There's no doubt that current events are providing an opportunity to study how blindly people follow orders, even illegal or unethical orders, like they did in the original experiment carried out by Stanley Milgram, and this can be studied at any time in history; there were also many related studies like the Stanford Prison Experiment which also studied how to control people. I went into this more in Philip Zimbardo, Lucifer Effect, Stanford Prison Experiment and Eli Roth's Milgram/Obedience experiment much more extensive than most people realize which explain that not only do these experiments teach how to avoid blindly obeying order to those that study them, but they can also be used to teach how to indoctrinate people, especially veterans in boot camp, to blindly obey orders, and this is far more common, although the media declines to report on it.
The claim that academics, activists or other people continue to study blind obedience to authority isn't a conspiracy theory, they often write about it in academic journals, and although there isn't nearly as much effort to teach people not to blindly trust authority figures as we need, there are many documented efforts to do this, like Mike Prysner's recent efforts, along with his wife, Abby Martin, and other peace activists, to encourage active duty veterans to apply for conscientious objector status, which an increasing number of people have done since the Iran War began, although there are few if any known cases where active duty soldiers refused to obey illegal orders. To the best of my knowledge the military may have avoided drawing attention to this by declining to call up soldiers applying for conscientious objector status, possibly because it would be a public relations disaster showing how unpopular the war is.
If peace activists, or other people with other goals, want to advance their goals more effectively, for better or worse, it will help to study these research efforts and their characteristics. Unfortunately I suspect those manipulating the public are doing this far more effectively, although they don't disclose it publicly. In most cases there's no hard evidence showing they do this, although there may be occasional leaks, but there's an enormous amount of circumstantial evidence if you know what to look for, since the way they manipulate people is partly public, like repeating talking points over and over again, which obviously looks planned, or only allowing those supporting the establishment agenda appear on mainstream media.
If, on the other hand, I were to say that the establishment were intentionally staging events for the sake of an "Obedience to Authority" experiment, or some other bizarre motive, that would be a conspiracy theory, and probably a huge one which would require a massive and bizarre motive, and, as the saying goes it would help if I had Extraordinary [and hard] Evidence to prove Extraordinary Claims, which for the most part I don't have. However, if you look close enough there might be a lot of indirect or circumstantial evidence showing that we shouldn't completely rule this possibility out, and that there is something extremely bizarre and idiotic going on.
However, since such a conspiracy theory would, of course, be hard to prove and few people would believe it, even if the evidence to support it was stronger, it's far more rational to focus mainly on what we can be sure of and what has stronger evidence, which I'll do before addressing a few details of a far-fetched conspiracy theory. Furthermore, if the far-fetched version were true, then it would have to account for the things we can be sure of, so it's important to cover that first, then if theories get more complicated we can start with basics we can be sure of.
Even with the more believable theory that they're not using this research for a bizarre experiment to research obedience in an extreme scenario, or other similar, possibly apocalyptic scenarios, there's no doubt that many academics use this research to accomplish their goals, for better or worse, and there are many cases where it may be for worse. Even Google AI agrees with this. I asked Google AI a question about if propagandists study how to manipulate the public and it admitted that they do and they often try to get their views across gradually, since the research shows this is more effective; Google AI also admitted that marketers and political organizations use this research to advance their causes, honestly or not. Google AI also claims that the military tries to train their cadets NOT to blindly obey orders; however, as I explained in my previous articles about this, I find this hard to believe and think the evidence supports the opposite conclusion. Google AI often repeats the claims of so-called establishment sources, or "authority sources," which may mean that it's often programmed to repeat establishment claims, even when there's evidence to show establishment claims are false. In other words Artificial Intelligence can be programmed to be as obedient to authority if not more obedient than people, which is why it may be helpful sometimes, but has to be fact checked.
As the reply from Google AI says propagandists often use the "foot in the door" method, which is recognized by many researchers, including Philip Zimbardo, to convince people to support undesirable activities, like wars based on lies, or convincing them to buy something they don't need or oppose, and convince them to take small steps toward the goals of propagandists. If you look at one war after another and the media coverage that precedes them, you'll find a massive amount of propaganda rapidly changing to demonize the alleged enemy, some activists notice that this changes suddenly and it often contradicts previous reporting on the alleged enemy which is often a former ally, and tries to warn the public about it, but they're shut out of mainstream media and relegated to the internet or other forms of alternative media that can't reach nearly as many people. In many cases opponents of wars based on lies are demonized like Scott Ritter and Mohamed ElBaradei who were both ridiculed and prevented from getting any more media time before the Gulf War in 2003, or Phil Donahue who was fired after it was clear he opposed the war. This is often tracked in alternative media; but mainstream media acts as if this never happened and former employees go down the memory hole.
Despite bias from Artificial Intelligence, AI often does a much better job covering many subjects, including this, than the mainstream media if you ask the right questions, if only because they actually provide an answer and seek out sources, even going to lower profile media outlets if mainstream media totally ignores many important subjects. I asked Google AI several questions about this subject including how often mainstream media invites anti-war protesters to appear compared to how often they invite military people or war supporters, how many journalists have been killed in Gaza and if mainstream media covers it adequately, a follow up question about how often they invite specific activists, another follow up question about who the best pundits speaking against war that the media actually does cover, and a question about reporters who were fired for opposing wars or Israel's oppressive activities including Apartheid and genocide, and provided full answers to replies below, and Google AI made numerous admission of major bias by mainstream media, although in some cases it's even worse than Google AI admits to, and there's at least a couple major blunders by Google AI. I also asked Google AI about the most popular antiwar protesters, but it only listed war protesters from decades ago like Martin Luther King Jr., Muhammad Ali, Desmond Tutu and several others that have all been dead for decades or even centuries; when I added the phrase "current antiwar protesters" the only well know protester it named was Media Benjamin, who is a good activist, but there are many more than that which Google AI didn't mention, but others familiar with the subject would know, which is why I followed up with a list of several protesters or activists, before getting a reasonably good reply, but if you think carefully, even these replies, which are much better than anything MSM says, don't go far enough.
Google AI clearly admitted there's a strong bias in favor of pro-war pundits and military experts, but it may be even more extreme than it admits. They cited a Wikipedia article to admit that 64% of guests were in favor of the Iraq War while only 10% opposed it, but they didn't specify who the opponents were, how strongly they opposed it, or how well informed they are. The follow up questions clearly show the opponents they do cover aren't the best informed at all, and they may not make as good arguments as better informed activists not welcome on the media. Google AI did admit, at another time that the ratio of guests that are pro-war outnumber those that are anti-war 25 to 1, and, once again, those that are anti-war on mainstream media probably aren't the best informed people making the best case. Google AI also admitted that they don't provide much coverage of war protests, and it's worse than they admit, although they do admit they report that protests happen, especially if it includes veterans, but don't give them air time to explain their views.
Google AI also admitted that there have been well over two hundred journalists killed by Israel in Gaza and that they banned traditional mainstream media from entering and covering activities in Gaza, and often other areas they control. Very few of the sources Google AI cited for any of these questions were from the most popular Cable News outlets, including Cable, World News coverage or the biggest national newspapers, almost all come from less known or alternative media outlets. One exception is an ABC report about journalists killed, which probably wasn't repeated often, and an article from Fox News about Media Benjamin and her call to release Jullian Assange for a later question, the most notable other exception may be an indirect reference to the New York times in an article from the Intercept about media bias responding to the first question. Google AI also admitted that mainstream media rarely ever discusses Israel's undisputed mass murder of journalists, and, although Google AI doesn't mention this, on some of the few occasions that I've heard Mainstream media cover these killings of journalists mainstream media often reports Israel's false claim that these journalists are terrorists, or working with Hamas, without fact checking these claims, although many more credible alternative media outlets, including Human rights advocates and organizations to protect journalists expose these false accusations.
As I said before Google AI didn't even acknowledge the existence of many of the best anti-war activists, except Media Benjamin, until I included some their names in a question, and I could have listed dozens more, then Google AI admitted that they rarely get much if any media coverage and when they do it's often only to report that they participated in protests, or worse, although Google AI doesn't mention this, to smear them; but Google AI doe admit that mainstream media doesn't have an incentive to report on "the bipartisan foreign policy consensus" even though the majority of the public doesn't support this consensus at all, in fact they oppose it. I previously reported a long list of polls in Conclusive Proof Showing Democracy In The USA Is A Lie! which shows that on almost all issues, if not all issues, especially when there's money involved, there's a large percentage of the public on one side of the issue and campaign donors and lobbyists on the other side, and politicians virtually always take the side of campaign donors, with the rare exception where both the public and the donors are on the same side, like when there's so many problems with infrastructure that it's harming both the public and profits for the rich. Opposition to wars based on lies is no exception one of the polls said:
86% support only using the military as a last resort; 57% feel that US military aid to foreign countries is counterproductive. The latter sentiment “increases significantly” when involving countries like Saudi Arabia, with 63.9 percent saying military aid—including money and weapons—should not be provided to such countries. The poll shows strong, indeed overwhelming, support, for Congress to reassert itself in the oversight of US military interventions, with 70.8 percent of those polled saying Congress should pass legislation that would restrain military action overseas in three specific ways: ...... (Source)
Ironically, even though, when asked separately, who the most popular current anti-war activists is, the only popular one Google AI mentioned was Medea Benjamin, yet when I asked who the best pundits against wars she wasn't even mentioned, instead they only mentioned a few pundits that aren't nearly as active as Medea and almost all of them were conservative, with the possible exception of Jeremy Scahill, and sometimes Joe Rogan can be progressive, but other times he's more conservative. Google AI falsely claims that conservatives like Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens, and even Megyn Kelly, who isn't always opposed to wars based on lies, are now more likely to be against the war, when the truth is there are many more progressives that have always been against wars based on lies, including many much better informed about these lies, the media simply refuses to cover them. This is true even though the majority, with the possible exception of Jimmy Dore, of the anti-war protester I mentioned in the previous question were progressive, which sometime even Jimmy Dore is as well, but other times he's not, and there are many more like Sabrina Salvati and Briahna Joy Gray who are far more consistent in their opposition to wars based on lies than the conservatives covered by the media.
Why would they try to claim that conservatives are more likely to oppose war than progressives??
It really doesn't take a genius to figure this out; they want us to believe that the majority of the public is more conservative than they are because it's easier to rig the economy in favor of the rich people financing the media if people adopt conservative ideas opposing efforts to protect the poor or middle-class. And furthermore, other evidence like the polls I already mentioned from my article Conclusive Proof Showing Democracy In The USA Is A Lie! show that on dozens of issues a large majority of the public support one side of the issues, where the economy isn't rigged in favor of the rich and campaign donors and politicians oppose that views; but the views of the public are far more progressive than the media wants us to believe. At one point, probably at least ten to fifteen years ago, Rachel Maddow even pointed this out, saying that the political establishment was moving to the right, led by Republicans, then followed by Democrats, but she stopped repeating this, presumably because she also appears to be moving to the right; now she's obsessed with blaming everything on Russia and far more likely to support wars based on lies than she used to be.
Google AI provided additional evidence when replying to a question about journalists being fired for opposing wars or support for Israel, even if it's reply wasn't nearly as good as it could or should have been. Once again it focused on older critics of War, but it included the Iraqi war instead of going back to the Vietnam like a previous question I mentioned, although some of it's replies went back to the McCarthy era. However, the majority of people, if not all of them, were more progressive or liberal, not conservative, contradicting it's claim in the previous question that the anti-war movement is moving to the right. When replying about Israel it did include a few people fired since the October 7th war, including Briahna Joy Gray, but there were far more progressives also fired for opposing war, whether in Israel or elsewhere, including Marc Lamont Hill, who was fired eight years ago for being critical of Israel, while Mehdi Hasan was let go much more recently and neither of them were mentioned by Google AI even though they were a couple of the highest profile cases somewhat recently.
This may seem like I'm straying from the Obedience to Authority experiments, but there are at least two important things to consider; one is that these experiments weren't limited to what Milgram and Zimbardo studied, there were many other research efforts, some public and more which they often admit is "proprietary" which means that the research is owned by those conducting it and often secret, which means it's a conspiracy; and the second thing to consider is a lot of the research I've mentioned is partly based on fundamentals learned in the Milgram and Zimbardo experiments, and it's much more likely to be used to manipulate the public than to teach the public how to avoid being manipulated.
One of the most important thing they learned from the Obedience to Authority experiments is that people were much more likely to push the button causing the alleged shock, which was actually faked but the person playing the victims acted as if it was real, if the victim was farther away and the subject couldn't hear him scream as load, or if it was much closer the subject was much more likely to refuse to administer the shock. This same principal can be applied to supporting wars if they're far away, the victims are a different culture or they have a complicated excuse, which has always been false, to demonize or exaggerate the alleged flaws of the victims, while avoiding discussion of innocent civilians that always get killed in large numbers, including children.
Supporters of the war routinely claim they don't intentionally target civilians, but when large numbers of civilians are killed in every single war, which are all based on lies, of course, this claim doesn't stand up to the most basic scrutiny, since they have to know it. This claim is often conclusively discredited as well, when many stories from credible sources expose evidence showing that intentionally targeting civilians is clearly the intent; this evidence has been far more common in Israel's war against Gaza or other people. Unfortunately mainstream media refuses to report this but much more credible alternative media report it often.
In closely related research the establishment learned that pictures of dead civilians are much more likely to turn the public against wars based on lies, which happened in Vietnam. There are always a lot of innocent people killed, and it's much easier to ignore if the majority of the public isn't reminded of just how horrifying it is by pictures, like this one, which was from the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982 and featured in Tony Clifton and Catherine Leroy "God Cried" 1983 (Includes many more pictures or description of atrocities in Lebanon mainstream media refuses to cover Read free on Scribd) and another badly and permanently injured child from an attack in 2024, also in Lebanon and if you check alternative media you may easily find many more horrifying pictures about the recent Wars in Gaza, Lebanon again and Iran, among many other war, but mainstream media has learned if they report them to the to the general public it would reduce support for wars based on lies. In fact if you Google children killed in Israeli attacks on Gaza, Lebanon or other places you may find they kill large numbers of children much more often than most people suspect, including attacks on Lebanese children in 2006, 2024 and in the past couple months, and who knows how many other times, I haven't done a thorough search for Lebanon, Gaza or other places, but I'm sure there are many more examples.
Anyone familiar with the history of Vietnam and how it was covered in mainstream media knows that the following pictures were presented to a much larger segment of the public than alternative media reaches and these dramatically increased public opposition to the Vietnam War. The political establishment also noticed this, which is why they no longer present pictures like these to the majority of the public, while alternative media opposed to wars based on lies are much more likely to report pictures like these.
Another important thing they learned in Vietnam is that the public is much more likely to turn against wars based on lies when there are a large number of our own soldiers killed, especially when it's middle class people subject to the draft. Now they rely mostly what they call a "volunteer army" without drafting people or using other governments militarizes as proxy armies. This results in recruiting mostly poor people, which is often called "The Poverty Draft" because those volunteering often only join because they have no other economic opportunities. There are some exceptions, of course, often people from wealthier families that are often fast tracked to become officers, and when they join the military they're much less likely to be on the front lines or doing jobs that might threaten their health, like the alleged "burn pits" Joe Biden claimed were responsible for his son Beau's brain cancer, however, this has never been confirmed, unlike other poorer veterans with respiratory diseases much more likely to be caused by burn pits. Bother Joe Biden's sons were fast tracked for officer jobs and there's little or no chance they would have been put in harms way, although Hinter Biden was rejected after testing positive for cocaine, which was never supposed to be disclosed to the public, but it was leaked.
There's plenty of evidence showing that poor people, including minorities who often don't have many other economic opportunities are put at the most risk, which a question from Google AI also confirmed, and another reply confirmed that the vast majority of people killed in wars are poor citizens not the people making the decisions. It's clear that the rich make all the decisions, aren't put at risk, and often profit from wars based on lies and the poor are the ones losing their lives, even when they're not guilty of anything as Eugene Debs pointed out over a hundred years ago when he said "The master class has always declared the wars; the subject class has always fought the battles. The master class has had all to gain and nothing to lose, while the subject class has had nothing to gain and all to lose—especially their lives." Eugene Debs The Canton, Ohio Speech, Anti-War Speech 06/16/1918 On top of that our military often recruits immigrants making promises that they would have an opportunity to become citizens they often never keep, and they recruit the highest percentage of people from Puerto Rico, followed by rural areas in the North West where there's few if any economic opportunities and the South.
Additional lessons from the Obedience to Authority experiments also show that people are much less likely to refuse to administer the shock if they're with other people who speak out against authorities first and they know they're not alone. This is part of the reason why the political establishment, which many people justifiably call the "Corporate State," which includes mainstream media which is entirely controlled by the wealthy class only allows people that support their views with limited amount of dissent to get any media coverage at all, so the public relying on traditional media only hears pro-war voices. Yet despite this fact numerous polls show that a large majority of the public oppose the use of the military except as a last resort, but there may be some polls about specific wars that might show more support, especially after the public is inundated with propaganda in the lead up to wars based on lies.
