BELLINGCAT—Who Funds the Favorite Outlet of NBC & the CIA? Plus: Media Pushes Pentagon Lies as Biden Drones More Innocents | SYSTEM UPDATE #85
On this episode of System Update, Glenn dives into who ultimately funds the news outlets NBC and the CIA. The results are shocking. Follow the money as they say. Also, the media continues to lie to the public as Biden and his administration launch drone strikes, resulting in dead civilians. Find out more by listening to the episode!
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Welcome to a new episode of System Update, our live nightly show that airs every Monday through Friday at 7 p.m.
Eastern, exclusively here on Rumble, the free speech alternative to YouTube.
Tonight...
Controversy is once again swirling around the U.S.
government-funded site called Bellingcat, which, depending on your perspective, is either celebrated for its intrepid reporting and courageous investigations, or is notorious for its relentless propaganda, always in servitude to the foreign policy agenda of the Western intelligence agencies and neoliberal global institutions which fund it.
Mystery has long surrounded how this outfit in a very short period of time skyrocketed from an obscure ragtag team of failed journalists and dweebish online neoliberals into a site that receives ample funding from the US government and EU's most potent propaganda arms and has become genuinely revered and aggressively protected by the most pro-establishment media sectors from NBC and CNN,
With whom Bellingcat is officially partnered even though those networks rarely if ever disclose that fact when defending Bellingcat.
To numerous Western governments and politically active billionaires who are also counted among their most rabid supporters and ample funders.
The latest controversy came when Elon Musk this week accurately described what Bellingcat does.
Quote, Bellingcat literally specializes in psychological operations, Musk said.
Immediately, the most devoted loyalists of US foreign policy and media, politics, and academia rose in indignation to Bellingcat's defense, as they always do.
All without even mentioning, let alone refuting, the rather crucial fact that a significant chunk of Bellingcat's funding comes from exactly the agencies, exactly the agencies that specialize in those kind of PSYOP propaganda campaign, always in an alignment with US and EU foreign policy.
One can barely imagine a fact more revealing than the situation we have here.
The most beloved and popular news site among established media outlets and pro-establishment academics is one that just so happens to be funded by CIA-adjacent government agencies, EU foreign policy units, and the same small handful of multi-billionaires, George Soros, Bill Gates, Pierre Omidyar, over and over and over.
Whose fingerprints are always at the center of virtually every campaign of propaganda, disinformation, and censorship.
To say that Bellingcat is a shady and sketchy operation is to woefully understate the case.
We'll show you who funds them, what functions they serve, and why glorifying and protecting them has become so crucial to CIA-aligned operatives and the nation's largest media corporations.
Then, Joe Biden's drone program once again exterminated the life of an innocent person, this time in Syria, where a Hellfire missile fired by an American drone killed a 56-year-old father of 10 who has spent his life languishing in poverty working as a bricklayer.
The US government once again lied about their victims, boasting that they killed a senior Al-Qaeda leader.
And the U.S.
corporate media once again mindlessly spread those lies, dutifully claiming that Biden took out a senior Al Qaeda official even though they had no idea Whether that was true at all.
It turns out it wasn't.
This same deceitful reporting has been going on for years, ever since President Obama bureaucratically redefined militant, the word militant, so that essentially anyone the U.S.
government kills by drones or bombing is now, by definition, a terrorist.
This all comes on the heels of media outlets destroying the life and reputation of a pregnant woman who's a nurse by taking a completely decontextualized video that appeared online and, baselessly as it turns out, stapled the racism label to her forehead.
As we will show you, we yet again find that those who most vocally and self-righteously claim to combat disinformation are, in fact, those who spread disinformation most maliciously and casually, all while calling themselves journalists.
As a reminder, System Update is now available in podcast form.
You can follow us and hear us there in podcast version on Spotify, Apple, and every other major podcasting platform.
To do so, simply follow us there, rate, and review the program, which helps spread its visibility.
For now, welcome to a new episode of System Update, starting right now.
Whenever a tiny and obscure entity is jettisoned overnight into international celebrity, it merits a great deal of critical scrutiny to find out who exactly is behind this new entity, who funds it, and what is it that they get in return for that and what is it that they get in return for that
Now, there are occasions when a Hollywood dream comes true, when a young, scrappy group of rabidly intrepid and independent investigators stumbles into or finds some incredibly consequential story or series of stories and becomes celebrated for that reason.
That does, on occasion, happen.
And then there's Bellingcat, someone, an entity that completely deviates from that script in every sense of the word.
Bellingcat is indeed rabidly celebrated by almost every key establishment sector in politics, in media, in academia.
Anyone who criticizes them or even subjects them to critical scrutiny, as we're doing here, will instantly become the target of all sorts of vitriol, all sorts of rabid anger.
Principally from employees of the largest media outlets in the West who have come to depend on Bellingcat and their reputation for independent journalism and courageous investigations for the mythology they like to propagate about what press freedom means in the United States and more importantly How their revelations prove the validity of U.S.
foreign military adventures, U.S.
and NATO wars, and all other kinds of foreign policy goals of the United States and EU, which it just so happens turns out to be among their biggest funders.
Now, Bellingcat, as I suggested at the beginning, has been the subject of controversy for a long time now, but they have found a new controversy because earlier this week, the owner of Twitter and the CEO of SpaceX and Tesla, Elon Musk, was interviewed on CNBC and was asked about Bellingcat, and Elon Musk stated what is
Clearly the truth, something that is demonstrable and dispositive if you just look at the evidence as we're about to.
He essentially said that Bellingcat exists for psychological operations, for spreading propaganda on behalf of Western centers of power.
Let's watch this interview.
But, I mean, when you link to somebody who's talking about the guy who killed children in a mall in Allen, Texas, and you say something like it might be a bad PSYOP, I'm not quite sure what you meant, but... Oh, in that particular case, there was a...
Somehow that that's not not not that the people killed but the it was I think incorrectly ascribed to be a white supremacist action and the evidence for that was some obscure Russian website that no one's ever heard of that had no followers and the The company that found this is Bellingcat.
Right.
And do you know what Bellingcat does?
Psy-ops.
Right.
I couldn't really even follow.
So that was Elon Musk's description, his accurate description of what Bellingcat does.
I'm not here to report on or analyze or comment upon the evolution of facts concerning that shooter and what ideology motivated him simply because I have not devoted the time or attention necessary to opine with any degree of confidence on that question.
The question I'm interested in instead is the broader claim about what Bellingcat does, because they have become extremely influential in how narratives in Western discourse are formulated.
The media, the corporate media in the United States, has come to rely on them to such an extent that they will just mindlessly repeat whatever Bellingcat claims is the case.
And so interrogating what Bellingcat is and who funds them and why these state agencies and neoliberal billionaires fund Bellingcat is of vital importance.
