subsidiary, Manoto TV. The broadcaster has been described by Iranian academic Shahab Esfandiary as “a pro-monarchy network with the mission of glorifying the Pahlavi dynasty, one of the worst dictatorships of the 20th century.”

Keep reading

Foreign Influence Exposed: How Non-U.S. Social Media Accounts Shape the Narrative on Iran Conflict

Foreign social media accounts could be shaping negative narratives about the U.S.-Iran conflict, raising concerns about misinformation and public perception.

A report by Pew Research Center on March 25 indicates that a significant number of Americans are against U.S. military involvement in Iran. According to their survey, about 61 percent of Americans are dissatisfied with President Donald Trump’s handling of the conflict, while 37 percent express approval.

Furthermore, by a margin of almost two-to-one, more of the survey’s participants believe military action is not progressing well—45 percent compared to the 25 percent who think it is going extremely or very well.

But is someone shaping this narrative? On X, foreign users are certainly influencing the way the conflict is perceived. A recent analysis published on conservative political commentator Glenn Beck’s website of more than 1,000 viral English-language posts may offer valuable insights into who is crafting the narrative.

These posts, published between February 28 and March 13, showed a significant influence from accounts based outside the U.S. In his opinion, these accounts, along with the groups or governments behind them, are significantly steering the conversation on X, inundating it with “inflammatory and demoralizing propaganda,” which can alter public perception and sentiment.

Mauro, a national security analyst and founder of The Mauro Institute, spoke to The Gateway Pundit about his discovery. He shared that, according to his research, “more than half, specifically 559 out of 1,000, of the viral X posts written in English about Iran come from abroad. These 559 posts garnered more than 650 million views and accumulated nearly 22 million total interactions, including reposts, likes, and replies. For him, “This engagement underscores the power of social media to amplify certain narratives.”

Interestingly, a random selection of 150 posts from the thousand viral X posts showed that 108 (72%) were negative, whereas only 40 (27%) were positive. The non-U.S. portion of that random selection showed a significantly negative response, with 64 percent expressing negativity and only 10 percent showing positivity. According to Mauro, this imbalance alone raises questions about the authenticity of the discourse surrounding the issue.

Keep reading

The American Mind Has Collapsed: How Vaccine Damage and Tribal Stupidity Created a Nation of Gullible Fools

How Mainstream America Became Dumb… and then Dumber

I’ve spent years observing, documenting, and sounding the alarm about the erosion of American intelligence and discernment. Today, I believe we are witnessing not just a cultural or political decline, but a mass cognitive collapse — a deliberate, engineered stupidity that has rendered a once-critical populace into a nation of gullible fools.

This is not an accident. It is the culmination of a multi-front war on human cognition, waged through toxic vaccines, processed food poisons, electromagnetic pollution, and a relentless propaganda machine that celebrates mediocrity and punishes truth. The evidence is everywhere, from the halls of government to the checkout line at the grocery store. We have crossed a cognitive event horizon, and the path back to reason seems all but lost [1]. Here’s how we got here, and why it matters for the survival of freedom itself.

The Unprecedented Decline of American Intelligence

The data is in, and it’s grim. Across all ages and demographics, test results show Americans are getting dumber [2]. This isn’t a minor dip in scores; it’s a systemic plunge. I believe this mass cognitive decline is largely driven by physical and chemical assaults on the brain, with vaccine damage playing a central role. The adjuvants in vaccines, particularly aluminum, are a silent, pervasive threat [3]. Studies have found high aluminum levels in patients with Alzheimer’s, autism, and epilepsy, and this neurotoxic substance is directly injected into the population, especially infants [3].

Long-term persistence of vaccine-derived aluminum hydroxide is associated with chronic cognitive dysfunction [4]. This is not speculation; it is documented science that the corrupt medical establishment desperately wants you to ignore. When you combine this with the brain-damaging effects of other environmental toxins like lead [5], glyphosate in food, and electromagnetic fields from 5G, you have a perfect storm for neurological decay. The once-critical American mind, capable of innovation and self-governance, has been replaced with a gullible, tribalistic stupidity that I find unprecedented in our history. We are becoming a population of psychological zombies, primed to believe anything our tribal leaders tell us [6].

The Artemis Moon Farce: A Case Study in Celebrating Nothing

Nothing exemplifies this collapse of basic reasoning more than the public’s reaction to NASA’s Artemis program. Celebrating a flight that’s merely planned to go around the moon as “going back” to the moon reveals a total failure of logic and an embrace of empty symbolism. This manufactured triumph is a perfect symbol of an empire that can no longer distinguish reality from propaganda, nor achievement from theatrics.

This isn’t about space exploration; it’s about the degradation of meaning. A society that celebrates a symbolic loop as a monumental return has lost its ability to assess value and substance. It eagerly consumes the spectacle while ignoring the substance — or lack thereof. This willingness to applaud a non-event is a symptom of a deeper sickness: a population so cognitively damaged that it cannot perform the most basic reality checks. It is ready to be sold any story, no matter how hollow, as long as it’s wrapped in the flag and accompanied by a press release. The provided sources on this specific NASA mission are limited, but the pattern of celebrating engineered narratives over tangible reality is a hallmark of our cognitive decline.

Keep reading