One of the most brazen examples is the War in Iraq in 2003 when there were a large number of justifications for the war repeated over and over again starting in late 2002 if not sooner full of claims that were almost all false, including weapons of mass destruction and alleged ties to 9/11 which were drilled into the public in emotional way almost non-stop creating patriotic support for the war; but when it became clear that there never were weapons of mass destruction and Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11 support for the war plummeted. This was far from the first time this happened, if you look into all wars in the past and the media coverage before them you'll find this is a routine pattern of behavior.
Since this has been going on for decades in one war after another there's always a small percentage of the public that are more informed than the majority and many of them often recognize they're using the same propaganda tactics over and over again and try to warn others, but the media on't give them any air time to expose their lies and often refers to them as "radicals" or some other derogatory term, but these people prove to be right over and over again.
Can there be any doubt that the political establishment is studying this and learning how to manipulate the public for their own purposes? It may seem like a conspiracy theory to some, but many of the questions for Google AI I've provided below and dozens of books about propaganda as well as research papers show this is exactly what they've been doing for decades, and some of this evidence is over a hundred years old, like "The Brass Check" by Upton Sinclair, "Propaganda" by Edward Bernays and many other propaganda books written in the 1920 which are now in the public domain, but they've been mostly forgotten. Another more recent book is "Words That Work" by Frank Luntz which as I wrote previously is a virtual confession to sabotaging democratic process for clients. They literally study how effective their propaganda is for wars based on lies, political campaigns and just about everything else by putting out their propaganda then taking polls to find out how much people believe and how effective their propaganda is.
There's no doubt that there's an enormous amount of research to study how to manipulate the public and this research shows it's much easier to manipulate the public with appeals to emotion, especially when fighting wars based on lies. there's also conclusive evidence showing that one wealthy segment of society makes all the decisions about wars based on lies, profits from them and is rarely ever put at risk, while poor people are much more likely to get killed, injured or tortured. There's also evidence of preparation of propaganda to start these wars. Since the evidence for this is public it's not a conspiracy theory, it's well researched fact.
Furthermore, they're well aware of the fact that well educated people are much not to be fooled by this propaganda, since the well informed anti-war protesters have shown they will speak out; so they understand it's far easier to get away with this if the public isn't familiar with history and are distracted by celebrity worship, sports or other trivial things the establishment is constantly trying to sell them, instead of teaching accurate history. Instead of well educated people the establishment wants well indoctrinated people believing a heavily censored version of history.
These conclusions aren't conspiracy theories, since there's evidence to show they're true.
But, of course there are other claims that aren't as conclusive, like the theory that the government staged 9/11 or numerous assassination attempts against Trump; but this research may help show how some of this might be done, if it's true, and it provides partial circumstantial evidence showing we may not be able to completely rule these theories out. We also have conclusive evidence to show that our government and the media isn't telling us the truth and that they're behaving like pathetic clown. Thirty years ago if someone told us someone like Trump or even George W Bush could have been elected President and behaved like pathetic clowns doing idiotic things no reasonable person would believe them. Then they rigged elections for Bush, who behaved like a clown, as some of us remember, and since then a large number of politicians, including Donald Trump have been behaving even more insane, which seems like the norm now. This is a clear example of the "foot in the door" tactic described by psychologists, whether it was intentional or not.
There are also major problems with the official story behind 9/11, and even if it wasn't staged by our own government, they've been using it as an excuse to fight one war after another based on lies. But, of course, the motive for staging it would have to be huge, and I'm not convinced the ones provided by most conspiracy theories are adequate. The same goes for conspiracy theories about staging Trump's assassination and many other things; in many cases there's an enormous amount of evidence showing the official story doesn't add up, but not enough evidence proving the full explanation, including a massive motive for these strange things.
Another problem, that I've tried to point out repeatedly, is the fact that we have an Ecocide already in progress, and whether these conspiracy theories are partly true or not our governments insane activities are distracting from that while we need immediate and urgent action on this, but instead our government and media are obsessed with actions that will only escalate the Ecocide, including many people pretending to be protecting the environment. Evidence showing this Ecocide is already in progress comes from several different sources, including a study the Squad campaigned on in 2018 claiming we had to act to prevent Climate Change within twelve years to avoid catastrophe, another study going back to 1970 showing the human race was using up natural resources faster than the planet can replenish them for the first time, since then they updated this with claims that we use a full years worth of natural resources by August of each year, I also reviewed Superfund sites in the United States and found we're adding to them faster than we're cleaning them up and that this isn't being tracked in the rest of the world virtually guaranteeing it's much worse in the third world, other studies, often by Maude Barlow, showing that one of the resources we're destroying faster than others is fresh water and a major part of the reason is privatization of water destroying clean water at epidemic rates so rich people can get richer at the expense of the planet, and, of course, the fact that we're fighting one war after another based on lies which is contributing a major amount to the destruction of the planet. Many people claim the military is the greatest threat to the environment, and if they're wrong it's not by much, and these wars based on lies are distracting us from other threats to the planet.
Are the people running our political, economic, educational and media establishments insanely obsessed with committing intentional Ecocide??
Their actions clearly imply they are, and if they disagree it's only because they're not willing to look at the evidence and be honest with themselves.
How could this be related to a conspiracy theory? How could it NOT be related to a conspiracy?
Conspiracy or not, the political and media establishment has gone insane and has absolutely no credibility, and there's often overwhelming evidence showing the official version of history or current events can't possibly be true, possibly including the alleged assassination attempt at the White House Correspondence Dinner last Saturday which a large number of people consider staged, even if their alleged motive, when they present one, can't possibly be big enough, and there is some evidence raising major doubts, even if it doesn't provide a complete and conclusive explanation.
One thing that I though was suspicious wasn't just the circumstances surrounding the alleged assassination attempt but the speed that someone created an AI video after it as I pointed out in this Tweet (Video) How could they prepare this so fast if it wasn't staged? Even if it wasn't staged, do they have the technology to do this so fast? If so, where did it come from? 01/26/2026 Mahdi Hemmat: White House Correspondents’ Dinner turned into absolute chaos. Trump tried to control every single thing… but the whole event went off the rails. No comedians allowed. Empty plates everywhere. Full SWAT evacuation mid-dinner. Diaper change cover-up on stage while everyone else casually ate salads like nothing happened. Epstein survivors protesting right outside and MAGA starting to wake up broke. Fragile ego in full meltdown mode. Sacred Defense.
According to Wikipedia:
"At 8:36 P.M.[25] the suspect was confronted by security near the main metal detector screening area of the Washington Hilton; dinner was being served inside the main ballroom. He ran past the security checkpoint and authorities believe he fired at least one shot."
This video was posted on Twitter two hours and seven minutes after 8:36 P.M. After asking if it was possible to make a video like this I asked Google AI how long it takes to make these videos, and its answer, which is posted below, doesn't completely rule it out, but it indicates few if any people can make a video of this quality if it's possible. Several sources indicate that a two minute, or in this case two minute and seventeen second video can be made in under two ours but it may not be high quality. The Google AI answer indicated that even an experienced person with AI would take at least two hours if not four hours or all day to make it. Yet there's little or no chance the person even knew about the shooting right off the bat so they probably had even less time.
When this first happened the reports on CNN didn't even say it was a shooting, they said there was a "loud noise" which caused a panic and led to the evacuation, strongly implying that it might be a false alarm for at least twenty minutes or so. Did he have more than an hour and a half to make this video? I doubt it, assuming he didn't have inside information. But even if he did, his theory, that Trump staged it because "his ego's so fragile" and he "can't handle the smoke" or "roast" seems more like satire than a credible theory and it's unlikely it was meant otherwise. Other theories that he did it to boost his polls aren't big enough especially since he's never supposed to run for office again. Besides, if he was worried about polls he could stop behaving in such a clownish and insane manner. As I've said before, I have no doubt the media and political establishment could have stopped such a nut from ever being elected in the first place, but they chose not to.
Another issue that has raised a lot of suspicions is a bizarre interview Karoline Leavitt more than an hour before the alleged shooting when she gleefully says "there are gonna be some shots fired tonight" possibly implying jokes, but of course there were real shots fired. (Video) Did she know? 01/25/2026 MAGA Voice: 🚨 JUST NOW: Karoline Leavitt calls on everyone to watch tonight because Donald Trump will bring the heat and there will be “shots fired.” LET’S FREAKING GO 🔥
Like the other theories this one hardly seems likely and it's hard to imagine they would intentionally leak it that way. If there was a staged assassination attempt were there also efforts to throw out absurd conspiracy theories that won't stand up to basic scrutiny? This would of course be insane, but insane things are now routine. Once again if a bizarre conspiracy theory turned out to be true the motive would have to be huge!
One theory that I have expressed repeatedly is the possibility that Aliens have made contact years, or centuries ago and have a major undisclosed motive. My most recent article about this is Should We Ridicule Alien Technology Claims? Are They Related to Wars? which goes into a lot of detail and cites additional articles for backup, but it doesn't provide evidence to a conection to these theories, although it may provide a motive big enough. But there are an enormous amount of missing puzzle pieces and more questions and problems with this theory as well.
Without addressing those problems or filling in the missing puzzle peaces I can't argue this is a compelling theory, but there is good evidence showing there's a strong possibility that contact with aliens has been made. And if that's the case, it's hard to imagine their agenda isn't related to other events. But it's also hard to imagine why they would want to create so much insanity.
Regardless of the explanation, we need to shift our focus to the real problems and solutions while we still can; and what ever the truth, even if it's not my theory, we need to get it out there and base decisions on accurate science, history, current events and other related factors, and soon!
(Video) Sarah: Israel destroyed the statue of Jesus Christ in the Christian village of Debel, South Lebanon. Now they’re bulldozing the solar panels that provide electricity and water. Not military targets. Critical infrastructure. This is the deliberate targeting of civilian life. 01/25/2026
Have any active duty soldiers refused to follow orders, on moral grounds or because they consider them illegal, during the recent War with Iran or other Wars? Did Mike Prysner or other anti-war activists recruit any active duty soldiers willing to refuse illegal orders, anonymous or not?
'They found them huddled together' 07/30/2006 More than 60 people, including 34 children, killed by Israeli attack on home where families were sheltering
5 children killed in Israeli strike in southern Lebanon 09/30/2024 Fatalities occurred in airstrike targeting Charqiyeh town in southern Lebanon
More than 200 children killed in Lebanon amid Israeli bombardment: UN 11/19/2024 Three children have been killed daily in Lebanon over the past two months, UNICEF reports, as it urges action to stop the violence. More than 200 children have been killed in Lebanon since Israel launched a military campaign focused on its northern neighbour two months ago, the United Nations agency for children (UNICEF) has said.
(Video) 168 children killed by Israel's strikes in Lebanon • FRANCE 24 English 04/15/2026
Do many, if any, propagandists study Stanley Milgram, "Obedience to Authority" to learn how to manipulate the public more effectively? 04/18/2026
While there is no public registry of propagandists, Stanley Milgram’s work in "Obedience to Authority" is widely studied across fields that deal with human influence, including marketing, political communication, and psychological operations. Propagandists often leverage the psychological mechanisms Milgram identified to bypass individual critical thinking.
Key concepts from Milgram's research that are frequently applied to modern manipulation include:
1. The Agentic State
Milgram proposed that when individuals view themselves as "agents" for a legitimate authority, they undergo an "agentic shift," relinquishing personal responsibility for their actions.
Manipulation Tactic: Propagandists frame their messaging as coming from "unimpeachable" institutions or leaders, encouraging the public to focus on the instructions rather than the ethics of the outcome.
2. Gradual Escalation (Foot-in-the-Door)
In the experiments, participants were led into compliance through small, incremental increases in shock voltage.
Manipulation Tactic: Effective propaganda rarely asks for a radical shift in belief immediately. Instead, it utilizes "gradual escalation," securing agreement on small, seemingly harmless points to "trap" the individual into a larger, more extreme ideology over time.
3. Perceived Legitimacy and "Authority Heuristics"
Milgram found that symbols of authority—such as lab coats or institutional settings—significantly increased compliance.
Manipulation Tactic: This is modernly known as the "authority heuristic". Manipulators use titles, formal attire, and professional-looking media environments to trigger an automatic "authority bias," making false messages sound credible simply because they appear authoritative.
4. Buffering Effects
Compliance was highest when the participant was physically or emotionally distanced from the victim.
Manipulation Tactic: Propaganda often creates "psychological buffers" by dehumanizing targets or presenting actions as abstract technical or bureaucratic necessities, which reduces the audience's moral friction.
Applications and Counter-Measures
Institutional Use: Organizations like the U.S. Army and various law reviews study Milgram's findings specifically to train personnel to recognize and resist unethical orders.
Resistance: Research shows that the presence of even one "defiant peer" or dissenting voice can crash obedience rates from 65% to 10%. This highlights why total control of information is a primary goal for effective propaganda. Complete article
Wikipedia: Milgram experiment
Obeying and Resisting Malevolent Orders May 25, 2004 Stanley Milgram's famous experiment highlights the powerful human tendency to obey authority.
Milgram's Progress By Robert Levine July-August 2004
Milgram Revisited: Can we still use Milgram’s ‘Obedience to Authority’ Experiments to Explain Mass Atrocities after the Opening of the Archives? Review Essay 2020
The Power of Propaganda and Authority Bias: Understanding the Impact of Information on Our Political Decisions 02/11/2023 Another factor that influences our beliefs and decisions is authority bias, which is the desire to trust and be influenced by information that comes from figures with authority. A classic example of this is the famous Stanley Milgram obedience study, which aimed to measure people’s obedience to authority. In the experiment, participants were instructed to deliver increasingly strong electric shocks to a “learner” whenever the learner made a mistake on a memory task. The results of the experiment showed that a higher proportion of participants wanted to deliver the maximum shock, even though they believed it was causing severe harm to the learner. This study sparked a great deal of debate about the power of authority and the extent to which people are willing to harm others when instructed to do so by an authority figure.
4 ‘They were just following orders’: Relationships between Milgram’s obedience experiments and conceptions of Holocaust perpetration 2020
The Man Who Shocked the World: The Life and Legacy of Stanley Milgram 08/06/2005
Obedience to Authority: 10 Life Lessons from Stanley Milgram’s Classic 06/20/2023
The Power of Authority: Propaganda and Persuasion, Part 1 08/08/2021
Milgram’s Infamous Shock Studies Still Hold Lessons for Confronting Authoritarianism 09/26/2024 Why ordinary people will follow orders to the point of hurting others remains a critical question for scientists—though some answers have emerged
Milgram’s shock experiments and the Nazi perpetrators: A contrarian perspective on the role of obedience pressures during the Holocaust 11/11/2015
How Does Propaganda Work? 11/28/2025
Stanley Milgram, "Obedience to Authority" 1974
While there is no public registry of propagandists, Stanley Milgram’s work in "Obedience to Authority" is widely studied across fields that deal with human influence, including marketing, political communication, and psychological operations. Propagandists often leverage the psychological mechanisms Milgram identified to bypass individual critical thinking.
Key concepts from Milgram's research that are frequently applied to modern manipulation include:
1. The Agentic State
Milgram proposed that when individuals view themselves as "agents" for a legitimate authority, they undergo an "agentic shift," relinquishing personal responsibility for their actions.
Manipulation Tactic: Propagandists frame their messaging as coming from "unimpeachable" institutions or leaders, encouraging the public to focus on the instructions rather than the ethics of the outcome.
2. Gradual Escalation (Foot-in-the-Door)
In the experiments, participants were led into compliance through small, incremental increases in shock voltage.
Manipulation Tactic: Effective propaganda rarely asks for a radical shift in belief immediately. Instead, it utilizes "gradual escalation," securing agreement on small, seemingly harmless points to "trap" the individual into a larger, more extreme ideology over time.
3. Perceived Legitimacy and "Authority Heuristics"
Milgram found that symbols of authority—such as lab coats or institutional settings—significantly increased compliance.
Manipulation Tactic: This is modernly known as the "authority heuristic". Manipulators use titles, formal attire, and professional-looking media environments to trigger an automatic "authority bias," making false messages sound credible simply because they appear authoritative.
4. Buffering Effects
Compliance was highest when the participant was physically or emotionally distanced from the victim.
Manipulation Tactic: Propaganda often creates "psychological buffers" by dehumanizing targets or presenting actions as abstract technical or bureaucratic necessities, which reduces the audience's moral friction.
Applications and Counter-Measures
Institutional Use: Organizations like the U.S. Army and various law reviews study Milgram's findings specifically to train personnel to recognize and resist unethical orders.
Resistance: Research shows that the presence of even one "defiant peer" or dissenting voice can crash obedience rates from 65% to 10%. This highlights why total control of information is a primary goal for effective propaganda. Complete article
Wikipedia: Milgram experiment
Obeying and Resisting Malevolent Orders May 25, 2004 Stanley Milgram's famous experiment highlights the powerful human tendency to obey authority.