Precisely because what Elon Musk said in this video, not about the specific instance of whether this shooter was motivated by Nazi ideology or not, but instead the broader assertion that Bellingcat exists for PSYOPs, for psychological operation campaigns, which is a Cold War term that connotes for psychological operation campaigns, which is a Cold War term that connotes an attempt to influence and manipulate public opinion by typically secretive operations with
His description is entirely correct.
When he gave this interview and said this about Bellingcat, it created a huge amount of controversy because Bellingcat has become extremely important to all kinds of centers of power in the West.
Let's pull up the documents here where we can take a look at exactly What happened?
So here on the screen, when controversy arose, you have Elon Musk essentially repeating what he said in that interview.
He said, quote, didn't this story come from Bellingcat, which literally specializes in psychological operations?
I don't want to hurt their feelings, but this is either the weirdest story ever or a very bad psyop.
Now, lots of people Responded to Elon Musk by attacking him and insisting that his accusations about Bellingcat were unjust, principally meeting figures in the media.
Here is CNN's Jake Tapper who responded to the controversy provoked by Musk's comments by saying, Bellingcat is a great journalistic organization.
Conversely, Musk once linked to a deranged article about Paul Pelosi and the Santa Monica Observer, a nutjob website that claimed in 2016 that Hillary Clinton had died and had been replaced by a body double.
It's true that Elon Musk's tweet in that instance was reckless.
He deleted it.
But the question that actually matters, from which people like Jake Tapper are trying to distract, is what is Bellingcat?
It's Bellingcat, not Elon Musk, who has become a leading source of narrative influence by Western media outlets, including CNN.
And so every time there's a controversy surrounding Bellingcat, you have people inside CNN and NBC doing what Jake Tapper did here, which is rising to their defense and heaping praise on them as a, quote, great journalistic organization.
Here is the Yale history professor who has become a leading resistance advocate.
He uses his credentials as a Ivy League professor to essentially propagate democratic Party talking points, he's a huge fan of U.S.
foreign policy and the U.S.
security state, a fanatical supporter of the U.S.
proxy war in Ukraine.
He made a lot of money writing books about how Donald Trump is the new Hitler, how he's the singular threat to everything sacred in our democracy.
He's just like a resistance troll on Twitter who happens to be an Ivy League professor of history.
And here's Timothy Snyder, unsurprisingly, as an ardent defender of the U.S. security state and U.S. foreign policy, doing the same thing, quote, Bellingcat is a treasure trove of hugely important investigative journalism.
Now, one NBC personality who has an 8 o'clock show on MSNBC, Chris Hayes, decided that he wanted to refute the accusations about Bellingcat.
Chris had been using his Twitter account to defend Bellingcat, and then in order to refute the accusations about Bellingcat, who did Chris Hayes bring on in order to discuss this?
Did he bring on a critic of Bellingcat?
Did he bring on somebody who has done investigative reporting about the U.S.
government and European security state agencies that fund Bellingcat to ask the question, why would the leading propaganda arms of the U.S.
government and EU security state agencies be funding a, quote, great journalistic outlet that has intrepid investigations and independent reporting?
That's not who they go and try and fund.
They obviously try and fund outlets that promote their agenda, that promote their foreign policy.
And that's why every time Bellingcat needs defenders, the people who stand up and defend them are the people who are the most loyal devotees of the CIA, the FBI, the NSA, the Justice Department.
Homeland Security, the war in Ukraine, and European security state agencies, because that's exactly who funds Bellingcat, as we're about to show you.
So you would think if you're going to do a TV segment where you intend to or purport to refute what Elon Musk said about Bellingcat and the widespread criticisms about how they actually disseminate propaganda and don't do journalism at all, you would at least speak to a critic of Bellingcat you would at least speak to a critic of Bellingcat or acknowledge the evidence about who funds them and how they function as a way to have a full and informed debate.
But of course, that's not what people in corporate media ever do.
There is no dissent on NBC News.
You turn on NBC News or MSNBC or CNN and what you find is exactly the same thing all the time.
Two people or three or four or five all violently nodding their heads in agreement with one another to the point that you worry they're actually going to get a neck sprain.
That's what these outlets exist to do.
They are a closed system of propaganda.
And the way you know that is they never have anybody on who disagrees with the view of the news corporation.
So if I wanted to do a Bellingcat segment and I had a guest on, I would try and have that guest be someone from Bellingcat or somebody who defends Bellingcat.
That's not what they do.
So Chris Hayes, a virulent defender of Bellingcat, decided to invite on a Bellingcat operative to refute these claims.
And never once was the funding of Bellingcat mentioned, nor the criticisms of Bellingcat and the basis for those criticisms ever mentioned.
Instead, they both joined together and scoffed at Bellingcat's critics in a segment, a part of which we're about to show you.
How do you respond to the world's richest man and the owner of Twitter basically saying this is a fabricated PSYOP that you invented?
I've seen people asking the question, so just to clarify, these two are not related biologically.
The spelling cat operative is not the nephew or the son of Chris Hayes.
I understand why people have asked that question, but I want to just clarify that to my knowledge at least they have no biological relationship despite their Yeah, well, I mean, obviously it's not.
I mean, I didn't even find this first.
segment went.
So I want you to respond to the world's richest man and the owner of Twitter basically saying this is a fabricated psyop that you invented.
Yeah, well, I mean, obviously it's not.
I mean, I didn't even find this first.
And Texas police found it and then it got leaked to New York Times.
And then I kind of put the clues together to find it.
He just didn't like that we posted it, I guess.
But I mean, you know, Musk is just getting garbage information because he's just entirely kind of flooded in this like far right, you know, info space with, you know, people from, you know, Glenn Greenwald and all these types who are kind of putting this kind of stuff out there.
So So he's just getting, you know, garbage in, garbage out, kind of, is how his thought process goes.
I don't think he actually understands this all this well.
There was a lot of name-calling there.
There was a lot of snickering, a lot of patronizing commentary.
You know what there wasn't?
Any substantive engagement with the criticisms.
Any of the reporting that we've done.
Because they cannot confront that.
They don't want their audience to know about that.
That's why they don't have on a critic of Bellingcat or even mention the criticism themselves.
I also will never stop finding it incredibly ironic That a TV host who never criticizes the U.S.
security state except to beg them to do more on behalf of his party and an operative from a propaganda arm that is actually funded by the U.S.
security state and its propaganda arms and EU security state agencies are calling me someone who has been a career-long critic Of those security state agencies, a far right operative or a far right voice.
And of course, Chris Hayes lacks the courage.
Chris Hayes has known me for 15 years to point that out, that that is a preposterous label.
Now, I don't care about these labels, but the point is that this is how they try and discredit people.
They use these labels that they know are signifiers to their audience, that once they put that label on someone, you can just tune them out forever.
You don't have to engage with their reporting.
You don't have to engage in the substance of anything that they say.
So, it's just always bizarre to be called right-wing by people whose mission in life appears to serve the CIA, serve US and NATO wars, proxy wars, and spying by the FBI, and censorship by Homeland Security.
