Propaganda Watch

There are a couple Bitchute videos from the last couple days with a common theme.

First is this video by the Corbett Report covering a recent study by the University of Alaska (pdf) that rebuts the NIST hypothesis for the collapse of World Trade Center 7 on 9/11 - which has been the standard explanation so far. They concluded that no scenario for fire-based collapse was feasible, and that only a "nearly simultaneous" failure of all core columns.

Corbett's video focuses on the media reaction to the study. Namely, that there isn't one. Challenges to the official imperial narrative are not allowed, and in this case there isn't enough public curiosity to overcome the mainstream media's control of the national discourse. Thus, the fact that an engineering department spent four years to determine that the official narrative is faulty... doesn't matter. The official narrative will remain the official narrative: some fires caused a beam to fail and then the whole building collapsed into its own footprint at freefall speed.

Second, Piero San Giorgi interviewed Noam Chomsky on the subject of media control. He states that the pro-empire bias of the mainstream media was actually stronger in past decades. While it's enraging today to see the media lie to support a false investigation meant to neutralize an undesired election, that rather pales compared lying to start a war that killed half a million people, which was only 16 years ago. The media has not gotten worse (in the context of pro-imperial bias); we've only become more aware of how bad it is.

Ironically, Noam Chomsky ridicules 9/11 conspiracy theorists. Perhaps he doesn't yet realize that in the post-Epstein world, everyone is a conspiracy theorist. I do agree with his general sentiment that conspiracy theories can detract from productive activism. (It has long been alleged that the US government was fueling stories of alien bodies at Area 51 to divert attention from the actual research being conducted there.) However, Chomsky should realize that conspiracy theories are often correct, and many have been proven correct. Much of what is categorized as conspiracy theory today is information that would be damaging to the narrative the media wishes to protect. In fact, Chomsky's major premise - that so-called independent media in the US is actually more powerful state propaganda than the state-owned outlets of authoritarian regimes - would itself be branded by the media as conspiracy theory, particularly if right wingers started sharing Chomsky memes on social media.

He brings up another good point, which is that the prevalence of blogs is starving actual reporting of resources. We are getting more analysis, but not necessarily more facts. We should keep that in mind when looking for conservative voices to support. There are some that actually work to produce raw information and should be supported. Sara A. Carter, Judicial Watch, Wikileaks, and Project Veritas come to mind, but there are others. Without them, we'd mostly just be analyzing the "facts" provided to us by the mainstream media.