Milgram's Progress By Robert Levine July-August 2004
Milgram Revisited: Can we still use Milgram’s ‘Obedience to Authority’ Experiments to Explain Mass Atrocities after the Opening of the Archives? Review Essay 2020
The Power of Propaganda and Authority Bias: Understanding the Impact of Information on Our Political Decisions 02/11/2023 Another factor that influences our beliefs and decisions is authority bias, which is the desire to trust and be influenced by information that comes from figures with authority. A classic example of this is the famous Stanley Milgram obedience study, which aimed to measure people’s obedience to authority. In the experiment, participants were instructed to deliver increasingly strong electric shocks to a “learner” whenever the learner made a mistake on a memory task. The results of the experiment showed that a higher proportion of participants wanted to deliver the maximum shock, even though they believed it was causing severe harm to the learner. This study sparked a great deal of debate about the power of authority and the extent to which people are willing to harm others when instructed to do so by an authority figure.
4 ‘They were just following orders’: Relationships between Milgram’s obedience experiments and conceptions of Holocaust perpetration 2020
The Man Who Shocked the World: The Life and Legacy of Stanley Milgram 08/06/2005
Obedience to Authority: 10 Life Lessons from Stanley Milgram’s Classic 06/20/2023
The Power of Authority: Propaganda and Persuasion, Part 1 08/08/2021
Milgram’s Infamous Shock Studies Still Hold Lessons for Confronting Authoritarianism 09/26/2024 Why ordinary people will follow orders to the point of hurting others remains a critical question for scientists—though some answers have emerged
Milgram’s shock experiments and the Nazi perpetrators: A contrarian perspective on the role of obedience pressures during the Holocaust 11/11/2015
How Does Propaganda Work? 11/28/2025
Stanley Milgram, "Obedience to Authority" 1974
How often do Cable News outlets invite antiwar protesters to appear? How often do they invite military or CIA officials to appear? 04/22/2026
Based on studies of media coverage during major U.S. military engagements, military officials, former intelligence (CIA) officials, and defense industry analysts are invited to appear on cable news far more frequently than antiwar protesters or activists.
Antiwar Protester Appearances: Antiwar sources have historically been rare on cable news during active conflicts. A study of Iraq War coverage found that anti-war sources made up only 10% of total guests, while 64% were in favor. Viewers were more than six times as likely to see a pro-war source as one who was anti-war.
Military/CIA Official Appearances: Cable news outlets frequently hire retired military officers and former intelligence officials as analysts, particularly during active conflicts (such as in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Middle East). Many of these analysts have been found to have unrevealed conflicts of interest due to ties with the defense industry.
Comparison: During the Iraq War, US guests in favor of the war outnumbered anti-war guests by a ratio of 25 to 1.
Key Findings on Media Coverage Frequency:
Frequent Use of Officials: DOD representatives and military officers are used regularly for their "resources and gravitas" during conflict coverage.
Protester Visibility: While anti-war protests are covered, protesters are less frequently featured in interview segments compared to military experts explaining the strategy.
Recent Coverage Patterns: In April 2026, reports showed that anti-war protests, particularly those involving veterans, do get coverage when they lead to arrests in Congress, but this is often categorized as protest news rather than featuring the activists in studio for debate on policy.
Studies indicate that the frequent use of pro-war guests (military/intelligence) over anti-war protesters can result in a significant imbalance in the public perception of conflict support. Complete article
Deception, Disinformation, and Strategic Communications: How One Interagency Group Made a Major Difference June 2012
Wikipedia: Media coverage of the Iraq War According to the study, 64% of guests on the studied networks were in favor of the Iraq War while total anti-war sources made up 10% of the guests (only 3% of US sources were anti-war). The study stated that "viewers were more than six times as likely to see a pro-war source as one who was anti-war; with US guests alone, the ratio increases to 25 to 1."[20]
Cable News Military Experts Are on the Defense Industry Dole 08/19/2021 Cable news has been criticized in the past for its refusal to reveal conflicts of interest. In 2008, the New York Times exposed direct influence by the Pentagon of retired generals appearing on cable to talk about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Last year, The Intercept uncovered countless links between on-air former military figures defending the assassination of Iranian Gen. Qassim Suleimani and the military-industrial complex.
Many media “analysts” under sway of Pentagon 04/20/2008 Less air time right now. Two weeks ago, Petraeus took time out from testifying before Congress about Iraq for a conference call with military analysts. John Garrett, a retired Army colonel and unpaid analyst for Fox News and a Patton Boggs lobbyist, said he told Petraeus to “keep up the great work.” For the moment, because of heavy election coverage and general war fatigue, military analysts are not getting nearly as much TV time. Still, the Pentagon almost weekly continues to conduct briefings with selected military analysts. Many said network officials were only dimly aware of these interactions. “I don’t think NBC was even aware we were participating,” said Rick Francona, a longtime military analyst for the network.
A Documentary Examines Cable News War Coverage 2003
Anti-War Demonstration Leads To Arrests In Washington DC 04/21/2026
US veterans detained during Iran war protest in Washington DC 04/21/2026
Spying on Americans: Infamous 1970s White House Plan for Protest Surveillance Released 06/25/2020
Based on studies of media coverage during major U.S. military engagements, military officials, former intelligence (CIA) officials, and defense industry analysts are invited to appear on cable news far more frequently than antiwar protesters or activists.
Antiwar Protester Appearances: Antiwar sources have historically been rare on cable news during active conflicts. A study of Iraq War coverage found that anti-war sources made up only 10% of total guests, while 64% were in favor. Viewers were more than six times as likely to see a pro-war source as one who was anti-war.
Military/CIA Official Appearances: Cable news outlets frequently hire retired military officers and former intelligence officials as analysts, particularly during active conflicts (such as in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Middle East). Many of these analysts have been found to have unrevealed conflicts of interest due to ties with the defense industry.
Comparison: During the Iraq War, US guests in favor of the war outnumbered anti-war guests by a ratio of 25 to 1.
Key Findings on Media Coverage Frequency:
Frequent Use of Officials: DOD representatives and military officers are used regularly for their "resources and gravitas" during conflict coverage.
Protester Visibility: While anti-war protests are covered, protesters are less frequently featured in interview segments compared to military experts explaining the strategy.
Recent Coverage Patterns: In April 2026, reports showed that anti-war protests, particularly those involving veterans, do get coverage when they lead to arrests in Congress, but this is often categorized as protest news rather than featuring the activists in studio for debate on policy.
Studies indicate that the frequent use of pro-war guests (military/intelligence) over anti-war protesters can result in a significant imbalance in the public perception of conflict support. Complete article
Deception, Disinformation, and Strategic Communications: How One Interagency Group Made a Major Difference June 2012
Wikipedia: Media coverage of the Iraq War According to the study, 64% of guests on the studied networks were in favor of the Iraq War while total anti-war sources made up 10% of the guests (only 3% of US sources were anti-war). The study stated that "viewers were more than six times as likely to see a pro-war source as one who was anti-war; with US guests alone, the ratio increases to 25 to 1."[20]
Cable News Military Experts Are on the Defense Industry Dole 08/19/2021 Cable news has been criticized in the past for its refusal to reveal conflicts of interest. In 2008, the New York Times exposed direct influence by the Pentagon of retired generals appearing on cable to talk about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Last year, The Intercept uncovered countless links between on-air former military figures defending the assassination of Iranian Gen. Qassim Suleimani and the military-industrial complex.
Many media “analysts” under sway of Pentagon 04/20/2008 Less air time right now. Two weeks ago, Petraeus took time out from testifying before Congress about Iraq for a conference call with military analysts. John Garrett, a retired Army colonel and unpaid analyst for Fox News and a Patton Boggs lobbyist, said he told Petraeus to “keep up the great work.” For the moment, because of heavy election coverage and general war fatigue, military analysts are not getting nearly as much TV time. Still, the Pentagon almost weekly continues to conduct briefings with selected military analysts. Many said network officials were only dimly aware of these interactions. “I don’t think NBC was even aware we were participating,” said Rick Francona, a longtime military analyst for the network.
A Documentary Examines Cable News War Coverage 2003
Anti-War Demonstration Leads To Arrests In Washington DC 04/21/2026
US veterans detained during Iran war protest in Washington DC 04/21/2026
Spying on Americans: Infamous 1970s White House Plan for Protest Surveillance Released 06/25/2020
How many Journalists have been killed by Israel in Gaza, or elsewhere, since the October 7th War began? Have these deaths recieved much if any coverage from Cable or world News? 04/22/2026
According to reports through early 2026, Israeli forces have killed over 200 to more than 270 journalists and media workers in Gaza since October 7, 2023, making it the deadliest conflict for the press in modern history. The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) reports that Israel is responsible for the vast majority of these deaths, including a record 129 in 2025. While recognized by press freedom groups, these deaths have received limited, often debated, coverage in major Western cable news compared to other conflicts.
Journalist Fatalities and Context
Total Deaths: Estimates vary, but as of April 2026, watchdog groups indicate over 270 media workers have been killed, with a significant number specifically targeted or killed while working.
Most Dangerous Location: The Gaza Strip is considered the most dangerous place for journalists in recent history, surpassing total journalist deaths in World Wars I & II, the Vietnam War, and the war in Afghanistan combined.
Targeting Allegations: While Israel claims it does not target journalists and often accuses them of being members of terrorist organizations, the CPJ has characterized these accusations as "deadly smears" lacking evidence.
International Concerns: The UN has raised concerns about the high death toll, and the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) has documented the extensive toll on media workers.
Coverage in News Media
Limited Coverage/Access: Israel has barred independent foreign journalists from entering Gaza, forcing dependence on Palestinian journalists on the ground who are themselves targets, leading to a blockade of independent information.
Disparate Coverage: International press freedom watchdogs have criticized the lack of sustained coverage of these killings by major US and Western news organizations.
Ongoing Advocacy: Press organizations like CPJ, RSF (Reporters Without Borders), and others continue to urge the protection of journalists and international investigations into the killings. Complete article
Journalist casualties in the Israel-Gaza war 10/13/2023 updated 04/17/2026 The Committee to Protect Journalists has documented 249 journalists and media workers killed during the war from 2023-2025, compared to 165 total killings documented worldwide in the three prior years.
Record 129 press members killed in 2025; Israel responsible for 2/3 of deaths 02/25/2026
More than 250 media outlets protest over Israel murdering Gaza journalists 09/01/2025 About 220 journalists have been killed during Israel’s war in Gaza since it began on October 7, 2023, according to RSF data. Independent analysis by Al Jazeera reveals that at least 278 journalists and media workers have been killed by Israel over the past 22 months, including 10 from the network.
Israel linked to nearly half of 2025 journalist deaths 12/09/2025 Since the Gaza war began in 2023 following the October 7 Hamas terror attacks, the Israeli military has killed nearly 220 journalists, according to RSF data. At least 65 of them were slain due to their work or while they were working, the report stated. Israel has repeatedly denied that its forces target journalists.
Gaza named deadliest place for journalists in 2025 RSF report on dangers facing media globally 12/09/2025 "To justify its crimes, the Israeli military has mounted a global propaganda campaign to spread baseless accusations that portray Palestinian journalists as terrorists," RSF said.
Israeli forces have killed over 270 journalists since October 2023, making the besieged Gaza Strip the world’s deadliest place for media workers. Al Jazeera's AJ Labs looks at Israel's killings in the enclave. 08/14/2025
Israel responsible for two-thirds of record 129 press killings in 2025, says CPJ 02/25/2026
More than 260 Palestinian journalists have been killed in #Gaza since the start of the war. Now, Al Jazeera’s @haniabuishaiba finds a new generation of journalists who are stepping in, young and untrained but determined to report human stories. 04/16/2026
According to reports through early 2026, Israeli forces have killed over 200 to more than 270 journalists and media workers in Gaza since October 7, 2023, making it the deadliest conflict for the press in modern history. The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) reports that Israel is responsible for the vast majority of these deaths, including a record 129 in 2025. While recognized by press freedom groups, these deaths have received limited, often debated, coverage in major Western cable news compared to other conflicts.
Journalist Fatalities and Context
Total Deaths: Estimates vary, but as of April 2026, watchdog groups indicate over 270 media workers have been killed, with a significant number specifically targeted or killed while working.
Most Dangerous Location: The Gaza Strip is considered the most dangerous place for journalists in recent history, surpassing total journalist deaths in World Wars I & II, the Vietnam War, and the war in Afghanistan combined.
Targeting Allegations: While Israel claims it does not target journalists and often accuses them of being members of terrorist organizations, the CPJ has characterized these accusations as "deadly smears" lacking evidence.
International Concerns: The UN has raised concerns about the high death toll, and the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) has documented the extensive toll on media workers.
Coverage in News Media
Limited Coverage/Access: Israel has barred independent foreign journalists from entering Gaza, forcing dependence on Palestinian journalists on the ground who are themselves targets, leading to a blockade of independent information.
Disparate Coverage: International press freedom watchdogs have criticized the lack of sustained coverage of these killings by major US and Western news organizations.
Ongoing Advocacy: Press organizations like CPJ, RSF (Reporters Without Borders), and others continue to urge the protection of journalists and international investigations into the killings. Complete article
Journalist casualties in the Israel-Gaza war 10/13/2023 updated 04/17/2026 The Committee to Protect Journalists has documented 249 journalists and media workers killed during the war from 2023-2025, compared to 165 total killings documented worldwide in the three prior years.
Record 129 press members killed in 2025; Israel responsible for 2/3 of deaths 02/25/2026
More than 250 media outlets protest over Israel murdering Gaza journalists 09/01/2025 About 220 journalists have been killed during Israel’s war in Gaza since it began on October 7, 2023, according to RSF data. Independent analysis by Al Jazeera reveals that at least 278 journalists and media workers have been killed by Israel over the past 22 months, including 10 from the network.
Israel linked to nearly half of 2025 journalist deaths 12/09/2025 Since the Gaza war began in 2023 following the October 7 Hamas terror attacks, the Israeli military has killed nearly 220 journalists, according to RSF data. At least 65 of them were slain due to their work or while they were working, the report stated. Israel has repeatedly denied that its forces target journalists.
Gaza named deadliest place for journalists in 2025 RSF report on dangers facing media globally 12/09/2025 "To justify its crimes, the Israeli military has mounted a global propaganda campaign to spread baseless accusations that portray Palestinian journalists as terrorists," RSF said.
Israeli forces have killed over 270 journalists since October 2023, making the besieged Gaza Strip the world’s deadliest place for media workers. Al Jazeera's AJ Labs looks at Israel's killings in the enclave. 08/14/2025
Israel responsible for two-thirds of record 129 press killings in 2025, says CPJ 02/25/2026
More than 260 Palestinian journalists have been killed in #Gaza since the start of the war. Now, Al Jazeera’s @haniabuishaiba finds a new generation of journalists who are stepping in, young and untrained but determined to report human stories. 04/16/2026
How often does Mainstream media, including Cable News outlets invite antiwar protesters like Medea Benjamin, Abby Martin, Mike Prysner, Jill Stein, Jimmy Dore, Aaron Mate or other peace activists on their shows? 04/23/2026
Mainstream media and cable news outlets (CNN, MSNBC, Fox News) rarely invite outspoken antiwar protesters or peace activists such as Medea Benjamin, Abby Martin, or Aaron Mate for in-depth interviews, often preferring to focus on establishment political, military, or foreign policy experts. While these activists appear occasionally on niche or international media and sometimes in clips or soundbites during massive, disruptive protests, they are generally omitted from mainstream debates.
Frequency and Nature of Coverage
Low Frequency: Studies and media critics suggest that antiwar voices are largely excluded from mainstream, particularly Sunday morning talk shows, where they are outnumbered significantly by pro-war or administration-aligned sources.
Marginalization: When protesters or critical analysts appear, it is often not for substantive debate, but in brief, often negative contexts, focusing on protests as disruptions rather than on the arguments being made.
Exceptions: Activists like Medea Benjamin may find limited space on independent outlets (like Democracy Now!) or, at times, Fox News, where anti-interventionist views might align with specific criticisms of a sitting administration's foreign policy.
Observations on Specific Activists
Medea Benjamin (CODEPINK): Although she has been active for decades, Benjamin's invitations to mainstream mainstream outlets are infrequent. She often appears in independent, alternative, or progressive media to discuss drone warfare and peace efforts.
Aaron Mate: Known for his criticism of mainstream narratives on Syria and Russia, he has been largely excluded from, and often criticized by, mainstream outlets, operating within independent media spaces.
Jimmy Dore: As an independent comedian and political commentator, he focuses on criticizing the Democratic establishment and media, and is rarely invited on mainstream corporate news.
Reasons for Low Representation
Lack of Incentives: Media organizations, particularly large corporate ones, often have little incentive to amplify voices that challenge the bipartisan foreign policy consensus.
Protest Nature: Studies indicate that protests must be incredibly large or directly disruptive to gain attention, and even then, they are often portrayed negatively.