It's just a very odd dynamic that results in that, but this is the kind of thing you see.
What matters here is two things.
One, that NBC and CNN feel so Compelled, like on a kind of morally imperative mission to defend Bellingcat as a great journalistic outlet, even though they're funded by those agencies.
Since when are great journalistic outlets funded by the US government or by EU security state agencies?
But the other part of it is they just don't even need to tell their audience what the criticism is.
So let's look at what the criticism is.
Let's actually look at the facts.
No snickering, no name-calling, no casually, recklessly tossing around political labels to discredit.
Let's just look at the facts of who exactly it is that has made Bellingcat able to function, who gives money to Bellingcat, and who obviously supports the work they do.
So, here from Bellingcat's own website is a section called How to Support Bellingcat.
So if you are inclined to transfer money out of your bank account to theirs, they provide the information for how that can be done.
And you can see here that they say approximately a third of Bellingcat's budget is currently raised from workshop held throughout the year.
And then they say we would also like to express our gratitude to the following organizations for their support.
One of them is Civitas, the other, the European Commission, which is a unit of the EU government, Wellspring Philanthropic Fund, and quote, several organizations who graciously support our work but prefer to remain anonymous.
Shouldn't we know who the funders are of this great journalistic outlet that is constantly being used by major media corporations to shape their narrative?
To the extent we do know who funds them, though, we know that it's the European Commission, and then keep in mind Wellspring Philanthropic Fund and Symmetries, because we're going to show you who they are.
But the most important Part of Bellingcat's funding, both important in terms of how much they get from there and the portion of their budget that is accounted for, but also important in terms of revealing their true function, is that they are funded by the US and the EU governments.
What media outlet could possibly maintain any credibility as a journalistic outlet when they're being funded By major governments on whom they're constantly reporting in a way that just coincidentally, in almost every case, happens to align with the foreign policy agenda of those governments that fund them.
So here you see from their own financial report from 2021, they have a line item here, income from other nonprofit organizations.
And there you see the National Endowment for Democracy.
Which, in terms of the actual 2020 budget and the planned 2020 budget, is the largest single donor, at least listed in these sections.
We're going to show you what the National Endowment for Democracy is, but by its own description, it is funded entirely by the US government.
It answers to the Biden White House and to the Democratic Senate and now the Republican House.
So it is supervised and funded entirely by the U.S.
government.
And its mission, as we're about to show you, from the start, explicitly, was to do the work of the CIA, but to do it with transparency, publicly, because they were concerned that the CIA's reputation was getting contaminated by how secretly they operate.
And the idea was, let's create an agency that will claim is designed to spread democracy throughout the world.
We all know what that means.
Whenever the US government wants to facilitate regime change in another part of the world, remove one government or replace it with a government they like better, they claim that they're doing so to spread democracy.
That was the justification for invading Iraq.
That was the justification for changing the government of Libya.
That was the justification for a covert CIA war in Syria.
All of which Bellingcat supported.
That's the justification for the proxy war in Ukraine.
And every time the US government has facilitated regime change, even when the regime they're taking down was actually a democratically elected government, They call that spreading democracy.
For decades during the Cold War, you can go back and see coups of the United States government engineered, taking down democratically elected governments like they did in Brazil in 1964.
Like they did in Chile, like they did in so many other, in El Salvador, Nicaragua, so many other countries throughout the world.
It's always called promotion of democracy.
All US-sponsored coups are called that.
That's what this National Endowment for Democracy exists to do, is to fund opposition groups in countries that we want to change the government of.
In 2014, when Victoria Nuland led the change of government in Ukraine, the coup in Ukraine, Where the democratically elected president who the U.S.
perceived was too close to Moscow but was actually democratically elected was removed from power as a result of oppositional groups funded by the National Endowment for Democracy and other arms of the U.S.
government that was called promotion of democracy.
Even though it resulted in the democratically elected president being removed from power before his term expired and the installation of a leader That the U.S.
government picked because they knew that that would best serve their interests.
In a recording we've all heard where Victoria Nuland was speaking to the U.S.
ambassador to Ukraine and they were debating who should be the next leader and they picked the leader and that's who got installed.
That's always what promotion of democracy means, going back to the Cold War and still now, is the U.S.
does coups and calls it an advancement of democracy.
That's what the National Endowment for Democracy exists to do.
It's a U.S.
government-funded agency designed to facilitate regime change throughout the world and call it promotion of democracy.
That is Bellingcat's biggest funder, or one of their biggest funders, as demonstrated by their own financial disclosure documents.
So how can anybody possibly believe that the new National Endowment for Democracy is substantially funding some sort of independent journalistic outlet when the whole reason the National Endowment for Democracy exists is to do the CIA's work out in the open?
That's their own description of what their function is and always has been.
So if you're going to go on television and do a segment about Bellingcat and purport to refute the criticisms of them as existing to do PSYOPs, you might want to mention the rather significant fact that it is the National Endowment for Democracy, the CIA-adjacent arm, that provides them with a significant amount of their funding.
You also might want to mention The equally significant fact that the EU also funds Bellingcat.
Here you see item number 17, income from governments.
And the first line item is the European Union.
And the next is the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe.
Please tell me What independent journalistic outlets are funded by the security organizations, the security state agencies of governments around the world, only for those outlets to then go and report, coincidentally, in a way that furthers the foreign policy agenda of that Of that, those governments.
Is there anything more revealing about the function of our corporate media and pro-establishment journal academics like Timothy Snyder than the fact that the journalistic outlet they herald and most revere is one funded by the U.S.
security state?
This shows you how integrated all of these centers of powerful institutions are.
That every journalist should look immediately askance and with great skepticism at Bellingcat because of this funding.
Unless you think that the CIA's mission, or the National Endowment for Democracy's mission, is to just find really good journalists who are there to follow the facts wherever they might lead, even if it undermines US foreign policy goals.
Just because the CIA cares so much, so much about making sure we have an informed citizenry.
If you believe that about the CIA and the National Endowment for Democracy and the European Union, maybe then you would actually believe that Bellingcat is actually a journalistic organization.
But unless you believe that idiotic fairytale that even an 8th grader would instantly find laughable, it would be very difficult To herald this entity as something journalistic.
Or at the very least, when you talk about Bellingcat, in order to defend them, you should be mentioning these obviously relevant facts.
Now, let's take a look at a couple other Bellingcat documents.
Here you see again, funders and partnerships.
This too is from a Bellingcat publication right on their website.
Bellingcat currently receives grants from the following organizations.
The EU.
So, the European Union, on whom they're constantly reporting, on whose words they're constantly reporting, on whose foreign policy they constantly report, is a funder of Bellingcat.
Now, let me ask you a question.
If Bellingcat were frequently reporting facts that undermined, rather than advanced, the foreign policy interest of the EU and the CIA, do you think that these government agencies would be funding Bellingcat?
They would be funding media outlets that are adversarial to them.
To ask the question is to answer it.
In fact, to ask the question is to reveal the utter fraud at the heart of Bellingcat.
Here from the independent media outlet Declassified UK is a comprehensive report on what Bellingcat is.
And they talk about the fact that one of its leading funders is the National Endowment for Democracy, the NED, which funds Bellingcat.
The former CIA official, they quote, said that the National Endowment of Democracy is a, quote, vehicle for U.S.
government propaganda.
The National Endowment for Democracy, which is a big Bellingcat funder, is funded entirely by the U.S.
Congress, or almost entirely, and it has repeatedly plowed millions of dollars into groups that call themselves media outlets.
The New York Times reported And we'll show you this article in 1997 that the National Endowment for Democracy was, quote, created to do in the open what the CIA has surreptitiously done for decades.
This is the arm of the CIA that is explicitly acknowledged and always has been in Washington.
It talks about how the NED has been involved in undermining and removing governments that are too disobedient to Washington, including in Bolivia, Ecuador, and Venezuela.
It quotes former directors of the NED openly admitting that what essentially their goal is to do the same thing as the CIA does, just out in the open.
And it talks about the money that the National Endowment for Democracy gives to Bellingcat, which is something you will find just by looking at Bellingcat's own documents.
Now, back in 2010, the actually independent media outlet ProPublica published an article about the National Endowment for Democracy and noted the propagandistic role that it plays, and the National Endowment for Democracy sent a letter to ProPublica objecting to that characterization.
And in responding to that, the ProPublica, which is a widely, highly regarded media outlet, Said, in response, that they stand behind that characterization.
And this is part of what they said about why they called the National Endowment for Democracy a state propaganda arm.
Quote, in the frequently asked questions on his site, the NED acknowledges its ongoing relationship with lawmakers, saying that its, quote, continued funding is dependent on the continued support of the White House and Congress.
Those who spearheaded the creation of NED have long acknowledged it was part of an effort to move from covert to overt efforts to foster democracy.
President Reagan said in 1983 that, quote, this program will not be hidden in the shadows.
It will stand proudly in the spotlight and that's where it belongs.
Alan Weinstein, a former acting president of the National Endowment for Democracy, and one of the authors of the study that led to its creation, told the Washington Post's David Ignatius, who I often refer to as the Washington Post CIA spokesman, David Ignatius, in a 1991 interview that, quote, a lot of what we do was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA.
The biggest difference is that when such activities are done overtly, the flat potential is close to zero.
Openness is its own protection.
In other words, as I said, they had a problem with the CIA, the US government did, which is because everything they were doing was in secret, much of it was contaminated, and they needed a way to prettify it, to make it appear more noble, and so they created an agency, the National Endowment for Democracy, whose only goal is to promote CIA's agenda, but to do so in a way that seems more open.
And it's that agency that exists solely to promote the agenda of the CIA by their own explanation, their own self-description, that is a major funding of Bellingcat.
Why?
Why would they be funding an independent journalistic entity?
They don't.
It's preposterous.
They fund outlets, exactly as Elon Musk said, that are designed to disseminate psyops, psychological operations and propaganda campaigns and perception management on behalf of the U.S.
security state.
Here is an article from the New York Times on the National Endowment for Democracy from 1997 and it says here, quote, this is how the New York Times always talked about this entity, quote, Congress routinely appropriates tens of millions of dollars in covert and overt money to use in influencing domestic politics abroad.
The National Endowment for Democracy, created 15 years ago to do in the open what the CIA has done surreptitiously for decades, spends $30 million a year to support things like political parties, labor unions, dissident movements, and the news media in dozens of countries, including China.
They're not doing that because they want to help other countries be more democratic.
They're doing that to influence those other countries and the domestic politics in them to make them more aligned with the US government.
It's absurd that I even have to explain this.
And yet, Bellingcat, if you point out that the National Endowment for Democracy is an arm of the CIA and an arm of the US government, have convinced its followers that this is nothing more than Russian propaganda.
Every single fact That Democrats and corporate media employees like Chris Hayes dislike is instantly labeled Russian disinformation or far-right, automatically.
So what has been true and stated openly by the NED and by the media for 20 years, 30 years, that the NED exists to promote the agenda of the CIA, if you say that now you'll be accused of spreading Russian disinformation.
It reminds me a lot of how for 10 years, the last 10 years, every major Western media outlet has warned that the Azov Battalion is the most significant fighting force in Ukraine, and unfortunately, and quite dangerously, they happen to be Nazis.
They happen to embrace an overt neo-Nazi ideology.
You can find articles in Time Magazine and The Guardian and USA Today and every major media outlet, The New York Times, Before the war in Ukraine, saying that the Azov Battalion is a overt neo-Nazi organization.
But then, once the war in Ukraine happened, and it came time to arm and fund that group, suddenly it became Russian propaganda overnight to point out what the media had been saying for years.
In exactly the same way that in the CIA war under Obama to overthrow Bashar al-Assad in Syria, It was just simply true that the US was aligned with Al-Qaeda and even ISIS, was fighting on the same side as Al-Qaeda and even ISIS.
And yet, if you point that out, you get accused of being someone disseminating Russian disinformation, even though it is dispositively true.
And Syria, which was the number one foreign policy goal of the CIA over the last decade, That Trump's opposition to that regime change operation in Syria, which he enunciated in 2015, was one of the major reasons the CIA was so devoted to destroying the Trump campaign.
Because he was an explicit opponent of their number one foreign policy goal, which was to overthrow Bashar al-Assad.
Bellingcat first became a known entity, first came to the public spotlight as a result of their independent investigations That constantly supported the CIA's accusations against the government of Arshad Assad that they were using chemical weapons.
In every instance, Bellingcat was on the side of the CIA.
They've done the same thing in Ukraine.
That's what they exist to do, exactly as Elon Musk said.
That's why they're funded by these organizations.
Now, Here is a 2021 document from Bellingcat in which they show who their partners are.
And there you see one of the partners is the OCCRP.
Another one is the BBC.
I'm going to talk about these in a second.
I just want you to make note of these for the moment.
Here is Other partners as well.
And you can see there that two of their partners, Bellingcat's partners, are CNN.
Take a look in here.
There's CNN.
And NBC.
So these are partners of Bellingcat.
And it is, I think, quite extraordinary, just independent of everything else I've talked about.
That we just watched a CNN personality, Jake Tapper, rise in defense of Bellingcat on Twitter, herald them as a wonderful journalistic outlet.
We watched part of the segment that NBC's Chris Hayes did, where he invited on a Bellingcat operative to sit in agreement with him about how great Bellingcat is.
And to my knowledge, none of these networks ever disclosed this partnership they have with Bellingcat while defending Bellingcat.
I know for certain that in that entire segment that Chris Hayes did, never once did he say, oh, by the way, you may want to know that my corporate employer, NBC, is an official partner of Bellingcat.