Elite Reliance: Mainstream media relies heavily on official, authorized sources, marginalizing grassroots or radical antiwar perspectives.
Note: The search results indicate a general trend rather than providing a specific number of appearances per year for each individual mentioned. Complete article
Why is there so little mainstream coverage of antiwar protests? 07/29/2011
Facebook: Medea Benjamin
Protests, Media Coverage, and a Hierarchy of Social Struggle 06/19/2019
Code Pink co-founder Medea Benjamin calls for Julian Assange's freedom outside the DOJ 02/20/2024
CODEPINK's Medea Benjamin Brings Voices of Pakistani Drone Victims to Obama's Inauguration 01/21/2013
The revolution will not be televised: How media suppresses protest coverage 09/18/2025 This American tradition of revolution continues, despite claims that Generation Z is largely detached from politics or that resistance to President Donald Trump’s second term is lacking. However, this narrative could not be further from the truth. There have been countless protests since Trump was sworn in, from the "No Kings" and "Hands-Off!" protests to anti-ICE gatherings. In fact, this February saw over 2,000 protests in the United States, compared to about 900 in February 2017. Yet, the exponential increase in national protests has not garnered the attention of America’s major news outlets. The day following the "No Kings" protest — where an estimated 4 to 6 million people were in attendance — news headlines were few and far between: a photo story on The New York Times’ front page, no top billing in the Wall Street Journal and dismissive coverage from Fox News. Local outlets and a handful of national platforms like CNN and The Guardian offered more substantial reporting, but overall, coverage of one of the largest protests America has seen in years was lacking. Lack of protest coverage is nothing new.
The mainstream media has failed us after 7 October 10/07/2024 Not only did they mostly ignore Israel’s denial of Palestinian freedom, but also the contradictions in Israel’s military strategy
Useful Idiots with Katie Halper and Aaron Maté Useful Idiots is an informative and irreverent politics podcast with journalist Aaron Maté and podcaster/writer Katie Halper. Episodes feature analysis of the political news of the week and exclusive interviews, with humor, commentary
Is the media not covering it or are protests just not big enough yet? 02/11/2025 The media largely ignored the 50/50 protests, yet, for the first time in modern America, protests happened in every single state—on the same day. Let that sink in. That’s an incredible feat, especially considering how last-minute it was and that it took place midday on a Wednesday. Organizing large-scale protests takes time, particularly in a country as vast as the U.S., where the media has no incentive to amplify these movements. But grassroots organizations are actively coming together right now to build momentum for future protests. The sheer size of the U.S. matters.
NPR, New York Times Count Out Anti-War Activists 10/28/2002 While a turnout of less than 10,000 might have been a disappointment, NPR‘s estimate is greatly at odds with those of other observers. The Los Angeles Times (10/27/02) reported that over 100,000 participated in the march, while the Washington Post‘s page A1 story (10/27/02) was headlined “100,000 Rally, March Against War in Iraq.” The Post added that Saturday’s march was “an antiwar demonstration that organizers and police suggested was likely Washington’s largest since the Vietnam era.” While both the Times and NPR reported the apparent disappointment of the organizers, none were named or quoted directly.
The problem with the coverage of the US campus protests | The Listening Post 05/04/2024
Mainstream media and cable news outlets (CNN, MSNBC, Fox News) rarely invite outspoken antiwar protesters or peace activists such as Medea Benjamin, Abby Martin, or Aaron Mate for in-depth interviews, often preferring to focus on establishment political, military, or foreign policy experts. While these activists appear occasionally on niche or international media and sometimes in clips or soundbites during massive, disruptive protests, they are generally omitted from mainstream debates.
Frequency and Nature of Coverage
Low Frequency: Studies and media critics suggest that antiwar voices are largely excluded from mainstream, particularly Sunday morning talk shows, where they are outnumbered significantly by pro-war or administration-aligned sources.
Marginalization: When protesters or critical analysts appear, it is often not for substantive debate, but in brief, often negative contexts, focusing on protests as disruptions rather than on the arguments being made.
Exceptions: Activists like Medea Benjamin may find limited space on independent outlets (like Democracy Now!) or, at times, Fox News, where anti-interventionist views might align with specific criticisms of a sitting administration's foreign policy.
Observations on Specific Activists
Medea Benjamin (CODEPINK): Although she has been active for decades, Benjamin's invitations to mainstream mainstream outlets are infrequent. She often appears in independent, alternative, or progressive media to discuss drone warfare and peace efforts.
Aaron Mate: Known for his criticism of mainstream narratives on Syria and Russia, he has been largely excluded from, and often criticized by, mainstream outlets, operating within independent media spaces.
Jimmy Dore: As an independent comedian and political commentator, he focuses on criticizing the Democratic establishment and media, and is rarely invited on mainstream corporate news.
Reasons for Low Representation
Lack of Incentives: Media organizations, particularly large corporate ones, often have little incentive to amplify voices that challenge the bipartisan foreign policy consensus.
Protest Nature: Studies indicate that protests must be incredibly large or directly disruptive to gain attention, and even then, they are often portrayed negatively.
Elite Reliance: Mainstream media relies heavily on official, authorized sources, marginalizing grassroots or radical antiwar perspectives.
Note: The search results indicate a general trend rather than providing a specific number of appearances per year for each individual mentioned. Complete article
Why is there so little mainstream coverage of antiwar protests? 07/29/2011
Facebook: Medea Benjamin
Protests, Media Coverage, and a Hierarchy of Social Struggle 06/19/2019
Code Pink co-founder Medea Benjamin calls for Julian Assange's freedom outside the DOJ 02/20/2024
CODEPINK's Medea Benjamin Brings Voices of Pakistani Drone Victims to Obama's Inauguration 01/21/2013
The revolution will not be televised: How media suppresses protest coverage 09/18/2025 This American tradition of revolution continues, despite claims that Generation Z is largely detached from politics or that resistance to President Donald Trump’s second term is lacking. However, this narrative could not be further from the truth. There have been countless protests since Trump was sworn in, from the "No Kings" and "Hands-Off!" protests to anti-ICE gatherings. In fact, this February saw over 2,000 protests in the United States, compared to about 900 in February 2017. Yet, the exponential increase in national protests has not garnered the attention of America’s major news outlets. The day following the "No Kings" protest — where an estimated 4 to 6 million people were in attendance — news headlines were few and far between: a photo story on The New York Times’ front page, no top billing in the Wall Street Journal and dismissive coverage from Fox News. Local outlets and a handful of national platforms like CNN and The Guardian offered more substantial reporting, but overall, coverage of one of the largest protests America has seen in years was lacking. Lack of protest coverage is nothing new.
The mainstream media has failed us after 7 October 10/07/2024 Not only did they mostly ignore Israel’s denial of Palestinian freedom, but also the contradictions in Israel’s military strategy
Useful Idiots with Katie Halper and Aaron Maté Useful Idiots is an informative and irreverent politics podcast with journalist Aaron Maté and podcaster/writer Katie Halper. Episodes feature analysis of the political news of the week and exclusive interviews, with humor, commentary
Is the media not covering it or are protests just not big enough yet? 02/11/2025 The media largely ignored the 50/50 protests, yet, for the first time in modern America, protests happened in every single state—on the same day. Let that sink in. That’s an incredible feat, especially considering how last-minute it was and that it took place midday on a Wednesday. Organizing large-scale protests takes time, particularly in a country as vast as the U.S., where the media has no incentive to amplify these movements. But grassroots organizations are actively coming together right now to build momentum for future protests. The sheer size of the U.S. matters.
NPR, New York Times Count Out Anti-War Activists 10/28/2002 While a turnout of less than 10,000 might have been a disappointment, NPR‘s estimate is greatly at odds with those of other observers. The Los Angeles Times (10/27/02) reported that over 100,000 participated in the march, while the Washington Post‘s page A1 story (10/27/02) was headlined “100,000 Rally, March Against War in Iraq.” The Post added that Saturday’s march was “an antiwar demonstration that organizers and police suggested was likely Washington’s largest since the Vietnam era.” While both the Times and NPR reported the apparent disappointment of the organizers, none were named or quoted directly.
The problem with the coverage of the US campus protests | The Listening Post 05/04/2024
Who are the best pundits speaking out against War provided by mainstream media? 04/23/2026
As of early 2026, mainstream media and popular conservative media figures have expressed strong opposition to U.S. military intervention, particularly regarding conflict with Iran under the second Trump administration.
Based on recent coverage, here are some of the most prominent pundits and commentators speaking out against war:
Tucker Carlson: Identified as a leading voice on the right opposing U.S. military intervention against Iran, calling such actions "disgusting and evil".
Megyn Kelly: Named alongside Carlson as a prominent conservative figure opposing the escalation in the Middle East.
Candace Owens: Has also aligned with the anti-interventionist right-wing faction, facing criticism from the Trump administration for this stance.
Joe Rogan: Cited as having significant influence with young men while expressing skepticism regarding current military engagements.
Jeremy Scahill: A journalist frequently highlighting the motives behind US foreign policy and the interests benefiting from the conflict with Iran.
Robby Soave: A libertarian journalist, often providing counter-arguments to mainstream interventionist views.
Key Contextual Factors (April 2026):
Anti-war right: The opposition to war has seen a shift, with prominent right-wing figures leading much of the public pushback against President Trump's interventionist policies, causing a divide within the conservative base.
Iran conflict: The primary focus of anti-war sentiment in mainstream media in early 2026 is the U.S. involvement in Iran.
Media criticism: Some media critics, such as those featured by The Nation, argue that while some individuals speak out, large parts of the mainstream media are "falling for" or enabling the war narrative. Complete article
The Breakdown of Trump and Tucker Carlson's Alliance—and How It Goes Beyond the Iran War 04/22/2026
https://www.politico.com/news/2026/03/28/iran-trump-maga-men-divide-cpac-00849378 03/28/2026 Their frustrations and anger with the conflict were on full display at CPAC this week.
Evaluating the Trump administration's Iran war messaging 03/12/2026
Who is running US foreign policy? Varsha Gandikota and Jeremy Scahill 04/12/2026
Debate: Are We Winning the War? With Libertarian Journalist Robby Soave | Prove It with Batya Ungar-Sargon 04/20/2026
The Daily Beast: Trump had nothing but nasty things to say about one of MAGA’s top pundits after the commentator dared to criticize the president’s handling of war with Iran. 04/07/2026
The Corporate Media Is Head Over Heels for the Iran War 03/03/2026 Donald Trump’s attack may be surreal, unjustified, and illegal. But that’s not stopping the press from turning the propaganda dial way up. Our corporate media is often caught flat-footed by the many rapid convulsions in the American polity and broader economy—whether it’s the frenetic wishcasting behind the AI bubble or the collapse of the once-imposing 2024 Trump coalition. With Donald Trump’s surreal, unjustified, and illegal war on Iran, however, our press lords have regained their cognitive footing with a vengeance.
‘Unhinged’ lefties and conservative commentators ‘falling for the same nonsense’ on Iran war 04/04/2026
Popular US commentators adopt isolationist rhetoric amid US-Iran war 03/26/2026
As of early 2026, mainstream media and popular conservative media figures have expressed strong opposition to U.S. military intervention, particularly regarding conflict with Iran under the second Trump administration.
Based on recent coverage, here are some of the most prominent pundits and commentators speaking out against war:
Tucker Carlson: Identified as a leading voice on the right opposing U.S. military intervention against Iran, calling such actions "disgusting and evil".
Megyn Kelly: Named alongside Carlson as a prominent conservative figure opposing the escalation in the Middle East.
Candace Owens: Has also aligned with the anti-interventionist right-wing faction, facing criticism from the Trump administration for this stance.
Joe Rogan: Cited as having significant influence with young men while expressing skepticism regarding current military engagements.
Jeremy Scahill: A journalist frequently highlighting the motives behind US foreign policy and the interests benefiting from the conflict with Iran.
Robby Soave: A libertarian journalist, often providing counter-arguments to mainstream interventionist views.
Key Contextual Factors (April 2026):
Anti-war right: The opposition to war has seen a shift, with prominent right-wing figures leading much of the public pushback against President Trump's interventionist policies, causing a divide within the conservative base.
Iran conflict: The primary focus of anti-war sentiment in mainstream media in early 2026 is the U.S. involvement in Iran.
Media criticism: Some media critics, such as those featured by The Nation, argue that while some individuals speak out, large parts of the mainstream media are "falling for" or enabling the war narrative. Complete article
The Breakdown of Trump and Tucker Carlson's Alliance—and How It Goes Beyond the Iran War 04/22/2026
https://www.politico.com/news/2026/03/28/iran-trump-maga-men-divide-cpac-00849378 03/28/2026 Their frustrations and anger with the conflict were on full display at CPAC this week.
Evaluating the Trump administration's Iran war messaging 03/12/2026
Who is running US foreign policy? Varsha Gandikota and Jeremy Scahill 04/12/2026
Debate: Are We Winning the War? With Libertarian Journalist Robby Soave | Prove It with Batya Ungar-Sargon 04/20/2026
The Daily Beast: Trump had nothing but nasty things to say about one of MAGA’s top pundits after the commentator dared to criticize the president’s handling of war with Iran. 04/07/2026
The Corporate Media Is Head Over Heels for the Iran War 03/03/2026 Donald Trump’s attack may be surreal, unjustified, and illegal. But that’s not stopping the press from turning the propaganda dial way up. Our corporate media is often caught flat-footed by the many rapid convulsions in the American polity and broader economy—whether it’s the frenetic wishcasting behind the AI bubble or the collapse of the once-imposing 2024 Trump coalition. With Donald Trump’s surreal, unjustified, and illegal war on Iran, however, our press lords have regained their cognitive footing with a vengeance.
‘Unhinged’ lefties and conservative commentators ‘falling for the same nonsense’ on Iran war 04/04/2026
Popular US commentators adopt isolationist rhetoric amid US-Iran war 03/26/2026
How many media personalities have been fired for opposing wars? How many have been fired for opposing Israel's military actions, aparthied, colonialism or even genocide? 04/24/2026
While there is no single master tally of all media personalities fired for anti-war or pro-Palestinian views, multiple high-profile cases have been documented across different eras of conflict.
Media Personalities Fired for Opposing Wars
Historically, taking a stance against U.S.-led military interventions has led to high-profile terminations, particularly during the lead-up to the 2003 Iraq War.
Phil Donahue: In 2003, MSNBC canceled his top-rated show just before the U.S. invasion of Iraq. A leaked internal memo stated he would be a "difficult public face for NBC in a time of war" because he questioned the invasion.
Peter Arnett: Fired by NBC and National Geographic in 2003 after giving an interview to state-run Iraqi TV where he stated the U.S. war plan had "failed" due to Iraqi resistance.
The "Hollywood Ten": During the 1940s and 50s Red Scare, numerous screenwriters and directors were blacklisted and effectively fired for refusing to cooperate with anti-communist investigations, often tied to their left-wing, anti-war affiliations.
Fired for Criticizing Israel's Actions or Support for Palestine
Since the escalation of the conflict in Gaza in October 2023, several journalists and commentators have lost their positions following comments regarding Zionism, apartheid, or the humanitarian crisis.
Briahna Joy Gray: Fired from The Hill's "Rising" in June 2024. She attributed her firing to her vocal criticism of the state of Israel and the ongoing military actions in Gaza.
Antoinette Lattouf: An Australian journalist whose short-term contract with the ABC was terminated in December 2023 after she shared a Human Rights Watch post accusing Israel of using starvation as a weapon of war.
Michael Eisen: Removed as editor-in-chief of the science journal eLife in 2023 after retweetng a satirical article from The Onion regarding Gaza.
Jackson Frank: A sports writer for PhillyVoice who was fired in October 2023 after criticizing a Philadelphia 76ers post that expressed support for Israel.
Zahraa Al-Akhrass: A Palestinian journalist fired by Canada’s Global News in 2024 for social media posts that included hashtags such as #freepalestine and #gazagenocide.
Emily Wilder: Fired by the Associated Press in 2021 shortly after being hired, following a campaign targeting her past pro-Palestinian student activism.