There are CNN segments.
I can't say that every CNN segment that talked about Bellingcat failed to disclose this, but the ones we found also have no disclosure of any kind, nor do CNN's employees defending Bellingcat over social media.
This is just all something they ignore.
A kind of relevant fact when these news outlets are defending Bellingcat.
Here is some more connections of Bellingcat.
Here are what they call Bellingcat supporters.
And there you see the flag of the EU, because it's absolutely true that the EU is a supporter of Bellingcat, as is right here, the National Endowment for Democracy, which again, according to its own description, exists to promote the agenda of the CIA.
This is who's behind Bellingcat.
This is why they skyrocketed to notoriety.
This is why so many pro-establishment operatives and propagandists are so vested in defending them.
Because this is what they exist to do.
This is whose agenda they are devoted to promoting.
Whatever they are, it is not journalistic.
Here, is one of their partners, the OCCRP.
And I think what's really important here is that when you look at who funds Bellingcat directly, by looking at their financial disclosures, as we just did, you will find that they get money directly from the National Endowment for Democracy and the EU.
And people often say, well, those aren't very big amounts.
But the reality of what happens is that so much of this money is laundered By the US government and the EU government giving money to Bellingcat sponsors which then pass on that money to Bellingcat.
So if you look at Bellingcat's financial statements you will see direct government money from the EU and the US but what you don't see is how much indirect money they get from the US and the EU.
Through their sponsors, such as the OCCRP.
So here's the OCCRP is the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project.
Here you see their financial statements.
In 2020, their biggest donor by far, in fact, half or more than half of their budget came from the US government.
$5 million in 2020.
And that's a budget, a total budget of $8 million.
So it's actually around 70% of their budget came from the US government.
So they passed on money as well to Bell and Cat.
That's one of Bellingcat's sponsors.
This is how this works.
It's the same web of money, the same people constantly funding these entities, the same billionaires, Bill Gates, Pierre Midiar, George Soros, and the same governments laundering this money through all of these different networks that have benign sounding names like the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project.
Who could be opposed to that?
When in reality, what they exist to do is to promote the agenda of these governments by labeling government critics Russian agents, by constantly inventing propaganda to promote foreign policy agencies, and by laundering all this money around.
Now, let's look at Another document from this OCCRP, which is a sponsor of Bellingcat.
Here they have a page titled, Who Supports Our Work?
And what do we find here?
More Western governments pouring their money into a Bellingcat partner, the Slovak Agency for International Development Cooperation, the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency, and the United Kingdom's Foreign Commonwealth and Development Office.
Do you think these entities here are funding independent organizations that are willing to be adversarial to their foreign policy agenda if the facts lead them there?
Or do you think these governments are funding exactly those entities they know exist to propagandize on behalf of their agenda?
Here is the second page of this entity's funding, and here we have, unsurprisingly, the U.S.
Department of State.
And the U.S.
Agency for International Development, as well as the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark, and again, the National Endowment for Democracy, as well as George Soros' Open Societies Foundation.
So this OCCRP is funded by the U.S.
State Department, by the U.S.
Security State, by numerous Western security agencies, as well as by George Soros.
And this too is a sponsor of Bellingcat.
It's just money laundered all over the place by the same sources for the same reasons.
Here is another list of Bellingcat sponsors.
And it's not just that George Soros is a sponsor of Bellingcat indirectly, though he is.
He's also a direct sponsor of Bellingcat.
There you see the Open Society's foundations.
Always, whenever these outfits emerge, you find the fingerprints of George Soros.
Now, one of their partners is the Wellspring Philanthropic Fund.
This is another sponsor or funder of Bellingcat.
We showed you the financial disclosure where they list the Wellspring Philanthropic Fund.
What is that?
According to Influence Watch, and we verified these facts independently, quote, the Wellspring Philanthropic Fund, formerly known as the Motten-Bedsetter Foundation, was created in 2001 as part of an elaborate and secretive network of grant-making organizations funded by three hedge fund billionaires, Andrew Schechtel, David Gelbaum, and C. Frederick Taylor.
So, there's all kinds of this kind of money floating around too that ends up in Bellingcat.
Now, one of the partners of Bellingcat is the Center for American Progress.
Or rather, let me withdraw that.
The Center for American Progress, if you look at their funding, and the Center for American Progress is, of course, the biggest Democratic Party think tank, the biggest neoliberal think tank.
In Washington, it was founded and run for years by John Podesta, the campaign manager for Hillary Clinton.
It was then run by Neera Tanden, who has now replaced Susan Rice in the Biden White House as the chief domestic policy advisor.
And if you look at who funds The Center for American Progress, you see entities like Bloomberg, the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, which is Mark Zuckerberg and his wife, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and also Wellspring Philanthropic Fund.
So they're funding the largest Democratic Party think tank in Washington, as well as Bellingcat, because this money just floats around from all the same sources here.
is a couple more Center for American Progress funders, including Microsoft Corporation, of course, the Open Society Foundation.
You have the Omidyar Network Fund, so Pierre Omidyar's money is there, as well as the Walton Family Corporation.
Again, Bill Gates, Pierre Omidyar, George Soros, always their money is appearing wherever these things are found.
If you were going to do a segment like this, inviting this little Bellingcat operative onto your show, who happens to be a doppelganger of the host, for reasons that I guess are coincidental, and you want to put on this cry around Elon Musk fueling far-right conspiracy theories about Bellingcat, and mention me as a far-right conspiracy theorist who Elon Musk is,
Relying upon?
Let me just ask you to compare this segment completely bereft of any substantive information, refusing to even acknowledge, let alone confront, all the facts I just showed you to the way that we do reporting, which is to lay out all the facts for you so that you can make decisions about what you think about Bellingcat.
I don't conceal the other side of the story.
I showed you their defense.
I showed you other defenses of them, but then I showed you the facts about who's behind Bellingcat and what those sponsors and funders exist to do.
And when you actually do that, when you actually respect your audience enough to share with them both sides of the story and to walk them through the actual reporting that you've done, not using
Bizarre sources that just appeared in the last five years and that are funded by weird government agencies, but often using Bellingcat's own documents and the documents of their funders to trace where the money goes to and why these outlets exist and what they fund outlets like Bellingcat for, the facts become extremely self-evident, very manifest.
And so there is a good reason why CNN and NBC are so eager To Harold Bellingcat.
There's a reason why U.S.
security state propagandists like Professor Timothy Snyder become so indignant whenever anyone criticizes them.
There's a reason that Western centers of power are so desperate to criticize any effort to bring transparency to Bellingcat.
It's because they have become, arguably, the single most valuable and influential propaganda arm Of the CIA, the U.S.
Security State, and Western intelligence agencies on behalf of their foreign policy agenda.
And to know that, you should not listen to me and my claims, or Elon Musk and his, or these two, and theirs, this Chris Hayes and this Bellingcat person.
You should look at the facts.
They won't show you those facts.
We just did.
And I think that the picture that emerges is crystal clear and no longer even needs my commentary.
So speaking of propaganda and how Western intelligence agencies deceive the public systematically, there was a drone strike just recently in Syria that we were told was a great success.
We were told that we should give great credit to President Biden because this drone strike in Syria took out a senior Al Qaeda leader.
Remember Al Qaeda?
We still hate Al Qaeda.
We're still told for some reason they're a danger to the United States, even though I don't remember the last attack carried out by Al-Qaeda on U.S.
soil.
It's been a while.
But let's assume Al-Qaeda is still this grave threat.
We're all supposed to hate them.
We're all supposed to applaud whenever we kill someone said to be an Al-Qaeda, even though they just get replaced the next day and nothing changes, other than the need to replace those missiles we use to kill people.
I still don't understand why we're even in Syria.
There's no war in Syria that we're involved in and yet we still have troops stationed in Syria.
We're still bombing Syria.
Of course, no congressional authorization.
There was recently an attempt by Congressman Matt Gaetz.
With his sector of the Republican Party that in this one instance was joined by some of the progressives in the Democratic Party to deauthorize the use of troops in Syria because I don't think anyone can ask the question why we're bombing there, why we're occupying Syria still.
And it overwhelmingly failed because, as usual, the establishment wings of the Democratic and Republican Party united to keep those troops there the way Joe Biden and the CIA and the Pentagon want to.
But as part of that weird, unexplained, unauthorized military campaign, we recently killed somebody and we were told, as you can see here from Reuters on May 3rd, 2023, The U.S.
strikes target senior al-Qaeda leader in northwest Syria.
So this is the claim from the media all over the place, that we took out a senior leader of al-Qaeda and everybody was happy.
It turns out, and credit to the Washington Post for noting it, although it was the Pentagon that came to them and told them because it was about to be exposed, That as you see in their tweet, breaking news, U.S.
military officials are walking back claims that a strike in Syria killed the senior al-Qaeda figure, following claims by the dead man's family that he had no ties to terrorists but was tending to sheep when he was slain by the missile.
U.S.
officials walk back claim drone strike killed senior al-Qaeda leaders, terrorism experts, and the dead man's family have cast doubt on the Pentagon statement indicating the operation targeted A high-ranking militant in Syria and the article goes on to explain that this guy was a father of 10, that he has spent his whole life in poverty, they interviewed neighbors saying that he's always lived a very quiet life, that he was a bricklayer for a long time and now he tends to sheep and he was just had his life exterminated.
And the U.S.
government announced that it was a senior Al-Qaeda official.
The media mindlessly reported that.
Now, this has been going on for many years.
This is a critical way that the U.S.
government lies on behalf of military operations conducted by the United States.
And it shows you how casually and willingly these new corporate media outlets are willing to lie, how casually and easily And eagerly they will write down whatever they're told to say by their sources in the U.S.
security state.
I'm sure you remember the horrific, the genuinely horrific drone strike that President Biden ordered on our way out of Afghanistan that exterminated a family of 10 people, all completely innocent, no connections whatsoever to al-Qaeda or ISIS.
At the time though we were told the exact opposite.
That the drone strike actually killed a critical ISIS planner, one of the people who planned the suicide attack on the airport in Kabul days earlier that killed dozens of people, including U.S.
soldiers.
So here you see from the BBC on August 28, 2021, the exciting news, Afghanistan, U.S.
says drone strike killed an ISIS planner.
Here on the same date, NBC News, Two high-profile ISIS targets killed in US drone strike in Afghanistan, Pentagon says.
This strike was not the last, President Biden said.
We will continue to hunt down any person in that heinous attack and make them pay.
So the Pentagon invented a lie that they had taken out a major participant in the suicide bombing at the Kabul airport.
They disseminated this lie to the media outlets that are their allies and propaganda arms and these media outlets went and mindlessly circulated that claim.
Now again, it was the New York Times, credit to them, that actually, in this case, did a real investigation.
This is one of the instances where I have to say that very good journalism was done to uncover the truth.
That instead, there you see the article from January 19, 2022, newly declassified video shows U.S.
killing of 10 civilians in drone strikes.
Quote, the New York Times obtained footage of the bot strike in Kabul whose victims included seven children through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit.
Let's move this.
Screen to that article.
Newly declassified surveillance footage provides additional insights about the final minutes and aftermath of a botched U.S.
drone strike last year in Kabul, Afghanistan, showing how the military made a life-or-death decision based on imagery that was fuzzy, hard to interpret in real time, and prone to confirmation bias.
The strike on August 29th killed 10 innocent people, including seven children, in a tragic blunder that punctuated the end of the 20-year war in Afghanistan.
So I don't blame the media for not immediately knowing that the identity of the victims were not actually ISIS planters, instead were innocent people.
I understand why it takes time to investigate the lives of the US government.
I've done it many times.
It's hard work.
But what I definitely do not understand, or at least vehemently disagree with, is their willingness, even when they have no idea who was killed in these strikes, To just repeat the claims of the Pentagon or the U.S.
government that the people we killed were all terrorists, that they were all militants.
And this is a practice that has been going on for two decades now.
I've written about it constantly.
That the U.S.
media always writes down and publishes whatever the U.S.
security state tells them to say.
And so many times it turns out to be a lie because the U.S.
media has no idea whether what they're reporting It's true or not, they don't care.
All they know is the government told this to them, and that's enough for them to treat it as the truth.
And that's one of the major reasons why the most toxic and destructive disseminators of disinformation in the United States are the very media outlets that proclaim to protect you from disinformation.
Probably a lot of you have forgotten that in 2012, President Obama, who was harshly criticized for killing huge numbers of innocent people constantly with the drone bombings that he and John Brennan loved.
John Brennan, who originally was a senior advisor to his and then became the CIA director, he loved, both Obama and John Brennan, loved drone strikes.
They radically escalated them from their use under George Bush and Dick Cheney.
And in doing so, they constantly were killing innocent people.
And yet the media would always do the same thing, as they got caught doing in this case in Syria and in Afghanistan.
They would always announce President Obama's drone strike.
Thankfully, took out senior Al-Qaeda leaders.
Al-Qaeda never changed, but we always were killing the number three Al-Qaeda leader.
It was always the number three leader.
Every single time.
My colleague at The Intercept, Jeremy Scahill, got a hold of what we called the drone papers at The Intercept.
And was able to demonstrate through those papers that in 90% of the cases where President Obama was killing people through his drones, where John Brennan was killing people through his drones, the US government had no idea of the identity of the people they killed.
And yet they were constantly claiming that they were all terrorists and militants, even though, in reality, the U.S.
government had no idea who they were killing, and therefore, of course, the media that was repeating those claims also had no idea.
The U.S.
media, for years under President Obama, constantly printed claims that they had no conceivable way of knowing if they were true.