Steve Bell: A veteran cartoonist whose contract with The Guardian was not renewed in 2023 after he submitted a cartoon depicting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that editors deemed problematic. Complete article
Wikipedia: Phil Donahue In July 2002, Donahue returned to television after seven years of retirement to host a show called Donahue on MSNBC.[23] On February 25, 2003, MSNBC canceled the show.[24][25] Soon after the show's cancellation, an internal MSNBC memo was leaked to the press stating that Donahue should be fired because he opposed the imminent U.S. invasion of Iraq and that he would be a "difficult public face for NBC in a time of war"[26] and that his program could be "a home for the liberal anti-war agenda".[27] Donahue commented in 2007 that the management of MSNBC, owned at the time by General Electric, a major defense contractor, required that "we have two conservative (guests) for every liberal. I was counted as two liberals."[28]
i24NEWS English: AP Journalist Emily Wilder Fired For Pro-Palestine Social Posts — Discussion 05/24/2021
Democracy Now!: I Will Not Yield My Values: Fired AP Journalist Emily Wilder Speaks Out After Right-Wing Smears 05/24/2021
Not our first fight: what history tells us about attacks on the press 03/26/2025 The press remained a target for those in power throughout the nation’s history. During World War I, another Sedition Act intended to clamp down on anti-war speech led to the conviction of 2,000 dissenters. During the “Red Scare” of the 1950s, Senator Joseph McCarthy bullied inquisitive journalists, smearing them as Communist sympathizers. Public officials and titans of industry routinely exploited libel laws to snuff out unfavorable stories or financially cripple newspapers until the 1964 landmark ruling, New York Times v. Sullivan, granted journalists broader protections against such tactics. Richard Nixon’s assault on the media reached new heights until crumbling during the Watergate scandal that led to his resignation in 1974. Nixon’s efforts – capped off by the compilation of an “Enemies List” that featured such journalists as columnist Jack Anderson and CBS’s Daniel Schorr – included a push to terminate the Washington Post’s local television licenses, attempts to block the publication of the Pentagon Papers, directives to freeze out disfavored reporters, wiretaps and investigations of journalists and antitrust suits directed at the three primary television networks.
Journalists demanding fair coverage of Palestinians are getting fired, quitting or being silenced. Here are some of them. 05/24/2021
United States: Journalists face retaliation for their Gaza war coverage, NWU reports 05/08/2024 These retaliatory actions take various forms, from direct harassment and firing staff to subtle censorship within media groups. Journalists who are perceived as supportive of Palestine or critical with the Israeli government risk losing their jobs or being pushed aside at work. Among the testimonies gathered by the NWU’s investigation is the case of Palestinian journalist Zahraa Al-Akhrass, who was on maternity leave when Canada’s Global News fired her for social media posts that included the hashtags #freepalestine, #gazaunderattack and #gazagenocide”. Another case that sparked outrage in Australia but unwavering support from the Media Entertainment Arts Alliance’s (MEAA) membership is that of Lebanese Australian journalist Antoinette Lattouf, whose one-week contract as a substitute host for the ABC Sydney morning radio show was cancelled after she posted a Human Rights Watch report accusing Israel of using starvation as a weapon. Retaliatory acts against journalists not only hurt free speech, but could also spur self-censorship, as media workers are scared to speak out and . “While the concept of objectivity has been used to reinforce dominant narratives as normal, reasonable, and neutral, the perspectives of marginalised groups are more likely to be seen as fringe or biased, [...] often failing to publish stories that hold power to account,” reads NWU’s report.
Wikipedia: Hollywood blacklist "Hollywood Ten" redirects here. For the eponymous documentary, see The Hollywood Ten. "The Hollywood Ten" stand with their attorneys outside district court in Washington, D.C. before arraignment on contempt of Congress charges. The ten were charged for refusing to cooperate with the House Un-American Activities Committee. (Front row, L-R): Herbert Biberman, attorney Martin Popper, attorney Robert W. Kenny, Albert Maltz and Lester Cole. (Second row, L-R): Dalton Trumbo, John Howard Lawson, Alvah Bessie and Samuel Ornitz. (Top row, L-R): Ring Lardner Jr., Edward Dmytryk and Adrian Scott. The first systematic Hollywood blacklist was instituted on November 25, 1947, the day after ten left-wing screenwriters and directors were cited for contempt of Congress for refusing to answer questions before the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC). The ten men – Alvah Bessie, Herbert Biberman, Lester Cole, Edward Dmytryk, Ring Lardner Jr., John Howard Lawson, Albert Maltz, Samuel Ornitz, Adrian Scott and Dalton Trumbo – had been subpoenaed by the committee in late September to testify about their Communist affiliations and associates.[6]
Arnett fired by NBC after Iraqi TV outburst 03/31/2003
Progressive African American journalist fired for pro-Palestine stance 06/12/2024 Briahna Joy Gray, progressive African American news commentator and lawyer, was unexpectedly fired from her position as co-host on The Hill show “Rising” on June 6.
Fired by MSNBC for Giving Voice to Iraq War Opposition, Phil Donahue (1935-2024) Was Courage Personified 08/19/2024 Phil Donahue passed away Sunday night, after a long illness. .... No one on American television cross-examined Israeli leaders like Phil did when he interviewed then-Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres, and later, former Prime Minister Ehud Barak. They seemed stunned—never having faced such questioning from a U.S. journalist. But “the suits” ruined our show when they took control and actually mandated a quota system favoring the right wing: If we had booked one guest who was antiwar, we needed to book two that were pro-war. If we had one guest on the left, we needed two on the right. When a producer suggested booking Michael Moore—known to oppose the pending Iraq war—she was told she’d need to book three rightwingers for political balance.
Full List of Journalists Fired Over Pro-Palestinian Remarks 10/25/2023 At least two journalists have been sacked from their jobs after expressing support for Palestinians since the latest outbreak of violence between Israel and Hamas. Jackson Frank, a sports writer for Philadelphia local news outlet PhillyVoice, and Michael Eisen, editor-in-chief of life sciences academic journal eLife, have both been removed from their posts over remarks they have made regarding the conflict since fighting broke out on October 7. Meanwhile, other reporters have been taken off air over their social media posts and one cartoonist had their contract with a British newspaper terminated after penning an illustration attacking Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu which many thought included an antisemitic trope. The removals follow several previous sackings at international news outlets.
Wikipedia: Timeline of government attacks on journalists in the United States
While there is no single master tally of all media personalities fired for anti-war or pro-Palestinian views, multiple high-profile cases have been documented across different eras of conflict.
Media Personalities Fired for Opposing Wars
Historically, taking a stance against U.S.-led military interventions has led to high-profile terminations, particularly during the lead-up to the 2003 Iraq War.
Phil Donahue: In 2003, MSNBC canceled his top-rated show just before the U.S. invasion of Iraq. A leaked internal memo stated he would be a "difficult public face for NBC in a time of war" because he questioned the invasion.
Peter Arnett: Fired by NBC and National Geographic in 2003 after giving an interview to state-run Iraqi TV where he stated the U.S. war plan had "failed" due to Iraqi resistance.
The "Hollywood Ten": During the 1940s and 50s Red Scare, numerous screenwriters and directors were blacklisted and effectively fired for refusing to cooperate with anti-communist investigations, often tied to their left-wing, anti-war affiliations.
Fired for Criticizing Israel's Actions or Support for Palestine
Since the escalation of the conflict in Gaza in October 2023, several journalists and commentators have lost their positions following comments regarding Zionism, apartheid, or the humanitarian crisis.
Briahna Joy Gray: Fired from The Hill's "Rising" in June 2024. She attributed her firing to her vocal criticism of the state of Israel and the ongoing military actions in Gaza.
Antoinette Lattouf: An Australian journalist whose short-term contract with the ABC was terminated in December 2023 after she shared a Human Rights Watch post accusing Israel of using starvation as a weapon of war.
Michael Eisen: Removed as editor-in-chief of the science journal eLife in 2023 after retweetng a satirical article from The Onion regarding Gaza.
Jackson Frank: A sports writer for PhillyVoice who was fired in October 2023 after criticizing a Philadelphia 76ers post that expressed support for Israel.
Zahraa Al-Akhrass: A Palestinian journalist fired by Canada’s Global News in 2024 for social media posts that included hashtags such as #freepalestine and #gazagenocide.
Emily Wilder: Fired by the Associated Press in 2021 shortly after being hired, following a campaign targeting her past pro-Palestinian student activism.
Steve Bell: A veteran cartoonist whose contract with The Guardian was not renewed in 2023 after he submitted a cartoon depicting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that editors deemed problematic. Complete article
Wikipedia: Phil Donahue In July 2002, Donahue returned to television after seven years of retirement to host a show called Donahue on MSNBC.[23] On February 25, 2003, MSNBC canceled the show.[24][25] Soon after the show's cancellation, an internal MSNBC memo was leaked to the press stating that Donahue should be fired because he opposed the imminent U.S. invasion of Iraq and that he would be a "difficult public face for NBC in a time of war"[26] and that his program could be "a home for the liberal anti-war agenda".[27] Donahue commented in 2007 that the management of MSNBC, owned at the time by General Electric, a major defense contractor, required that "we have two conservative (guests) for every liberal. I was counted as two liberals."[28]
i24NEWS English: AP Journalist Emily Wilder Fired For Pro-Palestine Social Posts — Discussion 05/24/2021
Democracy Now!: I Will Not Yield My Values: Fired AP Journalist Emily Wilder Speaks Out After Right-Wing Smears 05/24/2021
Not our first fight: what history tells us about attacks on the press 03/26/2025 The press remained a target for those in power throughout the nation’s history. During World War I, another Sedition Act intended to clamp down on anti-war speech led to the conviction of 2,000 dissenters. During the “Red Scare” of the 1950s, Senator Joseph McCarthy bullied inquisitive journalists, smearing them as Communist sympathizers. Public officials and titans of industry routinely exploited libel laws to snuff out unfavorable stories or financially cripple newspapers until the 1964 landmark ruling, New York Times v. Sullivan, granted journalists broader protections against such tactics. Richard Nixon’s assault on the media reached new heights until crumbling during the Watergate scandal that led to his resignation in 1974. Nixon’s efforts – capped off by the compilation of an “Enemies List” that featured such journalists as columnist Jack Anderson and CBS’s Daniel Schorr – included a push to terminate the Washington Post’s local television licenses, attempts to block the publication of the Pentagon Papers, directives to freeze out disfavored reporters, wiretaps and investigations of journalists and antitrust suits directed at the three primary television networks.
Journalists demanding fair coverage of Palestinians are getting fired, quitting or being silenced. Here are some of them. 05/24/2021
United States: Journalists face retaliation for their Gaza war coverage, NWU reports 05/08/2024 These retaliatory actions take various forms, from direct harassment and firing staff to subtle censorship within media groups. Journalists who are perceived as supportive of Palestine or critical with the Israeli government risk losing their jobs or being pushed aside at work. Among the testimonies gathered by the NWU’s investigation is the case of Palestinian journalist Zahraa Al-Akhrass, who was on maternity leave when Canada’s Global News fired her for social media posts that included the hashtags #freepalestine, #gazaunderattack and #gazagenocide”. Another case that sparked outrage in Australia but unwavering support from the Media Entertainment Arts Alliance’s (MEAA) membership is that of Lebanese Australian journalist Antoinette Lattouf, whose one-week contract as a substitute host for the ABC Sydney morning radio show was cancelled after she posted a Human Rights Watch report accusing Israel of using starvation as a weapon. Retaliatory acts against journalists not only hurt free speech, but could also spur self-censorship, as media workers are scared to speak out and . “While the concept of objectivity has been used to reinforce dominant narratives as normal, reasonable, and neutral, the perspectives of marginalised groups are more likely to be seen as fringe or biased, [...] often failing to publish stories that hold power to account,” reads NWU’s report.
Wikipedia: Hollywood blacklist "Hollywood Ten" redirects here. For the eponymous documentary, see The Hollywood Ten. "The Hollywood Ten" stand with their attorneys outside district court in Washington, D.C. before arraignment on contempt of Congress charges. The ten were charged for refusing to cooperate with the House Un-American Activities Committee. (Front row, L-R): Herbert Biberman, attorney Martin Popper, attorney Robert W. Kenny, Albert Maltz and Lester Cole. (Second row, L-R): Dalton Trumbo, John Howard Lawson, Alvah Bessie and Samuel Ornitz. (Top row, L-R): Ring Lardner Jr., Edward Dmytryk and Adrian Scott. The first systematic Hollywood blacklist was instituted on November 25, 1947, the day after ten left-wing screenwriters and directors were cited for contempt of Congress for refusing to answer questions before the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC). The ten men – Alvah Bessie, Herbert Biberman, Lester Cole, Edward Dmytryk, Ring Lardner Jr., John Howard Lawson, Albert Maltz, Samuel Ornitz, Adrian Scott and Dalton Trumbo – had been subpoenaed by the committee in late September to testify about their Communist affiliations and associates.[6]
Arnett fired by NBC after Iraqi TV outburst 03/31/2003
Progressive African American journalist fired for pro-Palestine stance 06/12/2024 Briahna Joy Gray, progressive African American news commentator and lawyer, was unexpectedly fired from her position as co-host on The Hill show “Rising” on June 6.
Fired by MSNBC for Giving Voice to Iraq War Opposition, Phil Donahue (1935-2024) Was Courage Personified 08/19/2024 Phil Donahue passed away Sunday night, after a long illness. .... No one on American television cross-examined Israeli leaders like Phil did when he interviewed then-Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres, and later, former Prime Minister Ehud Barak. They seemed stunned—never having faced such questioning from a U.S. journalist. But “the suits” ruined our show when they took control and actually mandated a quota system favoring the right wing: If we had booked one guest who was antiwar, we needed to book two that were pro-war. If we had one guest on the left, we needed two on the right. When a producer suggested booking Michael Moore—known to oppose the pending Iraq war—she was told she’d need to book three rightwingers for political balance.
Wikipedia: Timeline of government attacks on journalists in the United States
Are the people responsible for making decisions about war much wealthier than those killed or tortured in those wars? 04/27/2026
Yes, historically and in modern conflicts, the individuals responsible for deciding to initiate or continue wars—politicians, high-level officials, and defense industry executives—are generally significantly wealthier and more insulated from the physical dangers of conflict than the soldiers and civilians killed, injured, or tortured in those wars.
This disparity is often described as a "rich man's war-poor man's fight" scenario, where the burden of suffering falls disproportionately on those with the least power.
Wealth Disparities and Decision-Makers
Political Elite and Corporate Profits: Decision-makers often benefit financially from conflicts, while ordinary people bear the heaviest burden. Defense contractors, such as Lockheed Martin and RTX Corp, see surges in share prices following conflict, and these companies often lobby lawmakers to ensure high military spending.
Profiting from War: In the U.S., members of Congress have traded millions in defense contractor stocks, creating a direct personal investment in companies that benefit from taxpayer-funded weapons spending.
Insulation from Risk: Those who declare war are often removed from the battlefield, while soldiers, frequently from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, risk their lives.
The Costs Borne by the Poor and Vulnerable
Victims of Conflict: War disproportionately affects the marginalized, with poor individuals and marginalized groups facing the brunt of violence, destruction of property, and loss of life.
Inequality in Sacrifice: Studies on American combat casualties from World War II to Iraq and Afghanistan show increasing socioeconomic inequality, where those who die are disproportionately coming from poorer areas.
Long-Term Economic Destruction: War shatters economies, with poorest nations suffering up to 25 years of foregone growth, entrenching a "poverty trap" that affects the vulnerable for generations.
Exceptions and Nuance
While the general trend indicates a widening gap, some researchers, such as Stanford historian Walter Scheidel, argue that massive, violent conflict can act as a "leveler" of inequality by destroying the wealth of the elite (e.g., through high taxes on the wealthy to fund the war, or direct destruction of assets). However, this "leveling" is typically a byproduct of total, catastrophic war (like WWII) rather than smaller, targeted conflicts, and the initial, immediate burden of death and torture still falls on the less powerful. Complete article
The Inspiration: War affects the poor disproportionately. Titles are generated by AI from Meta. "When the rich wage war, it is the poor who die." — Jean-Paul Sartre. Sartre exposes the injustice of war. The powerful declare conflicts, but the powerless pay the price. His words remind us that war is rarely borne equally, and that the suffering of the poor is the hidden cost of ambitions pursued by the wealthy elite. 10/08/2025
Why War is Insanely Profitable... Just Not for You 06/29/2025
THE CIVIL WAR: A “POOR MAN’S FIGHT?” 07/08/2024
Demographic and Economic Consequences of Conflict 2012
Costs of War research tallies U.S. spending on war and military operations and examines the broader economic consequences of this spending. 10/07/2025
From World War to Class War: The Resurgence of the Rich July 2006
Rep. Jason Crow: You know who always benefits from war? The political elite. Big Oil & Defense executives. You know who always does the fighting? Working class folks like I served and grew up with. 04/08/2026
Stanford historian uncovers a grim correlation between violence and inequality over the millennia 01/24/2017 Professor Walter Scheidel examines the history of peace and economic inequality over the past 10,000 years. What price do we pay for civilization? For Walter Scheidel, a professor of history and classics at Stanford, civilization has come at the cost of glaring economic inequality since the Stone Age. The sole exception, in his account, is widespread violence – wars, pandemics, civil unrest; only violent shocks like these have substantially reduced inequality over the millennia. “It is almost universally true that violence has been necessary to ensure the redistribution of wealth at any point in time,” said Scheidel, summarizing the thesis of The Great Leveler: Violence and the History of Inequality from the Stone Age to the Twenty-First Century, his newly published book. Surveying long stretches of human history, Scheidel said that “the big equalizing moments in history may not have always had the same cause, but they shared one common root: massive and violent disruptions of the established order.” This idea is connected to Thomas Piketty’s Capital in the Twenty-First Century (2013), a New York Times bestseller Scheidel admires.