They presented them as truth.
And so President Obama, very tired of the criticisms he was getting, he actually said in an interview late last year that I was one of the people who he felt was unfair to him because I was constantly attacking his civil liberties assault and his use of drones.
He felt that criticism.
I know for sure because I knew at the time that he did and he resented it, but he just said in an interview explicitly last year, we'll find that for you one time, that Me in particular is somebody who he thought was harshly criticizing him in unfair ways.
And so what the Obama administration did was they redefined the meaning of the word militant so that automatically, more or less, anybody that they killed by this new bureaucratic definition of the word militant could be said to be a militant or a terrorist, truthfully, and then the media outlets would go and ratify those claims.
Here is an article by Conor Friedersdorf in The Atlantic in 2012.
This is the second night in a row I'm touting an article by him.
I touted the one yesterday that he published in Newsweek about how establishment dissidents are called crazy.
Here he is talking about the reporting, you see the headline there, under Obama, men killed by drones are presumed to be terrorists.
And here is his article which is actually based on reporting of the New York Times after interviewing John Brennan.
Quote, After interviewing dozens of current and former White House advisors, the New York Times breaks a lot of news in its story of President Obama's secret kill list.
Perhaps none of it more jaw-dropping than new details describing how the U.S.
now calculates the number of innocents killed by our drones.
What innovative method did our Nobel Peace Prize winning president implement?
Quote, it in effect counts all military-age males in strike zones as combatants, according to several administration officials, unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving the menace, the newspaper reports.
Quote, counter-terrorism officials insist this approach is one of simple logic.
People in an area of known terrorist activity are found with a Topkaida operative are probably up to no good.
For those tracing Obama's career arc, we've gone from his insistence as a U.S.
Senator that it would be unjust to try to accuse terrorists in a military tribunal with an attorney to his judgment as President that if one member of Al Qaeda is someplace, every guy in vague physical proximity automatically meets the convenient, quote, innocent until probably up to no good standard.
President Obama really did redefine what the word militant or combatant meant to mean anyone between the ages of 18 and 54 who was a male in places we bomb.
And as a result, the media outlets spent years, the corporate media outlets loyal to him, telling you that every person we killed practically in a drone strike was innocent unless we could prove, was guilty rather, and was a militant and a terrorist unless proven otherwise.
And that's the mentality that led to them just automatically announcing that Biden's drone strike in Syria took out an al-Qaeda operative, that drove Biden's drone strike in Afghanistan that killed 10 innocent people, in fact took out a senior ISIS planter.
Whatever the government claims is what appears in the corporate media as truth.
That is their core propaganda tactic.
It's the reason why they deceive us so much.
Now, as I said, I've been writing about this for many years now, this media practice.
Here is an Intercept article from November 18, 2011, that I wrote with the title, Media Outlets Drone Victims, on media outlets that continue to describe unknown drone victims as militants.
And there you see in the sub-headline, it has been more than two years since the New York Times revealed that, quote, Mr. Obama embraced a disputed method for counting civilian casualties of his drone strikes, which, quote, in effect count all military age males in a strike zone as combatants.
Yet US media outlets continue to use the term.
And then here's the article.
Quote, it has been more than two years since the New York Times revealed that Mr. Obama embraced this disputed method.
And there you see the method that, in effect, it counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent.
That was the exact redefinition that Obama imposed.
We can move to the next screen.
Quote, the paper noted that this counting method may partly explain the official claims of extraordinarily low collateral death, and even quoted CIA officials as deeply, quote, troubled by this decision.
One called it, quote, guilt by association that has led to deceptive estimates of civilian casualties.
Quote, it bothers me when they say there were seven guys, so they must all be militants.
They count the corpses, and they're not even really sure who they are.
But what bothered even some intelligence officials at the agency carrying out the strikes, the CIA, seemed of no concern whatsoever to most major media outlets.
As they documented days after the Times article, most large Western media outlets continued to describe completely unknown victims of U.S.
drone attacks as, quote, militants.
Even though they A. had no idea who those victims were or what they had done, and B. were well aware by that point that the term had been redefined by the Obama administration into Alice in Wonderland nonsense.
Like the U.S.
drone program itself, this deceitful media practice continues unabated.
Quote, drone strike kills at least four suspected militants in Northwest Pakistan, a Reuters headline asserted last week.
The headline chosen by ABC News, publishing an AP report, was even more definitive.
Quote, US drone in Northwest Pakistan kills six militants.
In July, the Wall Street Journal's headline claimed, quote, U.S.
drone strike kills five militants in Pakistan's north Waziristan.
Sometimes they will turn over their headlines to, quote, officials, as this AP report did from July, quote, officials, U.S.
drone kills seven militants in Pakistan.
There's simply no doubt that the U.S.
media outlets have continuously and repeatedly and falsely described innocent civilians killed by U.S.
drone strikes as, quote, militants.
Just last month, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism documented that, quote, fewer than 4% of the people killed have been identified by available records as named members of Al Qaeda, directly contrary to, quote, John Kerry's claim last year that only confirmed terrorist targets at the highest levels were fired at.
All of this has achieved the desired effect.
Anytime you discuss U.S.
drone attacks, you inevitably will be told that the U.S.
government is only killing, quote, terrorists and militants, even though the people making that claim have absolutely no idea who the government is actually killing.
Now, I raise this because of this recent example In Syria that's so horrifying just like the recent one in Afghanistan where you can catch red-handed these corporate media outlets lying to you on behalf of the Biden administration or before that the Obama administration.
Declaring everyone they killed to be militants, terrorists, or combatants, even though they have no idea it's true.
It's just casual lying.
Printing things without the slightest idea of whether or not they're true, but doing so because it serves the agenda of the U.S.
security state, the entity to which media outlets in the United States have their greatest loyalty.
Now, there's a seemingly different incident that just happened, but it illustrates very much the same thing, namely that media outlets are willing to print or claim anything as long as it promotes the political agenda to which they're most loyal.
There was a video that surfaced just last week, or actually earlier this week, out of nowhere.
It was a completely decontextualized video.
I think we have that video.
Can we pull up that video?
Okay, so we don't have the video.
You probably have seen it.
It went very viral.
If you look at it, it appears to be a woman who turns out to have been six months pregnant and is a nurse outside of a hospital.
She's wearing nurse's uniform, scrub gear.
And she walked up to a bicycle that she claimed was one that she had rented, and there were two black men who also were claiming the bicycle was theirs, trying to take it, and they got into a disagreement, into an argument, and she started crying in a way that I will say, looking at the video, appeared theatrical, appeared to be somewhat fabricated.
But nobody had any idea what actually happened here.
No one had the context for what took place.
No one went and interviewed witnesses.
It was just a one minute snippet of a cell phone video that appeared on the internet.
And yet media outlets went wild making all kinds of claims about what they believed happened that promoted their view of the world about race, even though they had no idea whether it's true.
So here is a Business Insider article from May 18, 2023.
And there you see the headline, a white New York City hospital staffer is on leave and under review after video appeared to show her trying to take a rental bike from a black man.
The article reads, and it's by Natalie Musemi, quote, New York City's public hospital system on Tuesday ripped a now viral video appearing to show one of its white employees making a dramatic scene in Manhattan as she appears to try to take a rental bicycle from a young black man as, quote, disturbing, and said that the health care provider is currently, quote, out on leave.
Quote, we are aware of the video involving a health care provider off duty and away from the hospital campus.
The incident in the video is disturbing.
A spokesperson for New York City Health and Hospitals told Insider in a statement.
The spokesperson added, quote, The provider is currently out on leave and will remain on leave pending review.
As a health system, we are committed to providing an environment for our patients and staff that is free of discrimination of any kind.
Now again, I will acknowledge that when I watched the video, That was the perception I had as well.
She seemed to be the aggressor.
Her emotions of being fearful seemed both manufactured to me and baseless, given that the black man with whom she was arguing in the video had done nothing aggressive, let alone violent to her.
But I know better, especially if I'm reporting to be a journalist telling a story, that you cannot take decontextualized videos from the internet and assume you know the whole story by looking at them.
They can be cut and edited in all sorts of ways that can be deeply deceitful and misleading, either because someone's being careless or purposely deceitful in pursuit of an agenda.
You just, if you don't know not to go around Claiming to do reporting, let alone attaching a racism label to someone's forehead in a way that viralizes all over the internet and destroys her life forever, leading to her being placed on leave, based solely on a snippet of a video that you know nothing about, then you know nothing about journalism.
And yet that is exactly what happened.
Here is that same reporter in On May 16th, just last week, and there you see the title of her article, a viral video appears to show a white woman trying to take a bike from a young black man, sparking outrage over racism and quote, weaponized tears.
And yet, that was the story on May 16th.
And now if we can go to the next graphic, it's from the same reporter on May 18th.
There you see the article, receipts show the white hospital worker accused in viral video of trying to steal a black man's rental bike, in fact paid for it herself, lawyer says.
So at the very least, this incident is deeply contested.
The lawyer for the woman claims that she has the receipts proving that that bicycle in fact was hers, that she had rented it.
Who knows why the person with whom she was arguing was trying to take it.
Maybe there was a bureaucratic snafu and he also paid for the same bike.
Maybe he was confused about which bike he paid for.
Maybe she was confused about which bike she paid for.
There's no way to know from these videos, and yet, they ran to the narrative that they most love, imposed a racism angle on it, spread this woman's name all over the internet forever, even though they had no idea what happened, by choosing the narrative that most aligns with their worldview, It may end up being true, or it may end up being completely untrue.
Just like with the people the United States government kills in drone strikes, we have no idea.
What is true and what's not?
And yet, these journalistic outlets are willing to say anything.
This has happened over and over.
Here you see from The Guardian on September 30th, 2022, Brigham Young is hit by fresh allegations of racist abuse from crowd at an athletic event.
The article said, quote, Fresh allegations of racist slurs being used at a BYU athletic event have emerged a month after similar claims involving the Duke volleyball team.
Five women soccer players from a visiting team told The Guardian they heard the n-word being directed at them and their teammates from the crowd during a game at BYU in 2021.
Players had knelt for the national anthem to protest racial and social injustice when they say they heard shouts from the crowd.
As a result, in NPR, you see there on the screen that BYU apologizes for a ban ban, saying it found no proof they yelled racial slurs.
In other words, it turned out, it seems, that this did not actually happen.
Quote, BYU has apologized to a fan it banned for allegedly shouting racial slurs at black volleyball players visiting from Duke University, saying the school's investigations found no proof of racial heckling or slurs.
The school had previously said it had not turned up any proof of the fan's guilt.
Responding to BYU's latest announcement, Duke's talk athletic official says she stands by her players.
Now all of this has a common thread starting all the way back at the beginning of the show when we delved into who funds Bellingcat and what it is that they do in response and in return for that funding to the media's willingness to simply assert things without having the slightest idea that it's true as long as it serves the agenda of their sources in the U.S.
security state or the prevailing political agenda of the day.
There is a reason, a very good reason, Why public trust in media institutions has collapsed.
Why it's at an all-time low.
Why we're headed to single digits of the percentage of people who say that they believe that what they read in the newspaper or hear on television news is actually true rather than the byproduct of a political agenda.
It is a major crisis in the United States and in the West generally that our biggest news outlets have been converted into barely disguised propaganda arms for the most powerful institutions in the West.
I continue to emphasize how amazing it is because there are probably a lot of you too young to realize how aberrational it is to turn on NBC News and CNN and see entire panels filled with former leaders of the CIA, the NSA, the Department of Justice, the FBI, Homeland Security, who are employed now by these news outlets and whose worldview dominates how they tell you the news.
Chris Hayes and his guests were labeling me a far-right propagandist, even though Chris Hayes goes to work every day with the former director of the CIA, John Brennan, who killed huge numbers of people with drones and then lied about it continuously to the public, and who calls, as his honored colleague, the former spokesperson for the Bush-Cheney White House during the World War on Terror, Nicole Wallace.
And who invites on to his show and he preys on somebody who is employed by a group that is funded by the public arm of the CIA and various US intelligence agencies inside the EU government.
These are the people who are constantly disseminating propaganda.
And even though people may not know the particulars, the ones we just walked you through, people have rightly perceived that they're constantly being deceived and manipulated and propagandized and lied to on purpose by our nation's most powerful media outlets, the ones that constantly tell you they're the guardians against disinformation and who need the power of censorship to ensure you're being told the truth.
You dig into all these groups, the anti-disinformation groups, the pro-censorship groups, The organizations that feed these media outlets, what they then go forth and tell you, and they're always funded by the same people, there is a censorship industrial complex, a disinformation industrial complex, of which Bellingcat is a crucial part and that uses the tactics we just walked you through of how willing media outlets are to lie.
Bellingcat is an illustrative example, one of the most important because of the success they've had and the way that they are held up But they are only just that, illustrative.
There is nothing aberrational about them.
They represent the true function of U.S.
media outlets and the way in which our governments propagandize us.
And I think Bellingcat is an important test case to understand how this works, who is behind it, and for what purposes this is all being applied.
So that concludes our show for this evening and for this week.
As always, we are very appreciative for those of you who have been watching.
If you want to have access to the live interactive after show that we do on our Locals platform every Tuesday and Thursday night following the live show here, simply join our Locals community where you also have access to the written transcripts, full written transcripts for each show that we publish the day after, as well as written journalism that we publish there as well.
We also, as a reminder, are available on podcast form.
Just follow us on Apple, Spotify, or any other major podcasting platform where you can hear our show 12 hours after it first airs live here on Rumble.
Thank you so much for watching.
We hope to see you back Monday night and every night at 7 p.m.