How Congress PROFITS from WAR | Always at War #3 05/28/2025
Invisible Inequality: The Two Americas of Military Sacrifice 2016
From Rubble to Ruin: War’s Impact on Inequality 07/28/2025 War does not just destroy cities and claim lives; it deepens poverty and fuels inequality for generations. Behind every battlefield lie shattered economies, displaced families, and a widening gap between the powerful and the powerless. While bombs fall and borders shift, the most vulnerable are left to bear the heaviest burden. In this article, we explore how war disrupts livelihoods, concentrates wealth, and locks entire populations in cycles of deprivation that long outlast the sound of gunfire.
Ordinary people carry the burden of war, while the elite profit 04/03/2026 Defense contractors, energy companies and financial markets profit from war, while U.S. taxpayers, civilians and soldiers pay the cost, writes Hubbard County DFL chair Aaron Kjenaas.
Is it true that when the rich wage war it is thr poor Who dies? 03/03/2022
Millions Dead from Post-9/11 US Wars: An Unconscionable Cost 05/23/2023 Last week, researchers working with Brown University’s Costs of War project released a substantial report detailing the number of indirect deaths caused by the various wars in which the United States has been involved under the auspices of counterterrorism since September 11, 2001. The report estimates that indirect deaths—those resulting not from combat operations but from the various types of devastation they leave behind—from wars in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Syria, and Yemen have already reached 3.6-3.7 million, and continue to grow by the day. This appalling toll comes on top of the nearly one million lives lost to combat in these and other conflicts (including in Libya and Somalia) during the same period. And it serves as a stark reminder of the simple truth that war only serves to destroy lives and livelihoods.
Eugene Debs The Canton, Ohio Speech, Anti-War Speech 06/16/1918 "The master class has always declared the wars; the subject class has always fought the battles. The master class has had all to gain and nothing to lose, while the subject class has had nothing to gain and all to lose—especially their lives."
Yes, historically and in modern conflicts, the individuals responsible for deciding to initiate or continue wars—politicians, high-level officials, and defense industry executives—are generally significantly wealthier and more insulated from the physical dangers of conflict than the soldiers and civilians killed, injured, or tortured in those wars.
This disparity is often described as a "rich man's war-poor man's fight" scenario, where the burden of suffering falls disproportionately on those with the least power.
Wealth Disparities and Decision-Makers
Political Elite and Corporate Profits: Decision-makers often benefit financially from conflicts, while ordinary people bear the heaviest burden. Defense contractors, such as Lockheed Martin and RTX Corp, see surges in share prices following conflict, and these companies often lobby lawmakers to ensure high military spending.
Profiting from War: In the U.S., members of Congress have traded millions in defense contractor stocks, creating a direct personal investment in companies that benefit from taxpayer-funded weapons spending.
Insulation from Risk: Those who declare war are often removed from the battlefield, while soldiers, frequently from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, risk their lives.
The Costs Borne by the Poor and Vulnerable
Victims of Conflict: War disproportionately affects the marginalized, with poor individuals and marginalized groups facing the brunt of violence, destruction of property, and loss of life.
Inequality in Sacrifice: Studies on American combat casualties from World War II to Iraq and Afghanistan show increasing socioeconomic inequality, where those who die are disproportionately coming from poorer areas.
Long-Term Economic Destruction: War shatters economies, with poorest nations suffering up to 25 years of foregone growth, entrenching a "poverty trap" that affects the vulnerable for generations.
Exceptions and Nuance
While the general trend indicates a widening gap, some researchers, such as Stanford historian Walter Scheidel, argue that massive, violent conflict can act as a "leveler" of inequality by destroying the wealth of the elite (e.g., through high taxes on the wealthy to fund the war, or direct destruction of assets). However, this "leveling" is typically a byproduct of total, catastrophic war (like WWII) rather than smaller, targeted conflicts, and the initial, immediate burden of death and torture still falls on the less powerful. Complete article
The Inspiration: War affects the poor disproportionately. Titles are generated by AI from Meta. "When the rich wage war, it is the poor who die." — Jean-Paul Sartre. Sartre exposes the injustice of war. The powerful declare conflicts, but the powerless pay the price. His words remind us that war is rarely borne equally, and that the suffering of the poor is the hidden cost of ambitions pursued by the wealthy elite. 10/08/2025
Why War is Insanely Profitable... Just Not for You 06/29/2025
THE CIVIL WAR: A “POOR MAN’S FIGHT?” 07/08/2024
Demographic and Economic Consequences of Conflict 2012
Costs of War research tallies U.S. spending on war and military operations and examines the broader economic consequences of this spending. 10/07/2025
From World War to Class War: The Resurgence of the Rich July 2006
Rep. Jason Crow: You know who always benefits from war? The political elite. Big Oil & Defense executives. You know who always does the fighting? Working class folks like I served and grew up with. 04/08/2026
Stanford historian uncovers a grim correlation between violence and inequality over the millennia 01/24/2017 Professor Walter Scheidel examines the history of peace and economic inequality over the past 10,000 years. What price do we pay for civilization? For Walter Scheidel, a professor of history and classics at Stanford, civilization has come at the cost of glaring economic inequality since the Stone Age. The sole exception, in his account, is widespread violence – wars, pandemics, civil unrest; only violent shocks like these have substantially reduced inequality over the millennia. “It is almost universally true that violence has been necessary to ensure the redistribution of wealth at any point in time,” said Scheidel, summarizing the thesis of The Great Leveler: Violence and the History of Inequality from the Stone Age to the Twenty-First Century, his newly published book. Surveying long stretches of human history, Scheidel said that “the big equalizing moments in history may not have always had the same cause, but they shared one common root: massive and violent disruptions of the established order.” This idea is connected to Thomas Piketty’s Capital in the Twenty-First Century (2013), a New York Times bestseller Scheidel admires.
How Congress PROFITS from WAR | Always at War #3 05/28/2025
Invisible Inequality: The Two Americas of Military Sacrifice 2016
From Rubble to Ruin: War’s Impact on Inequality 07/28/2025 War does not just destroy cities and claim lives; it deepens poverty and fuels inequality for generations. Behind every battlefield lie shattered economies, displaced families, and a widening gap between the powerful and the powerless. While bombs fall and borders shift, the most vulnerable are left to bear the heaviest burden. In this article, we explore how war disrupts livelihoods, concentrates wealth, and locks entire populations in cycles of deprivation that long outlast the sound of gunfire.
Ordinary people carry the burden of war, while the elite profit 04/03/2026 Defense contractors, energy companies and financial markets profit from war, while U.S. taxpayers, civilians and soldiers pay the cost, writes Hubbard County DFL chair Aaron Kjenaas.
Is it true that when the rich wage war it is thr poor Who dies? 03/03/2022
Millions Dead from Post-9/11 US Wars: An Unconscionable Cost 05/23/2023 Last week, researchers working with Brown University’s Costs of War project released a substantial report detailing the number of indirect deaths caused by the various wars in which the United States has been involved under the auspices of counterterrorism since September 11, 2001. The report estimates that indirect deaths—those resulting not from combat operations but from the various types of devastation they leave behind—from wars in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Syria, and Yemen have already reached 3.6-3.7 million, and continue to grow by the day. This appalling toll comes on top of the nearly one million lives lost to combat in these and other conflicts (including in Libya and Somalia) during the same period. And it serves as a stark reminder of the simple truth that war only serves to destroy lives and livelihoods.
Eugene Debs The Canton, Ohio Speech, Anti-War Speech 06/16/1918 "The master class has always declared the wars; the subject class has always fought the battles. The master class has had all to gain and nothing to lose, while the subject class has had nothing to gain and all to lose—especially their lives."
Poverty Draft 04/29/2026
The "poverty draft" refers to the concept that the U.S. all-volunteer military disproportionately recruits young people from low-income, disadvantaged, and minority communities due to economic, educational, and employment limitations. Proponents argue economic desperation acts as a "draft", targeting high-achieving, low-income youth for recruitment.
Key Aspects of the Poverty Draft:
Economic Drivers: High student debt (over $1.5 trillion), lack of jobs, and limited access to education, often in rural or urban areas.
Recruiter Targeting: Concerns that military recruiters disproportionately focus on high schools with high percentages of minority and low-income students.
Disproportionate Representation: Critics argue lower-income areas are overrepresented in the military compared to wealthier communities.
Controversy and Research Findings:
Counter-Arguments: Studies, such as those from The Heritage Foundation, claim the military is not disproportionately composed of the poor and that recruits often come from middle-class backgrounds.
Alternative Findings: Researchers like Dr. Alair MacLean found no evidence that the poor were overrepresented, but suggested a "wealth exemption" where young people from the highest income backgrounds are less likely to serve.
Historically: Programs like Project 100,000 during the 1960s were criticized for similarly targeting marginalized populations.
Resistance and Perspectives:
Advocacy groups, such as the National Network Opposing the Militarization of Youth (NNOMY) and The American Friends Service Committee (AFSC), refer to this situation as an "economic conscription".
They advocate for increased funding for public education and job creation, arguing that youth should not be forced into military service by economic hardship.
This topic is highly debated, with opposing viewpoints often focusing on different data sets regarding the socio-economic status of recruits. Complete article
The Poverty Draft They never mention that the college money is difficult to come by, or that very few job skills are transferable from military to civilian life. ..... Puerto Rico is the Army’s number one recruiting territory. With an unemployment rate on the island of more than 40%, Army recruiting offices in Puerto Rico garner more than 4 times the number of recruits US based recruiting offices average on a yearly basis.
The Poverty Draft Jorge Mariscal - Do military recruiters disproportionately target communities of color and the poor?
The student debt crisis is fueling the poverty draft 01/15/2020
Debunking the myth of the underprivileged soldier 11/29/2005
The Military Targets Youth for Recruitment, Especially at Poor Schools 01/22/2019 “As students were coming out of classrooms, [recruiters] would be by the door waiting for them." ..... Rocio Cordova, program coordinator for the Project on Youth and Non-military Opportunities, describes this phenomenon as a “draft-like system that pushes nonprivileged people into enlisting because they lack access to jobs, income, and educational alternatives in their communities.”
Poverty Is the New Draft 01/14/2020 The draft might be gone, but not everyone volunteers for the same reasons. Inconsistent access to education, healthcare, or housing means marginalized communities are systemically pushed into military service to gain those benefits--especially poor students.
The Poverty Draft? Exploring the Role of Socioeconomic Status in U.S. Military Recruitment of Hispanic Students 2010
Class, Race/Ethnicity, and Military Service in the Recent Wars
The Poverty Draft? Exploring the Role of Socioeconomic Status in U.S. Military Recruitment of Hispanic Students 2010
PUERTO RICO: THE ARMY'S #1 RECRUITING GROUNDS HOW TO RESIST THE POVERTY DRAFT
Wikipedia: Project 100,000, also known as McNamara's 100,000, McNamara's Folly, McNamara's Morons, and McNamara's Misfits,[1][2] was a controversial 1960s program by the United States Department of Defense (DoD) to recruit soldiers who would previously have been below military mental or medical standards.
Say no to the poverty draft 01/16/2003 Last week, a friend who was recruited on his high school campus was sent off to the Persian Gulf region leaving behind his wife and newborn daughter. When he joined the army reserves he never figured he’d be going off to war and, with no other way to pay for college, signed up as a way to fund his education. This is the story of hundreds of thousands of youth across the United States who, because of a lack of affordable, quality education and options for the future, turn to the armed services as a way to make a future for themselves.
The "poverty draft" refers to the concept that the U.S. all-volunteer military disproportionately recruits young people from low-income, disadvantaged, and minority communities due to economic, educational, and employment limitations. Proponents argue economic desperation acts as a "draft", targeting high-achieving, low-income youth for recruitment.
Key Aspects of the Poverty Draft:
Economic Drivers: High student debt (over $1.5 trillion), lack of jobs, and limited access to education, often in rural or urban areas.
Recruiter Targeting: Concerns that military recruiters disproportionately focus on high schools with high percentages of minority and low-income students.
Disproportionate Representation: Critics argue lower-income areas are overrepresented in the military compared to wealthier communities.
Controversy and Research Findings:
Counter-Arguments: Studies, such as those from The Heritage Foundation, claim the military is not disproportionately composed of the poor and that recruits often come from middle-class backgrounds.
Alternative Findings: Researchers like Dr. Alair MacLean found no evidence that the poor were overrepresented, but suggested a "wealth exemption" where young people from the highest income backgrounds are less likely to serve.
Historically: Programs like Project 100,000 during the 1960s were criticized for similarly targeting marginalized populations.
Resistance and Perspectives:
Advocacy groups, such as the National Network Opposing the Militarization of Youth (NNOMY) and The American Friends Service Committee (AFSC), refer to this situation as an "economic conscription".
They advocate for increased funding for public education and job creation, arguing that youth should not be forced into military service by economic hardship.
This topic is highly debated, with opposing viewpoints often focusing on different data sets regarding the socio-economic status of recruits. Complete article
The Poverty Draft They never mention that the college money is difficult to come by, or that very few job skills are transferable from military to civilian life. ..... Puerto Rico is the Army’s number one recruiting territory. With an unemployment rate on the island of more than 40%, Army recruiting offices in Puerto Rico garner more than 4 times the number of recruits US based recruiting offices average on a yearly basis.
The Poverty Draft Jorge Mariscal - Do military recruiters disproportionately target communities of color and the poor?
The student debt crisis is fueling the poverty draft 01/15/2020
Debunking the myth of the underprivileged soldier 11/29/2005
The Military Targets Youth for Recruitment, Especially at Poor Schools 01/22/2019 “As students were coming out of classrooms, [recruiters] would be by the door waiting for them." ..... Rocio Cordova, program coordinator for the Project on Youth and Non-military Opportunities, describes this phenomenon as a “draft-like system that pushes nonprivileged people into enlisting because they lack access to jobs, income, and educational alternatives in their communities.”
Poverty Is the New Draft 01/14/2020 The draft might be gone, but not everyone volunteers for the same reasons. Inconsistent access to education, healthcare, or housing means marginalized communities are systemically pushed into military service to gain those benefits--especially poor students.
The Poverty Draft? Exploring the Role of Socioeconomic Status in U.S. Military Recruitment of Hispanic Students 2010
Class, Race/Ethnicity, and Military Service in the Recent Wars
The Poverty Draft? Exploring the Role of Socioeconomic Status in U.S. Military Recruitment of Hispanic Students 2010
PUERTO RICO: THE ARMY'S #1 RECRUITING GROUNDS HOW TO RESIST THE POVERTY DRAFT
Wikipedia: Project 100,000, also known as McNamara's 100,000, McNamara's Folly, McNamara's Morons, and McNamara's Misfits,[1][2] was a controversial 1960s program by the United States Department of Defense (DoD) to recruit soldiers who would previously have been below military mental or medical standards.
Say no to the poverty draft 01/16/2003 Last week, a friend who was recruited on his high school campus was sent off to the Persian Gulf region leaving behind his wife and newborn daughter. When he joined the army reserves he never figured he’d be going off to war and, with no other way to pay for college, signed up as a way to fund his education. This is the story of hundreds of thousands of youth across the United States who, because of a lack of affordable, quality education and options for the future, turn to the armed services as a way to make a future for themselves.
Have many if any immigrants joined the military in the hopes that The DREAM Act or other policies would enable them to become citizens? Have these promises, implied or real, been kept? Is ICE arresting or deporting many military recruits or their family? 04/29/2026
Hundreds of immigrants, including DACA recipients, have joined the military hoping for a path to citizenship, often through programs like MAVNI, which saw roughly 900 participants. However, these promises have frequently gone unfulfilled, with many recruits facing discharges due to security issues and delays. Furthermore, ICE has targeted family members of service members, and some recruits faced deportation threats.
Immigrant Recruitment and Motivations
MAVNI Program: From 2014 to 2016, the Military Accessions Vital to National Interest (MAVNI) program allowed DACA recipients with specific skills (medical/language) to enlist and seek citizenship.
Numbers: Approximately 900 DACA recipients have served or signed contracts to serve, with hundreds more in limbo.
Motivations: Immigrants often view the military as a dedicated path to legalization and a better future, fulfilling a desire to serve their home country.
Promises and Reality (Citizenship Status)
Broken Promises: Many recruits in the MAVNI program faced contract cancellations and, while they served, were not given the promised path to citizenship, resulting in lawsuits.
Security Issues: The military stopped accepting new MAVNI recruits in 2016, citing security concerns regarding foreign backgrounds.
Legal Limbo: Many potential DREAM Act beneficiaries face significant wait times and lack a clear, long-term pathway, often being discharged without clear reasons.
ICE Actions Against Recruits and Families
Family Targeting: Reports indicate ICE has targeted the undocumented family members of service members for deportation, even after they joined the military.
Undocumented Status: Undocumented recruits who enlisted sometimes found their status in jeopardy when their contracts were not honored, leaving them vulnerable to deportation.
Military Aid to ICE: The military has provided, and may increase, logistical support for immigration enforcement, including transporting or processing detained individuals. Complete article
They Were Willing to Make the Ultimate Sacrifice for the U.S., but Trump Won't Let Them Become Americans 04/24/2020
THE DREAM ACT: GOOD FOR OUR ECONOMY, GOOD FOR OUR SECURITY, GOOD FOR OUR NATION 2010?
DACA recipients who dream of military service are stuck in limbo 07/06/2018 The United States Army has been quietly discharging a number of immigrant recruits, according to recent reports by the Associated Press and the NewsHour's own reporting. Yamiche Alcindor shares the story of another group of young immigrant recruits in limbo.
DACA recipients who dream of military service are stuck in limbo 07/06/2018
Law professor explains how the military can be used for mass deportations 11/20/2024
ICE Plans to Target Family Members of U.S. Marines Next 03/31/2026
Hundreds of immigrants, including DACA recipients, have joined the military hoping for a path to citizenship, often through programs like MAVNI, which saw roughly 900 participants. However, these promises have frequently gone unfulfilled, with many recruits facing discharges due to security issues and delays. Furthermore, ICE has targeted family members of service members, and some recruits faced deportation threats.
Immigrant Recruitment and Motivations
MAVNI Program: From 2014 to 2016, the Military Accessions Vital to National Interest (MAVNI) program allowed DACA recipients with specific skills (medical/language) to enlist and seek citizenship.
Numbers: Approximately 900 DACA recipients have served or signed contracts to serve, with hundreds more in limbo.
Motivations: Immigrants often view the military as a dedicated path to legalization and a better future, fulfilling a desire to serve their home country.
Promises and Reality (Citizenship Status)
Broken Promises: Many recruits in the MAVNI program faced contract cancellations and, while they served, were not given the promised path to citizenship, resulting in lawsuits.
Security Issues: The military stopped accepting new MAVNI recruits in 2016, citing security concerns regarding foreign backgrounds.
Legal Limbo: Many potential DREAM Act beneficiaries face significant wait times and lack a clear, long-term pathway, often being discharged without clear reasons.
ICE Actions Against Recruits and Families
Family Targeting: Reports indicate ICE has targeted the undocumented family members of service members for deportation, even after they joined the military.
Undocumented Status: Undocumented recruits who enlisted sometimes found their status in jeopardy when their contracts were not honored, leaving them vulnerable to deportation.
Military Aid to ICE: The military has provided, and may increase, logistical support for immigration enforcement, including transporting or processing detained individuals. Complete article
They Were Willing to Make the Ultimate Sacrifice for the U.S., but Trump Won't Let Them Become Americans 04/24/2020
THE DREAM ACT: GOOD FOR OUR ECONOMY, GOOD FOR OUR SECURITY, GOOD FOR OUR NATION 2010?
DACA recipients who dream of military service are stuck in limbo 07/06/2018 The United States Army has been quietly discharging a number of immigrant recruits, according to recent reports by the Associated Press and the NewsHour's own reporting. Yamiche Alcindor shares the story of another group of young immigrant recruits in limbo.
DACA recipients who dream of military service are stuck in limbo 07/06/2018
Law professor explains how the military can be used for mass deportations 11/20/2024
ICE Plans to Target Family Members of U.S. Marines Next 03/31/2026
How many people supported the Iraq War in the spring of 2003? Did the number of people supporting the war go down when they realized they were lied to about weapons of mass destruction or torture at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo? 04/29/2026
In the spring of 2003, a significant majority of Americans supported the Iraq War, with polls showing approximately 72% to 76% of the public in favor of the invasion at the start of operations in March 2003. Support was driven by the "rally 'round the flag" effect, post-9/11 anxiety, and widespread belief that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMD).
Support for the war did decrease over time as key justifications—specifically the presence of WMDs—proved to be false and following the revelation of abuse at Abu Ghraib.
Public Support in Spring 2003
Initial High Support: Immediately after the invasion on March 20, 2003, polls showed 72%–76% support.
March 2003 Polls: A Gallup poll on March 22–23, 2003, found 72% supported the war, with 59% strongly in favor.
Pre-Invasion Views: In the months leading up to the war, support was lower, ranging from 52% to 59%, but increased following President Bush’s ultimatum speech.
Belief in WMDs: Early in the war, 9 out of 10 Americans believed it was "at least somewhat likely" that WMDs would be found.
Decline in Support (2003-2004)
The realization that WMDs were not being found, combined with the escalating insurgency, caused public support to drop.
The "Mistake" Shift: By April 2007, a Pew Research Center poll showed 58% of Americans felt the initial attack was a mistake, a complete reversal of 2003 public opinion.
WMD Finding Failure: While 69% of Americans believed Iraq had WMDs in June 2003, faith in that claim eroded over the next year as reports showed none existed.
11-Point Drop: A sharp 11-point drop in support occurred in the last week of March 2004, coinciding with the 9/11 commission hearings.
Impact of Abu Ghraib (2004)
The release of photos in April 2004 showing U.S. soldiers abusing prisoners at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq was a major turning point, severely harming the reputation of the U.S. in the region and deepening public doubt at home.
Increased Opposition: The graphic nature of the abuses, combined with reports of "enhanced interrogation techniques" at Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo, undermined the moral justification for the war.
Loss of Credibility: The scandal occurred while the U.S. was struggling to secure the country, and it made the prospect of winning the support of the Iraqi people much harder, as noted by U.S. military spokespeople at the time.
By May 2004: Following the scandal, the share of Americans who believed the war was going well fell below 50% for the first time. Complete article
Seventy-Two Percent of Americans Support War Against Iraq 03/24/2003 Bush approval up 13 points to 71%
Wikipedia: Public opinion in the United States on the invasion of Iraq The United States public's opinion on the invasion of Iraq has changed significantly since the years preceding the incursion. For various reasons, mostly related to the unexpected consequences of the invasion, as well as misinformation provided by US authorities, the US public's perspective on its government's choice to initiate an offensive is increasingly negative. Before the invasion in March 2003, polls showed 47–60% of the US public supported an invasion, dependent on U.N. approval.[1] According to the same poll retaken in April 2007, 58% of the participants stated that the initial attack was a mistake.[2]
Rally ‘Round the Flag: Opinion in the United States before and after the Iraq War 06/01/2003 The Iraq war validated a basic rule of American politics: the American public closes ranks in times of national crisis. In the prolonged march to war, the public was divided and ambivalent about the wisdom of invading Iraq rather than relying on continued United Nations weapons inspections. Most of those doubts evaporated once the bombs began falling. And the surge of patriotism not only boosted public support for President Bush, but extended beyond the White House to raise optimism about the country’s institutions and American society as a whole.
With 20-Year Hindsight, Public Opinion and the Iraq War 03/24/2023 In December 1998, after the air strikes, nearly eight in 10 Americans approved of the decision in ABC/Washington Post and Gallup polls. And by February 1999, 74 percent of Americans told Gallup interviewers that they would support using military force to remove Saddam from power. Fast forward to 2003. The US invasion began on March 20 of that year, and several polls found majority support in favor of the military action. For example, in both a late March Pew survey and an April CNN poll, 71 percent of Americans favored the decision to use military force. While today most of us decry the fact that no (or more accurately very little) weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) were found, a Harris interactive June 2003 survey found that seven in 10 Americans believed that Iraq actually had WMDs when the war began (69%). Moreover, 56 percent thought the US government had tried to present the information accurately versus 37 percent who thought the US government had deliberately exaggerated the reports of WMDs in Iraq. In early polling after the 2003 invasion, Republicans were much more supportive than Democrats. For instance, nine in 10 Republicans backed the intervention, compared with around half of Democrats in Pew’s early polling.
Wikipedia: Public opinion in the United States on the invasion of Iraq Approximately two-thirds of respondents wanted the government to wait for the UN inspections to end, and only 31% supported using military force immediately. This same poll showed that a majority believed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, but did not expect UN inspectors to find them. These numbers indicated a dramatic drop in support, as, two months prior, most polls showed about two-thirds of those polled supporting military action. ...... Days before the March 20 invasion, a USA Today/CNN/Gallup Poll found support for the war was related to UN approval. Nearly six in 10 said they were ready for such an invasion "in the next week or two." But that support dropped off if the U.N. backing was not first obtained. If the United Nations Security Council were to reject a resolution paving the way for military action, 54% of Americans favored a U.S. invasion. And if the Bush administration did not seek a final Security Council vote, support for a war dropped to 47%.[1] ..... March of 2023 marked the 20-year anniversary of the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Public support for the lengthy war significantly decreased over the past two decades. As of 2023, 36 percent of Americans believed the US was right to invade Iraq in 2003, while 61 percent believed it was the wrong decision.[45]
Polls show support for Iraq War drop in 20 years post invasion 03/17/2023 Following the initial invasion, the fall of Baghdad in April 2003 and Bush’s notorious “Mission Accomplished” speech, public support for the use of force in Iraq rose to 74%, but would never again reach that level, according to the research center. By May 2004, more than a year into the conflict, the Pew Research Center noted the share of Americans who said the use of military force was going at least “fairly well” fell below 50% for the first time. With growing partisan polarization over the conflict, Bush’s strategy to send additional forces to Iraq further divided the nation. Nearly two-thirds of all Americans opposed the plan, a 2007 survey from the research center reported.
76% of Americans supported the Iraq War in 2003. It is now understood that mainstream US media back then was overwhelmingly pro- war and very misleading to viewers. What was your experience? 11/14/2019
Understanding Abu Ghraib: Accountability, the United States, and the Continuation of Torture April 2020
Congress Investigates the Torture and Mistreatment of War Detainees Last modified 01/28/2026 The abuses that were committed against prisoners in U.S. custody at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq dishonored our military and our Nation, and they made the prospects for success in Iraq even more difficult than they already are. Our troops are less secure and our Nation is less secure because these depraved and despicable actions will fuel the hatred and fury of those who oppose us.[20] Committee members emphasized that the mistreatment of detainees in U.S. custody made it more likely that U.S. personnel would be subjected to similar mistreatment if captured and fueled the recruitment of terrorists around the world.
As insurgency grew, so did prison abuse 05/09/2004 The evidence of abuse inside Abu Ghraib has shaken public opinion in Iraq to the point where it may be more difficult than ever to secure cooperation against the insurgency. Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, the chief spokesman for the U.S. military in Iraq, acknowledged last week that winning over Iraqis before the planned handover of some sovereign powers next month had been made considerably harder by the photos. Last week, denunciations and threats rang out from mosques across Iraq during Friday prayers. Powerful clerics ridiculed the U.S. occupation authority's central justification for the war -- that it would bring justice to a country suffering under dictatorship -- and warned or reprisals if those who carried out the torture were not tried by an independent court. "Saddam didn't claim that he was for freedom and equality," Moqtada Sadr, the rebellious Shiite cleric now commanding a thousands-strong anti-U.S. militia, told hundreds of worshippers in the southern city of Kufa. "I call for humanitarian organizations to change this prison into a humanitarian establishment, and to try the criminals in honest courts as soon as possible. Otherwise, we'll do the necessary actions in ways that you don't expect."
The Meaning of Abu Ghraib June 2004 The conditions created by administration policy at Abu Ghraib invited prisoner abuse. Determined to keep down troop levels, the Department of Defense assigned too few American soldiers relative to the number of prisoners. The soldiers had little supervision and no training for the work they were performing. None of this excuses the prison guards who engaged in torture. But the president, not just the secretary of defense, is responsible for the policies that lay behind this disaster and for the general attitude that the urgent demands of the "war on terrorism" require us to put aside law and liberty. The irony is that this supposed tough-mindedness has ended up damaging American power and security, too. And that has been the lesson repeatedly during the past two years. The doctrine of preemptive war and the dismissive attitude toward international law and institutions have all undermined American legitimacy and influence. The images of torture at Abu Ghraib have had deep resonance around the world because they fit a pre-existing picture of an America that has no respect for the decent opinions of mankind.
A Look Back at How Fear and False Beliefs Bolstered U.S. Public Support for War in Iraq 03/14/2023 As prospects for war grew, thousands took to the streets to protest. In the months leading up to the war, majorities of between 55% and 68% said they favored taking military action to end Hussein’s rule in Iraq. No more than about a third opposed military action. However, support for military action in Iraq was consistently less pronounced among a handful of demographic and partisan groups.
How quickly did public opinion turn against the Iraq War? 07/03/2024
Rally ‘Round the Flag: Opinion in the United States before and after the Iraq War 06/01/2003 The public was also untroubled by the failure, at least initially, of U.S. forces to uncover weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. At the start of fighting, Gallup found that only 38 percent of Americans said the war would be justified if the United States failed to find such weapons. In early April, by contrast, 58 percent said it would be. Moreover, the share of the American public that believed it was “very likely” that U.S. forces would eventually uncover Iraqi weapons of mass destruction fell from 59 percent in early April to 39 percent in late April.
In the spring of 2003, a significant majority of Americans supported the Iraq War, with polls showing approximately 72% to 76% of the public in favor of the invasion at the start of operations in March 2003. Support was driven by the "rally 'round the flag" effect, post-9/11 anxiety, and widespread belief that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMD).
Support for the war did decrease over time as key justifications—specifically the presence of WMDs—proved to be false and following the revelation of abuse at Abu Ghraib.
Public Support in Spring 2003
Initial High Support: Immediately after the invasion on March 20, 2003, polls showed 72%–76% support.
March 2003 Polls: A Gallup poll on March 22–23, 2003, found 72% supported the war, with 59% strongly in favor.
Pre-Invasion Views: In the months leading up to the war, support was lower, ranging from 52% to 59%, but increased following President Bush’s ultimatum speech.
Belief in WMDs: Early in the war, 9 out of 10 Americans believed it was "at least somewhat likely" that WMDs would be found.
Decline in Support (2003-2004)
The realization that WMDs were not being found, combined with the escalating insurgency, caused public support to drop.
The "Mistake" Shift: By April 2007, a Pew Research Center poll showed 58% of Americans felt the initial attack was a mistake, a complete reversal of 2003 public opinion.
WMD Finding Failure: While 69% of Americans believed Iraq had WMDs in June 2003, faith in that claim eroded over the next year as reports showed none existed.
11-Point Drop: A sharp 11-point drop in support occurred in the last week of March 2004, coinciding with the 9/11 commission hearings.
Impact of Abu Ghraib (2004)
The release of photos in April 2004 showing U.S. soldiers abusing prisoners at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq was a major turning point, severely harming the reputation of the U.S. in the region and deepening public doubt at home.
Increased Opposition: The graphic nature of the abuses, combined with reports of "enhanced interrogation techniques" at Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo, undermined the moral justification for the war.
Loss of Credibility: The scandal occurred while the U.S. was struggling to secure the country, and it made the prospect of winning the support of the Iraqi people much harder, as noted by U.S. military spokespeople at the time.
By May 2004: Following the scandal, the share of Americans who believed the war was going well fell below 50% for the first time. Complete article
Seventy-Two Percent of Americans Support War Against Iraq 03/24/2003 Bush approval up 13 points to 71%
Wikipedia: Public opinion in the United States on the invasion of Iraq The United States public's opinion on the invasion of Iraq has changed significantly since the years preceding the incursion. For various reasons, mostly related to the unexpected consequences of the invasion, as well as misinformation provided by US authorities, the US public's perspective on its government's choice to initiate an offensive is increasingly negative. Before the invasion in March 2003, polls showed 47–60% of the US public supported an invasion, dependent on U.N. approval.[1] According to the same poll retaken in April 2007, 58% of the participants stated that the initial attack was a mistake.[2]
Rally ‘Round the Flag: Opinion in the United States before and after the Iraq War 06/01/2003 The Iraq war validated a basic rule of American politics: the American public closes ranks in times of national crisis. In the prolonged march to war, the public was divided and ambivalent about the wisdom of invading Iraq rather than relying on continued United Nations weapons inspections. Most of those doubts evaporated once the bombs began falling. And the surge of patriotism not only boosted public support for President Bush, but extended beyond the White House to raise optimism about the country’s institutions and American society as a whole.
With 20-Year Hindsight, Public Opinion and the Iraq War 03/24/2023 In December 1998, after the air strikes, nearly eight in 10 Americans approved of the decision in ABC/Washington Post and Gallup polls. And by February 1999, 74 percent of Americans told Gallup interviewers that they would support using military force to remove Saddam from power. Fast forward to 2003. The US invasion began on March 20 of that year, and several polls found majority support in favor of the military action. For example, in both a late March Pew survey and an April CNN poll, 71 percent of Americans favored the decision to use military force. While today most of us decry the fact that no (or more accurately very little) weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) were found, a Harris interactive June 2003 survey found that seven in 10 Americans believed that Iraq actually had WMDs when the war began (69%). Moreover, 56 percent thought the US government had tried to present the information accurately versus 37 percent who thought the US government had deliberately exaggerated the reports of WMDs in Iraq. In early polling after the 2003 invasion, Republicans were much more supportive than Democrats. For instance, nine in 10 Republicans backed the intervention, compared with around half of Democrats in Pew’s early polling.
Wikipedia: Public opinion in the United States on the invasion of Iraq Approximately two-thirds of respondents wanted the government to wait for the UN inspections to end, and only 31% supported using military force immediately. This same poll showed that a majority believed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, but did not expect UN inspectors to find them. These numbers indicated a dramatic drop in support, as, two months prior, most polls showed about two-thirds of those polled supporting military action. ...... Days before the March 20 invasion, a USA Today/CNN/Gallup Poll found support for the war was related to UN approval. Nearly six in 10 said they were ready for such an invasion "in the next week or two." But that support dropped off if the U.N. backing was not first obtained. If the United Nations Security Council were to reject a resolution paving the way for military action, 54% of Americans favored a U.S. invasion. And if the Bush administration did not seek a final Security Council vote, support for a war dropped to 47%.[1] ..... March of 2023 marked the 20-year anniversary of the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Public support for the lengthy war significantly decreased over the past two decades. As of 2023, 36 percent of Americans believed the US was right to invade Iraq in 2003, while 61 percent believed it was the wrong decision.[45]
Polls show support for Iraq War drop in 20 years post invasion 03/17/2023 Following the initial invasion, the fall of Baghdad in April 2003 and Bush’s notorious “Mission Accomplished” speech, public support for the use of force in Iraq rose to 74%, but would never again reach that level, according to the research center. By May 2004, more than a year into the conflict, the Pew Research Center noted the share of Americans who said the use of military force was going at least “fairly well” fell below 50% for the first time. With growing partisan polarization over the conflict, Bush’s strategy to send additional forces to Iraq further divided the nation. Nearly two-thirds of all Americans opposed the plan, a 2007 survey from the research center reported.
76% of Americans supported the Iraq War in 2003. It is now understood that mainstream US media back then was overwhelmingly pro- war and very misleading to viewers. What was your experience? 11/14/2019
Understanding Abu Ghraib: Accountability, the United States, and the Continuation of Torture April 2020
Congress Investigates the Torture and Mistreatment of War Detainees Last modified 01/28/2026 The abuses that were committed against prisoners in U.S. custody at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq dishonored our military and our Nation, and they made the prospects for success in Iraq even more difficult than they already are. Our troops are less secure and our Nation is less secure because these depraved and despicable actions will fuel the hatred and fury of those who oppose us.[20] Committee members emphasized that the mistreatment of detainees in U.S. custody made it more likely that U.S. personnel would be subjected to similar mistreatment if captured and fueled the recruitment of terrorists around the world.
As insurgency grew, so did prison abuse 05/09/2004 The evidence of abuse inside Abu Ghraib has shaken public opinion in Iraq to the point where it may be more difficult than ever to secure cooperation against the insurgency. Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, the chief spokesman for the U.S. military in Iraq, acknowledged last week that winning over Iraqis before the planned handover of some sovereign powers next month had been made considerably harder by the photos. Last week, denunciations and threats rang out from mosques across Iraq during Friday prayers. Powerful clerics ridiculed the U.S. occupation authority's central justification for the war -- that it would bring justice to a country suffering under dictatorship -- and warned or reprisals if those who carried out the torture were not tried by an independent court. "Saddam didn't claim that he was for freedom and equality," Moqtada Sadr, the rebellious Shiite cleric now commanding a thousands-strong anti-U.S. militia, told hundreds of worshippers in the southern city of Kufa. "I call for humanitarian organizations to change this prison into a humanitarian establishment, and to try the criminals in honest courts as soon as possible. Otherwise, we'll do the necessary actions in ways that you don't expect."
The Meaning of Abu Ghraib June 2004 The conditions created by administration policy at Abu Ghraib invited prisoner abuse. Determined to keep down troop levels, the Department of Defense assigned too few American soldiers relative to the number of prisoners. The soldiers had little supervision and no training for the work they were performing. None of this excuses the prison guards who engaged in torture. But the president, not just the secretary of defense, is responsible for the policies that lay behind this disaster and for the general attitude that the urgent demands of the "war on terrorism" require us to put aside law and liberty. The irony is that this supposed tough-mindedness has ended up damaging American power and security, too. And that has been the lesson repeatedly during the past two years. The doctrine of preemptive war and the dismissive attitude toward international law and institutions have all undermined American legitimacy and influence. The images of torture at Abu Ghraib have had deep resonance around the world because they fit a pre-existing picture of an America that has no respect for the decent opinions of mankind.
A Look Back at How Fear and False Beliefs Bolstered U.S. Public Support for War in Iraq 03/14/2023 As prospects for war grew, thousands took to the streets to protest. In the months leading up to the war, majorities of between 55% and 68% said they favored taking military action to end Hussein’s rule in Iraq. No more than about a third opposed military action. However, support for military action in Iraq was consistently less pronounced among a handful of demographic and partisan groups.
How quickly did public opinion turn against the Iraq War? 07/03/2024
Rally ‘Round the Flag: Opinion in the United States before and after the Iraq War 06/01/2003 The public was also untroubled by the failure, at least initially, of U.S. forces to uncover weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. At the start of fighting, Gallup found that only 38 percent of Americans said the war would be justified if the United States failed to find such weapons. In early April, by contrast, 58 percent said it would be. Moreover, the share of the American public that believed it was “very likely” that U.S. forces would eventually uncover Iraqi weapons of mass destruction fell from 59 percent in early April to 39 percent in late April.
How long does it take to create Lego videos using AI? 04/29/2026
Creating LEGO-style videos using AI has drastically reduced production time from weeks to hours or even minutes. While basic 30-second clips can be generated in under 30 minutes, producing a polished, 1-2 minute, high-quality AI LEGO video typically takes several hours to a full day when accounting for prompting, iterative refinement, and editing.
Key Timeframes & Factors:
Rapid Generation (Minutes): Tools like Mootion can generate 3-minute, block-styled animations in under 2 minutes. Simple image-to-video conversions with tools like Invido AI can take only minutes.
Average Project (2-10 Hours): A 1-2 minute video often requires 4–12 hours for prompting, generating multiple iterations (due to "model drift" or inconsistencies), and stitching them together.
Detailed Production (Days): High-detail or 20-second, high-effort shorts can take up to 3 days to complete due to complex face montages and continuous modifications.
Time-Consuming Steps in AI Production:
Prompt Engineering & Iteration: Getting the Lego style consistent across different scenes requires constant re-prompting, as AI can produce varied results.
Editing & Stitching: Manually editing AI-generated clips (e.g., using Davinci Resolve) and adding audio/voiceovers is often the most time-consuming step.
Rendering: While AI is fast, complex scenes or high-resolution outputs can still take time to render depending on the tool.
Factors Influencing Speed:
Workflow Integration: Using all-in-one AI tools (like Revid.ai) for script-to-video is much faster than using separate tools for image generation, animation, and audio.
Quality Demands: Higher-quality, more specific, or longer videos require more "human-in-the-loop" time for curation.
Experience: Experienced creators can create 2-minute videos in as little as 2 hours, whereas beginners might spend over 16 hours.
Tools for Fast Production:
Mootion: Specializes in turning images into Lego-style animation.
CapCut (Seedance AI): Good for quick AI video creation.
Revid.ai: Used for text-to-video generation.
DomoAI: Useful for turning existing video into Lego style.
Luma AI (Dream Machine): For generating scenes from text prompts. Complete article
How much time do you typically spend putting together a video using AI tools? 08/10/2025 I made a video essay of a passage from the book “They Thought They Were Free” 6 years ago using only stock video footage and a voiceover I paid someone on Fiverr $100 for. (The video has made $0 after around a $250 investment but I felt it was important for me to make.) I put probably 30+ hours into putting this together: Now here is a recent video I put together using AI tools. It’s a recreation of Reddit users’ dreams: This probably took me around 40 hours to put together because of the iterative process of crafting these video clips. They all take art direction and video direction and a lot of iterations to get right. Nothing is just one shot and done. Critics often say “pick up a camera!”, but you tell me, how the hell am I going to go pick up a camera and record an alligator swimming through a bedroom for a dream sequence?
How To Make a LEGO Commercial with AI — Here’s EXACTLY How (VEO 3 Tutorial) 07/28/2025
How are people making AI videos so fast? Mine take days 11/06/2025 I have been experimenting with AI video technology by attempting to create original shorts. In most cases, each 20-second video clip takes me 3 days for continual modifications, scene regeneration, and complex face montage. I start by creating and animating imagery with apps like Runway and Pika. For filler shots and transitions, I employ movieflow which I currently use for transitions and filler shots, though I’ve seen others use it to generate longer narrative sequences. The most challenging aspect of video production is value and harmony. One shot may have paramount value and harmony, then the next clip is from a contradictory dimension. Other times I have to merge clips from various models for a singular scene. The methodical audio streamlining in Logic is excruciating. I far prefer to employ an automated process for audio and voice work. In any case, I constantly see people upload new AI shorts. Their video production speeduxes perplexes me. Are you more efficient with your AI tools, or just more fortunate in your prompt engineering? I would like to know more about your process and the amount of time you allocate to creating a video.
Instruction video on AI 03/05/2025
How Long Does It Take to Make an AI Video? (2026 Data)
How long does it take you to make AI videos? 03/10/2026 Ive made 5 Horizontal videos and 23 shorts in the last month. It takes me forever to get a video finished. Maybe 16 hours for a 2 minute video? some of those hours are productive, other hours not as much. I just feel like theres a lot of prompting, bad image to videos and editing going on. Then I need to fix audio. pick out music and sound effects. Im using devinci, Grok, and Nano mostly. I am also new to editing so theres been a learning curve. Any advice?
BrickLink Studio’s animation tool is pretty slick! Took about 40 hours to render but worth the wait 06/30/2020
Top 6 Lego AI Video Generator Tools for Fast Animation 07/03/2025 1. HitPaw Online AI Video Generator. HitPaw AI Video Generator has a Lego effect you can apply to your uploaded images. Once the image is uploaded, the tool converts it into a Lego-style animated video using its AI model. You can also type in a prompt to guide the tool on what kind of video to create from that image. The final result keeps the Lego theme across the animation from start to end. It is the most recommended choice for beginners and fast Lego-style video creation.
Lego Animation Video Filter by Editing Reference Images
The Rapid Generation of Video Content 01/17/2025 Traditionally, a production of the same quality as the Lamborghini video would have required weeks of work, including 3D modeling, animation, lighting, and rendering. Now, thanks to AI, these steps can be automated and optimized, drastically reducing production time.
Lego AI Videos Create stunning lego videos with AI in minutes. Browse examples below for inspiration, then make your own viral content. 12/15/2025
How Long Does It Take to Build an AI App: Timelines Explained 01/08/2026
Take your videos to the next dimension! 🚀 Luma AI’s Ray3 video model is now in @AdobeFirefly, unlocking creative possibilities like never before. Generate stunning, cinematic visuals in seconds and bring your imagination to life. 09/29/2025
Bringing Memories to Life with Top Image-to-Video AI 04/29/2025 Luma AI’s Dream Machine is a powerful AI-driven platform that excels at generating high-quality videos from text prompts or images. Whether you’re looking to animate a faded family photo or create a cinematic sequence from a single snapshot, Dream Machine delivers impressive results with minimal effort.
Creating LEGO-style videos using AI has drastically reduced production time from weeks to hours or even minutes. While basic 30-second clips can be generated in under 30 minutes, producing a polished, 1-2 minute, high-quality AI LEGO video typically takes several hours to a full day when accounting for prompting, iterative refinement, and editing.
Key Timeframes & Factors:
Rapid Generation (Minutes): Tools like Mootion can generate 3-minute, block-styled animations in under 2 minutes. Simple image-to-video conversions with tools like Invido AI can take only minutes.
Average Project (2-10 Hours): A 1-2 minute video often requires 4–12 hours for prompting, generating multiple iterations (due to "model drift" or inconsistencies), and stitching them together.
Detailed Production (Days): High-detail or 20-second, high-effort shorts can take up to 3 days to complete due to complex face montages and continuous modifications.
Time-Consuming Steps in AI Production:
Prompt Engineering & Iteration: Getting the Lego style consistent across different scenes requires constant re-prompting, as AI can produce varied results.
Editing & Stitching: Manually editing AI-generated clips (e.g., using Davinci Resolve) and adding audio/voiceovers is often the most time-consuming step.
Rendering: While AI is fast, complex scenes or high-resolution outputs can still take time to render depending on the tool.
Factors Influencing Speed:
Workflow Integration: Using all-in-one AI tools (like Revid.ai) for script-to-video is much faster than using separate tools for image generation, animation, and audio.
Quality Demands: Higher-quality, more specific, or longer videos require more "human-in-the-loop" time for curation.
Experience: Experienced creators can create 2-minute videos in as little as 2 hours, whereas beginners might spend over 16 hours.
Tools for Fast Production:
Mootion: Specializes in turning images into Lego-style animation.
CapCut (Seedance AI): Good for quick AI video creation.
Revid.ai: Used for text-to-video generation.
DomoAI: Useful for turning existing video into Lego style.
Luma AI (Dream Machine): For generating scenes from text prompts. Complete article
How much time do you typically spend putting together a video using AI tools? 08/10/2025 I made a video essay of a passage from the book “They Thought They Were Free” 6 years ago using only stock video footage and a voiceover I paid someone on Fiverr $100 for. (The video has made $0 after around a $250 investment but I felt it was important for me to make.) I put probably 30+ hours into putting this together: Now here is a recent video I put together using AI tools. It’s a recreation of Reddit users’ dreams: This probably took me around 40 hours to put together because of the iterative process of crafting these video clips. They all take art direction and video direction and a lot of iterations to get right. Nothing is just one shot and done. Critics often say “pick up a camera!”, but you tell me, how the hell am I going to go pick up a camera and record an alligator swimming through a bedroom for a dream sequence?
How To Make a LEGO Commercial with AI — Here’s EXACTLY How (VEO 3 Tutorial) 07/28/2025
How are people making AI videos so fast? Mine take days 11/06/2025 I have been experimenting with AI video technology by attempting to create original shorts. In most cases, each 20-second video clip takes me 3 days for continual modifications, scene regeneration, and complex face montage. I start by creating and animating imagery with apps like Runway and Pika. For filler shots and transitions, I employ movieflow which I currently use for transitions and filler shots, though I’ve seen others use it to generate longer narrative sequences. The most challenging aspect of video production is value and harmony. One shot may have paramount value and harmony, then the next clip is from a contradictory dimension. Other times I have to merge clips from various models for a singular scene. The methodical audio streamlining in Logic is excruciating. I far prefer to employ an automated process for audio and voice work. In any case, I constantly see people upload new AI shorts. Their video production speeduxes perplexes me. Are you more efficient with your AI tools, or just more fortunate in your prompt engineering? I would like to know more about your process and the amount of time you allocate to creating a video.
Instruction video on AI 03/05/2025
How Long Does It Take to Make an AI Video? (2026 Data)
How long does it take you to make AI videos? 03/10/2026 Ive made 5 Horizontal videos and 23 shorts in the last month. It takes me forever to get a video finished. Maybe 16 hours for a 2 minute video? some of those hours are productive, other hours not as much. I just feel like theres a lot of prompting, bad image to videos and editing going on. Then I need to fix audio. pick out music and sound effects. Im using devinci, Grok, and Nano mostly. I am also new to editing so theres been a learning curve. Any advice?
BrickLink Studio’s animation tool is pretty slick! Took about 40 hours to render but worth the wait 06/30/2020
Top 6 Lego AI Video Generator Tools for Fast Animation 07/03/2025 1. HitPaw Online AI Video Generator. HitPaw AI Video Generator has a Lego effect you can apply to your uploaded images. Once the image is uploaded, the tool converts it into a Lego-style animated video using its AI model. You can also type in a prompt to guide the tool on what kind of video to create from that image. The final result keeps the Lego theme across the animation from start to end. It is the most recommended choice for beginners and fast Lego-style video creation.
Lego Animation Video Filter by Editing Reference Images
The Rapid Generation of Video Content 01/17/2025 Traditionally, a production of the same quality as the Lamborghini video would have required weeks of work, including 3D modeling, animation, lighting, and rendering. Now, thanks to AI, these steps can be automated and optimized, drastically reducing production time.
Lego AI Videos Create stunning lego videos with AI in minutes. Browse examples below for inspiration, then make your own viral content. 12/15/2025
How Long Does It Take to Build an AI App: Timelines Explained 01/08/2026
Take your videos to the next dimension! 🚀 Luma AI’s Ray3 video model is now in @AdobeFirefly, unlocking creative possibilities like never before. Generate stunning, cinematic visuals in seconds and bring your imagination to life. 09/29/2025
Bringing Memories to Life with Top Image-to-Video AI 04/29/2025 Luma AI’s Dream Machine is a powerful AI-driven platform that excels at generating high-quality videos from text prompts or images. Whether you’re looking to animate a faded family photo or create a cinematic sequence from a single snapshot, Dream Machine delivers impressive results with minimal effort.
